HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUDGET DELIBERATION AND PRELIMINARY DECISION-MAKING FOR FY 2012-13, 5/10/2012-5/15/2012 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DELIBERATION AND PRELIMINARY DECISION-MAKING
FY 2012-2013 ANNUAL BUDGET
MAY 10, 2012
A Deliberation and Decision-Making Meeting on the FY 2012-2013 Annual Budget of the
County of Kaua`i was called to order by Jay Furfaro, Chair, Committee of the Whole, on Thursday,
May 10, 2012, at 9:18 a.m. at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kauai,
Hawaii and the presence of the following was noted:
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable Dickie Chang
Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A.Yukimura
The meeting proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: I also want to make note we will have representatives from
the Administration as we go through this. But again, this is not a meeting that I am expecting
anything more other than discussion. I am not looking for a lot of presentations. I want to focus on
discussion, and because of the time constraints, we may have to invoke our rules allowing six
minutes for discussions. If we do not get to the right place at the right time, this budget goes into
effect without our acknowledgements.
On that note, do we have the PowerPoint loaded? Very good, I am going to start by giving a
summary of all of the things that have pretty much transpired, at least the highlights. Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: The Mayor submitted his budget. Are we going to have a
chance to ask questions about his resubmittal?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, yes, when you have questions. That is why I pointed
out...Ernie, I think the discussion I had with you and Wally is during the period there will be
representatives from the Administration to answer our questions. So you are good with that?
Mr. Bynum: Yes, I just thought they might want to do an overview of the
Mayor's...
Chair Furfaro: I asked them about that today and they just want to basically
be able to answer questions. I am planning to make an overview for you folks before we start any
discussion. Vice Chair?
Ms.Yukimura: I do not know that we need a presentation, but I would like to
ask questions at the beginning and before any decision-making of the Administration on the basic...
Chair Furfaro: Well, I tell you what. Why do we not we do that. Why do we
not do that? We will call somebody up. I have a schedule that you were handed out so that we can
complete it timely on this, and I will go over those rules when I do my PowerPoint. And then we will
see if we have some general questions. But I do not want us to be talking about Public Works when I
am expecting a certain time for us to talk on Public Works, make a decision, and vote on that. I do
not want to keep going back to different departments. I want to focus on the summary sheets of
those divisions so that we can make a decision and move on. So let me go into my PowerPoint
presentation, and then I will entertain more questions.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Anyway, we are going to start with a presentation and slide
on our general rules that get us through to decision-making. Can we go to the first slide please?
When we get into the voting process, I want to point out again that reducing the activities that were
presented us in the March 15 budget submittal will require four votes to increase or to add to the
March 15 budget. Budget submittals will require, from the Council, five votes and I am referencing
Section 19.07A of the Kauai County Charter. We will handle the reviews by department, and we
have an attachment, the first attachment will review that schedule I intend to follow. Revisiting
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.2
items previously voted on will not be accepted, folks. We can and need to stay focused by
departments as we go through this. And so please refer to Attachment No. 2 for the budget process
and time requirements.
Next slide, the Order of Business, we want to talk about the establishment of the tax rates
up front. The revenue portion of the budget is very, very important to know what we may have to
deal with with revenues. We will then have the biggest change that is outlined in the proposal. We
will have a discussion on the Human Resource Department, its reorganization, and you can go to
Attachment No. 3 in your piece. The biggest single budgetary item that we have is we will look on a
reconciliation for all new positions, as payroll as the single biggest expense within the County, and
there is an Attachment No. 4 on your piece. These discussions were taken very seriously by the
Administration as it is reflected in their May resubmittal.
There is also a slide that we had requested that dealt with reducing overtime, to set at least
a goal for reducing overtime. You have an exhibit in your packet which totals to just under
$200,000.00, and those adjustments have been made. I want to point out that the adjustments have
been made in the sense of reducing Fire and Police overtime by 3.5% from what was submitted,
7% to the other departments, and 15% for ourselves with the exception is we might want to revisit
the extraction of overtime, especially for Elections, being this is an election year. But that
reconciliation of removing about $200,000.00 worth of overtime is reflected in the Mayor's May 8
budget.
So again, when we talk about salaries, I want to make sure that we are talking about various
segments. The new positions, you have an exhibit in there that are reflected in the Mayor's May 8
budget. There is the issue about overtime, which is a separate exhibit piece that has been taken out
in the Mayor's May 8 budget, and then there is a separate sheet identifying which positions are in
the budget but dollar-funded.
Somewhere, and I am going over the whole calendar for the next four days, somewhere in the
near future on that order, we will also have an opportunity to visit and vote on the CIP budget as it
is now reflected. There will be an ability to have a discussion on proposals to be entertained by
Councilmembers.
The next slide is one that reconfirms what I said about the overtime reductions that have
been put in the May 8 submittal, and it is reflected as a 3.5% reduction on Police and Fire, 7%for all
other departments, and the County Council staff will lead the example by reducing what we put in
our budget by 15%. You can see that attachment in Attachment No. 5.
Next slide, Expenses for Discussion, these are some of the highlight pieces. It was not
intended on my part to touch on all of the operating expenses that needed to be discussed, but some
of the highlighted pieces. Starting with the relocation of the Auditor's Department and there is now
reflected an increase of$11,000 for the Auditor's rent.
There is now reflected in the budget $50,000 for the Kaua`i Invasive Species Council. I want
to say we originally launched this for a three-year period. And I am going to be very public with this
that the State abandoned us on this money. This is a Department of Health issue that we keep
coming to the table with. I want to make sure that you folks understand my desire to make this an
issue in the next message to the Legislature. The State needs to come to our help with the invasive
plants, but also with some of the funding for things like the coqui frog. We are currently the only
island that has an opportunity to totally control that invasive species. So there has been $50,000
added to the Kaua`i Invasive Species piece.
From our notes or at least from my notes, I had asked...the Mayor had $100,000 funded for
Kaua`i Visitors Bureau. I think at my writing of this presentation we were asking to bring it back to
levels before we added the million dollars during the economic slowdown. We were asking to take it
another 40 to 140,000, but your budget is now reflecting and showing $200,000. So the Mayor added
in the May 8 piece, our request of 40, the Mayor added $100,000. So it is a $200,000 increase
reflected in the revised piece.
Also the Kaua`i Independent Food Bank, these two pieces over here, there is still $28,000
that has not been encumbered in the current year's budget. And I understand, in talking with
Procurement, that is being addressed now, and that before we get to June 30 that $28,000 will be
earmarked. The budget now shows an additional $28,000 for the current year. So the kokua there is
at $56,000, using$28,000 from what has not been encumbered in the existing budget and $28,000 for
the new piece. The focus is really on the EBT cards and the Sunshine Markets.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.3
The next piece is the Wailua Golf Course discussion. I am understanding and in agreement
with the Administration that they are going to use from the 209 fund, that is the account number.
They are going to use moneys from that account, which come from both our Parks revenues, as well
as the Spouting Horn concessions.
Then the budget is now showing, as we requested in our discussions, $200,000 for the design
and site selection for a MRF. That is in the budget resubmittal.
The order of business is attached. I will not go over it there, but again, I do not want to be
revisiting areas that we visited during the day. If we close on Economic Development, then we move
on. If we close on Parks and Recreation, then we move on. I really want to focus on our need to get
to the right date on Tuesday and have our business done.
There is a narrative in your packet on the budget process and the time requirements just for
you to reflect on. There is also a separate piece in your budget that talks about the Office of Human
Resources, which I plan to discuss this morning after we talk about tax rates. You also probably, at
this time, received a description set from Administration focused on these phases. One of the items
that I think we conveyed to the Administration was our concerns with moving the ADA position out
of the Mayor's Office, and we would probably, I guess,just from acknowledgement of testimony from
last night, that is probably a position we want to keep in the Mayor's Office.
You also have a schedule in your packet, a summary of the new positions for the Mayor's
May 8 submittal. I do want you to know as recently as this morning, in talking with the
Administration, they will exclude the Transportation Department's utility worker. So if you can
make a note to take that off of your package this piece.
The next sheet that you have is the dollar-funded positions, which are laid out for you.
The next piece is you have the detail of the overtime that has been deducted from the May 8
submittal by summarized departments that I have given you in your package. Then I have made
sure that I shared with the Administration in the packet, the County Council's goals in advance of
this May 8 submittal, and then a reference to Section 19.07, things that highlight the considerations
for the adoption of the budget. These are just for you to reflect on.
What I would like to do is I would like to give Ernie Barreira a moment to touch on this
quick summary that I just gave you, and it was put together for the purpose of maybe giving us
the highlights of the changes.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Can we ask some questions about your presentation or would
that be after Ernie's?
Chair Furfaro: My presentation is my quick summary of the same packet
that came to all of you. Again I did it this way to express to you what changes are highlighted in
there, but I would prefer those questions go to the Administration.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh no, but this is about our process, which is not going to...
Chair Furfaro: The way you posed the question, you did not say can I talk to
you about the process. If you want to talk to me about the process...
Ms.Yukimura: It was about your presentation.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: Which I appreciate because we need some framework.
Chair Furfaro: I am glad you concur with that.
Ms.Yukimura: And you have given great thought to it. But I do have a
question about the order...about how we are going to do our decision-making. I think it may help us
weigh things better if instead of taking a department and then closing it, we can do all the things we
think should be cuts and all the things which should be additions, and see where we are because I
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.4
know there have been times where our cuts have balanced out our additions. Other times where
they have not, you kind of have the overall view, so you can weigh all the different priorities.
Chair Furfaro: If your question is, as we move through the department, are
we going to put on the screen, the plus and minus calendar, yes we are. So you can see it as we go
out of these departments.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, that is good. That is a good clarification, but I was also
thinking before you make it absolutely cut and dried like no return to department by department,
that we could do it tentatively and then take a look at the big picture and then see because
something in one department may be less important than another. By laying it all out, we can sit
back and look and say, okay now, what stands out in terms of...if we need to cut more.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, if you would go to slide No. 3, there is a point there that
allows that discussion by individual Councilmembers. It is under the Mayor's section of the May 8
budget modification. There will be discussion and voted on by various proposals from
Councilmembers.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, so that means that we can go back and look and
suggest that maybe as a group we might want to do this instead of this.
Chair Furfaro: Well, I tell you what. If we do that folks, when I push you to
get us to a point, it is because we have a deadline to meet. I do not want to use all of Thursday and
all of Friday to discuss concepts, thoughts, and so forth. This is what the Mayor has submitted to
us. We can make modifications, we can vote on them by department, and move on. Therefore, I put
the big tag items up front: payroll, overtime, dollar-funded positions. Then I went to what I feel is
the next biggest discussion item, which is the construction of the HR Department. Then we will hear
from the Mayor, and then we will hear from various Councilmembers. That is my intent.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, that all sounds very good, and maybe I am just not
clear about the department by department process. If it is like a running cut...cuts and additions
and then if at the end we can take a look at the overall and go back sometimes to make
adjustments...
Chair Furfaro: Do not make an assumption that if we get to the end we
would go back and look at what we have done. We would clearly do that.
Ms.Yukimura: Well, that is what I am trying to clarify. We will do that,
okay.
Chair Furfaro: That will be the total piece. But what I am saying is I do not
want to specifically have a discussion about the Humane Society on Thursday, and then on Monday
we open up the Humane Society again. We will get to a point that we will have gone through all of
the departments that we will look at the big picture.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, all right, okay.
Chair Furfaro: And we will have a running tally on plusses and minuses
during that time. I think the two big pieces are revenue and the creation of the Human Resources
Department, and payroll in general, as our biggest operating costs.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, and then on your expenses...well, actually it is
self-explanatory. If you say expenses for discussion, it is something we will all have to vote on. I
love that you lay that out, okay.
Chair Furfaro: I am loving it that you are loving what I laid out. The room is
full of love.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Let us hope the rest of the budget goes this way,
continues this way. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: This is intended as a general guideline on how we are going to
go through it. I would like to call up the Administration to give us a preview, if I could. And I will
return to my chair. Again, this is my intent to keep us copasetic and on a schedule.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.5
ERNEST BARREIRA, Budget & Purchasing Director: Chair Furfaro, Vice Chair Yukimura,
Members of the Council, good morning. Ernie Barreira, Budget & Purchasing Director. Much unlike
me, I do not have prepared remarks. I would simply like to reiterate on behalf of Mayor Carvalho,
Managing Director Heu, and Director Rezentes, our thanks to the Council for your collaboration and
cooperation throughout a very strained and very difficult process of the budget deliberation. During
the opening session, I did make remarks that we all are seeking the same outcome and that is a
deliberate and effective leadership of our people and to make sure that we deliver a budget that will
serve our people's needs. I still believe that today as I sit before you as we prepare for deliberations,
and I thank you for your cooperation and collaboration. I will stand on the Mayor's message in terms
of our May submittal. As far as highlights and initiatives that the Mayor is trying to achieve, I do
not have any specific comments with regard to that. I would like to also thank you for your
forbearance in dealing with a brand new budget team. I think we put together some very gifted and
talented people, and I am very proud of their work, and obviously there is much growth for the
future. So unless there are any questions, those conclude my comments.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Ernie, we are going to be talking in terms of the tax
rate schedule first. Are you the one going to be prepared for questions in those areas?
Mr. Barreira: Director Rezentes would be the appropriate person.
Chair Furfaro: You and Mr. Rezentes.
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, very good. You might as well stay right there because
that is what we are going to open with, Q&A on this particular piece. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: We can ask a few questions about the Mayor's submittal now?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, you can do that as well. So we are going to first talk in
terms of the narrative on the Mayor's submittal, even though I summarized what I interpreted, you
may have some things to add. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: So you found significant revenue from March to May, right?
There is a real property proposal which we will talk about separately, but in addition to that,
interest on invested Build America Bonds and Recovery Zone Economic Bonds, this interest of...that
$2.2 million was not in the March submittal right?
Mr. Barreira: That is correct.
Mr. Bynum: And so we did not know...we did not anticipate in March this
$2.2 million?
Mr. Barreira: I would prefer that Director Rezentes address that specific
question, if that is okay.
Mr. Bynum: The questions I have are kind of along those lines. I also have
a very different number for OPEB and overtime. I accept those numbers, but my question is we did
not anticipate that in March? These are very significant changes in revenue forecast, and I do not
understand why we did not anticipate that in March.
Chair Furfaro: Why do I not try and get Mr. Rezentes. The reality is some of
the notes that you folks should be made aware of, the request to reduce the overtime came in a
separate memorandum from myself.
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Am I correct?
Mr. Barreira: Right. The overtime reduction, and I know, Councilmember
Bynum, you are talking more about the revenue picture that you just discussed, but there were
significant reductions in overtime pursuant to what we believed to be appropriate actions. The 3.5%
for Public Safety and the 7% for other departments and agencies, and I believe per your presentation
15%for the County Clerk's Office.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.6
Mr. Bynum: (Inaudible.)
Chair Furfaro: It is in the worksheet, Tim. The worksheet was done by me,
submitted to them. It was $195,000.
Mr. Bynum: The overtime difference for the entire...
Chair Furfaro: For the entire County, yes.
Mr. Bynum: So the big difference then is OPEB?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, which OPEB...we did not get a response, Mr. Heu, back
on OPEB, but we wanted to see a comparison of actual from last year compared to this year. But
OPEB, I think, came down $2.6 million after you folks refined it. Maybe Wally wants to join you on
the stand. You have the mike.
GARY HEU, Managing Director: Chair, thank you very much, for the record Gary Heu. I
just wanted to answer Councilmember Bynum's question about whether or not these were
anticipated or things that we could have anticipated. I think that the whole budget process is a fluid
one, and I know yesterday you folks had extensive discussion on the floor relating to the budget
process and a possible amendment to change the way we work through the budgeting process. As
you know as far as the real property numbers, we do not have those final numbers until after the
time that we submit the March 15 budget. In addition, you asked about the OPEB, the change and
adjustment of the OPEB numbers. Those changes were based on ongoing discussions that our
Finance Director is having with the Administrator. And the numbers that we are currently working
with could, in fact, change, plus or minus, we do not anticipate very much, but plus or minus by the
end of this month or at the beginning of next month. So again, we are dealing with variables that we
do not have full control over. Even after we lock down the budget and it is approved by the Council,
and signed by the Mayor, things will continue to evolve. So we are working with the best
information that we have at any given point in time. When we submitted the March 15 budget, we
submitted based on the best information we had at that point in time. I know there was some
discussion yesterday on the Council floor that based on some of the back and forth that we have
through during the departmental reviews, it appeared that we were already anticipating making
certain changes for the May 8 submittal. And like I said, it is an iterative process. So as we go
through preparation for the March 15 submittal, there might be certain things that we say hey, we
would really like to have this component in the budget; however, based on the current snapshot, that
is something that we should hold off awhile and see what happens after we get the Certified Tax Roll
and maybe we can address that in the May 8 budget. So there is no doubt that those types of things
do happen. And like I said, it is an iterative process. So again, Councilmember, short answer to
your question, no. Those were not costs that we could have anticipated or revenues that we could
have anticipated at that point in time.
Mr. Bynum: $2.2 million from these bond investments, we did not
anticipate in March? That was a surprise between March and May?
Mr. Heu: It was a change in how that was accounted for.
WALLACE REZENTES, JR., Director of Finance: We have had discussions...I am sorry,
Wally Rezentes, Jr., Director of Finance. We have confirmed the proper treatment of the interest. If
you recall in 2010, there was an ARRA Program from the Federal government that allowed us to
obtain Build America Bonds and RZEDB bonds. And these bonds, in that special Federal program,
come with it a subsidy, if you will, from the Federal government and because of those benefits, the
Federal government wanted to ensure that interest that was earned on the moneys...on the bond
funds that have yet to be expended, stay within the bond fund and be used for capital projects.
That is a requirement of the BAB, Build America Bonds, and the Recovery Zone Economic
Development Bonds, the RZEDB bonds. So our Treasury basically made the calculation of interest
earned within the bond fund, and the two point some odd million addition to the bond fund is
reflective of that interest. In the CIP, you will see at the end of the bond fund section of the CIP
budget, within the bond fund you will you see the projects that were added and we also highlighted it
as being interest from the bond.
Mr. Bynum: So the revenue is reflected in the budget, in the CIP budget?
Mr. Rezentes: The projects that are based on the interest earned are located
in the CIP budget, in the last section of the bond fund of the CIP budget, yes.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.7
Mr. Bynum: I just thought that these were pretty large amounts to find
revenue and not have anticipated that in March.
Mr. Rezentes: As you recall, that interest is based on a $60 million at one
time principal amount. The Water Department commensurately will have a similar amount
accruing for them. They will have additional.,,
Mr. Bynum: But they keep their interest.
Mr. Rezentes: Right, right.
Mr. Bynum: And so I understand. We got $60 million. We floated the
bonds. We have not spent all of that money. It sits in an account that earns interest. That is this
money.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I understand that. The part that surprised me was that that
was not anticipated closer in the March budget. Same with OPEB...
Mr. Rezentes: And you are right. We picked it up between the March and
May submittal after having a few discussions on proper treatment with our Bond Counsel.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, thank you for answering those questions.
Chair Furfaro: I guess the good news from this evaluation, though, comes out
in the sense that between the final negotiation with OPEB, and I mean it, the final negotiation
with OPEB saved us about 2.6. The fact that interest accounts are what they are from the previous
bond funds, as well as the...because we were using up all the fund balances in other accounts, we will
not be tapping our reserve. The $10.6 million that was in the first March 15 view that we are now
going to reduce, from what I follow in the narrative. Tapping the reserve fund is only going to be
about four million one. Am I correct?
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: So we will keep a more sizeable piece of our reserves than
originally anticipated.
Mr. Barreira: And Chair, as reiterated by Managing Director Heu, on
page 4 of 10, of the Supplemental Budget Message, it does articulate again that final projections, in
terms of the OPEB numbers from the State of Hawaii actuary will not be provided until late May or
early June.
Chair Furfaro: I understood; I read that. But we are going from what was
34 million to about 31.5 million.
Mr. Rezentes: Percent, 34.5% to 31.5%.
Chair Furfaro: I am sorry, I was reading numbers. We are going from 34,
which was in the original projection to 31.5.
Mr. Rezentes: Back to what is present year 31.1%.
Mr. Bynum: Which is $2.8 million.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct, correct.
Mr. Bynum: That is the other large figure that...I would think we would
have had a better estimate in March.
Mr. Rezentes: And the number that we are, of course, waiting for, and I
have been, believe me, harping on the actuarial firm that the State hired, we are waiting for the
finalization of that actuarial report that will give us the appropriate data. But as late as last week
Thursday, when I spoke to the company, the best they could tell me is late May, early June is when
they anticipate being complete with their report. That will give us numbers for I believe two cycles,
two years.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.8
Chair Furfaro: So Wally, we will call you back early July for those finals.
Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: The other thing I want to do in general before we dive into all
of this is account for the $51 million that was assigned in the current budget because I want to make
sure I understand how that impacts this budget. It might be easier to see this, but could you... This
is just paper and pencil this morning. For the first time ever, we assigned all of the assignable
funds, every penny. And for the first time ever, we put a reserve as a line item in the budget that
restricts those funds and changes the way this budget was calculated. Correct? So I think it is
really important that we all understand that. Were you going to put that up on the screen, that
piece of paper? Oh, you are putting it on a computer? Okay. That is good. Let us take a minute.
Chair Furfaro: Let the staff do what they need to do. They know what they
are doing. Okay, I want to say while we are waiting for this summary, today's decision making is not
about the CAFR, we are going to go and revisit it, but I want to move on from there.
Mr. Bynum: This will just take a few minutes.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, I understand, but I just want to make sure we
understand the discussion today is not about the CAFR. We have had the auditors back twice to go
through this with us.
Ms.Yukimura: May I ask a question?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead.
Ms.Yukimura: It is related, but where in the budget is...how much is the
reserve and where is it in the budget if it is in the budget?
Mr. Barreira: The balance that remains after this May submission...
Chair Furfaro: No, no, no, start with the original $23 million that we set up
in a resolution and we are still waiting for an ordinance. It was $23 million, I believe, Wally?
Mr. Rezentes: There was $25,387,077. That is current year. With this
proposed May 8 budget, we are going to utilize $4,039,242. We are proposing to use it as part of the
May 8 submittal. And then we will be left with $21,347,835. That represents a Reserve Fund
percentage of 16.8
Ms.Yukimura: And where is that shown in the budget?
Mr. Bynum: It is not.
Mr. Rezentes: It is not shown in the budget because it is already earmarked
and reserved in our books at $25.3 million. And the only way to take it out from or reduce or add to
that amount is via ordinance.
Ms.Yukimura: Of course, but where is it shown in the budget?
Mr. Bynum: It is not.
Mr. Rezentes: It is not shown in the budget because it is already earmarked
and reserved for that purpose.
Ms.Yukimura: All right, but where is it shown as a separate fund then?
Mr. Rezentes: It is on our financial statements and it is shown in the CAFR.
Ms.Yukimura: No, but that does not show the Reserve Fund. All it shows is
what you are transferring.
Mr. Rezentes: How much we are reducing it by.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, but where are you showing how much it is?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.9
Mr. Rezentes: It is in the CAFR.
Ms.Yukimura: That is why the CAFR is related to the budget.
Mr. Rezentes: I am not hiding anything. It is in there.
Ms.Yukimura: I know, but I am just pointing out that...
Chair Furfaro: Let us go to a basic accounting function here so we
understand. The budget is the operating accounts for the Council. The reserve, which originally was
$25 million was reduced by $10.7 in the March submittal, is a separate account. With the changes
that Mr. Bynum has pointed out as it relates to using up other accounts, fund balances, interest that
we have earned, that reserve in only going to drop about $4.1 million. But that is not a number that
goes in operations. You have the resolution that I introduced which needs the companion ordinance
which I sent to Mr. Bynum because quite frankly I want to point out if we do not have an ordinance,
we cannot control it.
Ms.Yukimura: Could I finish my line of questioning?
Chair Furfaro: You certainly can finish your...
Ms.Yukimura: Oh,but if you are ready, I will stop. Okay.
Mr. Bynum: I think I have the floor and if I can get through this it will
answer a lot of these questions.
Chair Furfaro: Wait a minute, I want to say something. You had the floor,
but when we start mixing accounts and so forth, let us have some clarity for the public. That was all
I was trying to do. You have the floor, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Because last year in budget we did some unprecedented
things and it impacts that way we budgeted this year. And part of the discussion I hope we have is
whether we want to continue with that precedent we set. I do not think there will be any dispute
about these numbers, but I do not know that everyone, certainly in the public, understands the
implications of how we are using it in this budget. I thought they were done, but I will wait until
they are done. Are we done? Okay, so the top figure is 51. That is what we assigned in this current
fiscal year budget. That number is the General Fund balance minus the committed and restricted
funds, which was fifty-one three sixty-two. In this current budget, we are operating, we put 3.7
assigned to self-insurance, bringing that to 47. Of that 47, we assigned $25 million to the reserve,
and then that number 40 is wrong. That was not what was on my paper.
Mr. Rezentes: That is what is proposed in the May 8 budget ordinance.
Mr. Bynum: I did not write that on my paper, but you are anticipating
where I am going with this. Can we just put up the piece of paper to start with and then go back to
this?
Chair Furfaro: Just throw it on the screen. This meeting is not about the
CAFR,just throw it on the screen.
Mr. Bynum: And then we will go back to that because you are anticipating
where I am going with it.
Chair Furfaro: May I ask one question of them just for clarity here?
Gentlemen, I just want to make sure we all understand. In the quarterly financials that you give us,
Wally, this reserve number appears on the quarterly financials, okay. Just so the members know
where to find it. Okay, thank you, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: And this is just an important point and it should not be
complicated. We started...last year we assigned $51 million, virtually all of the assignable funds.
We had never ever done that before, and $3.7 went to self-insurance, $25 million we set aside for
reserve, and for the first time ever, we put that in as a budget line item which restricted those funds.
In addition to that, we had $22 million that we assigned to balance this year's budget, correct? Now
in the budget you have submitted, when we look at page 2, there is a figure, $741,323. In order to
balance this budget, you are taking$700,000 of that self-insurance, correct?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.10
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: That will leave roughly $3 million.
Mr. Rezentes: Actually we need to look at what was paid out in the course of
this year from that fund, but you are right. We are basically reducing what is there in fiscal 2012 by
the $741,000 to the General Fund to balance the General Fund. Correct.
Mr. Bynum: And then the figure just above that $12,000,553. That is a
portion of that$22 million, right? We assigned $22 million to budget the current balance...
Mr. Rezentes: It is a portion of what was there in the current year, what will
lapse in the current fiscal as well. So what we are saying is the $12,000,553 number that is in our
May 8 proposed budget is the amount that we anticipate needing to fund or finance the General
Fund, as well as all the remaining deficit funds.
Mr. Bynum: To say it another way, we are three quarters of the way
through the year, we can look at the budget versus actual. We have more revenues than we
projected. We are spending less than we projected.
Mr. Rezentes: And that is the amount that we need.
Mr. Bynum: And $12 million of that...you feel confident that $12 million of
that...
Mr. Rezentes: $12 million of what came over from fiscal 2011-2012 and what
will accrue and lapse after 2012 into 2013.
Mr. Bynum: Right.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: But more than $12 million may lapse.
Mr. Rezentes: We hope more than $12 million may not lapse, at least
$12 million may lapse. If it does not, then we would have to go back in and make adjustments.
Mr. Bynum: We are using $12 million of that, but it is $12 million of that
22, right?
Mr. Rezentes: This was as of July 1, 2012. What I am saying is whatever is
accumulated from...what rolled over from 2011-2012 and what lapses from 2012 into 2013, so it is
inclusive of that plus any...inclusive of accumulation of the fund balances that have accrued to the
General Fund that will ultimately in total lapse from 2012 to fiscal 2013.
Mr. Bynum: Right, so if you minus $12 million from that 22, you are using
$12 million of that 22 in this budget because you are confident at least that much is going to lapse.
Mr. Rezentes: The 22 is a little off, but yes in concept, yes.
Mr. Bynum: A little off because I did math?
Mr. Rezentes: Conceptually, I...
Mr. Bynum: But in this budget, you have 700 from the self-insurance,
4 million from the reserve, which will reduce that reserve, and $12 million from that $22 million.
Mr. Rezentes: To balance the General Fund and all the deficit funds, correct.
Mr. Bynum: But our actual fund balance minus committed and restricted
at the beginning of the year was $51 million. And now we are assigning some of this for this budget,
but that does not mean that that $51 million went away.
Mr. Rezentes: Well, the the $51 million is part of what the reserve is too.
The reserve is...you have to understand...
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.11
Mr. Bynum: In my mind, in the way I think, and the way it has been for
30 years in this County, the Reserve is $51 million at the beginning of this fiscal year. We called
$25 million of that Reserve, but de facto that $51 million is what we started this current fiscal year
at.
Mr. Rezentes: I am understanding more and more how you think, Tim.
Mr. Bynum: Well, that is the way we did it in this County for years and
years and years.
Mr. Rezentes: No, I understand, I understand, but what I am saying is...
Mr. Bynum: It is last year that we did things different.
Mr. Rezentes: Because we established a reserve, correct.
Mr. Bynum: Right. It was not necessary is the point I am making, and
that is not...our entire reserve is not that $25 million; there is more in reality, factually. I believe,
and that is something I want to discuss during this budget, that putting that $25 million as a line
item for the first time ever in County budgeting was not necessary. It did not accomplish anything.
It is still money that we have to appropriate through ordinance just like it was in the previous
30 years when it is sitting in the fund balance. In order to access it, we had to appropriate it. So we
basically took our $51 million and divided it up into two reserves: One we restrict it and one that is
unrestricted.
Chair Furfaro: So I am going to give a couple more minutes. This meeting is
not about the CAFR. If you did not want to establish the Reserve, you should have voted against the
resolution.
Mr. Bynum: Well, I want us to recall that the March submittal last year
did not have a line item for reserve. It came in May. I asked questions at the time, why are we
putting this in here, why are we restricting it, what does it accomplish. In retrospect, I would not
have voted to put it in as a line item. This year I think it would be wise of us for you guys and us
and for clarity to not encumber that Reserve as a line item, but to treat it as we did for 30 years as
an unrestricted fund balance.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, I am going to recognize Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question as it relates to this
budget. I appreciate the dialogue, but it is déjà vu for me. We have heard this time and time again,
and I want to get through this budget. Your County of Kaua`i Reserve Policy as it is stated in the
back of the budget...
Mr. Rezentes: In the provisos?
Chair Furfaro: Your provisos, yes.
Mr. Rapozo: You are showing that the County has determined that it is in
the best interest to establish secure financial policy and so forth in the General Fund in the range of
15% to 20%. Where do you get 15% to 20%from?
Mr. Rezentes: It is a calculation that is spelled out in the proviso, as well as
in the resolution.
Mr. Rapozo: The resolution was 20% to 25%.
Mr. Rezentes: No, but the methodology on how it is calculated is spelled out,
and I can provide that calculation.
Mr. Rapozo: You take the words out of the resolution, but you changed
that 20% to 25% to 15% to 20%.
Mr. Rezentes: That was prior to the May submittal.
Mr. Rapozo: I understand that, but you...
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.12
Mr. Rezentes: So we are adjusting it. Correct, we are adjusting it to 15% to
20%.
Mr. Rapozo: I do not know how you adjust it because the resolution sets it.
The resolution sets and that is what this resolution did. It established the County of Kaua`i Reserve
Fund and Reserve Fund policy at 20% to 25%. Mr. Chair talks about the ordinance, but the only
requirement of the ordinance is to expend the fund. That utilization of this fund should be made via
ordinance. But the resolution established the policy. County of Kaua`i's reserve policy is 20% to
25%.
Mr. Rezentes: And we are proposing that it be changed to 15% to 20%.
Mr. Rapozo: Right, but you cannot do that in this proviso because we have
to change the resolution. We are telling you what is our strategy, so if the Council elects to do that
or not change it, then we would have to make the appropriate adjustments to the resolution.
Mr. Rapozo: But the problem with this, Wally, is when you send over your
new number, we are at 16%, which is not within the policy.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct and we are asking for a policy change...consideration
by this Council for a policy change to adjust it to 15% to 20%, and we have included that requested
change in the budget ordinance proviso. The current calculation, based on the numbers that we
have, is 16.8%based on our proposal.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, if the Council elects not to want to make the changes,
then they would not need to make the changes. The appropriate changes would have to be made in
the County's budget ordinance.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, so your position is that you want to see the County
policy dropped to 15%to 20%.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I am just going to give a real quick history on this. I
am going to recognize Mr. Bynum, and then I need to tell you, this agenda item is about the budget.
The CAFR review is something we have been talking about for six months. The resolution that I
prepared was based on the City of Denver. The City of Denver was one of the highest municipalities
asking for a good solid reserve policy. The resolution established a policy. That policy, whether we
were able to meet it or not at 15% in the budget proviso or 16% as it is now, means nothing until
there is an ordinance. The ordinance draft was sent to another committee. We had that policy pass
unanimously. You can just let it expire if you want, gentlemen, and let the Administration use that
money not as a reserve but as the surplus just by letting the resolution self-destruct. If we want to
get serious about a reserve, we need to have an ordinance that instructs the Administration to get
approval from the Council to use it for emergencies, natural disasters, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
{ Now, I want to come to the budget items that are on the schedule for today. I will allow only one
more discussion item on this by Councilmembers and then we will move on. Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: First of all on a reserve ordinance, I have the outline and
parameters of that reserve ordinance. We have just been really busy with budget. I would anticipate
it being before the Council in July or August, and it follows the Denver model. But the proviso that
we put in follows the Denver model, but not completely because our true reserve was not 20%. It
was 41%. It is that 25 plus the 22. That is the de facto reserve. Now we are saying we are going to
put a portion of that and call it a Reserve and restrict it in the budget. The factual reserve is 41%.
So you are saying hey, the part we are going to call we are going to reduce to 15 or 16, and we need
to do that because we restricted it, and I will probably support that because there is no other way to
get through this budget other than cutting millions of dollars, which I do not see where millions is in
there personally. But you just got to set this reality that there is additional funds, an additional
$22 million that is in the bank, so to speak. So when the policy comes,just like Denver, it is going to
say, here is your actual reserve according to CAFR, and you can use up to half of that or whatever we
decide to balance future budgets. And so at the end of this thing, if we decide...because I am going to
predict right now by the end of this, we are going to take more out of that reserve to balance this
budget because there are going to be things that Councilmembers think are important, that they
k9
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.13
need to fund, and the way we restricted ourselves, the only place we can get that at the moment is
this reserve. But there is also that$22 million, all of which we will not spend by the end of this fiscal
year, and it will go back into the fund balance. So that is the point I want to make. We are getting
really tied up with this...is it 15% or 20%because what Mel said is correct. We said 20% to 25%, and
that is what we put in last year. Because we restricted it, we have to lower that to get through this
budget. And I am thinking we are going to end up lowering it more before the end of this, maybe
into the 12% range. But that does not mean our de facto reserve is 12% because it does not include
the outcome of this $22 million, and that will go in and be part of the de facto reserve too. So I really
want this Council to consider that we should not restrict those funds in the budget. Denver, I do not
believe, does that. Very few, some municipalities do and some do not. But it is not a requirement.
What Denver says is here is our reserve and you can use up to half of it to balance the budget. The
other half, you have to do by ordinance. So thank you very much for being patient with that, I am
done.
Chair Furfaro: Sure, JoAnn.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. Regarding the Mayor's message for the
supplemental, of course I am delighted to see $200,000 for the Materials Recovery Facility. I just
want to know what decision the Administration has made about design build, own because we need
to know what we are funding.
Mr. Heu: Vice Chair Yukimura, the $200,000 that is being proposed in
this submittal contemplates using those funds for conceptual design, as well as, environmental
studies for a facility that would be owned by the County and operated, and then we would put out a
(inaudible) operation. That is what is currently being contemplated.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, that sounds excellent. Thank you.
There being no objection, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay, before we go any further, I would like to take a vote if I
can get some members to make a motion. And I would encourage you all to go back and look at the
resolution that I introduced on the reserve. It says, may it further be "resolved that the Reserve
Fund is intended to be used for non-recurring costs." Not just emergencies, non-recurring costs. It is
also "based on the following estimates and apportioned categories." 50% of the fund can be used for
working capital. That is in my resolution. I did not need Mr. Bynum to repeat it. It is in the
resolution. 25% of that fund is used for economic fluctuations. 15% is used for extreme events and
initial disaster relief, and 10% of the fund can be used for non-risk items that are not covered by our
insurance. That is what the resolution says. Now I would like one Councilmember, anybody, to
make a motion that says we are still committed to creating an ordinance for a reserve. I would like
to get a second for that. I would like to call for the vote, and move on to the other items. Would
somebody honor my request to make a motion?
Ms. Yukimura moved to create an ordinance establishing a Reserve Fund, seconded by
Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: All those in favor.
Ms.Yukimura: Wait, we need discussion.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, go ahead. I thought we had enough discussion. I need
to move on in the budget. Go ahead, Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Just that...I think this is a motion showing intention, right?
Chair Furfaro: It is only a motion to show that we still support the policy
statement that was put in my resolution. We are still lagging and I think Mr. Bynum has the
ordinance to introduce it. But this is just a reconfirmation of our intent.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, Mr. Chair, actually with the budget ordinance being an
ordinance, we could do it here too.
Chair Furfaro: It is in the proviso, but it is different from what is in the
resolution. That is what I am trying to say. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.14
Mr. Bynum: Yes, I am more than happy to vote for this because you
correctly said that we could have used up to 50% to balance the budget, but that is not what we did.
We put $25 million in a lockbox and then we used that additional $22 million to balance the budget.
We did not use the reserve to balance the budget, right?
Chair Furfaro: And I am going to say to make sure with this is the Denver
model which says exactly that. But it is not a law right now. It was only a policy guideline. The
ordinance can be massaged yet and so forth. I just want to make sure I am taking a vote that
commits this Council. Any further discussion? If not all of those in favor, please signify by saying
aye. Any opposed to creating a Reserve Fund, nay? Very good.
The motion to create an ordinance establishing a Reserve Fund was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: We are off that dime. Let us go forward. We are now wanting
to talk about rates. Ernie you are prepared to talk about tax rates? Steve is going to talk about tax
rates? Okay.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Rezentes: I guess just understanding, you want us to present the
rationale for our rate proposal? Okay.
STEVE HUNT, Real Property Assessment: Steve Hunt, Real Property assessment for the
record. In looking at the rates that are being proposed under this May 8 budget, careful discussion
was taken as to both what has happened historically in terms of rates, as well as, what is happening
in terms of value, as well as, what we believe ability to pay constitutes. In the rates that are shown
on this May 8 budget, the largest change that you are seeing is to the single-family residential land
class. I provided a chart here that has the historical rates since the homestead class was created in
fiscal 1992.
Chair Furfaro: I hate to do this to you, but since it is 10:30 a.m. and we may
go until 12:30 p.m. on this piece, I think we will take a recess now. We have been going for an hour
and a half, if you do not mind? I do not want to break in the middle; I want to go straight through.
So to the captioner, we are going to take a 10-minute recess. Would you set the clock, please?
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 10:28 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:40 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from recess.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Hunt: Councilmembers, up on the screen, you have a chart showing
the historic tracking of both the Single Family Residential and Homestead Land tax rates.
Historically, there has been anywhere from an 89-cent to $1.14 spread between the land tax rate for
the Homestead and that of the Single-Family Residential class. However, between the 2005 and
2006 fiscal year, the Single-Family Residential rate was brought down to the equivalent of the
Homestead rate. It was dropped to $1.14 and it has remained there for two years, and then in fiscal
2008, all categories were lowered a nickel. So it actually became five cents lower than the
Homestead rate. The Homestead is assumed to be the most preferred tax class, but in this case at
least on the land it is not showing that. Under this year's fiscal proposal, we are attempting to
restore at least a portion of that parity that we saw historically between the Single-Family
Residential and the Homestead tax rates for land, and that is equating to a 90-cent increase in the
land rate going from $3.95 back to $4.85. Now the properties that are in the Single-Family
Residential class do include some that have homeowners' exemptions, but those categories would
actually be protected by any increase to the tax rate by the PHU cap. You also have properties that
are in the Long-Term Affordable Rental Program that also are protected by a 6% cap at the moment.
So those are protected from any increases. Those that would not be protected would be second
homes, vacation rentals, other rental incomes where there are no owner-occupants residing or not
being leased at below market rent. So that was rationale for looking at this class as the potential to
get more revenue and help balance the budget.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.15
The other category that we looked at in terms of restoring parity has been the Hotel and
Resort class. It has been reported over the last year that this category has been making significant
strides in terms of their average daily room rates and their occupancy. They seem to be doing better
while Commercial and Industrial are struggling right now with high vacancy rates. So ability to pay
was also considered. What we attempted to do, at least in the Hotel and Resort category was to
reestablish what they actually paid as a category with the fiscal 2012 year. So they basically become
a revenue neutral tax category. And to do that, we had to increase the land rate from $6.90 to $7.14,
and the building rate from $7.90 to $8.20. But essentially they...I believe it is about a $1500
difference, but they become revenue neutral with fiscal 2012. And what the Director of Finance is
posting right now up here is the tax calculation showing the projected revenue in yellow.
Mr. Chang: Excuse me, I am sorry, do you have a pointer? Can we follow
along with a...because...I am sorry?
Chair Furfaro: We have a pointer.
Mr. Chang: Okay. Can you use our pointer and walk us through?
Mr. Hunt: Sure.
(?): Can we get a copy of this?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Mr. Chang: Mr. Hunt, if you can walk us through the narrative again now
that we have the...
Mr. Hunt: Sure.
Mr. Chang: Because it is very, very, very hard for the audience to see
what you are trying to point.
Mr. Hunt: To be honest, I was not prepared to present. I was just asked
to bring some tables to help answer questions. I was not planning on making a presentation. If you
do not mind, I am kind of ad-libbing a little bit.
Mr. Chang: Yes, if you can just repeat the narrative because they cannot
see.
Mr. Hunt: Sure, I understand. So up where the pointer is right now,
this is the tax rate change I discussed going from $3.95 land tax to $4.85. You can see it is still
below every other land category. Everyone else is at $6.90 with the exception of the proposed
increase to $7.14 on Hotel and of course the Homestead at $4.00. Even though it is an increase of
90 cents, it is still much below what other income producing properties are being charged for that
land tax rate. The net result is about a $2.5 million increase in revenue from this category. And
again here at the new rates being proposed for the Hotel and Resort, it is about a$1500 reduction. It
is about as close as you can get to revenue neutral with the tax calculations that we need to run
including the PHU calculations. So the net result actually increases the amount of PHU credits
because there will be more in the Single-Family class that have PHU caps, and the increased rate
gives them more credits because it compares their market taxes with the new rates versus what they
actually pay which is their capped tax, and the same with the LTL. More people are now getting
higher credits in the LTLs because of the difference between market and their capped tax.
Ms.Yukimura: So, can you say that the homeowners, the owner-occupants, I
guess the homesteaders who are in this Single-Family class will not pay any increased taxes? Or
they will but it will be capped?
Mr. Hunt: They will be subject to the 3.73% maximum tax cap. So if it
was projected as a 20%increase in taxes, they would only pay a 3.73%increase.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Hunt: The net result here ends up...
Chair Furfaro: I want you to repeat that, what you just said.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.16
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will repeat it one more time. The maximum increase
that anyone with a homeowner's exemption will pay in the Single-Family class is 3.73% more than
what they paid in fiscal 2012, assuming that everything is the same. They have not done an addition
or built a second home or did anything else that would be outside of the cap.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Steve. Let us pause right there for a few
questions. Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: And is that based on the Honolulu CPI?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: And can you just say LTL...
Mr. Hunt: LTL, yes, it is long-term lease, but we use it as the Long-Term
Affordable Rental is what we commonly refer to. And those ones currently are capped at 6%. Based
on the ordinance you approved at the end of 2011, they will actually be moved into the Homestead
class for the 2013 year and will enjoy the same cap, in fact all, the rate and cap as the Homestead
class. The only thing they will not have is the exemption.
Mr. Rezentes: That I should clarify, 2013 assessment year, 2014 fiscal year.
Chair Furfaro: So do we know the...I know the Council voted on that to move
them into the (inaudible),but do we know the impact of that?
Mr. Hunt: We do not.
Chair Furfaro: So that is a new item on our horizon next year.
Mr. Hunt: Right, as is the also voted in the tax on use, which is a major
policy change, and we have about 26,000 surveys that were sent out to improved properties, and we
are still filtering those in. I know Councilmember Bynum has personally seen the stacks and stacks
of...we have quite a bit of work to do before we actually can get them input, verified, and then give
you some meaningful results as to what the new tax classes now hold in value.
Chair Furfaro: On the questionnaires, were there any deadlines for them to
turn them back in?
Mr. Hunt: It said 45 days, which would put it at May 26 from the mail
out date, but obviously we are not going to deny anyone and we are going to continue to...as people
change or sell or pass away, there are always changes in uses, so it is an ongoing process. It was just
establishing a baseline.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I would like to affirm that you have established a
baseline, but then somebody comes in August and the deadline was May, just evaluate those
impacts. Mr. Chang, did you want to question at this point?
Mr. Chang: I was just going to ask him...he explained for the viewing
audience LTL. Can you just say PHU also?
Mr. Hunt: Yes. PHU stands for permanent home use, and those are
residents who claim their property as their primary residence.
Chair Furfaro: Why do you not continue with your presentation?
Mr. Hunt: So the net result of these proposed tax rate changes results in
about $81,227,700 in revenue. Comparing that to our fiscal 2012 tax revenue of about 79.3 say, or
our fiscal 2011 of 81 or our fiscal 2010 of 90.9, we took both a two-year average between the fiscal
2011 and 2012 and a three-year average of 2010, 2011 and 2012, and those numbers are posted here.
It is about 80.378 million and 83 million. So to say that our budget being proposed was revenue
neutral with fiscal 2012 would be incorrect, but we are trying to restore some of the neutrality that
had been eroded as values have declined and revenues have declined for the County, obviously not
getting close to our peak years that were behind us, but restoring some of that revenue to fill
positions and services to the County.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.17
Chair Furfaro: Steve, may I ask, do you know the difference between the
PHU at 2% and the PHU at 3.7%, how much the 1.7 brought in? If we do not know that...
Mr. Hunt: It would not be known because it is dependent on who was
getting market taxes and who may have come down because values...it is a moving target.
Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to pose that question. The question is
pertaining to the current presentation. Please go right ahead, Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: So, on the Long-Term Lease or the affordable rental, that is
going to be a substantial increase probably. The 6% is substantial to a lot of people. And it may
cause them to go into market housing...I mean market rentals this year if they do not know that
next year a big break is coming up. I wonder if there is any way to give them notice that this is a
transition period because I know people have told me that the 6% cap was too high and that it was
still onerous for them, and I am not sure how it is going to impact or what message it is going to send
to them, but it is something maybe we need to think about because there may be an exodus from the
affordable rental because of this increase, especially if they do not know what is coming up.
Mr. Hunt: Just a comment, by and large because we are seeing declining
values, the 6% has not even been a factor for many of these people, especially the late entrants who
have only gotten into the LTL registration within the last three or four years. The only one where
the 6% may be an issue was ones who came in at the initial application in 2004.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, so what percentages are new and what percentages are
long-term because actually it is the long-term ones that asked for this because they have been doing
it for the life of their rental. They have just been your regular local people who made some income
but they want to help out others and they have good tenants. So, even though they could get high
market rents in 2004 to 2006, they did not. Anyway, I am just anticipating we might get that
reaction. I do not know if there is a way through our mail outs or whatever that we could let them
know something is coming around the corner.
Mr. Hunt: We have the cameras rolling and we have a reporter from the
news maybe you can get some coverage. Direct mailings are also challenging just because we have to
identify those and those that may be impacted. Some may not be impacted...
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Hunt: ...because of the declining values.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, well maybe even just a press release.
Mr. Hunt: And certainly even just...
Ms.Yukimura: Or putting it on the web.
Mr. Hunt: On the topic of just considerations that were undertaken by
the Administration and us when looking at the rates, one of the other concerns was we have a major
dichotomy within the apartment class, the condos. You have those that are resort oriented and then
you have those that provide essentially affordable and local rentals. A lot of it in the Lihu`e area
they are not resort oriented. If you hit them with the rates that maybe you wanted to target at a
resort environment, you are hurting them as well. So even though there was a decline in revenue
from that class, until we actually have this use survey to ferret out which ones are being used as
inventory stock for our local residents and those that are being run as businesses, it is hard to have a
one rate fits all policy for that.
Ms.Yukimura: Unless you can distinguish it by use.
Mr. Hunt: And that is what we are doing for fiscal 2014.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, that is what you just said; excuse me. Okay, thank
you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, is your question about portions of his
presentation so far?
Mr. Bynum: Absolutely. It is actually a follow-up to what he just said.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.18
Chair Furfaro: That is what I want to stay on, following up on his current
presentation. Go right ahead, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: What I just heard you say was when you guys looked at all
the potential rate changes, these were the ones that made sense for this year. But because we have
not separated these uses, you did not look at revenue neutral in some of the other categories this
year.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: But it might be next year when we start making these moves.
So for the example you used in the Apartment class, we distinguish between ones that are used for
resort and ones that are used for residence.
Mr. Hunt: Right.
Mr. Rezentes: But interesting, if you look at the majority of the other
categories, you talk about revenue neutral by category, if you go through this we are going from 1.7
to 1.67. That is pretty close to being revenue neutral.
Mr. Bynum: Right.
Mr. Rezentes: That is the Conservation class. The next class above that is
Ag 12.6 to 12.8 pretty close there without any rate changes. I mean it is relatively close already
without any rate change. The next one 2.4 to 2.5 and that is Industrial. Commercial is 7.2 to 7.1,
really close from 12 to 13, and Apartment 13 to 12.5. So these categories in here are relatively stable
as far as revenue by class.
Mr. Bynum: This year.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, based on the current assessment as compared to 2012.
Mr. Bynum: I guess my follow-up would be I understand your rationale of
why this is where you made the changes.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to recognize Councilmember Nakamura first.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you very much. This is a very useful tool. I wanted to
ask you, do the revenues for each year include all of the exemptions?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, but not the credits, correct.
Ms. Nakamura: But not the credits.
Mr. Hunt: The credits are not by category. They are in lump sum.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, right, right. So under the Homestead class, so you are
saying the revenues from 2010 being $18 million, then went down to $15 million in 2011, then
$14 million in 2012. So if we keep the tax rate as it is it would go down again to $13 million?
Mr. Hunt: Let me speak to that because this is very important too.
Because of the cap, the actual taxes paid versus the market taxes, these are calculated market taxes
with the values and the exemptions. The credits have been waning. So if you look across and see the
credits are going from 9.9 to 7.4 to 5.1 to, in this case, 4.3. Most of that, I would say 85% of the
credits are actually in that Homestead category. I believe the closest number we have right now is
about 9.94 is what the Homestead would pay this year under the current rate structure, which is
about close to neutral. I think that homeowners as a total would actually drop by about 152,000
because of the additional income exemptions that were applied which offset even some of the rate
increases and the value decline. In the wash, I think, collectively, not in the Homestead, but
homeowners as a group pay about 152,000 less. I know it is confusing because of the credits and it is
difficult to isolate the revenue by class.
Ms. Nakamura: Right, right, right.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.19
Mr. Bynum: This is what is more accurate. So I am going to just say it and
pass it out. In 2008...
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, just to stick with the format, the floor recognizes
Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you very much. In 2008 it was basically $7.4 million
from the Homestead class, then 8.2 in 2009, 8.1 in 2010, 9.9 in 2011, 9.965 and 9.97. And so the
taxes have gone up for three years and then because of the low income that we put in this year, it
basically...
Mr. Hunt: But in all fairness, Councilmember Bynum, the years you
cited before included credits going 100% to those categories because we do not know what those
credits were whereas the last two years you have actuals.
Mr. Bynum: But if we looked at actuals, we would see the same thing.
Mr. Hunt: The trend would be the same, but the jump up would not be
as high as we put less credits back into the older years.
Mr. Bynum: So increased taxes for three years about $3 million, and then
this year because the low-income credit, right, about a wash. So this year the class has not seen an
increase, but it has for the three years previous. And the reason there is no (inaudible) individual
taxpayers are seeing increases but we had to factor in the low-income credits which were 500?
Mr. Hunt: On paper, yes.
Mr. Bynum: You should not look at these numbers because these are
market without the credits. Now what Steve said is we were able to calculate, because of data that I
requested and got, the actual for the last two years for the Homestead class, but all of the figures
prior to that are not accurate, but the trend is there. Actually that $3 million increase was probably
more, considerably more, than the $3 million I have been talking about the last year. But this year,
I agree, because these last two years, we have been able to factor the credits appropriately in this
class, right?
Mr. Hunt: I am able to do it for the fiscal 2013 based on the data. I am
not as certain about the 2012 data. I have some concerns about that, but it is much closer than we
started with.
Mr. Bynum: Yes, and so we are...eventually we will get accurate, but it
ain't going to happen today.
Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: So what is the percentage contribution to real property taxes
of each category with the Mayor's proposal?
Mr. Hunt: I do not have that information with the new proposal, and
again, Councilmember Bynum can probably tell you why you have to run the PHU tax calc and then
you have to have our consultant extract that data based on the new...because the credits will change.
When you change rates credits change. And until I know what the credits are, it is hard for me to
tell you what percentage would be paid in actual taxes because of the PHU.
Ms.Yukimura: We cannot even get a rough estimate?
Chair Furfaro: May I interject? Steve, because there are variables in many
categories, somebody has a home exemption in an apartment and so forth, but partially what we
have changed recently, in the future we will be seeing a number of those credits falling in specific
categories, right? But for right now, what we are seeing, and I am going to use this term as the rack
rate, the rack rate for these categories as proposed with rates is 85,626,354, all categories. That is
the rack rate of which to the previous year it was 84380. So there is the difference. The tax rates
went up about a 1.3 million, rack. But the total PHU credits are 4.326 million scattered in all
categories, and the rental is 70,000 scattered in all categories. So we had a rack rate increase of
1.3 million and we have applied credits of 4.4 million roughly. Hopefully with the bill we passed, in
future years, we will see a lot more of that in specific categories.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.20
Mr. Hunt: That is what we are working towards, yes.
Chair Furfaro: That is what we are working towards. Thank you, Steve.
Thank you for letting me interject. You still have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: So my question was you cannot even get approximations?
Mr. Hunt: I would hate...you are putting me on the spot because I do not
even have the ability to go and work a spreadsheet. So, no, I cannot give you an approximation on
the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Well, but theoretically then we cannot even follow the law to
set the rate?
Mr. Bynum: That is correct. I want everybody to hear that what you just
said, please. That is the reality we are in today. We will not know the percentages being paid by
each class even though the ordinance says that is the fundamental figure, it is impossible for us to
calculate that for this budget.
(?): That is correct.
Mr. Hunt: It is possible to run a number of iterations to hit a percentage,
but it is going to involve not only my time running the iterations but also the consultant's time
extracting the individual credits per category to determine what that is. So if you said we want the
homestead to pay 10% of all the property taxes and you needed to have a rate that gets you there, I
would have to just start trial and error testing rates to see where we come and see where the credits
go.
Mr. Bynum: And then if you make changes in any other category, you got
to start all over again.
Mr. Hunt: That is correct.
Ms.Yukimura: Well, good thing...well, hopefully shall is not mandatory.
Mr. Bynum: But we are committed, right, on both sides to in the future be
able to do that?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And to get accurate data for these years going back? But that
is going to take months probably, right?
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: And that is the point I have been trying to make for the last
year and a half. We do not have accurate data to make these decisions. We are getting closer, but
we cannot. I met with our County Clerk and said this is going to come up because Mel and I are
committed, well the whole Council, to following the ordinance, right, like we have not for many
years. I think we are committed to doing that, but we cannot do it right now.
Mr. Hunt: I think there are two sections of the ordinance. One says you
shall get PHU and one says you shall set the percentage, and when those two conflict, at the
moment, it is difficult.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I would like to expand on that a little bit too. I am
going to ask Jade, Deputy Clerk, to hand out some more information regarding these rates. I want
to reiterate what I said at the beginning. Until we get everything in the right bucket next year, we
do not know what the impact will be. I want to say that again Members, we do not know what the
outcome of revenues will be.
Mr. Rezentes: You are referencing once we move to use.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.21
Chair Furfaro: It could be a further...
Mr. Rezentes: Substantive change.
Chair Furfaro: ...substantive change.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: But we will (inaudible) that when we approach that, and I
think for me that I do not even want to bring this up, but that reassures me why we need to have
those reserve moneys because we do not know the 2014 impact. Mr. Kuali'i.
Mr. Kualii: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve, I just wanted to ask you, in an
earlier presentation along the same lines, you had said it is accurate, it is just not allocated. And so
you would still stand by that?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, the gross credits are still accurate.
Mr. Kuali`i: The numbers in the analysis is accurate.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, the revenue projections are indeed. It is just the
allocations.
Mr. Kuali'i: It is just not allocated. The reason it is not is because of the
PHU.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: And going forward when things change next year...is it next
year that the land and building is all going to become one?
Mr. Hunt: One value, one rate, correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: That will make it easier too as far as putting in totals and
then backing in percentages and what the rates will be. But still the problem where the allocation is
not accurate is because of the PHU.
Mr. Hunt: So long as the PHU and at this point the LTL credits exist,
then we need to account for them and we need to account for them if we are setting rates by
category, we need to account for those credits by category. Thus far, we have not been able to do
that. We can tell you how much the credits are in aggregate but not by category.
Mr. Kuali`i: Do you think when the PHU was established and was it
established by ordinance or Charter amendment?
Mr. Hunt: It was ordinance, and there were actually two versions.
There was one that was more appropriate for permanent...it was a ten-year dedication for
permanent home use. And then after that one had lapsed or it was repealed, this was a replacement
during times when values were running up. It was an ordinance change that capped it.
Mr. Kuali'i: So it is not that it made it impossible, it is just that it made it
really difficult to abide by the Charter that says the Council should establish the percentages
because of the complication. But for all this time and from when it was first instituted, the PHU, no
one ever caught that. It presented this problem with the Charter and the percentage.
Mr. Hunt: I think within the ordinance itself, it actually described it as a
temporary measure, and I think real property, before I was there, was perceiving it as temporary.
So there was not a lot of effort in developing customized reports, spending a lot of money in
developing things that were related to the cap because, again, it was initially viewed as temporary.
But as things have progressed and it has become more permanent, we have had to make
adjustments for things that were not working within the Permanent Home Use. Changes like a loss
of the Homestead rate when you build a second home, and adjustments for improvements or loss of
credits or increased exemptions. So a lot of the stuff has really evolved over time as we have had to
manage the program.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.22
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Any more questions at this point for Steve? Any more
questions for Mr. Rezentes at point? Okay Mr. Kuali`i, you have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Just by chance because I like seeing this chart that you put
up there with the red and the blue, and it is included in the Mayor's narrative with the May
submittal. You did not do a similar chart for the Resort change?
Mr. Hunt: No, the Resort, I believe, has been flat since at least 2005,
maybe longer.
Mr. Kuali`i: I know, too, in this instance you are comparing Single-Family
Residential with Homestead.
Mr. Hunt: Right.
Mr. Kuali`i: And then the Resort, you would not necessarily make the
same comparison.
Mr. Hunt: I believe at its peak the Resort was like $8.40 per thousand
assessed. Right now it is $6.90.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hunt, through the public hearings yesterday, we had
heard from a couple of resorts, and we had heard from the Hotel Association asking if the Tax
Department, Finance and the Mayor could meet with the Hotel Association. I said I would pass that
request on to Mr. Rezentes. I think Ernie was present yesterday and please consider this the
request that I am passing on to you since we had the public hearing last night. If you could meet
with them relatively soon, I think it would be appreciated by them. Any more questions?
Mr. Kuali`i, you have the floor again.
Mr. Kuali`i: Something else came to mind when you made that comment.
I heard the testimony pretty loud and clear. While after I think the Chair explained it a little more,
it seemed more palatable to them, the increase, there was still concern raised over, and I think today
you said, too, that assuming that things remain the same. So, the rate for the Resort is being
proposed to increase, and that increase is still meant to keep everything revenue neutral. So for
most, maybe with the economy and all, properties the value is going down, and if the rate was the
same, that means their bill for this new year would go down.
Mr. Hunt: That is correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: But the Administration's intent is to keep everyone's bills the
same.
Mr. Hunt: Not everyone's bills, but the category as a whole because
there are obviously individual projects and individual pieces in there that go up and down.
Mr. Kuali`i: One of the testifiers basically was appealing on behalf of those
properties that just recently completed large renovations. So their assessed values are going to go
up. With the higher rate and higher assessed value, their taxes may go up significantly.
Mr. Hunt: I would have to see those projects individually.
Mr. Kuali`i: But you are saying overall as the category.
Mr. Hunt: Part of the discussion if you want to have is on the valuation
techniques for these properties, they are multiple actually. You have some that are in this category
that are timeshare units and you have resale prices or developer sales from which to do your
analysis to come up with an interval price which is multiplied by the weeks and split between land
and building. That is how you do the timeshare valuation. There are condotel units, the Kaua`i
Beach Resort and the Islander on the Beach have been basically hotel rooms that got
condominiumized. They have had sales of individual rooms that have a market value. Other
projects that are run as pure hotels, there are very few hotel sales. I believe the last one was the
Maka`iwa project that I think sold for $38 million, and when you minus the FF&E from that, maybe
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.23
like a $35 million real estate value for that property. Then you have to look at that sale and
determine relative to the other properties, is it better or worse, and then we start getting into a
discussion on rev par, which is the revenue for a daily room rate. And you start benchmarking
saying okay, if your rev par is 300 for one hotel and 100 for another hotel, and my sale was at 75,
how, on a scale incrementally, do we assess, on maybe a per room basis, a value to that? So that is
one technique, and then another one is looking at the cost if we have had any recent land sales of
resort lands or ground rent renegotiations of land to determine a land value. We look at our cost
tables annually to determine what the replacement cost is less depreciation. And then we sort of put
everything in and say okay, if someone completes a $20 million renovation this year, did that
renovation actually increase their rev par or occupancy? Did it actually have any benefit to the
economics of it? Or was it simply coming up to meet the standards of that hotel class and they were
lagging on their depreciation and putting in their maintenance? So it is not always dollar...cost and
value are not always the same is, I guess, what I am trying to get at. So some of those hotels that
just completed renovations may not have seen the same dollar for dollar increase based on value.
Mr. Kuali`i: So are you reassessing it every year and are you going to
reassess them higher?
Mr. Hunt: We do reassess every year, yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: You are saying you are going to reassess them higher based
on those renovations?
Mr. Hunt: It depends what the market bears.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, so the only other thing I would say then is that the
education about what revenue neutral means, that if the Administration is saying that the pool will
be neutral.
Mr. Hunt: That is correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: And that indeed some of the hotels may be paying higher
taxes.
Mr. Hunt: That is a possibility.
Mr. Kuali`i: And maybe even some of them will be paying significantly
higher taxes.
Mr. Hunt: And some possibly even lower.
Mr. Kuali`i: Based on huge renovations.
Mr. Hunt: If we are going neutral and some are paying more, then some
would be paying less to keep keep that neutrality. It is difficult because it is parcel by parcel. We
are not saying we are freezing everyone's resort taxes as though they were the same last year. What
we are saying is we are setting a rate that gets this category to pay the same as they paid last fiscal.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I am only thinking that if this is...we are only talking
about one year, other factors will come into play next year that if you might have done the analysis
to see because if a lot of properties are getting...remaining fairly neutral or getting a small lower bill,
and then one property is just eating it, taking a huge bite, then that could affect jobs.
Mr. Hunt: Certainly.
Mr. Kuali`i: That could be a serious problem that nobody is really thinking
about right now until we see some kind of analysis.
Mr. Hunt: And it also assumes revenue neutrality that it is the same
properties and it may or may not be. Some may have moved in or out of the category depending on
their use and development. I think the only real new development that we have seen in that
category was the Kalanipu`u timeshare condos that were completed. So there actually was some
additional inventory or completion of the inventory added to that base between last year and this
year.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.24
Chair Furfaro: Steve, I am going to recognize Mr. Rapozo and then
Mr. Bynum, but before we close on this subject, I want to share with you a tool that I have asked
Economic Development to put in their budget that will help you as well. It is called the Star Report.
I will cover it before we close out on this subject. So, Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor and then
Mr. Bynum
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, it is a follow-up to Councilmember Kuali`i's question.
How would a hotel or resort tax bill go down?
Mr. Hunt: How would it go down? When the value decline between the
fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2013 declined more than the rate increase being proposed.
Mr. Rapozo: Right and I think that is unlikely. I think we are basing
revenue neutral if everything stays the same. If somebody goes up because of a renovation that does
not necessarily mean somebody is going down on the other end. It does not have to be...nothing is
mandated that it is revenue neutral. We are saying if everything stays the same, revenue neutral.
But because somebody did a $30 million renovation and their assessment went up, that does not
mean there is an equal balance on the other end that is going to balance out the revenue neutral. If
in fact everything stays the same and maybe three properties had a multimillion dollar renovation, it
will not be revenue neutral. The reality is, it will be revenue positive. I think that is the reality of it.
Mr. Hunt: Correct, right.
Mr. Rapozo: It does not necessarily mean because it is on paper revenue
neutral today, it does not mean when we collect all the taxes it is revenue neutral. The intent is.
Mr. Hunt: Well, it would be revenue neutral as a category,atego y, and you can
see that just because prior to this submittal for the May 8 budget, the prior submittal was showing
about a 550 000 loss in revenue from this category. So in other words, even if someone did a
$550,000 ,
$30 million renovation, the category as a whole went down more than offsettin g that 30 million
because we are down below where we were in assessed value from the prior year.
Mr. Rapozo: Because there were no tax rate changes.
Mr. Hunt: Correct, so with no tax rate change, we would have collected
less, about $550,000, I think was the figure. So what we are saying is to offset the category decline
in value between fiscal years, we are going to have to increase the rate.
Mr. Rapozo: Right, right, but it is highly...and I am not sure. Maybe
Mr. Furfaro knows how many properties had renovations, I mean huge renovations, in the last year
or so, but there is a possibility that this tax increase could generate a surplus for the County. It is
highly possible that that could happen. If we collect more...if a lot more properties...if our
assessments in that category go up a lot more than the declines, obviously, you will produce more
money.
Mr. Hunt: You are talking about for future years?
Mr. Rapozo: For future years.
Mr. Hunt: For future, absolutely for future. Then you may...and again
every time, every year you have that ability to address the rates. What we are just saying for this
snapshot in time, because values have declined from the current fiscal to the one we are proposing
now, this is just an offset in rate to accommodate that loss in value.
Mr. Rapozo: Got it, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Hotel does a $20 million renovation. If that is replacing
furniture, carpet, counters, and just upgrading, it may not affect their valuation at all.
Mr. Hunt: Correct, (inaudible).
Mr. Bynum: But if they build a larger restaurant and add square footage
that would increase their value.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.25
Mr. Hunt: Well, it would increase their cost approach value, whether it
is actually shown in value of the hotel as an operation, you may end up spending $20 million on a
renovation and addition that may produce a $5 million market value increase.
Mr. Bynum: Right, yes. I just want to...I think...I do not want anybody to
get the sense like oh, I heard they spent$30 million, that means their value went up $30 million.
Mr. Hunt: Correct. Let us take the St. Regis for a great example. They
paid a lot for the hotel, probably too much when they bought it, did substantial renovations, and they
are at a fraction of what their cost book value is because of what they are doing in terms of
production at that hotel.
Mr. Bynum: Right, so they spent a whole lot of money and their valuation
did not go up.
Mr. Hunt: That is correct. But it went up from when it was the
Princeville Hotel, but it did not go up to what their book value is.
Mr. Bynum: Right.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, so one of the things that I want to be very careful with
comparing us to other islands, it is very important to understand the use of what is called the Star
Report. Now the Star Report is a competitive set that manages Six Star Mobile Award properties,
Five Diamond American Automobile Association properties by category based on amenities. Yes,
when we hear the reinvestment dollars, the property does not include soft goods, but when they do a
major renovation that includes an amenity designed specifically to get them upgraded in a category,
then that becomes part of the tax evaluation. For example, when I was manager at Sheraton
Princeville, we did not have enclosed corridors. Enclosed corridors are a criteria that you must have
before you become a Five Diamond property. That is a physical improvement in the plant. The
St. Regis has now enclosed corridors, etcetera, etcetera, and so that was actually facility
improvements for the purpose of positioning the property and increasing the average daily rate.
Mr. Hunt: Right.
Chair Furfaro: The St. Regis has complied to at lot of those physical
attributes. Now St. Regis has spent a lot of money on their renovation. The Hyatt is now the Grand
Hyatt because of the money they have put into their pieces. The Sheraton Kaua`i just repositioned
their whole oceanfront wing and their food and beverage amenities. The old Island Holidays
property at Coconut Beach is now a Three Diamond Marriott Courtyard to the tune of about
$22 million. So those things go in when you make those evaluations. But if you get the Star Report,
you will see the competitive profile. They will have the economy and budget hotels in one category.
So, they will measure the Islander as a property, and they will measure it against Kaua`i Sands.
You will see what is called the average rate for just the occupied rooms or you will see the ADR,
which is the average daily rate. It is revenue divided by total available rooms. And so you will start
to get a clear picture on how that investment in the physical plant strengthen their positioning. Now
why we cannot do this, for example Maui County has seven Four Diamond Hotels. We have one.
They have three Five Diamond properties. We have one. So you will see these competitive profiles
and we also have half the inventory that they have. So this Star Report, I think, is going to become
very useful for part of your evaluations going forward.
Mr. Hunt: Is the Star Report, that is the name of the company or is that
part of Smith's travel?
Chair Furfaro: It is part of Smith's travel.
Mr. Hunt: Okay, okay. In our budget, which you guys are discussing, we
have actually a subscription to Smith's Travel in there. We are hoping to get that information
(inaudible).
Chair Furfaro: No, that was something I pushed George for.
Mr. Hunt: Along with Co-star, which is another vendor that provides
cap rates and other information that deal with, even though we do not value on income, it is nice to
know how performance, occupancy, vacancy, cap rates, it is important to (inaudible).
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.26
Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to bring that out that I encouraged George to do
that because we can then see a competitive set. So if the Hyatt shows the St. Regis as their
competitor and the Marriott, they will be clustered as one competitive set. If they do the Islander
versus the Kaua`i Sands versus that small hotel in Kapa'a (Coral Reef), they will be in the economy
budget category, and from these reports if they subscribe as we are going to do, subscribe, we will get
pretty factual information. We just have to be really careful how we handle that report because it
does talk about competitive sets. So that is something that I am encouraged that it shows up in this
year's budget. Any more questions for Steve or Wally on this subject? Mr. Chang, you have a
question for them?
Mr. Chang: I have a comment.
Chair Furfaro: just, I just want...
Mr. Chang: I will wait.
Chair Furfaro: Before we have dialogue amongst ourselves, I want to see if
we have any more questions here. I think Mr. Bynum was out of the office when I compared this
report to what we should really be comparing ourselves to on the Star Report, which we will be
enrolling in in this new budget. We will see our own islandwide competitive set. Any more
questions for Mr. Hunt? Okay.
Mr. Bynum: At what point is it we vote on property taxes?
Chair Furfaro: Well, you know the property tax rates is one where I do not
have a problem coming back on the last day because we do not know what the pluses and minuses
are going to be. So, I think we can be there, but if we do it that way, I want to caution all of you. If
4:30 p.m. comes around and we have not settled all of this piece, it is then in the Administration's
hands. So before we go into anymore dialogue on that, can I see some indications from you folks
about your wanting to vote on the property tax rates as we start today or if you want to defer the
rate by categories until the last day? That is the question. We can have more dialogue as long as it
is along the question. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: You are asking for a response to that question?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, to that questions.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, well I was going to bring that up, and I do not know
if...are you done with him already because I do not have any questions. I do not think anybody has
any more questions for him, but...
Chair Furfaro: Well, I would like to not quite say "Are you done with him,"
but you can be excused.
Mr. Hunt: Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Rapozo: It must be horrific once they are sitting on that seat.
Mr. Chair, I was going to...that was going to be basically my opening statement was that as we start
to digest this budget and do the analysis and the decision-making that I think it is premature to set
the tax rate prior to going through the budget because...
Chair Furfaro: Because we do not know what the plus or the minus.
Mr. Rapozo: Exactly. It is the budget that drives the tax rate. It is not the
tax rate that drives the budget, and I do not want to be limited or hindered as we go through this
budget because we only have X-amount. So I believe as we go through this budget, when we are
done, now we have to find the funding mechanism for what this Council believes is the appropriate
budget for the County of Kauai for the next year. So, I think at the end of the day, hopefully we can
get done by today, that we can spend some time as far as how we are going to allocate now the tax
burden amongst the classes. That would be my suggestion.
Chair Furfaro: I assume that you would like to hold that discussion until
Tuesday around 3 o'clock?
T _
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.27
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore discussion on this item? Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: I just want to say I agree with Councilmember Rapozo as far
as our decision making, and just a reminder to Mr. Hunt and Mr. Rezentes to make sure that they
get a hold of the hoteliers so they can pass on the information on their meeting.
Chair Furfaro: Well, the hotels had their opportunity to show up at the
public hearing last night. They just want to meet specifically about them. But I want to make sure
we all understand. We are going to need a revenue point to start this budget with. But what I am
saying is I am prepared to go back and revisit the rates on Tuesday. So you understand we need a
starting point. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I just want to say now I intend to make a rate proposal to
reduce the rate in the Homestead class to allow about $1.9 million of relief for the Homestead class.
They have paid increases for three years in a row, totaling...we do not know exactly, but at least a
$3.1 million increase. The vast majority of taxpayers will pay an increase this year, again, if we do
not change the rates. And so I have a rate proposal prepared based on dialogue with the
Administration. I am not saying they endorse it, I am saying they helped me come at the rate
because as Mr. Hunt has said over the last couple days, it is not that easy in the Homestead class to
look at the impact. It requires multiple iterations. They have gone through that in order for me to
come up with the rate I intend to propose. But I want to put that out there right now. We are going
to vote on it later or okay, but I believe that resident homeowners deserve some relief. It moves us in
the right direction and helps deal with some of the inequities because if we do a rate reduction, the
people who have the cap that are paying at this level generally will pay...most of them will pay a
3.7 increase even with a rate reduction. But those taxpayers that are paying double and triple or
80 or 90% more, they will get some relief and the inequity would narrow, and it would move us in the
right direction about getting more normalcy in this class. I just want to put it out there now. If you
want to vote now we can vote now. If you want to vote later, vote later.
Chair Furfaro: No, if I decide to go that, Mr. Bynum, I would restrict your
presentation to the time allowed in our rules, but Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is a process question. I am
assuming that if any individual Councilmember wants to add or if in this case providing relief of 1.9
that there would be an accompanying funding source. So you are proposing a $1.9 million reduction
in revenue that we definitely need to find a $1.9 million reduction in expenditures.
Mr. Bynum: No. It will come from the reserve.
Mr. Rapozo: Then I can tell you that I am not supporting it now, but I am
just saying there has to be a plus and a minus. I am not going to support. I do not want to get into
that discussion, but I am just assuming that if we are going to add, we need to cut. That is how it
has been done in the past, and again, I was absent for two years.
Mr. Bynum: That is not the way it was done last year, Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Before we get into that, let me see what Members have to say
and then I will call for a vote and so forth. Councilwoman Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: Well, in one respect, it is about priorities. If we feel that a
drop in the tax rate in the Homestead class is very important and compelling, then it makes sense to
do it now so that we know the parameters of our budget. If we do not think it is that important or
we are not sure, I guess Mr. Bynum can propose it as one of his proposals when we do all our
proposals, and we can look...not necessarily as okay you have to take away this if you give this or
whatever, but when we look at the totals, we will see what totals we come up with. And then we say
okay, what is our lowest priorities in our adds and what are our highest priorities in the takes, and
then see where we come out.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.28
Chair Furfaro: I understand. You are back to the format you questioned me
about where I said there will be a point where I will let Members make presentations on issues. So I
just want to make sure we are all clear here. For us to go forward, we need to establish the primary
discussion about rates. I am saying at or on 3 o'clock on Tuesday, we can revisit the rates. That
exception I will make. The question is when Councilmembers want to make presentations on their
particular inclusions, I have it in the calendar not to happen right now. I have it happening at a
later time. So the motion I would like for somebody to make is do we want to stay with the agenda
that allows, in the near future, discussions on proposals from Councilmembers or do we want to
make an allowable 15 minutes or so to see the presentation now before we vote on establishing the
base rates? That is the question before the group.
Mr. Chang moved to discuss the tax rates on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at about 3 o'clock p.m.,
seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, that will be the second motion. I am asking, do we stay
with the agenda, which will allow...
Mr. Chang moved to follow the agenda and allow Councilmembers time for presentations at
a later date, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I am a little confused now, but I will just say that we got a
budget proposal in March that projected X-amount of revenue and made spending proposals. The
resubmittal says no, we are going to have...what is the total additional revenue? Six, seven, eight
million? $6.6 million additional revenue from various sources if we accept this property tax. Some of
it is going to come from property tax, some of it is going to come...and there is additional spending in
here, CIP, new positions, right? I am saying in this whole mix of things with moving millions of
dollars around, resident homeowners have paid increased taxes for three years straight while every
other class has had reductions. I made a proposal earlier for $5.4 million but at least in all of these
moves, if we can afford this CIP thing, we need to afford $1.9 million for resident homeowners so
they do not continue to pay increases while other categories pay decreases. I am ready to vote on
that whenever I am allowed to put that proposal forward. But look at the big picture, please.
Earlier I said our de facto reserve at the beginning of this fiscal year was 41%, not 20, not 25.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, Point of Order. I just want to make a point
because the motion on the floor is whether or not we are going to continue on the agenda. If we are
going to all have the opportunity to make our commentary, then fine. The motion on the floor is the
agenda, if we are going to stay with the agenda.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, I will truncate it.
Mr. Rapozo: We have heard that. I have heard the 25 million several
times this morning. I think we have all heard that, but if we are not all going to be given an
opportunity, I have a whole list of what I want to do in this budget.
Chair Furfaro: Sure, okay.
Mr. Bynum: I will truncate it. I think we should discuss and vote on rates
now.
Chair Furfaro: The motion on the floor and it has been seconded, and I also
want to point out because something was just said that we need to make sure we are clear on. Yes,
the revenues are up $6 million. That is prior to taking away $4.3 million in credits. So the real
difference we have is a $1.9 million. I just want to make sure we are real clear here. That is
expressed in the sheet here.
Mr. Bynum: I do not think that is accurate.
Chair Furfaro: Then you disagree with my math. I see the total gross is now
85 up from 79 preliminary. But if you take the 85, you need to take away $4.3 million in credits and
you need to take another 70,000 in credits, leaving us an amount to spend of$81 million, and that is
$1.9 million higher than March. It is not $6 million higher than March. The gross taxable is
$6 million.
Mr. Bynum: Chair, those are property taxes, but in addition, we found...
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.29
Chair Furfaro: I heard you. I heard you say that we have other revenue, but
I want to make sure that the public is clear that is not all from property tax because your narrative
has been focusing on the need for relief. I just wanted to get that clarified. Any further discussion
on this motion and second? Mr. Chang, can you restate your motion please?
Mr. Chang: My motion is to stick with the agenda.
Chair Furfaro: That will allow members a presentation at a later date. Any
further discussion? All of those in favor with staying with the agenda as a presented, signify by
saying aye.
The motion to follow the agenda and allow Councilmembers time for presentations at a later
date was then put, and carried by a 6-1 vote (Councilmember Bynum voting no).
Chair Furfaro: Now I had made another motion to you folks that I would like
to have somebody make for me and that is again to revisit the rates at 3 o'clock on Tuesday.
Ms. Nakamura: I was just wondering, Chair, if we could have some flexibility,
leave it toward the end of the discussion but follow the agenda basically.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, but I do not want us to get to so much discussion that we
left ourselves five minutes.
Ms. Nakamura: Exactly.
Chair Furfaro: So I would like the motion to be no later than. Council Vice
Chair Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: I thought if we followed the agenda that it would be brought
up at the time Members have proposals. So I would just like to stay with that motion rather than
try to set a time if that is okay with everyone?
Chair Furfaro: I just do not want to find ourselves not having the appropriate
allocation.
Ms.Yukimura: We share, we share that, Chair. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion on that? Did we get a second?
Mr. Rapozo: I did. I made the second.
Chair Furfaro: So I guess there is commentary about just leaving things the
way they were in the previous vote. So that would be a no, if you want to leave things with the
previous vote.
Ms.Yukimura: Or a withdrawal.
Chair Furfaro: Or withdrawal, Mr. Chang and Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Chang: I withdraw my motion to disregard Tuesday 3 o'clock p.m. to
make it a little bit more flexible.
Mr. Rapozo: Withdrawn.
Mr. Chang withdrew his motion to discuss the tax rates on 'uesday, May 15, 2012 at about
3 o'clock p.m., and Mr. Rapozo withdrew his second.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. I just want to remind you all, though,
I do not want to have a free for all always going back to revisit the rates. You folks understand?
Because we could do that Friday, we could do that Monday, we could do that Tuesday if we do not
behave and stay controlled. So for right now, we do need a revenue starting point for our budget and
I would like to get a motion to approve the proposed rates so that we can go into further discussion.
Can I get a motion on that matter?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.30
Mr. Rapozo: Well, Mr. Chair, I do not know if I will make the motion to
approve, but I will make the motion that we use the proposed budget of May 8 as our revenue point.
Chair Furfaro: Very good. That is a good way to approach it. Can I get a
second?
Mr. Rapozo moved to use the proposed Budget of May 8 as the revenue starting point,
seconded by Mr. Chang, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, I am going to ask that we break for lunch. It is
a quarter to 12, I would like to be back at 1 o'clock. All curfews, extended times, and so forth are in
that extra 15 minutes. So be back at 1 o'clock. We are recessing for lunch.
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 11:46 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 1:10 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Members, I am going to reconvene our meetin g a s
we
recessed for lunch. And following the schedule that I laid out, we would, at this point, want to go
into the discussion on Human Resources. I am not sure if Mr. Heu is going to come up to have some
discussion with Janine Rapozo. Is that what we are going to do here?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
GARY HEU, Managing Director: Chair, for the record Gary Heu. We have nothing else
to present, but we are certainly here to answer questions that you folks might have as you deliberate
the proposal. Again, I think the last time when we had our task force members here, they made the
presentation. Our May 8 submittal does not reflect anything different from our March 15, and so
everything that was presented still stands. I know there was some concern about one of the
positions in there, relative to the ADA Coordinator and that shift from the Mayor's Office down to
Human Resources. We do not believe that is an issue only because the functionality and in terms of
how that position supports MacPhee and the ADA community remains unchanged. So it is a
relocation of the position down into the HR Department. I think you folks were copied on a
correspondence that was written in response to Dr. Lucy's inquiry. So as you can see, we have
aligned ourselves similarly to most of the other counties in the State. So we still believe that that is
the right thing to do. If you folks feel otherwise and are looking at leaving that position in the
Mayor's Office, that is something that we can work through. But other than, like I said, we have no
changes to what was previously presented by the task force. But Janine Rapozo and I are both here
to answer any questions that might come up.
Chair Furfaro: Well, I am going to ask Janine to come up. I have told the
staff that we have finished and accepted the revenue piece for the purposes of doing our plus and
minus. Our plus and minus will start with the development of this new Human Resources
Department, and I have told the staff we are going to begin because I generally think after
yesterday's testimony, we, for this period, would like to start with making the ADA Coordinator, put
her in and keep her in the Mayor's Department. But I have asked the staff to be ready to start with
our plus and minus piece from that period.
Now as we talk about the HR Department, I think you have made a strong case in presenting
the benefits of having a central Human Resource Department, with the exception that we just spoke
about with the ADA position. And for the Members, I had put together a little worksheet that is in
the packet that I had handed out to them, of which I gave you a copy, I think, this morning. And we
are going to focus on the front office central point of the department. The back of the house and
dealing with some of the staffing guides, training, center of excellence, and so forth, where we can
make measurable improvements on the overall continuity in County planning and then of course,
the risk management and how it folds into that. But upfront, we did get an interpretation from the
attorney. I am wondering if you had seen it regarding the procedure associated with expanding the
current Personnel Department versus creating a new department. Did you see his...was that shared
with you?
Mr. Heu: Yes, if it was the same one that was sent to the Cost Control
Commission, then we have seen that.
Chair Furfaro: So I guess I would like to start by saying I think the benefits
leading up to the need to pull things together, make sure we have continuity, helping us to reduce
our exposure with risk management, improve our general training business plan, those were all good
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.31
points. I am going to speak from myself, is there a way we can move into this without recruiting
some of the new positions of the positions that are currently vacant in your structure? And then, of
course, the other point I wanted to make sure is since we have some senior people with time and
attendance in there and when we evaluate those positions, I am looking for some kind of
commitment, I guess, that as we have people that retire, depart and so forth, that some of those
positions that you have in the structure would now be more in the area of a management equivalent
of an E-3, versus some of these higher positions that you have right now. The recruitment would
bring in the people to fill those slots more as an E-3 level versus some of those that are E-5s now.
And I have concerns with that without getting something in the way of a commitment.
Mr. Heu: Sure, maybe the way I would like to start is No. 1 by saying
that what we have proposed in the budget, and relative to the task force discussion following the
March 15 submittal, I see that as a starting point. I see that as our first step in developing what I
believe we collectively want to see for the County, which is a consolidated, comprehensive Human
Resources Department that can, as a single point of contact, meet all of our human resource needs.
Now, I say "starting point" because obviously, there is opportunity for it to become an even more
robust type of entity. But the starting point was simply to take the existing bodies within the
County, and to consolidate the functions that those positions currently perform in the various
departments in which they reside. So we saw this as a no-cost first-step to at least consolidate. And
you know that, in and of itself, will, I do not want to say have challenges, but structurally the
organization will change. People are going to have to get used to operating under this new structure.
Once that is all settled in, I think then the next step would be to see what other areas we need to
look at in terms of expansion and, again, creating that more robust organization. Relative to the
concerns you raised, Chair, the first concern was we currently have a couple of vacant positions in
what we know now as the Department of Personnel Services. I think that there has been some
indication over the past four to six months, the kind of impact having those vacancies has had on
that organization. So if you look at the overall plan merely to consolidate and bring in the existing
bodies under one roof, the bottom line is, in my opinion, that you would still...the County as a whole
would still benefit from filling those positions to at least create the same level of functioning that we
had before those people vacated those positions. Having said that, to your second point, we would
acknowledge that now if you were to look at this new organization within a vacuum, then it looks
like we do have a number of highly paid positions within what will become the Human Resources
Department. However, the bottom line is those positions exist today in the organization, and all we
are doing is bringing them under one roof. We do agree, Chair, that there is opportunity through
attrition to reevaluate those positions and readjust those positions to a level that would probably be
more comparable to what we would see in other organizations. So as an example, if today there is a
position in there and an individual had been in position over a long number of years and is being
paid a higher salary, that sort of thing, at an EM-5, there certainly is an opportunity to look at, and
we would, look at reevaluating that and to see if the more comparable level would be an EM-3 when
we went out to fill that position. That will happen over time; that is not going to happen overnight.
But like I said, through attrition, we would be able to make those kinds of adjustments.
Chair Furfaro: Before I open up to questions from others, what I am hearing
in response to some of my questions is we are definitely in need of a countywide business plan and
risk management under the umbrella of HR?
Mr. Heu: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: (2) Let us call it the attrition that would be administered with
the understanding that some of those positions that are at what they are currently at, at the
executive level of 5 or so forth, any future move, we are committed to looking at those as more like
EM-3s?
Mr. Heu: Absolutely, yes. We would...as is done in most organizations
today, anytime there is a vacancy, there is at least a cursory evaluation to make sure that the needs
of that position are still current. And so our commitment would be that we would absolutely take a
look at those higher level positions to see if they would be more appropriately reallocated downward.
JANINE RAPOZO, Risk Management Administrator: And just to add to what Gary
said...Janine Rapozo, Risk Management Administrator, those positions are being proposed as EM-3s
now. So if those particular incumbents stay in those positions right now, they would be compensated
per the Civil Service rules, red-circled at their current level, but will not be moving should there be
raises until they catch up.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.32
Chair Furfaro: I understand how we use red-circling procedures. I am
worried about a commitment that basically says as there is attrition through retirement or transfers
or so forth that we get a commitment that the salary grades for those replacements are coming in
more along the line of the low 70s to the high 80s, which they are currently graded at, and the
answer I heard was yes.
Mr. Heu: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: You understand that we are looking at a transfer of the ADA
person, not a transfer, to leave that person in the Mayor's Office. I am going to give you all a chance.
I want to do my summary first as I gave you a summary from this morning. I want to hear some
commitments here. So I will be recognizing you and as I said, you will have a chance to direct
questions. You kind of understand where we are at from that?
Mr. Heu: That is what I was gathering just based on talk in the halls
and having watched the public hearing yesterday. My sense was that there was probably a desire to
at least consider leaving that position within the Mayor's Office.
Chair Furfaro: I think the biggest piece I heard was the fact that being
attached to the Mayor's Office, this coordinator for the purpose of focusing on federal laws and
having influence over outcomes is more suited in the Mayor's Office than part of the HR Department.
Mr. Heu: I think we heard that. We heard that argument being put
forward. I do not know if I subscribe to that, but certainly I have heard people say that. My feel is
that ADA compliance is ADA compliance. And our need to comply and support the ADA community
exists whether that position is in the Mayor's Office or in the Human Resources Department. Our
commitment would be no less strong if it resided in HR than it does in the current Mayor's Office.
For me it is not a deal-breaker. I think we want to keep our eye on the big picture, and for us the big
picture is the transition to an HR Department, and certainly we would not want that one position to
be an impediment to being able to realize the bigger picture gains of establishing the Human
Resources Department.
Chair Furfaro: I understand your position, Gary, and I want to make sure
you understand where I am coming from. ADA is the law. My concern is that it might get lost in
HR. That person does not have the ability to convey information via the Mayor's Office to Planning,
via the Mayor's Office to Engineering. That is where my concern is because noncompliance can come
with some fines and you folks have shown us it works very well and you have done a fine job in
getting us to where we are at today. I just do not want to lose that momentum. At the same time, I
understand your point. And trying to grow into these vacant positions is a better approach to me in
creating this position than it is to fill the vacancies now without feeling out how much we can
accomplish with the staff we have now, and I think you heard my point on that. So that will be the
starting point of this discussion. And now I will recognize other Councilmembers starting with
Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Janine and Gary, thank you for being here. So the proposed
Human Resources Department will be located where Personnel is located now?
Mr. Heu: We have had discussions on different configurations and
scenarios. It would still reside bottom line for the time being within the Moikeha Building, but there
have been discussions in terms of reconfiguring the whole downstairs within the round building in
terms of how to make the most efficient use of the space, but yes, in the same general location.
Mr. Chang: Okay because the net-net with this proposal, we are going to
have about 18, as far as the staff in Human Resources?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Mr. Chang: I just wanted to make sure because one of the concerns I had
with the ADA is currently they are right next door, the office is right next door to the...as far as
convenience sake, you can comfortably park in the handicapped if people need to, but you are just
next door for convenience sake for those that might be looking for the ADA Coordinator.
Also, in your proposed Human Resources Department chart that we have here, we are
confident from within who we have placed in these brackets that the person or persons fit within the
description, the job description?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.33
Ms. Rapozo: The current incumbents that are being transferred, correct.
Mr. Chang: And obviously they specialize in the different layers that you
have (inaudible)?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Mr. Chang: So the people that we have are well-versed with their job
descriptions? They know what their job description obviously is and will be, their task?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Mr. Chang: Okay. Can you give us an example because I think some of
the different personnel is coming from obviously existing departments, but can you share how
expertise works? For example, if you are dealing with a union or special different kinds of
grievances or risk management? Can you tell us how this thing...refresh our memory, again, from
the way you folks set up this task force.
Ms. Rapozo: Basically, currently, the Department of Personnel Services
operates as generalists, so they are assigned to a department and they take care of their
recruitment, their classification, their labor relations. The way the proposal is structured, you will
have specialists and division heads in the various colored chart that you have that will focus on that
particular function. So therefore, if you are for Council Services needing someone to be hired, you
would go to the recruitment division and they would be the one assisting you through that process.
If you have some kind of complaint or grievance, you would be going to the labor department or
division in order to go through that particular investigation or whatever you need to do for that
particular incident. So as far as personnel being transferred, right now there is no divisions within
Personnel, so the intent here is to have specialized departments or divisions within there so that
they can assist you and we are bringing in the expertise that are maybe housed in various
departments right now to be able to function for the entire County and not just specifically for that
department.
Mr. Chang: I am sorry in the earlier presentation, those that are leaving
specific departments per se, they are basically being phased out, if you will, but it is not going to be
affecting the department that we are grabbing people from?We have coverage?
Ms. Rapozo: A lot of their functions, as well as maybe some of the other
personnel that will remain in the department will be moving to the Department of Personnel
Services. -So there may be necessary within the individual departments to look back to see how they
can restructure in order to make use of all the capacity that will be left at the department.
Mr. Chang: But if you are bringing somebody from a department,
whatever the department is, the various departments we have in the County have various
specializations, so they have various needs. So is it safe to say that if somebody needs human
resources assistance, if you will, that person that maybe came from the existing department would
be familiar with what are the needs or concerns?
Ms. Rapozo: Absolutely. I think in the transition there will be a lot of that
kind of cross-training or definitely dealing with that department they came from initially until
everyone is onboard with the different divisions that they are representing. I think that is definitely
going to happen that if someone comes from Public Works, Public Works will more likely be tapping
into them for specific things that may not be what they are specializing in now in Personnel, but
definitely would be able to assist them.
Mr. Chang: Okay, so there is familiarization across the board then, if you
will?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Chang: Okay, Chairman, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: The good news on that is that all of the people we have right
now are generalists, so they have an understanding of all the principles.
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.34
Chair Furfaro: And in your training business plan, I would hope we would be
able to define how we invest in these people to become specialists.
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: That is the key part. Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. Regarding the proposed ADA position, that is in
your organizational structure. You have divided it into three basic divisions, it looks like?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Ms.Yukimura: Recruitment and examination, labor relationships and
classification, and health, safety, employee relations, and I basically like that structure. And you
have the ADA...well, you have a Human Resources Specialist who would be an EEO, equal
opportunity, and ADA coordinator or resource person. So I think Gary mentioned that this is the
format in the other counties?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct. I believe only Maui County has it currently in
the Mayor's Office. All other jurisdictions that we researched have it structured as such.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. If Maui County and Kaua`i County, that is two out of
four counties in Hawai`i. There is this thought that there would be more oversight perhaps from the
Mayor's Office and perhaps also more leverage. But how do you see...what was your intention here
and how did you see it working to effectively support implementation of the act, implementation and
compliance, and support of those, whether it is customers or employees with disabilities?
Ms. Rapozo: We definitely did not see it as diminishing any kind of
function toward equal access. In fact we looked at it as actually enhancing that particular position
by providing a department that would have clerical support to assist that position as well as a
division head that would also be responsible to assist with ADA needs. We felt that by having it in
that manner it would actually lead to more resources that persons with disabilities would be able to
access. And so, we thought it was actually going to be enhancing the program versus diminishing.
Ms.Yukimura: You know, in the present situation, the ADA Coordinator has
been doing a lot of work in terms of physical accessibility of the County: parks, beaches,
neighborhood centers, other County facilities. Would this person also do that kind of work or is that
envisioned to be assigned somewhere else?
Ms. Rapozo: I think by being under that particular division and having
actually a division head to look at the bigger picture, the coordinator would have a lot of day-to-day
answering complaints and those kinds of issues having to take care of. And so the division head
could look further within the County to see whether there are resources and be able to see whether
or not buildings can also function with some of those particular ADA titles that need to be addressed.
So I think for me and for the whole actual task force, it was going to be assisting to look at bigger
picture issues rather than just having one person having to deal with all of that day-to-day. So the
intent was to try to assist with looking at an overall program to be able to make sure that the County
is in compliance, as well as move toward more ADA programs and accessibility.
Ms.Yukimura: If, as you say, the Human Resources Manager in charge of
health, safety and employee relationships is supportive of the ADA concerns and compliance issues,
then there is more of a team that is focused on that than one person, so I can see that. In the other
counties where the structure is like it is being proposed here, do you know whether they have other
people in other divisions that are doing ADA work or resources cross? I mean because we also do
cross-department teams, right? Whether it is sustainability or health or safety, you could do it cross
department, but because it is an issue that you want every department to embrace, but has there
been any thought about that and how that works with this?
Ms. Rapozo: I think that the primary focus would still reside in this
particular division and this particular department, but I think the division head would definitely be
working with all of the departments and remember that particular division also has training. So it
is actually going to be able to, again, assist the ADA Coordinator with ADA trainings that right now
are housed with only that particular position. So we looked at it in that respect that actually it
would be bringing more resources to that particular function.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.35
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, now the other difference between the Mayor model and
this Human Resources home idea is that one is civil service and the other is not. So can you explain
the rationale for that?
Ms. Rapozo: There are specific exemptions from civil service that allow
certain positions to be exempt and one of that is if it is under the Office of the Mayor. Once the
position is being proposed to be moved to the Department of Personnel Services, there is no
exemption in HRS that would allow for that to continue as an exempt position, and therefore, it
needed to convert to civil service. Per civil service rules then, it would definitely have to start at the
beginning step of that particular classification. So the intent there again, what the task force was
looking at is particularly that we wanted stability to the position, we wanted to be sure that the
position had someone that was qualified. We wanted to be sure that once this Administration left
that there still would be someone in that position and that it would continue. By having an exempt
position in the Mayor's Office, really another Mayor can do what they want. They can put who they
want because exempt positions do not have to meet minimum qualifications. And so we thought this
would be a better way to stabilize the position and give them the resources they needed to make sure
that equal access was achieved in the County.
Ms.Yukimura: I think that is all for now, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Kuali`i, you have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Aloha and mahalo to both of you. The
structure that was shared by the task force is still the same structure?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: In the Mayor's narrative, there appears to be a somewhat
different structure.
Ms. Rapozo: Actually, a couple of those colors, I am not sure what colors
they are, were combined into one division.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, so the the green and orange.
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: And then the rose-colored box is entitled Health and Safety
Division, but in this other presentation it includes Employee Relations? Is that what EMPREL
means?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: What is Employee Relations?
Ms. Rapozo: It would be partly the ADA function, as well as partly the
safety aspect, as well as just overall looking at different polices.
Mr. Kuali`i: And all the training, besides ADA and safety training.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct, except for specialized training that may be at Fire or
Police, but overall employment development issues would be housed in that division.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is it for now. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: I just had just a general question, Janine. You mentioned the
reason it goes back to civil service, but civil service rules say that they have to start at the entry level
and that is really for continuity or consistency and that if the Mayor changes...you know, I think it is
a good thing, but why would not that same rationale be used for let us say your HR managers? Why
the requirement? To me if you want consistency and you want to set up a program like you said for
future administrations, why would not that same justification be used?
Ms. Rapozo: The HR managers?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.36
Mr. Rapozo: Well I mean in general, in any...because I think I kind of like
that, how you talked about taking an exempt position, making it civil service for ADA. But I am
saying why would we not use that rationale for all County positions really? Because if you are
looking for continuity, consistency, that makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, using that same analogy,
the next Mayor could come in and really dismantle what was started with this HR restructuring.
That rationale that you used for ADA, why would we not use that for the HR restructuring?
Ms. Rapozo: I have to defer to Gary on that.
Mr. Heu: I am not sure if I fully understand the questions here. Are
you saying why would not the manager for that department be a civil service position? Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Well, based on the analogy or what she said, I never
thought of it that way until right now, that removing an ADA person from an exempt position, which
in my opinion is where it should be because of the expertise and the knowledge and the background,
and you are moving it over to a civil service position. In essence it is going to become an additional
duty to other functions, which is going to take away from the ADA component, but I like that
assessment or how you justified it. Okay, because now we are going to start this person here and
they are going to be there regardless of who the mayor is. So I am saying I kind of like that, but why
would we not apply that same rationale or justification to other positions such as the HR managers
which if are beginning a whole new...
Ms. Rapozo: Are you talking about the division heads, the HR managers?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, they are EMs, right.
Ms. Rapozo: But they are civil service.
Mr. Rapozo: They are civil service? But they are exempt.
Ms. Rapozo: They are excluded, but they are civil service. They are not
exempt.
Mr. Rapozo: They are not exempt.
Ms. Rapozo: They are civil service.
Mr. Rapozo: And that is different from the ADA Coordinator now?
Ms. Rapozo: The ADA Coordinator right now is exempt on contract.
Mr. Rapozo: It is a contract position?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: We all clear on that?
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you Gary and Janine for being here. I have some
questions too about..so if this ADA Coordinator is moved from an exempt position to this new
position, will her pay be decreased or would it remain the same?
Ms. Rapozo: Given the current incumbent, her pay currently is, I think,
above what the starting rate of the civil servant.
Ms. Nakamura: So there would be a decrease?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.37
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, I think that was different from a correspondence that I
received saying that there would be...
Ms. Rapozo: The classification is the same, okay. We are not talking pay.
We are just looking at classification. It is still classified as an SR-22. Anytime an exempt position is
converted to civil service in any department, then civil service rules come into play, and therefore,
you have to start at the beginning of the scale.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Right now I understand there is a Mayor's
Commission that is attached, that the ADA Coordinator helps to facilitate?
Ms. Rapozo; Correct.
Ms. Nakamura: Where does that fit into this organizational chart?
Ms. Rapozo: It would still reside with that particular specialist in the
Personnel Department.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, so maybe this needs to be updated to reflect that?
Ms. Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: If we move in that direction. When we asked the question
about the cost of...because I think a lot of this was driven by the Cost Control Commission saying
that if we consolidate our functions under one entity, there would be cost-savings. I think that was
the rationale for doing this, no? Maybe I can ask you that question.
Ms. Rapozo: That was the impetus to research it definitely from the Cost
Control Commission.
Ms. Nakamura: Was that the only reason? Just the genesis of all of this, was
it...
Ms. Rapozo: Partly also...the other part of the discussion was for them to
look at an entire Human Resources Department. Yes, so all the functions that were currently not
being done or was being done in other departments, whether or not it would be best served in one
centralized area.
Ms. Nakamura: So maybe being done inconsistently or not being done at all.
Ms. Rapozo: Partly, yes, exactly.
Mr. Heu: And Councilmember, I think...although I think the Cost
Control Commission got to that place where they asked the question, it was not a question that had
not been discussed, I feel, extensively, on this Council floor for any number of years. I hate to say it,
but I have been here almost nine years or it has been nine years, and from early on we had been
having those discussions about centralizing different functions, not only HR, but we were also
looking at some of the Finance accounting functions that are scattered throughout our various
organizations.
Ms. Nakamura: So this is...when we got back your response to our questions,
based on the budget presentation, one of the...the responses was that under this proposed new
department that the cost...the annual budget would be about $2 million. And compared to the other
counties, it was a little more even though we have fewer employees. But the reason why is because
Maui County and Hawai`i County both have professional personnel staff in individual departments
that are not reflected in the Personnel Department's budget.
Ms. Rapozo: That was one of the reasons. The other reason is that Kaua`i
County also budgets for benefits, OPEB benefits and the other counties do not. So I believe in the
response there is County proposed less current and post retirement employee benefits, which shows
exactly 1.3 just to show the difference.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, that is why you showed it.
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.38
Ms. Nakamura: I am sorry (inaudible).
Ms. Rapozo: Just to show the difference.
Ms. Nakamura: Then it would go down to $1.3 million.
Ms. Rapozo: If you wanted to kind of compare apples and apples.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, then that would be more comparable. But the fact is
they also have personnel staff embedded in their departments, which is what we already have now?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Ms. Nakamura: So then the question to me was why do they have a
consolidated Human Resources Department and yet have embedded personnel? Why do the other
counties do that?
Ms. Rapozo: I think with Maui County they are kind of like us right now
where a lot of the expertise and the positions are actually in the departments, and Hawaii County, I
do not really have an answer because I know another member of our task force was the one doing
that research, so I apologize, but I cannot answer. But I know for Maui County they are structured
very similarly to Kauai currently, and we are actually moving toward more of the other jurisdictions
as far as trying to centralize the expertise into the main office.
Ms. Nakamura: And so when we look at the restructuring, the personnel, in
some cases the salary remains the same, the current salary of the person and then the proposed
salary.
Ms. Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: And then in other cases, the salary is lower. What was the
rationale behind the...I guess I was under the impression that if it is a current a civil service position
and if they are going to be going into this new department, you cannot reduce their salary?
Ms. Rapozo: If they are civil service, we did not reduce anyone's salary. So
I would need to know... There is right now two contract positions that are being transferred over
and that is the ADA Coordinator and one of the HR manager positions. Those two are contract.
Ms. Nakamura: And for those you said you have to.
Ms. Rapozo: Yes, and then the rest are civil service. Some are vacant and
so that may be why the numbers went down.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. So where there were vacancies, you tried to go with the
low...
Ms. Rapozo: You would start at the beginning, correct.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: And that is reflected in what I was saying, you start them at
the lower pieces. Janine, I also want to say before I recognize others, let us also make a special note
that Maui has subsidiary staff on Lanai and Molokai to handle the Public Works Department and so
forth on those islands, which might actually expand some of their personnel, and then of course
Hawaii County, they even rotate which side of the island they have their County Council meetings.
So there are some differences. Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: I want to start by saying due to circumstances beyond my
control, I did not see all of the budget hearings and I am not as prepared as I normally would be, so if
I ask questions that you have already addressed, I apologize. I have been one of the people talking
about this for a long time. I remember when we started the Parks Department we put an HR person
in Parks, right? And that discussion was then. It was like no. Kind of what I heard from the
grassroots is this idea of HR all consolidated is good, but in operation it is better to have people in
departments. So I assume that you discussed that all in your task force, and was there a consensus
that there is buy-in to this consolidation without mentioning names or anything?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.39
Mr. Heu: Well, I will let Janine give a detailed answer because with the
task force, the task force put a lot of work into this. Yes, I guess you were not here for that
presentation.
Mr. Bynum: I was not and I apologize.
Mr. Heu: Yes, the task force has worked really hard over the past year
doing desktop audits with the various positions that were affected by this proposed transition. And
just from a higher level perspective, I would say that I was rather surprised that there was not more
pushback across the organization. The only thing I can think about is that maybe we have been
talking about this long enough that people had started to get used to the notion that we may
someday be consolidating. However, I mean, I definitely understand from...if I was the Director of
Public Works, and I had my own Human Resources Specialist in my organization that was going to
be dedicated to my needs, I think I would have some separation anxiety, you know, as we propose
this. And we certainly anticipate and understand that. However, looking at the longer term view
and where we want to push the organization to be, we think ultimately this is going to be a benefit to
the entire organization and that we will get over the sense of loss within the individual departments,
which is what I think people are feeling.
Mr. Bynum: I do not want to cut you off, but I do not want to waste time
either. That is a sufficient answer for me. I am not even clear who the task force members were?
Was there (inaudible)? Some of those people that would move departments, were they part of the
task force? Not really?
Ms. Rapozo: Actually one member is moving, line staff.
Mr. Bynum: And I am assuming, Janine, you are here that you would be
the Director of Personnel Services?
Ms. Rapozo: No, I am here as a member of the task force.
Mr. Heu: She is here as a member of the task force.
Mr. Bynum: Would you be in the Department of Personnel Services?
Ms. Rapozo: I am one of those contract positions that I still need to apply
for the position.
Mr. Bynum: But in the org chart that I have seen, the different divisions
each have a division head?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Mr. Bynum: How do we work out the commission issues? The whole
department will still be under the purview of the commission?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Mr. Bynum: I am sorry that I do not know as much about this as I should,
but I know this has been discussed for many years. I think we have talked about all of the potential
advantages of this and treating our personnel more as a valued resource...and so portions of this
would be to nurture their professional development to increase training, those kinds of...as part of
the reason for all of this, right. And so I cannot think why I would not be supportive if you are
moving in that direction. I share the concerns about the ADA position because I think it is
something that...it gives a message that it is kind of in the Mayor's Office kind of thing. Did I hear
it is like hey, we are okay with that? We can live with that?
Mr. Heu: I just do not think we have control over that. I think our
preference would be to have that position as proposed in the Human Resources Department. We will
find a way to work through that. Like I said, we want to keep focused on the big picture.
Mr. Bynum: Does the title change?
Mr. Heu: Yes.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.40
Ms. Rapozo: The classification is an HR Specialist, but the working title
would still be ADA/EEO Coordinator.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, thanks.
Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: The difference in the chart that Councilmember Kuali`i
pointed out, the reason for that is the evolution of the organization?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes, just going back to what Councilmember Bynum was
asking, I think one of the reasons why there was not as much pushback is this went back and forth
with the departments. They were in discussions with us and so that is correct. One of the
differences as we kept evolving on the final proposal was that this was not the first decision on what
the task force recommended, and it went back to departments who discussed with them, and so yes,
that is probably what happened is that at some point that was the structure and then it moved.
Ms.Yukimura: In terms of the cost-savings envisioned by the Cost Control
Commission, it was not necessarily only from personnel savings, was it? Was it not also savings
from settlements and so forth that were caused by lack of consistent, uniform, well-trained,
professional HR assistance?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Ms.Yukimura: I think that is all I have right now.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i and then Mr. Bynum. That other piece, I guess,
was called being automatic pilot.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know on the ten positions that
would be coming out of...not the eight that are already in DPS and they would remain in HR, but
coming from the different departments. Several of them are like departmental Personnel Officer,
Personnel Clerk II, Senior Clerk, Personnel Clerk I. I would imagine that right now they are doing a
big job within their department, and I know that the task force presented this chart where their
bodies and positions are going to go to Human Resources, and all these duties are going to go with
them as well. But I think what Council member Bynum was alluding to when he was talking about
operations that in reality back in that department, much of that job is still going to exist there. So
unless you are planning for these new HR people to actually travel back to those departments, and
be physically there to help them with the things that they have to collect and submit, you know? But
I think what I heard was that maybe there would be other administrative type positions that remain
in the department, that would sort of take on some of that. And if that is the case, then if this is
implemented quickly and the positions move out quickly, where is the time for the cross-training
back in the departments by the people who are leaving with the people who are left behind and will
be taking on a lot of the...probably even more than you say on paper because it is just reality.
Things happen in person much more than on the phone or on the email.
Ms. Rapozo: I think one of the things is that we are fortunate is that we
are still going to all remain with the County and so we are not going to say once you move to HR, you
cannot help this department. So I think it will be definitely transition, a lot of possible bumps in the
road that the person will have to go back and help train. I think that is why we were saying July,
August, September and probably even beyond that. There is going to be a lot of cross-training. The
task force did ensure that every department still had at least one body that would be focused on
being kind of the liaison with the central personnel office. And right now, in some departments, the
personnel functions are spread out amongst several people. So there is going to have to
be...definitely each department will have to look at how best to restructure themselves in order to
make sure that whatever is taken away, we can see what else can be given to that particular person,
who is left back in the department.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you. And then the only other thing is so have you
identified—you said they are spread out among several people—the positions back in the
departments and perhaps accounted for if then what they are taking on ends up being beyond the
scope of their current assignments? There may be the need for some adjustments there, too.
{ Ms. Rapozo: That is correct. I think once it is established, the Personnel
Department would have to work with each individual department to work with them on what would
be a good organizational structure left with the functions that are back there.
6
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.41
Mr. Kuali`i: So then just a final point then because it is never as...you
know the whole thing about it is no additional cost; it is just going to move over. We could say that
now, but you have to iron out a lot of kinks and make sure that it works. And there may be some
additional costs, probably not significant, but there may be some additional costs.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. You want the floor? Yes, go right ahead,
Councilmember.
Ms. Nakamura: One of the consistent messages that we heard during the
budget proceedings was the length of time it takes every department to hire and fill positions. How
will this restructuring address that issue?
Ms. Rapozo: Well, the intent is by practically doubling the staff that they
will have enough resources to have clerical support to help with recruitment because we are talking
about recruitment right now. They would have a division of recruitment to be able to hopefully
pump these recruitments out much quicker. It will all depend on...the task force basically felt that
we gave the structure that we felt would be able to do this, and at that point it is going to be up to
the Civil Service Commission and the Director to take it to that level where it would be able to
address the needs of all the departments.
Ms. Nakamura: One of the things that I would recommend in this interim
period is for the Civil Service Commission to do a survey of all of the County departments who do
personnel hiring, to learn about the concerns, so that when this...if this entity is formed, that you
will have that data to work with, and know where the problem areas and weaknesses are. You may
already know that, but it would not hurt to get that type of feedback from the users of these services.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Chair. I just had one more quick one because I
thought and you said it kind of quickly when there was a question about the HR manager two
positions? There are three of them that are like division managers, I guess you were saying. Four?
The HR Specialist I is also a division manager? That one is different, right? There are three HR
Manager II's and they are supervising what looks like mini-divisions of Recruitment and Exam,
Labor Relations and Classification, and Health and Safety and Employee Relations.
The other one is an HR specialist I. which is a lower position, and that one manages the
Administrative Services and Benefits.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: But the HR Specialist I is a regular civil service position?
Ms. Rapozo: Civil service.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is non-exempt excluded? Is that how you called it?
Ms. Rapozo: It is excluded from the bargaining unit, but it is civil service.
Mr. Kuali`i: And the other three are civil service...you also said contract,
though, I thought you said, and that you would have to apply for one of them?
Ms. Rapozo: Currently, currently, currently my position is in finance.
Mr. Kuali`i: And your position is...I mean with all of these positions
moving, why is not your position being moved?
Ms. Rapozo: It is.
Mr. Kuali`i: So why did you say you would have to apply for one of the
contract positions?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.42
Ms. Rapozo: Because I am not in the civil service system.
Mr. Kuali`i: Oh, but is not that what they did with the ADA Coordinator
position?
Ms. Rapozo: So those are the two positions that are currently contract that
have to...that the...
Mr. Kuali`i: So the ADA Coordinator is in the same boat.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Kualii: That person would have to apply for the position that is being
created.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: So the positions...you have the choice to apply for any of those
three positions?
Ms. Rapozo: Which three?
Mr. Kuali`i: HR Manager II for Recruitment and Exam, HR Manager II
for Labor Relations and Classification, and HR Manager II for Health and Safety, Employee
Relations.
Ms. Rapozo: No, incumbents from the other departments are already going
to be occupying two of those particular positions.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay.
Ms. Rapozo: And they only want...
Mr. Kuali`i: Plus it is your background. Okay, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to recognize Mr. Bynum and then I am going to
recognize Mr. Rapozo. But I want to make sure that everybody understands, I want to get the
dialogue out here, and we have to take one break in the time allotted today, and I would like to take
the break before we actually do the vote on the HR piece. I also want to remind everybody that I do
want to get finished by 4:30 p.m. because if we get the tapes over to Ho`ike at whatever point we are,
they can immediately same day transmit it to the public. So our times are 9-4:30-ish is the goal
here. So Mr. Bynum, you have the floor, and then Mr. Rapozo
Mr. Bynum: It is going to be very quick. I have heard about the revenue
neutral, basically not an additional cost, and I just was a little surprised by that. Is that because
last year you put more, the risk management and training was already in the budget, so it is not an
increase? It is just continuing? I would think if you are going to nurture employees and do all of
these things, you need some resources to do that?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes. The current budget has some training funds in risk
management, so those were just transferred over.
Mr. Bynum: And it is sufficient?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I just was surprised that...I could see the Personnel costs
being a wash, that you are moving. But I thought in order to create a whole new department there
might be some other costs involved. Next year. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to...I know Mr. Kuali`i just mentioned three HR
managers, but I am showing four in the budget. There are four HR Manager IIs.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.43
Ms. Rapozo: Councilmember Rapozo, let me apologize for that. 2105,
during the budget sessions we did mention that that one was incorrectly labeled. That should be an
HR Specialist.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, but I remember the...but it was not changed, so it is still
showing up as an HR...and that is an EM-3 as well?
Ms. Rapozo: No, it is not. It is an SR-20, I believe, or 22. The salary is
correct.
Mr. Rapozo: I'm not sure how we reflect that in the budget. I am
assuming that requires an amendment, so that will be the first amendment that I will introduce is to
change that.
Ms.Yukimura: What number is that?
Mr. Rapozo: Position No. 2105.
Ms. Rapozo: 2105, correct.
Chair Furfaro: Again, I just want to get some clarity here before I break for
recess. The principal discussion is over. Now we are going to get into some decision making. Risk
management, in the plan, Janine's role goes to HR and Gerald Estenzo stays in accounting. So I do
not have two lines on my departmental order, but I want to make sure we are very clear. Your loss
prevention role is, in fact, dealing with the HR side of it and you do make special note, I am
expecting a business training plan for Risk Management. And I have been very faithful in taking all
of your tests, but I want to see the mission in a business plan, okay? And I think the other part I
want to convey to you folks is my experience in senior management through companies within the
State of Hawai`i, the role of the HR Department is certainly about relationships. That is even a
higher criteria than just being able to lead. It is about delivering relationships and also being, to a
degree, an advocate for the employees, especially those not covered by a bargaining unit agreement
for all employees. And that takes an inspired vision from this department, being very much able to
convey a message, convey a vision, and allow others, enable them to act for the right reasons. That
is a really key part of what we need to have in this new HR Department. So you heard me on the
training business plan, too, and I would like to take a recess, because we are going to set up for some
decision-making here and probably an amendment that Mr. Rapozo pointed out. So let us take a
10-minute recess.
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 2:11 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 2:31 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are back from our recess. The first thing I would
like to do is give the floor to Mr. Rapozo because this change that was verbalized with us from Janine
Rapozo actually is an amendment that Mr. Rapozo will introduce to us, and quite frankly, it should
have showed up as a request from the Administration in the form of"requested by." But Mr. Rapozo,
I will recognize you.
Mr. Rapozo: Well as you say, it is basically a housekeeping amendment to
change the title of the text to "HR Specialist" with an SR20. So I guess I need to make a motion to
amend as circulated.
Mr. Rapozo moved to amend the May 8 submittal by changing the title of Position No. 2105
from "HR Manager (EM 3)" to"HR Specialist II (SR 22)", seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion?
Mr. Kuali`i: I do.
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Kuali`i: I think I missed something because on page 62, you are
saying 2105, the funding for 2105, there is an HR Specialist II already, 9150. Am I not supposed to
look at the new budget?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, you are.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.44
Chair Furfaro: You are looking in the right place, brother.
Mr. Kuali`i: Which is which?
Mr. Rapozo: My only change was 2105.
Mr. Kualii: Yes, but what are you doing with that?
Mr. Rapozo: Just the title because it was missed...
Chair Furfaro: Just changing the title.
Mr. Rapozo: Because it was missed. The title was wrong. It was HR
Manager.
Chair Furfaro: And it should be HR Specialist II.
Mr. Kuali`i: So what is 9150 at the bottom?
Mr. Rapozo: That is an HR Specialist II.
Mr. Kuali`i: There are three of them.
Mr. Rapozo: There is actually more than three. Specialist, you are going
to get one, two, three, four, five, six.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay, that is specialists.
Chair Furfaro: You okay, Mr. Kuali'i, with that?
Mr. Kuali'i: Yes, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, any further discussion? If not all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
The motion to amend the May 8 submittal by changing the title of Position No. 2105 from HR
Manager (EM 3)to HR Specialist II (SR 22), was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: The next discussion shall be the removing of the ADA
Coordinator from the Personnel Department and restoring that position in the Office of the Mayor.
And it fits some of my earlier comments about making sure there is an advocate there that can build
on relationships, and up on the screen you will see the changes. I cannot see the changes at this
point, but I will go over the amount is corrected by taking out of the Personnel Department the...the
salary adjustment, as well as the items in benefits totaling $17,000, and then adding or restoring
those costs to the Mayor's Office with a plus $17,477. Now that is payroll, PT&E, benefits, all of
those pieces. That is what is on the table. So Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: First a procedural question. Should we first move to approve
the HR Department? Do we need to do that? Or is that not...
Chair Furfaro: I think we can do it either way, but if you would like to go and
approve the department for discussion first and then amend that, I have no problem with doing it
that way.
Ms.Yukimura: Is that all right?
Chair Furfaro: You said either way?
JADE FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.45
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Because you have approved the May 8. You are using the
May 8.
Chair Furfaro: Using the May 8 budget?
Ms.Yukimura: Well, we have not really.
Chair Furfaro: We did for the purpose of showing numbers.
Ms.Yukimura: Right, I am sorry.
Chair Furfaro: We are showing numbers. So what is the pleasure of the
group of colleagues here? Would you like to talk about the department first? Yes, Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: Well because we are working off of the May 8 budget, the HR
transition or transfer has occurred. So if we take no action it stays.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: That is what we agreed. We did not approve it yet, but
basically we are working off of that...
Chair Furfaro: The May 8 submittal.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct, like I said, which has the HR positions already being
transferred. Now from what I understand and what I hear earlier today, it appears that there is not
going to be any opposition or not enough votes anyway. I am not going to support the HR transition
at this point, but I do not think there are the votes required to move it back to where they were in
the last year's budget. But I will support the movement of the ADA Coordinator back to the Mayor's
Office. If you want me to start, I can start with that motion, or if I could, I will just state my
comments right now about the HR position?
Chair Furfaro: Let us do it this you way. I will give the floor next, but let us
g Y ,
just...for formalities do it the reverse of what I first proposed, okay? I am okay with that. I am
flexible. There is a discussion about the development and proposal of a Personnel Department,
referencing HR. May I have a motion to approve that?
Ms. Yukimura moved to approve the creation of a Human Resources Department as shown
in the May 8 submittal, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Is there any discussion on that item? Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Like I said earlier, a little while ago, I think the concept is a
good one. I think this County does have a lot to gain with an HR Department. I think...and just in
my opinion I think it is premature. I think right now what I would have much rather seen was a
plan. I think a lot of questions that were asked earlier today about what happens to the
departments that will lose their personnel, what happens to those functions? We already have a
Director of Personnel that is in charge of the Personnel Department, which includes all of HR and
Personnel. And for whatever reason, over the years, a lot of these Personnel employees in the
various departments kind of got segregated from the department. There was really no oversight,
and I believe that is the bigger problem. I think the problem that we have in Personnel today is we
have a Director of Personnel that is really not in touch with the other departments and that is just
the way the system is set up. No one corrected that over the years, no one. It just was allowed to
continue, so you had these independent entities growing in the Police Department, in the Fire
Department, in Public Works. They created their own HR systems within their departments. So
what is the solution? Let us forget about the department, a Director of Personnel, and let us create a
whole new system? No, I think we need to fix that system. I think we need to hold the Director of
Personnel accountable. I think we have to set up a Training Officer. I would have no problem if this
budget included an HR Manager to come across to assist in the development of an HR Program
utilizing the resources of a consultant that is experienced. We do not have that expertise here in this
County. Yes, we had a task force, and I really appreciate the volunteer work, but we did not have a
thorough analysis of the impacts to the Police and the Fire, and those are my concerns because they
come under different contracts. They come under different shift work. Their entire personnel
system is different from the HGEA, which is the majority of employees in the County. So I am
worried that when this happens there is going to be voids in some of these departments that guess
what? They are going to be back and saying hey, we did not anticipate this, so we need these
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.46
positions and we need more resources. We learned back when Parks got separated. Many of us were
here back when we created a Parks Department. Remember all of the promises on paper? We are
going to get it, we going do away with the duplication of services, we are going to be able to share
equipment, we are going to...all of these wonderful things and guess what? The next year, hey we
need a two point some odd million dollars more because we did not plan right. And I look at you,
JoAnn, because you are the planner and that is what I see is lacking. It happened with our own
Auditor's Department, same thing. Auditor, great, we will have an auditor. He can do all the cost
analyses for the County, we will save money. And then the following budget, oh, we need this, we
need that, we need this. Now we have another multi-million dollar operation in the Auditor's
Department. Boards and Commissions, same thing, we need more resources. The difference
between Parks, Auditor, and the Boards and Commissions is that was Charter mandated. So this
Council never had a choice. We did not have a choice. We could not say no. The people voted yes.
Now we were stuck. This one we have a choice. We have an opportunity to say time out. We can
provide some resources to explore utilizing, again, professional services, so that it is not just what we
think we can do because I think everything that they say they can do, they can. My problem is how
do we fill the voids that are going to be left? What are the unanticipated consequences that are going
to happen when we bring all of these people back under one roof? I think Mr. Kuali'i talked
about...in the department that is so used to handing off a contract or someone in the department,
let us just say Police, that handles their recruiting or handles the drug testing, handles all of these
specific issues that only pertain to that department. Now they are going to be somewhere else.
What is going to happen then? I heard—I forget who was the administration representative that
said oh no, in essence they are actually going to be able to help the Police Department more. Well,
how is that going to happen? They are moving over to the HR Department to join another entity. So
anyway, again, I just think that we should be cautious. I think that the concept is right. I believe
and I would have no problem supporting some resources to get some professional assistance. But to
shotgun this department and say okay, here you go, all of your staffers and with really no resources.
Who mentioned that? Was it Mr. Bynum? There are no resources except salaries. No training.
How are we going to convert this untrained County into a fully trained County without resources?
That was n t eve n explored. So for r those reasons I am not going to be supporting that transfer, but,
again, I will transfer the ADA Coordinator back to the Mayor's Office, and we can have that
discussion later, thank you
Chair Furfaro: Next person that would like to discuss this creation of the
Human Resources Department? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Again, I want to acknowledge I did not get to see the
presentation, but this is a topic of discussion that I have been involved with for a long time. And
from my perspective and I have not said this too many times, but 25 years ago I was a middle
manager in a County, and I managed a staff of people. And we had a pretty robust HR kind of
facility, training. We had internal auditors who audited me as a manager to make sure I was hitting
all of the I's and dotting the T's, and at the time I thought wow, what a pain this is. But then when I
came to Hawai`i and got in government and saw that those elements were not there and started
paying off big settlements and workers compensation claims, and thinking wow, that would not have
happened in that County I worked in many years ago because we had a more robust structure. They
have taken an in-house initiative, put together a task force. I think if the Police Chief or the Fire
Chief, in particular, had serious concerns there in an independent place with their own commission
and they could tell us and let us know about their concerns and I have not heard those concerns, so
out of deference and to support the initiative that has been taken, and I do not disagree with Mel
that I think you will have to come back to us and say hey, to make this work, we are going to need
some additional resources. But the potential payoff, I am hopeful will be worth it. I know status quo
is not okay, and there might have been a different approach. If I were the Mayor, I might have
asked for a consultant and then done it differently. But I am not the Mayor, I did not run. I do not
have to deal with that, he does. So out of deference, I am going to be supportive of this, and hopeful
and provide oversight.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Chang?
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chairman. I want to say, too, in the initial
budget presentation I was also very, very skeptical. I had an opportunity to chat with many Human
Resources Directors that I know personally concerned about...things that I did not know, but I do
feel that offline I was able to get the answers that I wanted to get, and one of them is that unlike the
hotel industry, i.e., the Marriotts, the Sheratons, the Hiltons, Hyatts, what have you, I think we are
dealing with a lot of different kind of unions and different specialized jobs over here. But overall, to
be able to centralize the Human Resources function and technical expertise at the department to
eliminate, hopefully, duplication of work between the Department of Personnel Services and various
departments, being able to streamline and improve employee processing for all departments and
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.47
agencies, hopefully, lessens the demands on the departments and agencies in submitting requests for
human resource services, and results in increased capability of department staff formerly assigned to
Human Resources, increased responsiveness to the departments and agencies needs. One thing that
the Chair mentioned that really got to me, that I want to be able to say this sincerely and seriously,
he used the word "relationships." And for myself Human Resources really should be kind of like a
one-stop area. It should be the department is following up for you, not you keep on making calls
back to say what about this, what about that, I have.not heard from you for five days, two weeks,
etcetera. I want to make sure that the staff is cooperative. I want to make sure that they are
effective. It should be a service center and very helpful with aloha. So what I am hoping is that
when the department is created, I want the staff to know that people are going to go out there and
say, wow, we have a Human Resources Department. Let me go there and check it out and let me get
served. Let me get any answers taken care of and let me get follow-up in an efficient way. It should
not be a chore. It should not be the norm. It should be with open arms and helping out our
employees. And that is what I want to see out of this is that it will become a very, very effective,
down the line cost-saving because this department is long, long lacking some help, and I believe now
is the time that we are there as a community and as a County more importantly to be able to help
our men and women of our County and they deserve the answers. As I mentioned, I am really going
to expect follow-up and I am really going to expect that it is not a task, it is not a job, it is your job
and that is what we need to convey to our newly created department. So, I am going to be
supporting and I am wishing this department the very best. I think it is an exciting time for our
County. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair Furfaro: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? Vice Chair, then
Mr. KipuKai. Mr. KipuKai, you want to go first? Go right ahead.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share similar concerns as
Councilmember Rapozo. I felt like this came to us really late, and I actually also would have liked to
have seen this be dealt with separately because I think it is something that the Administration has
determined they could do, that it is reorganizing an existing department or division of the County.
So, it could have been done at any time, and we did get some word back in the fall, late winter from
the Cost Control Commission that something was coming. But really, it only ended up coming before
us for the first time by the task force a few weeks ago. I think more time, which would have allowed
us to ask more questions, which would have allowed them to go back and get more answers and do
better planning, and perhaps bring in some outside expertise would have made this better. And
there is a certain degree of this that we are agreeing to something and wishing it the best. And like
even Mr. Heu said that it is a starting point and evolving. For such a big thing to happen and for it
not to be more solid, and more clear with all the different positions and what it entails and the
recruitment, and for recruitment to actually have started on some of this before it even came to us to
approve, I think Councilmember Bynum expressed concerns about...said that he did not hear any
concerns from the Police Chief or Fire Chief, but he was not here when the Police Chief and the Fire
Chief were before us. I believe it was very mildly stated, but they expressed some concerns about
that, that a key individual from both of their entities was being taken away, and that,they are going
to have to adjust and work with it. I think he said the thing about separation anxiety, but there are
some concerns. You just did not hear them. So better planning, also I do feel strongly about in the
Auditor's report, too, that went to the...the Pre-audit Assessment that went to the Cost Control
Commission back in January of 2011. And it is that when the Parks and Recreation Department
was created, it went to the Charter and the voters voted. And this is just happening by the
Administration as a reorganization, and now put into this budget process as well. But the voters are
not really having a say, and I think potentially while this is the right thing to do, if it is not done
right, and if high-paid positions remain in place that are not delivering the management production
that we need, then potentially we could be paying a lot more money for a Human Resources
Department than we should if it is built efficiently and effectively, and it will be at our doing, not at
the voters' doing. In standing up for the voters and the people, who have not made this decision, like
they did for the formation of the Parks and Recreation Department, I am going to vote no as well,
thank you.
Chair Furfaro: So is the speech left to me? Oh, you want to say a few...no,
no, I will save mine for last.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you, Chair. Well, I think this is a watershed decision,
and I think it has been too long in coming, but I am glad the day has finally come. I think it will
help the County achieve one of its most important goals, which is to provide a high level of
performance and service. I agree with Councilmember Rapozo that it is a system fix. It is a system
that we have to fix, but I think this is actually going to move us in that direction. I was impressed
with the task force study and plan from even the desk audits, and the touching bases with all the
departments. I do not know that we could expect whole-hearted embracing of it because this is a
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.48
fundamental change, and it is hard to do, but I think everybody is willing try it and to see how we
might actually achieve benefits for everybody countywide. I think it is true there will be additional
costs, but I think the department is wise to walk before they run. And if there are additional costs, I
think it will be offset by cutting the losses that we will cut by having a fully, high-performance
Human Resources Department. And I will expect benefits to the entire County, including the Police
Department when recruitment goes faster, and positions are filled responsibly, and our employees
are serviced better. So I am voting for this in the faith that it will lead us to better customer
servicing to both our departments and to our employees.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. So I want to say did I cover everybody at least
having an opportunity to speak before I speak? Oh, no? Okay, Councilmember.
Ms. Nakamura: I share the concerns of Mel and KipuKai, but I think there
will be bumps along the way, but I think any kind of change, you have to start somewhere, and I
wish that I had a better organizational plan for the future. I would have liked to see maybe a little
more detail, but I guess this is a start, and I think I am concerned about the leadership to carry this
out. And I think that I am going to be just really looking at the Administration to make sure that it
gets off to the right start. So I will be supporting this.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I, too, will be supporting this, and I want to start
from a different perspective. I have ten years on the Council, and I have to tell you right now the
system we have does not work. Flat out, it does not work. Chance are we are doing business the
same way we did five, eight years ago. We do not even get reports on a timely basis that are
required in the Charter. So my message to the group in the Administration is you buy into this
100% and know that we are going to increase the expectations that are required for the reporting. I
also want to focus, again, the training business plan is also directly related to recruitment efforts,
especially when it comes to the Police Department. You know, they contract out who is doing the
interviews and the background checks and so forth, and I went and did a little piece, they are able to
clear about eight a year under the way they do it right now. Not acceptable, but I have to tell you I
share the focus of that department, that the Chief explained to us. It needs the kind of attention
that is required of public safety, it really does. I think that training business plan will help us get to
recruitment levels that will improve our being able to retain employees. Responsibility,
relationships, is all part of leadership. This department needs to know they need to lead.
They need to know that their job is also to keep this County out of trouble. We have had a
history of difficult issues focused around personnel matters. So I am kind of inspired by this first
step and I will give whatever support I can, but future recruitment, I heard from the Administration
that they know that we need to adjust some of those senior positions as we get into replacement at
E-3 levels. We need to understand that there will be some attrition as we replenish those positions.
And one thing we have in our favor is everybody that we have now are generalists, and it will take
investments to make them specialists. But I will be supporting this, and on that note I would like to
ask for a roll call vote.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I think we would like to amend it?
Chair Furfaro: That is true, too. I'm very, very sorry. I got ahead of myself,
but here we go. There is an amendment that was introduced by Mr. Rapozo. Am I correct? Or has it
been introduced yet?
Ms.Yukimura: One has been circulated.
Chair Furfaro: Who circulated that? Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Kuali`i: This is the ADA Coordinator?
Mr. Rapozo: I will do it.
Chair Furfaro: Very good, I thought you were associated with it somehow.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, it is here. I do not know who did it, but I will make the
motion to move things along, and my motion will be to remove the ADA Coordinator from the
Personnel Department and restore it to the Office of the Mayor.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.49
Mr. Rapozo moved to amend the May 8 submittal by removing the ADA Coordinator position
(Position No. 9150) from the Personnel Department and restoring it to the Office of the
Mayor, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Everybody has the worksheets that I referenced, do you not?
And there is a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I am kind of torn between values here in this one. One is
what I mentioned earlier about deference and if I looked at an overall structure, having an ADA
specialist in Personnel would make some sense because it is not just the interaction with the
community, but being sensitive to persons with disabilities who may work in our workforce. So I am
kind of torn here. On the other hand I really appreciate the work that has been done, and the
MacPhee Group, pretty powerful group, comes here and says hey, we are worried about losing kind
of the status and the attention to this. So I am a little torn and I would love to hear some discussion
to see if anybody else is torn because I am not going to object to it, but I think there are arguments
both ways here.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, let us see.
Mr. Bynum: Let me say if I was starting from scratch, it would be part of
an HR Department. But we have this history, and part of that history is the County kind of
dragging its feet on some of these issues, not the current Administration, but way back. So I would
love if other people have...or if it just solid, I will be happy to support it if the rest of the colleagues
do.
Chair Furfaro: Now, I have to apologize before we go any further. It was I
that introduced it and then we reversed the procedure. So I take responsibility for that. That was
my worksheet, Mr. Rapozo. Thank you for introducing it.
Mr. Rapozo: You have the credit.
Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, Chair, in dealing with this issue, I think I want to just
reiterate what I believe our goals are. And to me, it is a high level of compliance to the Americans
with Disabilities Act, to the letter and spirit of the law. And it is also a commitment to service of
both the customers of the County, and the people of the County, as well as our employees who have
disabilities. And I think the third goal is the respect for and effort to include personnel, who have
worked long and hard on the issue. And in the context of these goals, I actually think it could work
either way, and both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. I see the advantage of keeping
it in the Mayor's Office because we do want the kind of status for this issue, and we want it to be
countywide. However, I think that position has been sort of isolated, and not really supported with
the kind of both supervision and support that the position deserves. And I think the possibility of
getting it in the HR Department is maybe greater than in the Mayor's Office. So to put it in HR and
yet give it the kind of countywide high level visibility and emphasis, it would take a very good
manager and personnel director that is really aligned with the ADA goals, and then I think you
could get it...you could get that from putting it in HR. And the advantage there is you would have a
team that supports, both clerical and training support, and other people to work with you, than just
being by yourself as a person. So it is interesting that it is all about relationships and it is about
leadership. So if we could that, all those different combinations of elements there, I think it could
work in HR.
Now the interesting thing is if we put it in the Mayor's Office, the Mayor can, as he has in
other departments, move it to whatever department he wants to in the County, like he has moved
people into Finance; he has moved people into Civil Defense. And so no matter what we do here, it
might end up in HR. I guess that is something to keep in mind.
I probably will vote for it to stay in the Mayor's Office as a message of our different concerns,
but if the Mayor can make it work in HR, we might see that happen.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you, anyone else? Mr. Kuali`i?
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I just wanted to say that we did
hear compelling testimony from a few leaders within the disabled community/equal access
community. And I was a little troubled when we heard that the Mayor's Advisory Council for Equal
Access team or group was not a part of this and from early on. And so, in fact, out of deference to the
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.50
people who came before us, I think we should leave it in the Mayor's Office, and then give the Mayor
a chance to go back and work with them, and things can change all the time, but do at least take the
time to go back and make sure that whatever changes there are and whatever transitions are made,
that they are a full part of that because right now the way it looks, it is eliminating the existing
position and creating a lower paid position with slightly different duties. I mean it is a definite
change and perhaps a change in focus, too, that may be moving away from the citizens. So go back
and work with them and see how that can best be achieved. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anyone else before I speak? Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, again, I will be supporting the return, and the motion, I
do not know if I made it clear enough, but it is to restore that ADA Coordinator position back in the
Mayor's Office. And I guess for me the simple thing is if it is not broke, do not fix it. I think we have
enjoyed extreme success with the ADA Coordinator that we currently have. I do not know how many
of you are familiar with the Self-Evaluation Plan that we had to do years ago. I do not know how
many of you ever looked at it, but we are far behind. We did the plan...we got the plan done in time,
but we are far behind on projects that need to be done. We need to have somebody that is
well-versed in what this plan is, and to get somebody new, at a lower pay, I think is a problem. We
want to retain quality experienced people that are familiar with ADA, and there is not too many of
them around. ADA is a very complicated law. So I think that is where it belongs. I think the ADA
Coordinator needs to be specialized in ADA and that is all. That is the sole function. You have a
member of the community who needs some ADA help, like we saw last night with Dr. Lucy, who
needed an interpreter, she went to the ADA Coordinator, and I think that office needs to be
established; it needs to be easily accessible, and I think we really have to put our resources to work
to complete that plan. There is a lot of work to be done, and I do not want to see the momentum
broken up right now as I think we need to really pay attention to that function. So I will be
supporting the amendment. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anyone else before... Okay, I just want to point
out a little while ago we really talked about the transition with HR, and in there, we talked about
the need for them to have resources and so forth. I think we have a pretty good transition for ADA
in the Mayor's Office as it is right now. In fact we have people who gave us testimony. Although we
are not meeting the overall plan goals, we are having results, and we had a lot of comments about
ADA Office working with Doug Haigh, getting projects done and so forth. I just do not want us to
find ourselves, and I think Council Vice Chair Yukimura said it well, the Mayor can move this back
at the appropriate time when he sees fit. But the reality is let us focus on HR right now, not tie in
another task at this point. Continue focusing on ADA compliance in the Mayor's Office as it is now,
and so I will be supporting this process to keep HR as a new department, dealing with training and
recruitment, and so forth, and leaving ADA where they are at right now because we are getting
results.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I just want to make one clarification.
Chair Furfaro: Sure.
Mr. Rapozo: And I know Councilmember Yukimura said that the Mayor
can move the position back, and he cannot do that. If this should pass, this position will remain in
the Mayor's Office. The Mayor has other tools he can use. He can go get a vacant position, he can go
do a contract, whatever, but as far as this position number that we are putting back in the Mayor's
Office, unless he comes back to this Council to get this budget amended, he cannot move that
position. I just wanted to make that clear.
Chair Furfaro: Let me rephrase that. He has a bucket of tools that he can
reach in which he can do without our approval. But again, my rationale is we have had some
successes, let us leave it where it is at right now. On that note I would like to call for a vote on the
amendment. Let us do a roll call vote, please.
The motion to amend the May 8 submittal by removing the ADA Coordinator position
(Position No. 9150) from the Personnel Department and restoring it to the Office of the Mayor, was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—7,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.51
Chair Furfaro: Okay, now let us go back to the main motion that deals with
the creation of the Human Resources Department as amended.
The motion to approve the creation of a Human Resources Department, as amended, was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL—2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, we are going to take a 10-minute break simply
because I need a break.
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 3:11 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:28 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back in session. Members, what I would like to do is
to go through and share with you I had hoped to get to the payroll issues, but I think we will start
with that tomorrow. To do that, I want to make sure that we look at your list that was passed out to
you on new positions, the summary worksheet that was passed out to you on the overtime, and the
summary sheet that was passed out to you on dollar-funded positions. As I started my earlier
comments, remember payroll is our single biggest expense, next to utilities, in the County. So we
need time to have the appropriate time to evaluate these positions. I would also hope that the two
errors that I made, Jade, I take full responsibility for the sheet we will pass out tomorrow will show
the Transportation Agency utility worker out, and it will also show the four part-time lifeguards
back in. So there will be a new sheet for you tomorrow on that.
What we are going to take in the closing hours of today is we are going to talk about the
Mayor's Office, the Mayor's Administration, the Mayor's Office Youth Programs, the Mayor's Office
Equal Access issues, which we kind of touched on most of this last discussion, and then of course the
Mayor's Boards and Commissions, those philosophies going forward. I would like to ask Ernie if you
could come up for right now to talk in particular...I do not think there were many changes in items
dealing with per diems, airfare, travel, postage freight, and so forth that might be a good starting
spot,but I guess...
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair? I would just like to note that I have circulated a
possible...
Chair Furfaro: Yes, I was going to get to that. You are always so far ahead of
me.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh, sorry.
Chair Furfaro: And I would like to do the Youth Programs last because Vice
Chair Yukimura has a recusal letter.
Ms.Yukimura: Right, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Too far ahead, and Councilwoman Nakamura has a recusal as
well. I just want to touch...is there anything that you would like to add on the Mayor's travel per
diems and so forth at this point and were there any major changes? I do not think so.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ERNEST BARREIRA, Budget&Purchasing Director: First of all, Ernie Barreira, Budget&
Purchasing Director. Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Council. We have no additional
commentary or suggestions to make in terms of the Mayor's submittal.
Chair Furfaro: So on that note what I would like to do is to give an
opportunity to Councilwoman Nakamura as we go and talk about Boards and Commissions. I am
going to ask her if she wants to read her recusal letter or just make note that you are recusing
yourself for this period.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.52
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, my husband's law firm has a contract with Boards and
Commissions, so I will be recusing myself from that discussion.
(Ms. Nakamura was recused at 3:32 p.m.)
Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much and we will call you back in when we
finish Boards and Commissions. So on that note, I would like to indicate to you folks that the
positions we are going to talk about tomorrow, but I wanted to get some clarity. We now have the
Anti-Drug Coordinator. She is under Boards and Commissions. Is that the right understanding that
I have?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Chair, that is correct.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. And there are a couple new positions that we will look
at tomorrow, but I wanted to get a better idea of the scope she has that she presented to us about
working on the facility because in the public hearing yesterday, and I will let Mr. Rapozo expand on
that, there were comments from the public about not feeling they were really well-informed, and yet
that project is about 10 months out. So Mr. Rapozo, I will give you the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to make a general statement as I know we will
not be talking about specific positions today, but as we prepare for tomorrow. One of the challenges
that counties have is fixed costs and fixed costs increase every year because that is just the nature of
the beast, whether it is benefits or salaries or just the wages. It is very difficult when the economy
gets bad, and yet many jurisdictions throughout the country are already laying off people. They lay
off positions, they lay off policemen, they are laying off firemen, they lay off ambulance drivers, and
of course, all of the other County jobs. And I guess I just want to be very careful as we go through
this budget to make sure that when we approve a position, it is a position that we absolutely need
this year. And again we will talk about the Life's Choices tomorrow, but I just wanted to say that
when Theresa was up here and we found out that her position was going to be changed to a Facility
Coordinator, I know Councilmember Yukimura's face went pretty close to what mine was. It was
wait a minute; we are so early in the game. We have not even done a feasibility study. We still do
not even know if one of those facilities can be operated and survive where many of the others in the
State have all failed. But I did ask the question, what is going to happen, who is going to do the
anti-drug duties now that Theresa is a Facility Coordinator. And I remember, and I will pull the
minutes if I have to, but I believe we were told that she was going to pick up those duties in addition
to the grant positions that, in fact, they operate with throughout the year. So I find this new
position, and I am not talking about the Boards and Commissions support clerks, I am talking about
the Life's Choices position, which we will debate tomorrow. I guess my message is really, now is an
opportunity we can really control fixed costs by not starting fixed costs; we do not create fixed costs.
But in response to the Chair's request, we did have Mary Pigao here from from the community last
night, and she was not very happy because they kind of were left out. Nobody has communicated
with them in the last...I believe it was 10 months, Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is what they said.
Mr. Furfaro: Absolutely no contact, and as far as the community is
concerned, what they are waiting for is this feasibility study, and the feasibility study is not what
kind of building it is going to look like or what color the paint is going to be. It is really can a facility
of that nature survive in this economy on Kaua`i? That is the feasibility study, I think, we all are
waiting for. For me, until we have that feasibility study, I think it is very premature to have a
Facility Coordinator because we do not know what the facility...we may not even need a facility.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, that is kind of what Mary Pigao said. I will reserve the rest of my comments, as
far as the positions, until tomorrow. But I would be interested in hearing from the other
Councilmembers as well. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: We are in this discussion area here. Vice Chair Yukimura,
you have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Just a process question. We are dealing with positions later
or we are dealing with...
Chair Furfaro: We are dealing with positions tomorrow that deal with the
following: all the new positions, all of the dollar-funded positions, and the reduction of overtime
across the board.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.53
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, new, OT, and all the other positions like the positions
in the Mayor's Office right now, we are dealing with right now.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. Well, I guess I just want to concur with
Councilmember Rapozo, and my thinking is focused more on Boards and Commissions positions and
specifically what is now labeled in the Mayor's...it is considered the Mayor's budget. Or are we just
doing the Mayor's budget and then we will go to Boards and Commissions next?
Chair Furfaro: We are at Boards and Commissions now.
Ms.Yukimura: We are? Okay, that is included. Yes, I am very questioning of
the fact that the Anti-Drug Coordinator's position has changed to a County Drug Facility
Coordinator because we do not have any facility to coordinate right now, and we do not even know if
one is feasible. We are doing a study to determine that, and so it just is very odd that we would have
that name. And then I also have some concern about the Life's Choices Outreach Coordinator, which
is the new position suggested in the budget that just came to us partly because I am not clear about
the role of the office. To me, it has not been established. Is it to be a provider of services, the one
that holds workshops around the island and does programs in the schools, or is it to be the receiver
of grants and the administrator of grants to existing non-profits in the community, and also the
receiver of grants and the coordinator of the anti-drug efforts, but not the provider of it because if it
becomes a provider, then we are going to need more positions. And our non-profits, which could be
doing the work...well, it is not clear what our roles are...to me we should be more support of our
nonprofits and not the provider. But I do not see that that has been clearly defined by the office.
THERESA KOKI, Life's Choices Kaua`i Coordinator: I believe...oh, Theresa Koki for the
record, Life's Choices Kauai Coordinator. I did submit my budget presentation, and although our
job descriptions are not attached, in our coordinated drug plan, we do not provide direct services for
programs that...I believe we had the discussion at the last meeting that the...that the treatment
providers are certified substance abuse treatment professionals, and the prevention providers are
also...we support them. We do not do direct services. I did explain in my presentation about our
community efforts regarding the environmental change, which is where the alcohol and drug abuse
division is shifting towards now that all coalitions, I believe, the Central Coalition will be involved
as well to build sustainability in the community for prevention strategies, and our group is called
Kaua`i's Leaders and we lead those people. It is like teaching a man to fish. We do not do everything
ourselves. We educate them and then they would be able to go out and pursue that effort. Outreach
is exactly what it is. It is like reaching out when the schools call us for presentations or other things.
I put all the goals of all of our committees that we work with our volunteers and all of the direct
services that we do provide is together with other groups in the community. For instance,
partnering with schools in the Shattered Dreams Program, our Health and Wellness Fair which is
like a national, drug and alcohol recovery month that we participate with all of the professionals
from the judiciary to the Department of Education and our community coalitions, substance abuse
prevention providers, as well as substance abuse treatment providers, and our other outreach efforts
are with school and community presentations like Town Hall meetings during Alcohol Awareness
Month.
Ms.Yukimura: To me that is the provision of direct services to go out and
speak and to...maybe it is a misunderstanding or misconfiguration on my part, but it differs from
coordinating things or getting grant moneys to groups to do those kinds of things. But you see your
role as doing that and you think you can do it with two positions in your office, yourself and the
Outreach Coordinator, that you can actually...and do you have a plan...and I am sorry, I guess you
sent that to us today.
Mr. Barreira: If I may, Vice Chair...
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Barreira: This morning I sent over three major communications. One
was the Boards and Commissions, as well as Police and County Attorney. So those all came over
this morning.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, thank you. I am sorry.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.54
Chair Furfaro: Just a reminder here that I thought the way I left it and
perhaps I misinterpreted it, that very soon we are going to have an agenda item to discuss the drug
facility.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: I thought...that might have been me misinterpreting what we
had agreed to. It would be in your committee.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, I think that is good. I am just trying to coordinate it
with the budget numbers and understand the positions. So I guess...I am sorry I will go and look at
it if you go on to other discussion. Oh, maybe when I have to recuse myself?
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I guess the two items, I want to make sure we
understand and, Ernie, this is for you as well. When we went through the first preliminary of the
budget, it was not in, my opinion, well communicated that we expected a separate presentation from
Boards and Commissions, the Anti-Drug person, as well as this CIP position that we have in the
Mayor's Office, okay. We did not get a preliminary presentation. That should not be assumed for
next year, okay? Because I do want to talk about the Mayor's Office and all of the existing positions,
which will also touch on the Capital Fund Project Manager who is in the Mayor's Office, so we will be
discussing that today. We came up a little...miscommunicated there on what we expected. So for
the drug treatment facility, we will be putting an agenda item on in the near future. Mr. Kualii.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Aloha and mahalo, Theresa. Actually
I am a little bit confused because in the new Life's Choice Outreach Coordinator is a new position
that is being proposed to be in next year's budget, but is there not already somebody serving in that
position? Did we not we just have a big event in Waimea? It was not you that did the presentation.
There was a story in the paper.
Ms. Koki: Right now we have a grant in our office. That is the Strategic
Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant, and the person that did the presentation is our
program manager of the Underage Drinking Prevention Project.
Mr. Kuali`i: So that is a grant position called what program manager...
Ms. Koki: It is the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive
Grant, Prevention of Underage Drinking Program Manager. It specifically...
Mr. Kuali`i: Which ends at the end of June, that grant.
Ms. Koki: Actually we had good news today. They are going to extend
us to the Federal fiscal year of September.
Chair Furfaro: Would you say that again for my benefit, Theresa? I am
sorry.
Ms. Koki: Sure, the Department of Health's Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Division, where we have the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant, confirmed
today that we are going to have what they call a no-cost extension, which is using the same amount
of funds for an extended period of time. They are going to the Federal fiscal year year of September
now.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, good news.
Mr. Kuali`i: And so that is why this position for Outreach Coordinator is
now starting in September, at the end of the September? So is it the intention for this SPF SIG
funded position as a program manager to become the new Outreach Coordinator? That is what it
looks like on paper.
Mr. Barreira: Are you asking, Councilmember...are you asking if the person
who is grant-funded now will automatically assume that position? Those selection choices have not
yet been determined.
Mr. Kuali`i: And this salary of $38,960, so that represents three-quarters
of the fiscal year or less?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.55
Mr. Barreira: It would represent from that point of October 1 onward.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, October 1 and on.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, and it is an exempt position.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, are we almost pau with Theresa because we have
Paula to bring up, too.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I will be done. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: One moment, Theresa. Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Good afternoon. You know, I have watched all of the changes
over the years since this program was coordinated, and we are doing a feasibility study about
running a drug...I mean I keep hearing about a feasibility study, is it underway?
Ms. Koki: Right now we are still in the procurement phase, which is
discussions and negotiations with the person that we selected.
Mr. Bynum: So there is going to be a consultant who does a feasibility
study?
Ms. Koki: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: And you are helping coordinating that, Theresa?
Ms. Koki: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And you still have the active volunteer groups working and
you have a person in this position grant-funded until September. I have said this for a long time, the
world changed since we first, as a County, said we wanted to build an adolescent treatment facility,
and so I need to see that, coordinating that kind of study, but I think Theresa and the team there are
doing a great job about coordinating all the volunteers, and I want to be supportive of it, but I do
have a problem with this title. When Theresa came up she said I am the Life's Choices Coordinator.
Could we just amend the title and put it in as Life's Choices Coordinator because the final decision
about whether we build an adolescent treatment facility has not been made, right? We are going to
do the feasibility study, then do we acquire land? What is the cost? That is all down the road and
there is no money in this budget to acquire land or build a facility, right? And so I want to be
supportive of these two positions, and the work that Theresa is doing, and I am fine with her
administering the feasibility study. But if we get to the point where we actually need a facility
coordinator, then I think we need to talk about that because a Facility Coordinator...Theresa has the
expertise about running, and she has grown into the position about working on these drug teams,
and administering various grants and stuff. A facilities coordinator, do we, not do that in the
building division? You know? I mean if the County is going to build a building and facilitate it, why
would...those are the kind of questions I have? But for this budget, I want to support these
positions, but I do have a problem with this title. Could we just amend the title to what you
introduced yourself today as Life's Choices Coordinator. I'm fine with that title.
Mr. Chang: May I ask Tim a question? Were you present at their
presentation?
Mr. Bynum: I do not think so, but I was present the last time you were
here and you answered a bunch of questions, and I thought you fielded them all really well.
Mr. Chang: But you do not know about the Life's Choices...the name of
Life's Choices?
Mr. Bynum: I heard Theresa talk about it.
Mr. Chang: Why they rechanged the name?
Mr. Bynum: Right, but in our budget it says drug facility coordinator.
Mr. Chang: No, no, I understand. But you want her to change to Life's
Choices?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.56
Mr. Bynum: No, I am fine with that. They are happy with that.
Mr. Chang: Okay, you remember the explanation then?
Mr. Bynum: Yes, yes.
Mr. Chang: Oh, you were here. Okay, I just want to make sure that you
were here.
Mr. Bynum: I am just saying can we amend it and put it in the budget
under that title.
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure we are all clear. We are going to get a
separate presentation in a future committee meeting from Theresa. Are there changes...we are
going to get a committee presentation from Theresa, but we are talking about budget items right
now, not philosophical items that clearly we need a better picture of because we did not get that at
budget time. But cost items, I think, is what we are all concerned with, especially yesterday when
Mary Pigao and Joe Rosa...I think they surfaced their questions in the terms of not knowing, and I
think what Mr. Bynum is saying is we are quite a ways down yet from even the acquisition of
property and the building, and the community is saying we have not heard, we have not heard. I
think they needed an update, Theresa, and so we gave them what we had yesterday. So I just
wanted to summarize that. I think that was your message, we are quite a ways away.
Mr. Bynum: Yes, we are quite a ways away. I do not know that I will be
supportive of us acquiring land and building a drug treatment facility. If it works, I will for sure
because there is no question there is a need, but I have a background in Social Services and I know
the funding picture for operating these programs has changed. So we do need that kind of an
analysis, and if the analysis says that we can proceed, but for this budget short-term, I want to
support these two positions, but I have a problem with the name. So could we...I do not know.
Somebody tell me, could....
Chair Furfaro: They will be in discussion tomorrow because those are new
positions. Are they not?
Mr. Bynum: Well, no one is Theresa's position.
Mr. Barreira: The positions of the Commissions support clerk and the new
Life's Choices Outreach Coordinator are both new positions.
Chair Furfaro: And they will be on the list tomorrow.
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I am sorry, the Boards and Commissions clerk.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Commissions support clerk. There is one asterisk.
Mr. Bynum: But this position, No. 9151, County Drug Facility Coordinator
(SR 22), that is your position, right?
Chair Furfaro: And that is what we have a problem with, with the title.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, understood.
Chair Furfaro: Because the facility guy you sometimes think is the guy that
runs the lawn mower, cuts the grass, paints the building because it is part of the facility
maintenance.
Ms. Koki: I believe Gary Heu said it when he was questioned at first
that sometimes personnel titles and job descriptions are different. So right now my title in the
Personnel Office attached to my job description is a Drug Coordinator.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.57
Chair Furfaro: Okay, right now for this budget, Theresa, and this is the
second time it has happened to us today, we are going to prepare an amendment that fits what
Mr. Bynum is suggesting, so that six months from now we know what that position was regardless of
the number, and we need to be getting that stuff by request from the Administration to be
consistent. Mr. Bynum and then Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Bynum: Just this as a history. We were never happy with the title. I
remember when Roy came onboard and it was the Drug Coordinator, and it was a joke all over the
County. It was like oh, so you go to Roy to get drugs? And it is like oh no, he is the anti-drug
coordinator, and I do not think we were ever really happy with that term. So you are saying
officially it still says drug coordinator, right? So I heard the presentation when you said we are
going with this term, Life's Choices, that it is consistent with where the industry is going, and I
know you have gone out of your way, Theresa, to get additional expertise and education, and you got
certified in something, right? And if that is your choice, again, deference for that title, I am more
comfortable with that than facility coordinator. So maybe it is just the semantics and a minor issue,
but...
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Bynum, if you do not mind, I would like to move
along.
Mr. Bynum: Please.
Chair Furfaro: I think we have had enough discussion about title. We are
going to do an amendment. Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. We just have to be careful when we start making
amendments because some of your job titles are tied to your rating and we are not at liberty to
change the title because it might affect the rating. So I guess we probably have to get clarification
from maybe you folks. What is an allowable title because you do not want to change the text and
then it is not in the SR or whatever your rating is.
Chair Furfaro: And that is so true and this is the second time this has
happened to us today, but I am having our staff do the research, and let us get the title matching up
to salary grades.
Mr. Barreira: To answer Councilmember Rapozo, these are both exempt
positions, not tied into the SR rating, in the Civil Service System.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, that is the perfect segue into my next question because
I have heard so much exempt today. What determines whether a position will be exempt or not, and
why would we exempt a new employee? When we have a new position, why is it exempt?
Mr. Barreira: There are positions that are defined under the Collective
Bargaining Agreements and Civil Service law that define them as included positions. And these are
employees that hold a wide variety of positions that benefit from civil service protection as part of
that Collective Bargaining Agreement. Exempt positions are primarily serving at the pleasure of or
at-will positions. For example in the County government, the Mayor's cabinet, all of those positions
are exempt positions. We serve at the pleasure of, otherwise known as at-will. But the other
confusion is that in addition to exempt positions, there are also excluded positions.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Barreira: Excluded management positions are civil service protected,
although those positions are not included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay,just so that you folks understand, Theresa, I would like
to approve every position in this budget, too, but when we look at this budget, and as I opened up
with my fixed costs statement, expenses relating to personnel costs are the gifts that keep on giving,
and I hope you folks can understand that as I do the overview and look at these positions, we have to
make sure that...because this just adds on to the budget for next year and the year after. So I hope
everyone can understand that I would love to be Santa Claus this year and say yes, ho, ho, ho, you
get everything you want, but we also, me, myself looking down the road and saying this adds to the
fixed costs of next year, and we just have to be very cognizant of that. So if it is absolutely necessary,
it will get my support. If it can wait until next year, then it will not. Thank you.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.58
Chair Furfaro: I think we are all pau with you, and we will be looking for you
coming up, and I have to tell you folks, if I need to keep you until 6 o'clock tonight, I will. I have a
goal to complete. That was not a threat. That just was to calm your stomach if you ono for
something, like fried chicken or gravy and rice. JoAnn.
Ms.Yukimura: One last question, please. The professional services anti-drug
facility, environmental assessment, and land use planning services totals, which is already
contracted apparently, $220,000.00 before we even know that the facility is going to be feasible.
Where did this money come from?
Ms. Koki: The notice for professional services for the Environmental
Assessment Architect and the Feasibility Study is in our CIP budget.
li Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Koki: I am not sure if that was a question, if I can answer it, we do
not have any contracts yet. We are starting with the feasibility consultant.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, so your feasibility consultant, you are talking to.
Ms. Koki: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: And that is a cost of$80,000.00.
Ms. Koki: It was 50.
Ms.Yukimura: In your...
Chair Furfaro: In your sheet it summarizes 80.
Ms.Yukimura: Right. 50,000 and somewhere else there was...maybe that is
in your...
Ms. Koki: I think that is the environmental assessment one. I did put a
separate label for ease in finding these documents.
Ms.Yukimura: So that is $230,000 then is for the EA and land use.
Chair Furfaro: Of which how much is encumbered?
Mr. Barreira: We do not have any contracts fully negotiated yet, Chair.
They are in the process.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, that is a little different what I just heard. So you are
telling us none of it is encumbered?
Ms. Koki: We do not have any money encumbered at this moment. We
are in the negotiation phrase of the contract. So therefore, no contract has been executed and no
money has been encumbered.
Ms.Yukimura: But you are in the process of encumbering the feasibility
study, which is $50,000.00. But there is also a proposal for...actually it is...I see $150,000; $70,000;
and $30,000 in your land use and environmental assessment, which is a total of $250,000, is that
right? Yes. And what is the status of that?
Ms. Koki: We have gone through the...
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure that goes as a question to you. Those are
items in CIP, which are going to come up in a later item. But we want an answer and we want to
make sure we understand if any of that has been encumbered when we go to CIP.
Ms.Yukimura: Or will be encumbered by the end of the year.
Chair Furfaro: Or what is planned to be encumbered? The 50, the 80,
whatever it is by the end of the year, and that comes up in CIP.
'3
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.59
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you, Chair.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.60
Chair Furfaro: So, Theresa, you are okay for now, but when we get to the CIP
section, Ernie, make sure you have some dialogue with her to find out if anything has been
encumbered or what the plan is.
Mr. Barreira: You want a written response, Chair?
Chair Furfaro: No, verbal on CIP is fine.
Mr. Barreira: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Theresa, thank you very much. I want to finish up if there
are any questions on Boards and Commissions, because then I want to go to other positions in the
Mayor's Office and bring Councilmember Nakamura back in. We are preparing an amendment. Is
it ready? Is the amendment ready? Let us vote on that before we bring Councilwoman Nakamura
back in.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Ms. Yukimura moved to amend the May 8 submittal by changing the title of Position
No. 9151 from "County Drug Facility Coordinator" to "Life's Choices Coordinator," seconded
by Mr. Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We are waiting for Mr. Rapozo now.
Mr. Rapozo: I apologize.
Chair Furfaro: Here, you have the amendment just changing the title. It has
been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
The motion to amend the May 8 submittal by changing the title of Position No. 9151 from
"County Drug Facility Coordinator" to "Life's Choices Coordinator" was then put, and carried
by a vote of 6-0-0-1 (Councilmember Nakamura was recused).
Chair Furfaro: Okay, you have been so changed in the budget, Theresa, that
we will all use this title from now on going forward. Any questions for Board and Commissions so I
can bring Councilwoman Nakamura back. We are still on Boards and Commissions. Do we have
any questions...one question? Go right ahead.
Mr. Kuali`i: The difference from the March 15 budget to the May 8 budget
shows $10,000 added to a postage and freight item, and it says election year mail-out Charter
Amendment. Is not the election mailers handled by elections?
PAULA MORIKAMI, Boards and Commissions Administrator: Paula Morikami, Boards and
Commissions. I met with the Elections Division, and we split the cost of the mailers. So that
includes not only the mailing, but the stuffing of those ballot questions, the Charter Amendment
proposals. And so it was determined that we split the cost, so therefore, that is the $10,000 on our
portion.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Paula, thank you for that response, but I am asking Rick to
double check because I think that is a provision of the Charter. It is not something mutually agreed
with you folks and Elections. But he is going to check for me. That is the last question for Board
and Commissions? No, we have one more. Go ahead.
Mr. Bynum: I have watched this division grow under John's leadership
and Paula's, and I am just very happy with the performance I have seen from this division under
both leaderships. And I do not think...I talked to Boards and Commissions members who by and
large there was just a couple little glitches, which you would expect in any job. They are happy with
it as well. I think that is one of the great things that is happening in this County since I have been
here is the serious intention and attention that was given to the Boards and Commissions.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, no other comments on Boards and Commissions?
Paula, thank you very much.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.61
Mr. Rapozo: Just real quick. If you could explain the changes? I am just
looking at the variances from March 15 to May 8 and we are showing an increase in Position
No. 9153 of$3300 and E-71 of$20,520.
Ms. Morikami: The $44,415, "$44,412" is the correct figure. The other one
was an error for the support clerk that exists now.
Mr. Rapozo: For 9153?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, and then what about E-71?
Ms. Morikami: E-71 is the position that we had requested to support our
office and the clerical services for the Anti-Drug Life's Choices Kaua`i Division.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, those are new positions we are going to discuss
tomorrow.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Councilmember, that is a new position.
Chair Furfaro: We are doing all the new positions tomorrow.
Mr. Barreira: And it is funded from January. That is why that number is
an awkward number.
Mr. Rapozo: It is not new because it already has a number. So E-71 is
showing a...I do not know what that asterisk...fund from position E-71 deputy County Attorney. I
have no idea what that means.
Mr. Barreira: As you recall in the previous submission, one of the
discussions that was being held as far as dollar-funded positions were concerned, was a deputy
county attorney to be paid half by the Liquor Fund and half by General Fund. In the
May submission, there was a decision to utilize that position to swap that into this as a dollar-funded
commission support clerk in place of that previous effort to create a deputy county attorney position.
Mr. Rapozo: E-71, that was the split position?
Mr. Barreira: That was a law clerk; it was going to become a deputy county
attorney.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, all right, I got it. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, we got a confirmation on the splitting of those mailing
expressed? They are exactly like I just said. Paula, thank you for being here. We are going to end
Boards and Commissions, and we are going to go to some of the existing Mayor's Administration
staffing and then we are going to go to some of the Youth Programs, which Vice Chair Yukimura will
recuse herself from. Can we ask Councilmember Nakamura to come back in? Since you are going to
go into areas of existing positions in the Mayor's Office, I would like to take a 10-minute recess, so I
can have some discussion with the Finance Director, and then later Vice Chair Yukimura, we will go
into Youth Programs, and we will take your recusal then. We are going to be on a 10-minute recess.
(Ms. Nakamura was noted present at 4:09 p.m.)
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 4:10 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order t 4:22 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Members, we are back in session. We are still in the
Mayor's Office covering administrative items. We are going to go to Youth Work Programs, and we
just finished Boards and Commissions. So we have Mr. Barreira here for us. I did announce we plan
to go to 5 o'clock today. Are there any questions dealing with the Administration? I do want to make
sure that I understand this section on telephone is not the company switchboard. This is cell phones,
etcetera, am I correct, communication pieces that are in the Mayor's Office?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.62
Mr. Barreira: Yes, sir, and I think, Chair, if I may to speak on accurately
and knowledgeably in terms of the Mayor's budget, I am going to ask Mr. Heu to join me to add to
the conversation.
Chair Furfaro: Sounds more than fair.
Mr. Barreira: Thank you, sir.
Chair Furfaro: Then Gary, I would like to at least get to the Festival of
Lights before I excuse Vice Chair Yukimura. So the May 8 submittal on the telephone needs, being
an aficionado of communications in your previous life, you dropped this piece $27,000. Did I
summarize that appropriately that $251,000 is communication equipment, cell phones, other
emergency communication needs for the Mayor's Office?
GARY HEU, Managing Director: I am sorry, excuse me, Gary Heu for the record. In
the Mayor's Office, we have a combination of how we address our communication needs. There are
some of us at the point level who actually pay for our own cell phone usage and other types of
technology, and then there are still needs for the basic support staff and that is what that would
cover.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. On this line "Special Projects," can you just cover that
a little bit because it went up $20,000? Or am I reading that line wrong? No, I am reading it right.
It went up $20,000.
Mr. Heu; There was an additional amount added. I believe it was
$20,000.00 for the Boys and Girls club. Is it $15,000?
Chair Furfaro: Let us not go there right at that moment, because we have a
board member sitting on the Council. So I will pretend I did not ask that question. I want to talk
about Boys and Girls Clubs in general coming up, so we will talk about it when you are out. Let me
just finish this one, Festival of Lights. I do not know how it is budgeted for this upcoming year. It
has only got$5,000 in it.
Mr. Heu: Yes, but there was the Festival of Lights and Lights on Rice
Street.
Chair Furfaro: Lights on Rice Streets goes somewhere else?
Mr. Heu: There is a line item for Lights on Rice Street and that is
$1660.
Chair Furfaro: Got it.
Mr. Heu: And then there is the Festival of Lights at $10,000.
Chair Furfaro: Okay so I am going to ask Vice Chair Yukimura if she would
like to recuse herself just for the discussion on the following items.
(Ms.Yukimura was recused at 4:26 p.m.)
Mr. Chang: You are entertaining questions for the Special Projects?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, we got an explanation on the $20,000, right, Gary?
Mr. Heu: It was the 15...there was an add of$15,000 for Boys and Girls
Club. That was for some infrastructure improvement.
Chair Furfaro: And I did not want to conclude that discussion until...she is
the Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club, so I wanted her to leave. So that is where we are at.
And then there is an additional line item specifically for the Waimea Club?
Mr. Heu: That is the Waimea Boys and Girls Club, $15,000.
Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, Mr. Chang.
h
i
F
f
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.63
Mr. Chang: On anything regarding the Special Projects?
Chair Furfaro: Well, I want to get everything dealing with the Boys and Girls
Club out of the way, so I can get Councilwoman Yukimura back.
Mr. Chang: Okay, okay, I do not have any questions.
Chair Furfaro: So when you asked about the $20,000, he gave the answer.
And then you came back with the question of the $20,000, but I wanted her to be out of the room.
Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: Gary, can you explain what the funds would be used for for
Boys and Girls Club?
Mr. Heu: My understanding is that there are some infrastructure needs
to support their current facility. So they came to the Mayor's Office, much like people come
knocking on your doors for certain one-time expense requests and this was one of those that came in
between the March 15 and the May 8 submittal.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., Finance Director: They recently transitioned to a new
facility.
Ms. Nakamura: Do you know where that is located?
Mr. Rezentes: I do not know offhand.
Chair Furfaro: So it is possibly being handled as kind of a grant-specific gift?
Mr. Heu: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Grant-specific, okay, because we had Kapa'a Elementary
School approach us yesterday, too.
Mr. Heu: I am sure if our budget submittal was two weeks from now,
we would have a few more in. So it is just one of those rolling target things. Anymore questions
about the Boys and Girls Club? If there is not, I am going to ask Councilwoman Yukimura to come
back in. Can we get Councilwoman Yukimura?
(Ms.Yukimura was noted present at 4:28 p.m.)
Chair Furfaro: And on that note, Mr. Rapozo, I will go ahead and give you
the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: I would just ask about the Festival of Lights, the increase of
$5,000. Now the Festival of Lights, I believe, they are up to $10,000.
Mr. Heu: Yes, if I am not mistaken and I was not involved in those
specific discussions, but I believe, Chair, that might have been the result of some of the meetings
that you folks had regarding the overall management and support of the Festival of Lights.
Chair Furfaro: I think the detail is with Beth, but to answer Mr. Rapozo, we
probably see the Festival with the kind of exposure it is getting both in media, magazine and
newspaper, that there is some preparation in fading out the volunteer work that is done by our dear
coordinator right now as she moves on to bigger events in her life outside of Kaua`i. She will still be
very active, but I think one of the recommendations that she gave to the Administration was the
potential of actually contracting a coordinator so that the Festival of Lights can be perpetuated.
Mr. Rapozo: Is that $10,000 going to be used to contract a coordinator? I
am just trying to figure out what those funds are being used for because I was under the
impression...I think the community is under the impression that it is a volunteer effort, the people
from the jail come and help. So I am just curious what that...
Chair Furfaro: They are under the right observation. I want to tell you in life
goes age. I am 63. I sure hope when I am 68, I am babysitting mo`opuna on the Big Island and
surfing when the surf is under 2 feet. I think what she is saying is I am moving on and perhaps if
you want to perpetuate the Festival of Lights, it might be a good idea to contract some coordinated
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.64
help. And that coordinated help deals with developing the theme, developing the aesthetics of the
building as we seem to get more and more exposure as well as being more and more selective in what
the design elements are.
Mr. Rapozo: Let me be more specific then, who is the recipient of the
$10,000? I guess that is the real question.
Chair Furfaro: They do not have anybody identified yet.
Mr. Rezentes: It is my understanding that approximately 50% or $5,000 is
being looked at to being earmarked for a coordinator, of the $10,000.
Mr. Rapozo: And then the other $5,000?
Mr. Rezentes: For the ongoing, I guess, costs and operations of the...
Mr. Rapozo: That is fine. I just...it is a substantial increase. It has
doubled and I saw some...as you go through the budget we will discuss later I see some cuts that I
thought were significant cuts in other areas, not here, in OED. And I just want to make sure that we
are applying the funds where, again, it is of most use for our community. Got it.
Chair Furfaro: And I just want to make sure, Mr. Rapozo, you understand. I
am only reporting on what I took from the meeting because as Mr. Heu knows, I have a little bit of a
disagreement that the control of this building should be under the Council because the Finance
Chair and the Mayor only have management oversight for this building on a year-to-year basis.
That if it is anything longer than a year, it is in fact the authority of the Council. But we are not on
the same page with that yet, so I sat in on that meeting and would leave it at that for now. Vice
Chair Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: Just a question, I am looking...no, that is okay. I see what I
am doing. Right I am looking at the wrong budget. Sorry, I am fine now, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Now questions regarding any of the Special Projects?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, anything you want except please stay away from Boys
and Girls Club. We did that while Councilwoman Yukimura was outside.
Mr. Chang: Okay, so Gary, what is the...is this the carryover $53,000 for
the lobbyist?
Mr. Heu: It is not a carryover. It is a new appropriation for next year.
Mr. Chang: So did we finally get somebody?
Mr. Heu: We are in the final stage of procurement.
Mr. Chang: Okay. And did we...I did not look, I am sorry, but did we give
the Red Cross $20,000 last year versus $15,000 this year?
Mr. Heu: I am sorry, I do not have my last year's budget or my current
year budget with me. That may be true, though.
Chair Furfaro: Do you have a copy of this worksheet?
Mr. Heu: I do not.
Chair Furfaro: Jade, do we have an extra copy that we can to give the
Finance Director and the Administrative Assistant, so they can follow the particular questions that
are being carried over by Mr. Chang? Mr. Chang, you still have the floor.
Mr. Chang: Gary, do you know if we have an executive director for the
Red Cross? I think at one point it was vacant.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.65
Mr. Heu: To my knowledge they have not filled that position yet. They
were still in the process of looking.
Mr. Rapozo: They did.
Mr. Heu: They did?
Mr. Rapozo: They hired someone.
Mr. Heu: Really?
Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry, Mr. Chair. I just got the email. They did hire
someone. I cannot remember the name, but they did have them in place.
Mr. Heu: That is good.
Mr. Chang: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Are you okay with your questions, Mr. Chang?
Mr. Chang: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you for sharing, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Kuali`i, you have the
floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Just a quick question because in the Mayor's narrative there
is a...No. 11 and it has to do with KPAL. Is KPAL a special project that should be in here?
Mr. Heu: When you reference KPAL, was it for a position?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, it says a KPAL clerical assistant.
Mr. Heu: Yes, that would not show up in the Mayor's Office budget.
Mr. Kuali`i: Where would it show?
Mr. Heu: What is that?
Mr. Bynum: Police.
Mr. Heu: Yes, yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: Are all the special projects here in the Mayor's Office?
Mr. Heu: Are all the special projects? There are grants...there are
certain grants that have historically been managed out of the Mayor's Office, and then there are also
grants (inaudible)in Office of Economic Development.
Mr. Kuali`i: Right.
Mr. Heu: You will find...I believe you will find some in Parks and
Recreation.
Mr. Kuali`i: But they are mostly here?
Mr. Heu: There is probably more in OED.
Mr. Kuali`i: Like why would more be in Parks and Recreation and not
here?
Mr. Heu: Because for whatever reason when the grant was first
established it could have been seen as directly related to some support that would be provided out of
Parks and Recreation. It supported some sort of Parks and Recreation function. So for whatever
reason it was established in that department. Usually once it is established in a certain department,
year-over-year that is where you will find it.
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.66
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, really quick.
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Gary, this is just for everybody's information.
Richard Whitworth has been hired to the position of the Kauai area manager, and he will actually
start his tour on June 11.
Mr. Heu: Is that a communication you just got today?
Mr. Rapozo: I got this on May 4 and this was for Coralee Matayoshi.
Apparently this guy has over 30 years of experience in disaster response and will start on June 11. I
can forward this to you.
Mr. Heu: Terrific.
Chair Furfaro: Very much appreciated. Any additional questions for
Mr. Heu? Councilwoman Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: You may have answered this in the first session and I was not
present, but the D.C. Lobbyist that is a position that we did not have last year, but we are getting
now in fiscal year 2013?
Mr. Heu: It is in fiscal year 2012. It is in the current year.
Ms.Yukimura: We never encumbered the moneys?
Mr. Heu: We are going to encumber the money. Councilmember Chang
just asked the question, and I said we are in the final stages of procurement.
Ms.Yukimura: So why do you need it in the next year's budget?
Mr. Heu: For the subsequent year.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh, for the subsequent year, okay, all right. And we will be
briefed?
Mr. Heu: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: What does the scope cover for us?
Mr. Heu: Exactly, I think we had this discussion previously.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Heu: Not today, but previously. Although it is listed as a D.C.
Lobbyist, the intent was not to use...if you recall a couple of years ago, there was a D.C. Lobbyist line
item for $100,000. So this is really half of what we had previously funded and that was because it
was felt that with earmarks having gone way, that the focus should really be on assisting the County
with identifying and developing grant proposals to try to give us the greatest possibility of success
and not lobbying our congressional delegation for earmarks as we had in the past because there
really are no earmarks officially.
Ms.Yukimura: What about just lobbying for regular bills and programs that
we need and want? For example, well maybe that is what you have in mind, the emergency
communications system, phases 2 and 3. We talked about how that is a logical thing and it does not
have to be earmarks. Whatever program it fits under that should be part of our package to get
federally.
Mr. Heu: Well, I guess the thing is that when you look at...if my
recollection is correct, when we first established the position and we came before Council, I think
this was when Mayor Baptiste was in office, the intent was to reach out and identify funds that
previously the County had not accessed and to look for those opportunities and to really lobby for
those earmarks with our congressional delegation. That was the real focus and we felt it was
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.67
potentially a good investment of our dollars. If we could spend $100,000 a year and we could bring in
in $5 million to the County that previously was not available, we thought that was a good deal. So
that has pretty much been how we have approached this. When earmarks went away, and the game
kind of shifted, then we felt that it was important for the County to have a better understanding of
what was available relative to different types of grant funds available through federal agencies and
that sort of thing, and position the County in the best place to be successful in obtaining those
grants. So that is primarily what the focus of the $50,000 was. I mean, if again, if we were looking
at consultants to do...to play a broader role, then I think we would look at increasing the funding
again. And again, we have been working closely with Senator Inouye's Office on this and getting
certain kind of guidance in terms of how to set this up. So that is why it looks as it does today with
the $50,000 or $53,000.
Ms.Yukimura: But that is why the lobbyist or whomever we hire is probably
not going to come here to brief us for that much money?
Mr. Heu: I think the lobbyist would probably visit Kaua`i in terms of...
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Chang, if you want to be recognized, show your fingers at
me, not to Gary, okay? So wait a minute, Councilmember Yukimura still has the floor, and then I
see you are next. Councilmember Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Go ahead.
Mr. Heu: Part of the scope of work is to bring the consultant here, but
that would be more to work directly with our various agencies in the prep work for the grants that
we would seek. It does not mean that person would not be available to come before the Council to
speak about what kind of opportunities there are.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh well, if he is going to be on-island, he should come to
speak to the Council without question. But I am just...I do not know whether it is grants or an
appropriation, but not all appropriations are earmarks? You know what I mean? So there may be
very standard programs where you...
Mr. Heu: Right, so in other words, within Federal highways, there are
these huge appropriations, which are provided, and we would consider that grant opportunities.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, well I do not know if you would actually call them
grants, but maybe that is what they are. And one of the experts who has brought in a lot of money to
his community is the former planning department deputy Gary Hannig. I am not sure we have
that...well, maybe we do with Senator Inouye's help about how to use the lobbyist we hire. That is
something to get coaching on, I think, maybe. Okay, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Chang, you have the floor.
Mr. Chang: Just to answer Vice Chair's question, that is what we had
planned that the lobbyist would be coming to the island of Kauai. So in the past when I first got
involved, the lobbyist would pave the way for us up at Capitol Hill to meet with various people about
the Waimea Levee or Hanapepe Levee. For example for Kapaia Bridge when we were looking for
different heritage... something that could help fund, and when they helped us with these projects
from abroad, we wanted to have them come at least two visits a year, so they can at least see the
projects that we are working on and identify hopefully funding bases for different projects that we
had ongoing that they would be on top of the bills and on top of it. So they would be keeping us
abreast of things that were happening and trying to get those...or give us a heads up and try to get
those funding, and of course, it is relationship driven that they know most of our aides with our
legislators up there that that was a part of paving the way to make it smoother for us through those
relationships. But it did include the travel. We did include them to be able to travel here twice a
year to update us.
Ms.Yukimura: And that money is in the $53,000?
Mr. Chang: It was.
Ms.Yukimura: What is travel nowadays? I mean that is at least $1200?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.68
Mr. Chang: I think in the past, if I am not mistaken, it might have been
50 and put$5,000, and the only reason being is that the lobbyist that we used in the past also had an
office in California. So the travel time was going to be from California versus from Washington, D.C.
Ms.Yukimura: I see, okay.
Mr. Chang: So we felt that was an adequate amount of money for them to
make the travel. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions here on the Mayor's Office? Going once,
going twice...
Mr. Bynum: On anything related to the Mayor's Office.
Chair Furfaro: Anything in the Mayor's Office as it relates to...
Ms.Yukimura: Is it timely to present amendments now?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, it could be. Mr. Heu?
Mr. Heu: Chair, I know that we, in a previous action today took the
ADA position from the HR Department...
Chair Furfaro: And put it back in the Mayor's Office, yes.
Mr. Heu: Now, there were other expenses associated with that position
besides fringe benefits and that sort of thing. I believe there was also training. Did you folks remove
all of that back in?
Chair Furfaro: We removed $17,000. Am I right, Jade? We put back in
$17,000.
Mr. Heu: I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: We can all look at that for tomorrow morning. We are going
to take the next 15 minutes—we are going to end at 5 p.m. today—to entertain any discussion about
the Mayor's budget, the Mayor's department. Is there any? If not, I have beef curry at home. Any
Member? Well, I would like to say...what is that?
Mr. Bynum: Three-minute recess?
Chair Furfaro: A 3-minute recess? Okay, I am going to count a 3-minute
recess, but I want to end today at 5 p.m. We are on a 3-minute recess.
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 4:48 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 4:51 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Members, we are back from that short recess, and
again, I want to close on the Mayor's Office today before we start up again tomorrow morning. Are
there any amendments?
Ms.Yukimura: Excuse me, we are dealing with new positions later on?
Chair Furfaro: Tomorrow.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: I have a real quick question.
Chair Furfaro: Surely.
Mr. Rapozo: And I do not know. Gary, I guess it is the vehicle that you
folks are requesting in the Mayor's Office. That is a new vehicle, right? That has not been
purchased yet?
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.69
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Heu: It is in current year budget.
Mr. Rapozo: It is in current...it is in this current...
Mr. Heu: Yes, what you are seeing there is the lease cost for the
subsequent year.
Mr. Rapozo: So the car is already here?
Mr. Heu It is being procured right now.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Heu: You could ask Ernie where that is.
Mr. Rapozo: Was that approved last year? I do not recall...
Mr. Heu: Yes, it was approved in last year's budget. So the initial lease
payment is in the current year budget.
Mr. Barreira: There are a number of vehicles being procured...
Mr. Rapozo: Well, there is a ton this year and that is a concern of mine as
well because as I went through the list I see we are replacing cars with 3,000, 4,000 miles. I mean it
is older cars with very low mileage, maybe not the vehicles, but equipment.
Mr. Barreira: Right, we were very deliberate this year, Councilmember
Rapozo, to not abide solely by that 5-year replacement schedule. We took a very close look at the
mileage and the maintenance costs, and we deferred on a large number of those vehicles.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, I do not recall that last year, but you are probably
right. So if it is the second year of a three-year lease, so last year we went with a three-year, but this
year we are going with all five-year leases. Is that what we are doing? All the other vehicles, I
assume it was a five-year.
Mr. Barreira: As part of the 2013 budget...
Mr. Rapozo: For the next budget, next year's budget.
Mr. Barreira: We will be seeking lease financing, which basically defers the
expenses.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i?
Mr. Kuali`i: Along those lines, I had a quick question, too, then. So on
those that were three-year leases, and like the one you just talked about it is in the second year of a
three-year lease, so next year is the third year, and when it ends, was it lease to own?
Mr. Barreira: We do not have lease to own provisions. Basically we are
lease financing,but we own the vehicle.
Mr. Kuali`i: So after three years of paying $24,500 on the SUV Hybrid we
are going to own it?
Mr. Rezentes: We own it, yes. It will be a capital lease where we own it at
the end of the term of the lease.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, Members, I am going to do a little summary
here, and we are going to close the Office of the Mayor, as we have in fact, covered Boards and
Commissions, staff issues, some of the grant pieces, all in the Office of the Mayor. We also completed
May 10, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.70
today half of Risk Management. We still when we get to Finance, we will be talking in terms of
Gerald's role with insurance liabilities. We also completed the Department of Personnel Services,
which also included all the personnel functions. So tomorrow I would like to take the items first that
covers the new positions that are in the budget as listed with some modifications from the list, we
are going to take care of, so we have a new handout. We are going cover the dollar-funded positions
that are in the budget, and we are going to cover the reduction in overtime across-the-board, and
then go back to our scheduled work, which was in my PowerPoint, which might include discussion
from various Councilmembers. Then we will go into all of the other departments. So on that note, I
want to forewarn you, we need to plan on going to 6 o'clock tomorrow. We need to plan on going to
6 o'clock on Monday. And then we need to evaluate where we are for Tuesday, okay? Before I recess,
Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Tomorrow is the graduation of KCC, and I am scheduled to be
there at 5 p.m., but I hate to miss any votes-here. I thought we were going to...with four days this
year, I thought we were going to try to end at 5 p.m., but...
Chair Furfaro: We are going to try our best and the only thing I can say to
you is keep your narrative brief, and we will get to the KCC graduation. But we will start at
9 o'clock sharp, please. But if we need the extra hour, please keep it.
Now, that being said,`there is another celebration that we have. I want all of you to know
that you are in this building for the first day of the second 100 years of this building as the capital of
Lihu e County and the islands of Kaua`i and Ni`ihau.
There being no objections, the decision making process was recessed at 4:57 p.m.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p 1
The departmental budget decision making reconvened on May 11, 2012 at 9:13 a.m., and proceeded
as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Aloha and good morning. I am going to call back into
order from the recess that we had on the Kaua`i County Council's Decision Making process for the
Operating Budget. As I shared in my earlier presentation where we are at in this present time. And
we need to move a little more expeditiously. I will enforce the speaking terms allowed in our rules
going forward today because these are critical timing items. We have finished a Decision Making on
the Human Resource Department and the Mayor's Office. We are going to start with an overall look
at the payroll as it relates to new positions, dollar funded positions, and overtime decisions that we
made. We should have a new worksheet for you after the discussion I had yesterday which was my
fault. We have a summary revision which shows positions that should have not appeared in my list,
taken out in red. That would include the Transportation Agencies Utility Worker and you should see
the part-time positions in blue for the Fire Department and the Lifeguards. Everything else in black
is the same as it was originally. On this particular note, I would ask Mr. Barreira to come up and we
are going to talk first about the new positions in the new Budget as proposed by the Mayor.
ERNEST BARREIRA, Budget and Purchasing Director: Good morning Chair
and members of the Council. I am Ernie Barreira, the Budget the Purchasing Director. If I could get
a copy of what the Councilmembers are looking at.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, and actually I just had that discussion with Scott
because we are actually going to put it up on the screen. We have to take it out and give you a copy
of that piece as well. What I have here is a summary on the pre-decisional piece that we had talked
about and recognized all the new positions in the Budget and adjusted for what I just talked on the
Fire Department, Life-Saving Part-Timers, and then the removal on the utility work on the
Transportation Department. And to the best of my knowledge now, you and I are on the same sheet.
You represented the Administration and these are my notes from the Budget and I would like to
focus only on this portion first. Members we are open to questions accordingly. On any of these new
positions, this is what we are focusing on. Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: Good morning Ernie. I have a question, on the
Planning Department there is a six position Transportation (inaudible), I know we partially funded
this position in last year's Budget. I am just wondering if it is showing up as a new position because
it has not been filled yet.
Mr. Barreira: I am not certain. I would have to double check with
Director Dahilig. I believed the position has been filled but there was a question in terms of the
partial funding so we thought to be safe we should reflect it as a fully funded position in Fiscal Year
2013. I believe that was the Council's intent so we placed it back on the Budget pursuant to your
action last year.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i, then Mr. Rapozo, then Vice-Chair
Yukimura. Mr. Kuali`i you have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning Ernie. Aloha
and mahalo. The two positions for the Department of Parks and Recreation that is Park Caretaker,
Po`ipu and then the other one, Lydgate. So these are temporary, on-call? What are these positions?
It only says 19 hours per week. And it is not starting until January 2013. There are not seeing the
need until January 2013? What is changing?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p2
Mr. Barreira: I think in the analysis when we went into Budget
Hearings with all of the Departments, obviously if everything could come on at July 1, that would be
ideal from the departmental perspective but we understand as Councilmembers pointed out, that
there are funding issues and requirements. We are trying to economize to the greatest extent that
we can to strike a balance between acquiring the need of services without having to spend moneys
and perhaps could be deferred to a later time in the Fiscal Year. Those two positions were intended
to achieve as the Mayor has discussed in his message, a super park status. And I know we have had
some discussions about the honorable members of the Council about what defines a super park. We
define a super park as a park that will essentially, people will be willing and able and interested in
going to these facilities and be able to use them comfortably without fear of dirty bathrooms or un-
kept playgrounds or rubbish in various areas. What these two positions are intending to do is we
feel we get a large bang for our buck with these positions because there is no fringe associated with
this. They will simply be assigned to tend to cleaning of the grounds and restroom facilities and
associated areas on a limited basis as defined by those 19 hours.
Mr. Kuali`i: It does not seem like that strong of a commitment to
super parks. We only have a part-time, un-benefitted, 19 hour position. A half and half. Do we have
any Care Takers that do more than one park?
Mr. Barreira: I believe so. I am not sure of the exact delegation of
duties but please keep in mind Sir that these are in addition to the full-timers that are already
assigned to clean those areas. So this is to augment those services for additional help and
assistance.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is correct. But if we felt that maintenance was
not adequate and needed to be stepped up, then to make a commitment to me would be mean than
this. Thank you.
Mr. Barreira: Understood. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Rapozo, then Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Mr. Rapozo: I had the same concern as far as the same Park
Caretaker positions and I have spoken to many Park Caretakers that are currently employed. In
fact, one came here on vacation time or leave to testify that they need more man power. The Parks
Director was here when we had the discussion on increasing Lydgate Park to include camping and I
asked the question. I did not feel nor did not support it because I did not believe we had an adequate
maintenance for that park. He disagreed. He said he felt that they did have adequate coverage. I
do not believe we have adequate coverage and the real side of this as I speak to many County
employees, there is a morale issue now because of if you look at the Budget that has come across to
this Council, there is quite a bit of substantial positions that are paid quite high. That is not in
dispute, we have new departments and there is quite a few positions that are highly paid and yet the
Parks people who work the line, out of this entire Budget they are getting two part time or less than
half time without benefits and it causes I think a morale problem. I do not think we have adequate
maintenance coverage at the parks. If you ask majority of park users that depending on the time of
day, we might have a clean bathroom but for the most part, long weekends and afternoons on the
regular weekends, there is a definite concern. I had hoped to see more of those line personnel
positions in the Budget. I do not know what will happen if we were to increase. It is still up to the
privy of the Mayor if he still wants to hire. And I hate to fund positions that are not going to be
hired and filled but I understand we get our bang for our buck because we do not pay fringes. Part of
the problem that we have here today in Parks is that we do not have—because Park Caretakers,
because they are so few, and I know there is a discrepancy of how many people are at Lydgate. If
you drive down to Lydgate at any time of the day, and you stop by, there are two people working.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p3
That is what covers Lydgate. Lydgate is a huge park. I do not think it is adequate but if we want to
build our parks to a super park status, world-class park status, it starts with maintenance. It also
starts with giving these guys the ownership of that park. It is hard. How do you take ownership to a
19 hour employee who does not even have benefits? I think that is a philosophical issue for me but I
am just wondering if in fact this Council would support bumping these positions up to full-time. I
still think we are short even if we make these two full-timers, I still do not think we are up to par
but at least it is a start. At least it is a message to the employees at Parks that the Council is
concerned. And I am going to be proposing that but I do not 1 know if I have the assurance from the
Administration that he is going to fill it. We fill a full-time position but the Mayor can still put it out
as a part-time position and I do not want to throw money away and have it hang up in the surplus
because we are not going to hire. My intention is to bump that up to full-time. At least we will get
two more and hopefully that will ease the tension at Lydgate and Po`ipu. I know you cannot speak
for the Mayor. Mr. Kuali`i got the response as far as rationale, but I just feel that we need to bump
that up a bit.
Mr. Barreira: And you are right, Councilmember Rapozo, I cannot
speak for the Mayor but of course I will convey whatever the consensus is at the Council along with
the concerns that have been expressed.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you for conveying that but we are going to vote
on this today and I hope the message is then conveyed wherever we stand. Vice-Chair Yukimura, it
is your turn.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. It is possible that the Parks Department
is trying to address a problem that I think we all want to address with this schedule of Care Taking,
and overtime will come in and ask for a full-time position. I am thinking of the bus system where we
had a lot of on-call people and then as we expanded the bus system, we turned them into full-time
positions. I can see the rationale of trying this and unless we substitute our judgments for what we
think would be adequate. There are a lot of factors that go into how to get a clean park. Part of it is
supervision and management of employees and part of it is how you structure the hours. I am
hoping that there is some rational plan for why we need this part-time and that perhaps it is part of
a long-range plan to go full-time over the next couple years. I do not know if you can speak for the
Parks Director either but if it is part of a long-range plan then it makes sense to me. If there is
going to be a look and see as we bring these people on board on a part-time basis and see what we
are achieving and maybe what we are not achieving and move to the next level.
Mr. Barreira: Vice-Chair, if you look at the Budget support package
that was sent in by Parks and he did discuss his rationale in terms of the vision for the parks and
one of the things that I am very pleased to hear is that there is unified thought on the
Administration and the Council in terms of this concept of these super parks, adequate facilities, to
make sure they are cleaned properly and that there is oversight and accountability in terms of what
goes on. I cannot speak specifically to Director Rapozo's intent, I am very confident that we are
constantly in a process of evaluating and reevaluating whatever resources that we have out there
and that we will propose adjustments in order to achieve our objectives.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Barreira, I think it is only fair to share with you
my concern. It has been a standing request especially from myself since the first year I was on this
Council. Beth said, "I would want to know, for quality control our status of A) level parks, B) level
parks, and C) level parks." This is not a discussion I went through. One of those the A) parks being
regional parks, B) parks being neighborhood parks, C) being asset parks. Also if you would give me
a second to turn off our mics while we have other discussions, I would also like to know the long-term
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p4
maintenance projections for the bike path, which the Council is very committed to in expanding and
especially since for lack of any other terms to say K-9, I would say we have agreed on mixed use. We
have not seen that part. There are two sides to the sword here. There is the one side which we seem
to be assuming by starting the work force on the quality of the parks by adding part-timers, then
there are the same concerns that I am hearing about why could some of these not be more full-time.
We have not established what the standard is yet. That is the piece we are lacking. What do we
expect of a neighborhood regional park that has soccer fields, ball parks, football practice, you know
what do we have in a neighborhood park that has a few tennis courts and pavilion, and picnic areas
and what do we have in the passive parks? We have not seen definitions on those, let alone the
minimum requirement for maintenance on the bike path. I just want to share that with you that
this has been an on-going discussion and I wanted to add it as information for me. Until I see a more
standardized packaging of our park levels, it is hard to just throw money and people at it. We need
to be able to measure the outcome. I will come back to Mr. Bynum. He was going to have the floor
next.
Mr. Barreira: Chair if I may, did this come up as a question in this
session.
Chair Furfaro: It goes back to the first year I was on the Council.
There are narratives from myself about standards and there are photographs from Mr. Rapozo.
There are circulated definitions from different organizations like the American Hotel and Resort
Association about public areas that should be included. There has been written dialogue about the
appropriate grass, the fertilizing schedule, and the watering schedule. There is a lot of it, and in
fairness to Mr. Lenny Rapozo, some of this is prior to his time. I just wanted to summarize what our
goals are. We would want to see that standards in a written form that would help us understand the
overall quality control and maintenance requirements. We are still looking for that. Mr. Bynum,
you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I apologize for (inaudible) but, and I may complicate
some of this, but for the bus, and for lifeguards, they have 19 hour positions on call. There could be a
strong rationale for that for Parks. I do not see it. I also looked at this and it is like, I cannot stand
it, 19 hours, where we do not have to pay them. We are going to do two half-time people. I would
prefer one full-time person that has benefits and could be part of a team. I would love to see both of
these positions filled and I think it is not a unreasonable request here today from the Administration
if we were to fully fund these two Park Caretaker positions. Will they hire and use them? I am
making that request where you give us an answer today. If the answer is no, then I would move into
one. To take a position like that, which is like an entry-level position, and offer it as part-time to
avoid paying benefits. I have a philosophical problem with that. Again, if there is a rationale where
we need these bus guys only a few hours a day, and if it is a way to bring them into full-time, I do
not think that rationale applies to Park Caretakers.
Mr. Barreira: Thank you Councilmember Bynum. It was part of the
package that was submitted by the Parks Department in terms of what they felt was a relative need
with the 19 hours. The fringe benefits did not drive the decision, it was what the need was at the
time. In terms of filling the position, I can answer confidently that that is a very big issue for Mayor
Carvalho. Clean parks and proper facilities. I can speak confidently to that point here today.
Mr. Bynum: Is it possible to get that answer?
Mr. Barreira: I will seek that out, Sir.
Mr. Bynum: If we fund two regular Park Caretakers, would they
hire?
1
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p5
Mr. Barreira: I will get you an answer today, Sir.
Chair Furfaro: I would do this urgently Ernie because I do not plan to
have every time we have a question, to have a department in back. This session is decision making
time. We have had ten years to ask the questions about passive parks, neighborhood parks, regional
parks, the bike path, and quality standards. We are in decision making mode here so I would say to
you, that is an urgent request that we are going to come back to this piece when we take our first
break. You will have ten minutes to get us an answer. Then we are going to move on. I am going to
rest this until that time. If you folks did not hear me, I am going to rest this until that time.
Mr. Barreira: The question has been sent, Sir.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimiura: I just want to add in here, while getting the answer
from the Mayor is good, but putting one position, putting the two positions into one to take care of
Po`ipu and Lydgate, there is issues of travel and transportation that do not make a lot of sense to me.
If we are dividing up a Caretaker for Po`ipu and Lydgate...it does not make sense. So I would not
agree to that.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Do you want to move to a different issue?
Chair Furfaro: No, you did not hear me. We are going to cover our
new positions first. Then we are going to cover our dollar funded positions second. And we are going
to cover the overtime scenario. So what I am saying is, we can start into those other two areas, then
on the break, have him get some answers for you and do this.
Mr. Bynum: So we are not going to positions?
Chair Furfaro: I am suggesting that we do that now.
Mr. Bynum: I have a question about a different position.
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Bynum: In the KPAL Clerical Assistant, is that a position at
the Police Department?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I am a little confused here. Is that a full-time position
and it is funded to start January?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And maybe M forgot this, but KPAL mostly is not
being rent from the Police Department. There are a non-profit and they have separate staff. I
actually talked to the Chief about this. While I am very supportive of KPAL, and they probably need
these positions but I am confused as to why they are in the Police Department when the
Administration of KPAL is not physically in the Police Department.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p6
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, do you want me to respond to that?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, you can contribute to Mr. Bynum's question, go
ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: KPAL has a Board of Directors. They are a non-
profit. Basically what they do is they work the funding mechanisms and they apply for the grants.
But the operation of KPAL for, I believe the last decade now, has been under the control of now
Sergeant Mark Ozaki. He has been running the scheduling and he has been running the
recruitment. He has been running all of the facets of KPAL. The Board does not get involved with
the operation other than like any typical Board of Directors would be to seek funding. So this is
really to help Mark. The original request from the Chief was for two KPAL Officers because it is
incredible what they do. This would help with the scheduling which is, I do not know how he does it,
if you seen Mark lately, you seen how much he has aged. He has taken KPAL from absolutely
nothing to a very, very, very productive and positive program. So I had hoped to see, but
unfortunately financial times prohibit us from expanding KPAL Officers but this would help Mark
tremendously.
Mr. Bynum: It has my support. I have just changed the question
to why wait until January. But I just wanted to understand that part.
Ms. Nakamura: That is a good question.
Mr. Barreira: It is pretty much for all of the January positions. It is
going to be my same answer. It was just a strategy to defer expenses and minimize cost for the fiscal
year. If we facilitate for all of the new positions to begin July 1, the cost would have been double for
the new positions that we have allocated with (inaudible). So it is strictly an accounting effort to
minimize the expenses. Chair, if I may, I have a response from the Administration in terms of the
Custodian positions at Lydgate.
Chair Furfaro: I think that is very good when I saw Mr. Rezentes
leave when he heard me talk about the urgency so I assumed he got you some answers.
Mr. Barreira: Well the wonders of technology and forgive the
rudeness if I am slipping in a note here and there but Wally and Director Heu has committed that
they will hire those positions if allocated at such.
Chair Furfaro: Did you have the floor still or does Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Bynum: I think other people have questions.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: No, I just responded to Mr. Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, Vice-Chair Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: I have concerns about Life's Choices Kauai Division
Outreach Coordinator. We discussed that yesterday in some respect. It comes from my lack of
clarity of what role that office or mission is. If it is mainly to coordinate, receive, and distribute
grant moneys which they have been performing quite extensively and very well. Then an Outreach
Coordinator may not be what they need. They may need a grant writer. Or someone who has
expertise is monitoring grants. So I am inclined to vote it out until we get some clarity of their
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p7
mission and role. If the County gets into delivering services and providing services, it means an
expansive future. And it also means competition with non-profits out there. It seems like a clearer
and more productive role might be as a conduit for grants or monitor for grants, and giving the
outreach work to some of the non-profits...unless you know the answer clearly for me?
Mr. Barreira: Vice-Chair, the Councilmembers received the very
well written and comprehensive write-up from Theresa Koki. I think that would speak to all of those
issues in terms of what the goals and objectives are for that position. I think grant writing would be
embedded within that requirement as most of the cases for our exempt positions that rely heavily
upon grant funds for sustenance. But I think I would like to defer it to the expertise of Ms. Koki in
her write up in terms of what the plans and intentions are.
Ms.Yukimura: Well, then we have some questions about the
qualifications of people that are hired in that office in terms of whether they actually have grant
writing skills. That is the question.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I have a question for the Administration. And
it is regarding our additions. I just want to make sure that I heard no challenges to the two
positions for the County Clerk's Office. One, we are at the same level of Records Management as we
have been for almost twelve years. We are adding a Records Management person to our needs as
well as the six legislative analysts. Was there any feedback from these additions from
Administration to us?
Mr. Barreira: Our position has been Chair, as we are seeking
additional support to improve our operations. We believe the Council is trying to achieve the same
ends so we have not taken a position.
Chair Furfaro: It just would not be fair of me to ask that question.
Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I wanted to go back to the Life's Choices.
Chair Furfaro: You are more than welcomed to go back. I did not
hear any questions. I just wanted to get to our piece.
Mr. Rapozo: And it is really a follow-up, and we had some
discussion of it yesterday regarding the Facilities Coordinator position and the fact that we were
informed back in March with the March 15 submittal that Theresa was going to be continuing to be
involved with the grants and that she was going to be coordinating the grant workers, employees,
that are grant funded in that office. I believe there is probably, I believe, three or four right now that
are in that office and I do not think there is a shortage of grants for the anti-drug effort. I am still
not very happy with the efforts we have made in anti-drugs as it relates to hard drugs like
methamphetamine, oxycoton, cocaine, and marijuana. We have expended a lot of resources on
under-aged drinking. That is a noble effort as well and I think it is one that should be continued.
But I have not seen the efforts in the other drugs and we have seen obviously a very high incident
rate of oxycoton, especially in our kids in school. I still question the Facilitator Coordinator because
I do not think we are ready for that. We have not even started the process. We do not even know if
that facility is going to be a reality. I am going to be submitting an amended to remove the Outreach
Coordinator and to restore the facility. I think you may have even changed the title, so that is fine.
That can stay, the Life's Choices Coordinator. I think that is appropriate and I support that. But I
believe at this point as we try to take the most advantage of grants as possible that I believe we
should restore that position back to where it was and rely on the grant funded positions. It is a
shame that this Administration has removed in the last few years, several grant writing positions
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p8
from Civil Defense and I believe from the Administration as well and I think we need to rely more on
grants at this time so I am going to be submitting that amended, Mr. Chair. Be prepared as we
speak to remove this position and again phase one of my choice was already done by Mr. Bynum
yesterday by changing that position title. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: My intent for all the members is to have a little bit
more discussion here but then I am going to go by departments to see if we could get the approvals so
I am hearing when we get to the Choice Office, we will have an amendment. Mr. Bynum, do you
mind if I recognize Councilmember Nakamura first? Mr. Kuali`i, and then you, Mr. Bynum. Go
right ahead Councilwoman.
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to discuss the Office of Economic
Development Specialist, SR-24, $55,500.00 position. The question that I have is in the discussion
that we had during our budget deliberation, questioning with the department, this position was
presented as a technician position. In the response and in the job description we received as a follow
up to those discussions, the job description we received talks about a technician position, which is an
SR-22 position. This is something that came in writing from the department that describes that this
and I think the discussion was that this position is an assistant to the existing six specialists in that
department, that those six specialists needed back up and we all know that George has a lot on his
plate and he needs those additional assistants. Now, in the Mayor's budget message he also talks
about the need for a technician, an SR-24 level and again he talks about the critical need for
technicians knowing that it could provide support for job creation. (inaudible) We received this
budget message on May 8, but in the budget itself, it is an SR-24 position, $55,500.00. The
technician's assistant would have been, I think a lower rate, but now as a specialist position. I
wanted to ask the Administration for clarification and what happened when they (inaudible) that
changed the department's response, the Mayor's budget message, and what is before us.
Chair Furfaro: It looks like Wally is going out to expedite a response
to that.
Mr. Barreira: Yes Sir, because looking at my budget worksheets on
the new positions, I have it listed as an Economic Development Technician but at $55,500.00 and the
budget itself, as you pointed out, notes a specialist, so I believe Mr. Rezentes is going to make contact
with Mr. Costa.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we are going to expect some clarification
quickly.
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: This is a new position?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Has a specific individual been identified?
Mr. Barreira: If it is a new position, then no. There would be
recruitment involved I would imagine. We have dollar-funded positions that are occupied. I am not
certain or sure. For the dollar-funded positions, we would be able to find salary resources to hire. It
is listed as an SR position so that would require a more stringent recruitment methodologies to bring
someone on board, but I would once again seek clarification with O.E.D. in terms of classification of
that position.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p9
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Mr. Barreira: You are welcome.
Chair Furfaro: In the Office of Economic Development, those
positions are all exempt so I would think that answers the Civil Service question.
Mr. Barreira: And the SR rating is based on the developing...
Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, I will give you the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Sorry Chair, I was just commenting that I thought
there was a thing called Civil Service exempt?
Chair Furfaro: I think if you heard what I said, I said it was exempt.
I cannot listen to two people at the same time and my statement, to make it exempt, was for the
benefit of all members. And now I am going to say it again. The entire department is exempt.
Mr. Barreira: Would you like me to answer the Civil Service inquiry
to clarify, Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, you have the floor.
Mr. Barreira: Thank you, Sir. Vice-Chair, a Civil Service exempt, I
think what Mr. Rapozo and I spoke yesterday, there is an excluded exempt and regular civil service
which are collective bargaining employees. I am not familiar with Civil Service exempt. All exempt
positions are at will positions with the County and the State. We have excluded managers that are
excluded from our collective bargaining unit but have Civil Service protection.
Ms.Yukimura: So, if this is an SR and it is also in an office where all
positions are exempt, then are you saying it does not have a Civil Service status?
Mr. Barreira: My suspicion is that there are using the SR scale just
to define the salary level and it is probably going to be an exempt position within O.E.D. But I will
seek final clarification from Mr. Costa.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair, I am not going to give the floor. I have a
question. I will give you the floor in a moment. Is Mr. Rezentes getting clarification on what I just
said?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: We will come back to that piece. Now we will go to a
new question. You have the floor Councilwoman.
Ms.Yukimura: Just a thought that...I am so aware that that office is
handling such a huge volume of work and it is a small office so in my generalized thought, it really
needs an additional position. If Mr. Costa is the one that is determining that that is what he needs,
I would defer in general to that.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Costa had that opportunity when he came
up to explain his department but I think the message you and the Administration needs to here,
under these economic conditions, globally, we think there needs to be more emphasis on that
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p10
department. Maybe even a Deputy for that department based on the fact that we are starting to
depend on grant applications, we are trying to diversify the economy and so forth. This department
maybe has bigger needs than it has had in the past and I think that is the message. Did you want
the floor Ms. Nakamura?
Mr. Rapozo: I do not have a question, I have a comment. It is a
brief comment. In the last year, I have experienced quite a bit of public inquiry as far as Sunshine
Markets and so forth and George has been exceptional in trying to respond. George is only one
person and that office does have some personnel short comings. I do not know how else to say it.
But they are very short handed. Understaffed is probably a better word. I am curious as to the
exempt status because on our sheet here, the exempts are made known exempt. That one is just SR-
24 so I would assume it is a Civil Service position. Whether it is exempt or not, I think exempt
exempts the position from Civil Service hiring. They can basically appoint. I guess that is what I
understand. Vice-Chair Yukimura, I think you probably know that better than me but I believe the
exempt means they can appoint and Civil Service means you have to go through the Civil Service
process. But I am interested in the question that Councilmember Nakamura had about the
technician versus the specialist and I am assuming he is getting that now. Again, I think they
definitely need that assistance there in the office. They do a good job with what they have and as we
start to look at the expansion of Sunshine Markets and the programs associated with that, I would
like to be able to give our constituents a better, quicker timelier response than what we have been
and it is simply because they do not have the personnel. I do not have a problem with the position, I
am interested in why the difference of specialist and technician. So I will await that response.
Chair Furfaro: While we are waiting for that answer, I see here some
of the positions that we can actually take a vote on right now and then it sounds like we are going to
have some with amendments coming back. Let me just try and clean up the list real quick here and
then we will entertain amendments that need to be posted knowing that we already have to post the
changes on the transportation position that came out and the fire water safety people that went in.
The first area is the Office of the County Clerk's with an addition of a Record's Management person
and one Legislative Analyst.
Mr. Bynum: I am a little confused with the process.
Chair Furfaro: Well, let me say the process again. Since this list is
rather large, I want to clean up and get the staff prepared to know that they are not going to be
amendments to certain positions. Just raise your hand right now if you are posing to do an
amendment to this position. Yes, go ahead Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I did not know when there was a right time for our
office.
Chair Furfaro: For our office, this is the right time.
Mr. Bynum: I really wanted to talk to my colleagues about a
Financial Analyst type position for Council Services. We had a lot of dialogue and discussion this
year about our dependence on the Administration to get financial information, whether it is taxes or
budget or whatever.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. That is all I need for right now. We will come
back to it. That is all I need for right now we will come back to it. You are going to have an
amendment to talk about it. That is all I need for right now. I am trying to clean up the lists. You
have a question for your colleague, then that is fine. The next one is the Planning Department.
d..
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making pl l
Mr. Kuali`i: Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes?
Mr. Kuali`i: I am also going to have an amendment for
consideration for our office, the Office of the County Clerk. That is regarding the Legislative
Assistant.
Chair Furfaro: We will keep the discussion there and we will keep
this open for right now. For the Department of Planning, we have got some clarification earlier for
Councilmember Nakamura. Is there anybody planning any changes there? No? Okay. I am just
going to put a line through that item. Now, the Department of Public Works for an Engineering Aid,
a Public Wastewater Division Operator Assistant, and a Department of Public Works for a Solid
Waste Division Refuge Collector. Any more questions in that area? Yes, Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I just have a question as far as the Engineering Aid 1,
that salary is quite small. $12,324.00 and I realize it starts January. What is the SR on that?
Chair Furfaro: Okay, so we will not take that off the list.
Mr. Rapozo: I am not going to amend it. We can leave it on. I just
want to make sure that is not a typo. That is all I am trying to say. I did not realize we had such
small wages. Is that six months funding?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Starting January 1. Any other questions for Public
Works? Hearing none, I will put that on there. Fire Department, for the three on-call lifeguards?
Mr. Kuali`i: Chair, I am sorry. Before we jump to Fire, back in
Public Works, Solid Waste, why is that position a dollar funded position?
Chair Furfaro: That is a good question. Let us check with our own
staff. Why did that not get on the other list? We are going to come back to that.
Mr. Kuali`i: So are you saying that all the other dollar funded
positions on the other lists are existing and this is the only new dollar funded position proposed?
Chair Furfaro: Let us make sure we understand, staff, that should
have been on the dollar funded list as a new position or should have that been on this list as a new
dollar funded position? It is a new dollar funded position? Okay, because I do not want to come to it
twice. That is what I am saying here.
Mr. Kuali`i: I may want to have an amendment on that.
Chair Furfaro: That position stays possibly for an amendment. The
other three, you are fine with.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, it is a blanket amendment that I am
considering and this is for the positions that I support.
Chair Furfaro: I am not where I am going.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p12
Mr. Rapozo: Just hear me out Mr. Chair because I am concerned
about the six month lag.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I am not going where I am going. Let us stay
with other questions. I just wanted to get some of this stuff cleaned up because we have been on this
for an hour already and we will be here to 6:00 p.m. tonight I am sure.
Mr. Rapozo: I am just concerned, Mr. Chair, about the six month
wait for hiring.
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, you can talk amongst us with Ernie there.
Mr. Rapozo: I would like to hear the other Councilmembers
concerns but for me I think, it is a way of producing a low budget but with the full intention of hiring
these people sooner, relying on a potential surplus later to fund it. If we need the positions and we
saw this in the presentations, they were posting for positions prior to the positions being...
Chair Furfaro: Yes, and none of us agreed to that. That was clearly
misdirected.
Mr. Rapozo: What my point is, or what I am trying to pass out to
the public, is an accurate fair budget.
Chair Furfaro: I think we are all doing that, but we are only talking
about the new proposed positions now.
Mr. Rapozo: But I think there is a fundamental problem with six
month funding because really what you are showing on paper is half the actual cost, so that your
budget looks a lot smaller. If we are going to wait six months to fund it, then maybe we do not really
need it right away.
Chair Furfaro: Well, I am going to give you my answer to that. The
paper picked it up yesterday. We are changing H.R. Quite frankly, it takes six months to recruit.
How is that? You folks okay with my response?
Mr. Rapozo: But Mr. Chair, in response to that, I did not see H.R.'s
positions with a six month lag. I did not see the $101,000.00 or the $103,000.00 for H.R. Managers
with a six month lag.
Chair Furfaro: No, Mel, what I said yesterday was look, you got three
positions in there that are not even filled yet and their answer was, and picked up in the paper as
well, that they would at least lag to October because I do not want to fill those positions until they
are settled and we have a better understanding of the priorities. So let us not go back to the H.R.
piece, let us talk about what your amendment might be.
Mr. Rapozo: My amendment will be that the new position salary, I
am not going to support anything beyond a nine month funding cycle. I still think we should fund it
for the year from July because I think a lot of those positions could be hired, especially exempt ones.
We know they have got people in mind and they are going to put it in the position. Why are we going
to tell the public that we are only going to fund six months when we know where that money is going
to come from. Again, to me, it is almost deceptive to say six months when we know we are going to
put people in there. I would like to do a July amendment. I do not think we will get the support but
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p13
I think the three months....l mean the Outreach Coordinator position is September 30. What is the
difference?
Ms.Yukimura: There is a grant that expires.
Mr. Rapozo: And what is the point? My point is, if it takes six
months to hire a Parks Security Officer and it takes six months to hire an Engineering Aid, if it
takes six months to hire an Accountant III, why is it going to take six months to hire an Outreach
Coordinator. That is my point. My amendment would be nine month funding versus the six month
funding.
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure you get clarification before I vote
on the other one and I would like to have everyone's attention for a second. Just so we are clear,
your amendment will pose everywhere that the dates are January, September, etc. Your
amendment would propose that nothing starts later than October 1. We are all clear on that? Now
on that, I will give Mr. Bynum the floor then Councilwoman Yukimura.
Mr. Bynum: First of all, I would support that amendment with a
couple of exceptions. I think the one that starts September, I think there is a grant that terminates
in September then we would pick up the funding so, that would remain September but these other
positions for Park Security Officers, I would support that they start in three months.
Chair Furfaro: You still have the floor but your mic is off.
Ms.Yukimura: Are you done?
Mr. Bynum: I am done. I would support that amendment.
Chair Furfaro: Council Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, thank you. I would support the amendment too.
I think what we are aiming for is accurate budgeting.
Chair Furfaro: It is the status of what we are trying to do. Did you
think we were aiming for"budget inaccurate?" (laughter)
Ms.Yukimura: Well, I heard Mr. Barreira say that one of the reasons
for starting half-year is to lessen the budgetary impact, but to me if the position is really needed,
then we should view it as a full years position but acknowledging the reality of recruiting time, the
three months makes more sense to me. If we need it, then we need it and we should get it on board
as soon as possible. To make it a half year, just to lessen the budget impact in the first year, does
not work for me. I think the three months recruiting time assumption or if we know what the
expiration of the grant is that we want to continue, then we use that deadline.
Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I just want to say that I was happy to see in the
Mayor's, one of the new positions, being the Accountant III position. Seems like there was a need
expressed by that Department and I am glad to see it.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions about all positions starting that
are added no later than October 1 for a vacancy of no more than three months or filled for nine
months of the year. Anymore discussion on that? Mr. Bynum.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p14
Mr. Bynum: Sounds like there is consensus on that and just for the
staff, I also heard consensus on the two Park Caretaker offers that they would start in October and
also be full time. Maybe that can be all in one amendment. I think all of us understand that when
we are adding positions, it is a long term commitment as compared to adding a project so I think by
the end of this process we are going to have added some positions and it is going to impact the
budget going forward. And I think we are all sensitive to that.
Chair Furfaro: So, I would like to say, I think we are going to take a
little bit of a break here so we can visit, but before break I just want to make one comment to what
this adjustment would mean. Is there any further dialogue while I am doing this?
Mr. Chang: Dialogue regarding?
Chair Furfaro: About anything on the table right now about having
all positions start no later than October 1.
Ms.Yukimura: I have some questions on the rationale of the
lifeguard. Is that possible to talk about that now? Or do you want to wait?
Chair Furfaro: This is a pretty major piece but I think the rationale
on the lifeguards is in fact, it is I presume some of the coverage is on the big beaches with weekend
coverage. Is that the right assumption?
Mr. Barreira: Depending on the question of Vice-Chair, are you
asking why they are back in and they were not in the budget?
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Barreira: Okay. I can answer that. Actually, I can and I cannot
answer that.
Chair Furfaro: And back in the budget, as part timers.
Mr. Barreira: Yes. These positions, Vice-Chair, were in the
Operating Budget for 2012. When we decided to add three positions, similar positions for Fiscal
Year 2013, somehow these 2012 positions that already existed were redacted from the budget
unintentionally. So we had sought the Chair's assistance in having these re-identified because they
are vital to public safety needs for our community.
Ms.Yukimura: And you are talking about the ones in blue?
Mr. Barreira: Yes ma'am.
Ms.Yukimura: Those are actually existing positions?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. And the three in black are the new requests for
this budget?
Mr. Barreira: That is correct.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p15
Ms.Yukimura: And refresh my memory for the new ones.
Mr. Barreira: Based on the Chiefs justification, there are quite a bit
of lifeguard related needs around our island for beaches that are usually unattended in terms of
services. This year the Chief entered into a initiative to occasionally cover some of these beaches and
the outpouring of support from the public has been significant and appreciative to have these
resources in place. So, the Chief believed that by expanding with these additional positions, he could
have more flexibility in putting lifeguards in needed areas where they do not exist today.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to go on a break but before we go on a
break, I want to take Mr. Rapozo's offer to make an amendment that no added positions will start
any later than October 1. If I can get a motion, that way I can at least have the staff on the break to
start working on the worksheets. It would also be of good practice to let you know that moving all
those dates to October 1 has $97,686.00 that was going to impact the payroll line. I wanted to give
you a pretty round number so you know what you are voting on and Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor
to make that amendment, and then we are going to go on break after the vote.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Chair. I have asked our staff to start
preparing. I know that we will have some other amendments. Some positions might be added, some
might be removed.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is later. This is only an amendment that
talks about everything starting October 1.
Mr. Rapozo: Did you want me to make that motion or did you want
me to wait for the paper?
Chair Furfaro: No, they are going to make the paper and give us an
exact number when we take the break.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: So, if you could make the motion.
Mr. Bynum: One quick question.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, let us make the motion, have a second, then have
discussion.
Mr. Rapozo: My motion will be that all new positions that are
approved will have a starting date, a funding date, to start October 1 except for the, should the
Outreach Coordinator be, which I am also going to make a motion to remove that, should that be
approved, that would remain at the September 30 day.
Chair Furfaro: Now, I need a second. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor,
it is open for discussion.
Mr. Bynum: Does that amendment include the Park Care Takers
going full time?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary becision-Making p16
Chair Furfaro: No, this is the only item we are talking about now is
the no later than October 1. Do you have any discussion? That impact is roughly, round numbers,
$97,686.00.
Ms. Nakamura: Excuse me.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, Councilmember Nakamura, you have the floor.
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to make that exception also for Planner
VI because that is already in play, sounds like they already hired or may be close to hiring. So I
would like to remove that...so we would like to amend the motion.
Chair Furfaro: Let me clarify, the number I just gave you, anything
that did not indicate it was from the beginning of the year, it had a date of October, September,
January, whatever. That is what we are amending.
Mr. Rapozo: You want me to restate my motion?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, please.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. My motion is to change all of that dates that
state January 1, 2013 as the funding date to October 1, 2013.
Mr. Rapozo moved to amend all the positions on the "New Positions Proposed by the Mayor"
handout with January 1, 2013 start dates, to start funding on October 1, 2013, seconded by
Mr. Chang.
The motion to amend January 1, 2013 hiring funding date to October 1, 2012 was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura TOTAL—6,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED AND NOT VOTING: None. TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to take a ten minute recess now Ernie.
There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 11:19 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:36 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from our recess and I wanted to make
note that we will have the worksheet up on the board with more particular details. I wanted to
make sure that we also understood when I calculated the $97,000.00 some dollars, there are also the
P.T.N.E. Sellers and Fringes for that extra time that needs to be added as social security benefits,
OPED, retirement contributions, and the health fund which we will calculate for another three
months, about $550.00 per employee. The P.T.N.E. will increase about 54.2% for that extra quarter.
The $96,000.00 was the raw payroll. As I said that, that piece will be presented later, that vote was
six to one. We are going to go now into other amendments to consider and it looks like we are going
to have several since every lined item seem to have some amendment coming up. I was not able to
get anything agreed on. So let us go and recognize any other amendments on the total piece and I
want to make reference again to all the members that the $97,000.00 that we talked is pure raw
payroll. We will be adding, at least, another 54.2% of that towards the P.T.N.E. Other items to be
considered for amendments today on these new positions? Mr. Bynum.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p17
Mr. Bynum: I would like to amend that the two Park Caretakers
part time positions be full time positions.
Mr. Kuali`i: Second.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Any discussion on that? Could you state that
motion again.
Mr. Bynum: I would like to amend the two Park Caretaker
positions from nineteen hours to full time positions.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion? Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Mr. Bynum for turning those positions
that are key into full time positions. I think speaking as we have had for many years with the Park
Caretakers, they need help. They work and they have got a lot of pride. We all identify the fact that
our parks are very important for the people and the public and our residents and visitors alike. And
I believe these positions are sorely needed and I think there is a lot of pride and it will institute a lot
of camaraderie because at least the park keepers that have expressed the fact that they need help
will understand that we are listening to them and they got some allies right around the corner to go
and help them out. I am very pleased to support that because I believe that our open space and our
public space and our parks do deserve the attention as far as cleanliness. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Can we get the exact dollar amounts that are going to
be added. Is it up there?
Chair Furfaro: $33,228.00.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Scott, could you please come up to the microphone.
You are required to do this by the Chair. For everybody, Mr. Sato could you introduce yourself.
SCOTT SATO, Legislative Assistant: Scott Sato, Legislative Assistant.
Chair Furfaro: And a wonderful addition to the Council staff.
Council Vice-Chair, would you pose your question.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, so I wanted to know the figure that we will be
inserting into the budget and I presume this is a start date for the amendment that just passed. It
would be October?
Mr. Sato: For a full year, it would be $33,228.00. So you would
do $33,228.00 divided by twelve to get your monthly and then times nine for the nine month period.
Then you would do the same calculation for the benefits but we will take care of that.
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Bynum: Excuse me.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p18
Chair Furfaro: So Scott, based on the calculations I gave earlier, we
will be adding about $17,900.00 to the benefit line. That is just in round numbers?
Mr. Sato: To the salary.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. P.T.N.E. Mr. Chang do you have any
questions?
Mr. Chang: Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Sato. Can you say what
the salary is again, please?
Mr. Sato: For a full year, it would be $33,228.00 which is the
salary of a Park Caretaker at a full year, so twelve months. We are doing based on what you guys
decided on nine month funding. I do not have the calculator here but we will figure it out.
Chair Furfaro: We will get the exact number * for Mr. Sato to come
up and give us the guidelines. So, further discussion on this piece? And we have a second to that
motion. So I am going to call for the question. (Before I vote, I want to make sure we understand, I
do not disagree with you about what they deserve, I want to make sure you understand. I am still
waiting for the Park's standards which have never come on my narrative. So my vote is no.)
The motion to amend the two Park Caretaker positions to full time status was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura TOTAL—6,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED AND NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I have a processed question real quick. I
have asked staff to prepare the written amendment and I am not sure if that was required or not
because if not, I am not going to ask them to do an amendment because it takes them time to
prepare it. If we are just going to do it on the floor, that is fine.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to do it on the floor for now. You are
going to get a summary on the screen and you are going to be held to your vote. Mr. Scott Sato will
find himself being frequently called to the stand to help on the financial overview and estimates. Are
there any more discussions here for the Administration and do we have to have the lights off now for
the new items? Thank you. We are still in the section dealing with the new positions. Any
additional amendments?
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment. Are you going in
any order or start from the top?
Chair Furfaro: I was trying to start at the top.
Mr. Rapozo: That is what I thought. Then my motion is to remove
Life's Choices Outreach Coordinator and again as I had stated earlier, the facility coordinator had
already been restored to Life's Choices Coordinator so my motion is to remove the Life's Choices
Outreach Coordinator.
Mr. Rapozo moved to amend the "New Positions Proposed by the Mayor" handout by
removing the Life's Choices Outreach Coordinator, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p19
Ms. Nakamura: I am going to recuse myself since it is affecting Boards
and Commissions.
Chair Furfaro: Again, I want to remind us, to remove an item, may
also require us having a significant majority vote. There is a motion. Did we have a second? Yes
we did. Now it is discussion.
Mr. Bynum: I am not clear what the rationale is for removing this
position. We had dialogue with Theresa a couple of times recently. They are still working on the
four areas which volunteers and Committees are still administering grant funds and working on
projects for (inaudible). She had has this support on and off with grants. We know that there is a
grant that goes in public fund and they should continue that support. Unless I hear a different
rationale, I would not support removing it.
Mr. Rapozo: I can explain my rationale. We had to Police Chief up
here. He had his wish list. We had the Fire Chief up here. He had his wish list. I wish we could
accommodate them all, I really do. But we are trying to put out a very efficient budget and I am only
going to support positions that I believe are absolutely necessary. For one thing, any facility
coordination should be done out of the Buildings Division. It should not be out of the anti-drug office
or Life's Choices. That is the function of the Buildings Division. They have their expertise and
contracts. They have the expertise in working with consultants. For the Life's Choices Coordinator,
her expertise is in finding anti-drug programs for the people of Kaua`i. That is what I think should
be done. This again, is a duplication of service which we simply cannot afford right now. That is my
rationale. I wish we could accommodate all the requests from all of the department heads, I really
do. But we simply cannot. As we look, those numbers are going to start rising. We have to find
money and I anticipate that rising even further. This is just one of the areas I believe is not
absolutely necessary at this time. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I have a different rationale. I think the office is doing
important work and could possibly need another position but I am very concerned about the clarity of
their mission and how this position would function. If I could get some real clear...part of the
disclarity is the fact that they were turning her position into a facility manager which throws the
whole sense of the mission off. I do not think it is the function of the County to run adolescent drug
treatment centers and first of all we do not even know if it is feasible, so there is a lot of question
there. Again, I have already said, is there role to coordinate and bring people together or is it to
provide services. If it is to provide services, that is a huge commitment and line that we have not
made before. We have often left Social Services primarily to State and non-profits community. I
think we need to figure that out so I am willing to reconsider if I could get some clarity about the
mission of that office and the fact that the hiring will be aligned with that mission.
Chair Furfaro: I do want to say to all of you that I have allowed this
department to have an agenda item coming up soon. I want to let you know, right now, the
challenge for us is the time. I know there is need for clarity on the vision and a better understanding
of the mission. But the motion on the table is to remove that position. Is there any further
discussion from anyone who has not spoken yet? Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add that I too feel
that unless the position is absolutely necessary. From what I have heard, if we are clarifying that,
and Ms. Koki said herself that she would be doing both, but that the facility function is less of a
critical function at this point. And she has been doing this other Outreach Coordinator function and
I see her continuing in that role and I do not see the need for this critical position at this time. I also
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p20
want to know more going forward about the continued efforts towards grants and partnerships and
all the different ways we can attract resources to still do the very important work that needs to be
done in this area. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: I will recognize Mr. Bynum a second time but as we go
into decision making, I want to make sure we do not have long conversations. We will run out of
time. Okay, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I understand all of these arguments and I have
already expressed my concerns about moving forward with that adolescent treatment thing I do not
think I will support any funding for that until we get that feasibility about staffing it. But I am also
familiar with this effort. The anti-drug effort. It has had its ups and downs. But it has a whole
bunch of volunteer people involved that when Roy Nishida was there then Theresa. There have been
contract facilitators and grants. But all of that effort still continues so I am going to support keeping
this position.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I would like to suggest that perhaps, and we have
done this before, we have put aside moneys we have not appropriated for the position but we have
put it aside in some fund as "pending various events." And we could put it at least pending the
discussion we have subsequent to our budget sessions so that we are at least able to engage in
further discussion with that office and also, they would be able to provide further documentation or
clarity about the mission and role. I think that is another alternative that I would like to hear some
thoughts about.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: JoAnn, that is a nice thing to do but if you are not
convinced at this point then we have to make our decision. Today is decision making. Like I said, I
love to set aside money because it is the same result. If we are going set aside money, you may as
well fund the position because you set aside money and we are not satisfied, that money becomes
eligible for use for something else. That is my concern. I am trying to tighten up the budget. I
really want to tighten up the budget and if it is not justified then we vote no. You and I both know,
we all know, that as the months go by, positions are not filled then it creates a surplus. So three
months from now, five months from now, they can come up to ask for a position to this body. We will
have the funds, we can find the funds. To put money aside and give them more time to come up, I
think that time was the budget process. And this is what this process is all about. Again, we all
want to accommodate the requests but this process now is decision making and it is yes or no. I
would not support setting aside money because I would ask you to do the same for the Police
Department. I would ask you to do the same for everybody else. So it is decision making and if you
comfortable you vote yes and if you are not you vote no. Where ever it falls, it falls.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the roll and I want to read
something before I call for the vote. It is in Section 19.07. "Upon the conclusion of the hearings of
the Council and the Council may reduce any items in the Mayor's proposed budget by a simple
majority vote which requires us to have four votes. For the group to in fact add any new items, there
too must have an affirming vote of two-thirds of the entire membership." So, I just want to call on a
g p J
vote for this. We only need four votes to remove this and the motion on the table would be a yes vote
to remove as the motion was made by Mr. Rapozo. I am going to call for the vote.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p21
The motion to remove the Life's Choices Coordinator Position was then put and carried by the
following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Rapozo,Yukimura TOTAL-4,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Furfaro TOTAL-2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Nakamura TOTAL-1.
Mr. Kuali`i: While Councilmember Nakamura is out of the room, I
think it is appropriate that I make my motion now to eliminate the lead, or remove the Commissions
Support Clerk from the Office of the Mayor Boards and Commissions. My basic justification is
again, the critical need and whether is it absolutely necessary. I know that part of this position was
to support that Outreach Coordinator and support Theresa Koki as well.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura, before we o too far, I just want
g just
clarify that the position that was just voted to remove was the Outreach Coordinator. I just want
to make sure we are all clear. Go ahead Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms Yukimura: Thank you. I believe these come from the Liquor
funds. Is that correct?
Mr. Rapozo: No, the position was transferred from Liquor.
Ms.Yukimura: I think this position is needed. I think the Boards and
Commissions people are doing a lot of work. And I do not recall the justification being just for the
office. Actually, even the drug office might need the support so I think I am going to vote for it.
Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Please gather Mr. Chang. We will have more dialogue
on this. I do not want a vote with only five members. Okay, go ahead Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I said yesterday that one of the things I have been
really happy with the County over the last couple of years is the Boards and Commissions. A lot of
the commissions in the past were either not functioning or were not taken that seriously and they
are now. They are being well-supported. I cannot remember all of the rationale in the bunch of
things that I read but they are getting additional duties in this year so I am supportive of keeping
this position.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. Rapozo: I am going to support the motion. I just really
scrutinized the changes and differences between the March 15 and the May 8. Those are the
positions that I really look at. March 15 submittal was positions that we absolutely need and May 8,
we found some extra revenue. The proposal is to raise some taxes to generate more revenue. We
have got the additional funds. These are the kinds of positions, and I do not want to be blunt, right
now as we move back towards the Office of the County Clerk, I will not be supporting one of those as
well because I think we also need to lead by example. Again, I am looking for positions that are
essential. I would agree that at this time that the office does function well. The additional staff, in
my opinion, is not essential. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p22
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would say the same
about that March submittal to the May submittal but I also want to just remind everyone that in the
budget itself for Boards and Commissions, we have a Boards and Commissions Administrator at
$96,000.00. We have a Mayor's Administrative Aid at $67,000.00. We have an Administrative
Specialist at $48,000.00. We have two Commission Support Clerks already at $46,000.00 and
$44,000.00. So all that has changed is the formally current Drug Facility Coordinator position, now
Life's Choices Coordinator position, has come into the Boards and Commissions area. If I remember,
part of the justification was that they would then get some support from those existing Commission
Support Clerks and that existing Administrative Specialist and that existing Mayor's Administrative
Aide. Yes, Boards and Commissions have a lot of work but they have a pretty good support staff in
place already. We tried comparing that to the Office of Economic Development that we just talked
about. In fact there, potentially their work is numerous with all those different specialists. You just
have the director, a secretary, and then all those specialists. So the new position, which I think the
way Councilmember Nakamura explained that SR-22 supports the other positions. I do not think
this is absolutely necessary and critical considering what is already in place, despite the fact that
they might have a lot of work to do. Our staff has a lot of work to do and they grind it out. They are
very productive and very efficient. I am so happy and proud of them but we need that throughout
the County too. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to get to a point where we can vote on
this. I would like to get the motion restated.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to remove the newly proposed position of the Office of the Mayor Boards
and Commissions for Commissions Support Clerk, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: The second was made. There was a restatement of
the motion and let me do it again. If you are going to break-off into sub-discussions here. Tell me. I
will call a recess. I need attentiveness at the table especially when your colleagues are speaking.
Mr. Rapozo: I apologize, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: It was not only you. Let us make sure we understand.
The motion has been restated to remove the proposed position for Commissions Support Clerk for
Commissions. The motion was made by Mr. Kuali`i and seconded by Mr. Rapozo. And now I want a
roll call vote.
The motion to remove the Commissions Support Clerk position was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL-2,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. That position stays in as submitted by the
Mayor's budget. Let us go to any other amendments. We are getting close here folks.
Mr. Kuali`i: Chair, I have another motion.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I will recognize you. Let us get
Councilmember Nakamura back into the hall. Ernie, you have a May Day Program to go to? I think
fC4* -11k NO* A -._.. . ry^._ u w. _ ._ ° .X5 4. C \. 444
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p23
Mr. Rezentes could be a qualified fill-in for you. We do not want you to miss your son's May Day
Program so please, let us know when you have to leave.
Mr. Barreira: Thank you, Sir. That would probably be around 5:30
p.m. I appreciate that.
Chair Furfaro: It is 5:30 p.m.? Okay.
Mr. Barreira: I need to be at Kekaha at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we will tell Mr. Rezentes to bring dinner the
way we are going. Okay. I am going go ahead and let you propose your commentary. We will
restate it when Councilmember Nakamura gets in. Go ahead.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to remove the Office of the County Clerk, Legislative Assistant new
position, exempt, $52,000.00, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Members, we are all very familiar with this. I do not
think we need to have much dialogue, but I would like to call for a vote on the removal of the
Legislative Analyst for our office as the motion was made. Any dialogue before I call for the vote?
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: As I just stated in the earlier discussion that this is
tough to do. It is. I feel for our staff but again, I am hoping—I do not know where we are at now, as
far as numbers. But as we get through this budget, hopefully we can through it without having to
raise taxes. That is a concern. I apply the same standard to our office as I do to all of the rest. At
this time, as much as I would like to help out or staff, we have to sacrifice as much as the others. For
that reason I will be supporting the motion.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I will not belabor this but we did a Human Resource
Subcommittee at the beginning of this term that clearly demonstrated that we are, in my opinion,
vastly understaffed. Especially with this wonderful Council who are activists members. Our staff
just puts it out. I was going to make a motion to add a staff person or to modify this one. But to
reject, no way for me.
Chair Furfaro: I just went to check on a statistic. Sorry for stepping
away. In the time since we have been a body here, I just want to remind you that we did 3,217 of
legislative activities. I wanted to throw that out there, prospectively. Vice-Chair Yukimura, you
have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I have a strong feeling that we need this position
but I wish we had some internal staff dialogue beforehand. We had such a good experience in the
hiring of our Clerk in terms of the dialogue we had about internal operations. I think we are due for
that. We should set it up so that it is periodic because there are all kinds of things to talk about.
That is my concern. And one of my concerns is how we are going to hire. But I am assuming we will
do external recruitment and we will do it like we did the Clerk's position.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p24
Chair Furfaro: I hope I established the high standard that got us the
number of qualified people that we have now. I did not hear from anybody who had disputes about
the Committees that I set up to do those interviews, but we do them by Committee.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. The fact that we have not had an internal
discussion is showing because I do not know.
Chair Furfaro: Well, I am sorry. I can show you the whole report,
Vice-Chair. I am very sensitive to where this discussion is going because as you have talked about in
H.R. Committee, I set it up as Chair. When we talked about our Rules Committee, I set it up as
Chair. When I refer to a number about how we handle the pieces, we handle it with the staff. When
we interview people, we have a Committee that does the interviews. I try to keep Councilmembers
out of it for all intents and purposes to take the politics out of the hiring.
Ms.Yukimura: That is fine, Chair. Excuse my ignorance. Do we do
open recruiting such that we advertise?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. That is one of my concerns.
Chair Furfaro: In fact, we go State wide on some of the
advertisements.
Ms.Yukimura: That is excellent. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to state that it
was difficult to bring this forward but I am looking at the big picture and I feel like—in thinking
about the future, I would rather not start a new position this year and be having to relook at it and
potentially eliminate it next year or the year after. I think we need be an example for the rest of the
County as far as tightening our belt. Our staff has been incredible, and if not for the recent
additions, we have had before my time and maybe just after I started, some vacancies and that
clearly made an even stronger burden on our staff. But now that all of our vacancies are full, I think
that of the two positions that we are looking at, that the Records Management position is an
absolute critical need. For me, at least, I do not see the same as an absolute critical need—it is a
need, but for me, not an absolute critical need for the Legislative Assistant. I may be wrong. I do
not see the whole picture. There are seven of us and we all have different work requests. Maybe we
are satisfied, maybe we are not. Maybe we would come up with more work if we had more help. The
Y Y p p
majority will decide ultimately but for me, it is the responsible thing to do. Again, it might have
been even harder to make if we did not have the incredible staff that we have and knowing that they
are competent and productive. The new people especially came in and just hit the ground running.
For me, they have been just as effective and productive than the people who have been here longer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. On that note, I would like to
call for the vote if there is no more dialogue. For the motion on the table, is there more dialogue?
Ms. Nakamura: I want to something. I am sorry.
$ Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p25
Ms. Nakamura: Chair, I guess this is question for you because I think
you see the big picture of our operations. I wanted to find out; do you see this person being a
generalist in the office or a specialist?
Chair Furfaro: For the Legislative Analysts that we have, some have
specialized areas. I think where we are going forward, we have people who have to chair sometimes,
or get assignments associated with two of the standing committees that we have. This position
would help out alleviate identifying an allocation of those committees. Remember, we do not allocate
our committees by Councilmembers. We allocate those committee chairs vote amongst ourselves.
Y g
The Clerk assigns which Committee will be led by which Legislative Analyst. We are short one. In
my opinion, we have some very aggressive Councilmembers that want to get their work to get some
priority done. I will tell you right now, if you look at the group at the table here, I am the one that
has been able to introduce the lease pieces of legislation because I know of the workload that is going
on. I hope that answers your question. The will make the report available to you folks. Jade, did
you hear for my request on our summary report? I am going to call for a vote now.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair,just a question.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair—
Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote.
Ms.Yukimura: I want to know for the title position, is it an analyst?
Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. But it says assistant, so it is different actually.
Mr. Rapozo: That is what they are called.
Ms.Yukimura: Is that an analyst?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Which is the same thing?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. I just wanted to know what we were voting
for.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to call for the vote, please.
The motion to remove the Legislative Assistant was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL-2,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p26
Chair Furfaro: Okay. We are going to our next amendment. My.
Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I would like some dialogue with the Councilmembers
regarding the Office of the County Clerk. Under The Charter, one of our primary responsibilities is
Fiscal which we have been exercising for weeks now. I hope it is clear to everyone that there are
some fundamental problems about getting proper data and analyzing it order to do our work. It is a
pretty sophisticated thing particularly around property taxes, but also all budget matters. I really
would like us to have a Financial Analyst on staff. I want it to be someone who has a level of
expertise similar to an accountant. You do not have to be an accountant but somebody that has a
clear finance background. So I would like to entertain a discussion at least about either adding that
position. It is kind of at a higher level than these Legislative Analysts because we need that specific
expertise. It would also be technical expertise. So I would like to know if people are open to adding
a position for a Financial Analyst. That would be my preference. Or, perhaps taking this position
we just kept and reprogramming that as a Financial Analyst at a higher salary range. My
preference would be for an addition position for Financial Analyst. If that does not happen, I would
come back with a second proposal to take that position we just did and put it at as more of a
Financial Analyst. This is at$52,000.00. I would think it would be more of an$80,000.00 range.
Chair Furfaro: I want everybody to hold th at discussion thought for a
minute. The agenda that I passed out was to review the positions that are proposed in the budget.
Later, we will go through departments and that would be to add stuff that does not appear. So, if we
could hold on to what I am saying here. I want to review the pieces that came in the budget as new
positions, but when we go to the Clerk's office, if you want to make a proposal, we will entertain you.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Mr. Kuali`i: Chair, I think process wise, all that is left is the Office
of Economic Development. We are waiting to hear about Councilmember Nakamura's question
regarding the Economic Technician.
Chair Furfaro: I think they are prepared to answer us now.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: I think that is that last piece we have got at this
point. Ernie, were you able to get some information for the group?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Sir. I was able to speak to O.E.D. Director,
George Costa. He did articulate very clearly that his intent was for a technician as opposed to a
specialist. We also conferred that the dollar values are correct in terms of the budget. It is the
description, the text, that is incorrect. What the O.E.D.'s intent was a technician as opposed to a
specialist.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Can you please clarify for me, as a technician, what is
the starting pay with that?
Chair Furfaro: Can I piggy back on your question? I want to make
sure we understand is we have a variance title but what we have in the budget is the 55 or is the 45?
Mr. Barreira: It is $55,500.00.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p27
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: Can you please clarify. I am looking at the position
descriptions that were sent to us. The present pay range is SR-22. Are you showing SR-22 in here?
I am seeing SR-24. But that is the discrepancy that I wanted to clarify.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, can you come up?
WALLACE REZENTES, Director of Finance: I believe the March submittal
had it at the correct level.
Ms. Nakamura: SR-22?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, as a technician.
Ms. Nakamura: The SR-22 begins at when you are hiring a new
position at SR-22, what is the beginning pay?
Mr. Rezentes: I do not have that available. I can call Personnel and
find out.
Ms. Nakamura: We have had discussions yesterday about Human
Resources. We were notified and told regarding the ? Coordinator position that because it is a new
position, the pay range has to start at the lowest level.
Mr. Rezentes: I believe that this position is non-civil service so you
can hire in the range. I think the position they were talking about yesterday reference a civil-service
position, not an exempt position.
Ms. Nakamura: My understanding is that there is one civil- service
position in the Office of Economic Development.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Ms. Nakamura: That is the ag. specialist. All others are exempt.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Ms. Nakamura: I think the technician position is good to have. The
reason why is because if all the other positions are exempt, that means they are at the will of
whoever is in office. I think continuity is really important in this position because you are going to
be serving all of the specialists in that department as well as the director. All those positions could
move because they are exempt. It may not have historically but there is that potential for
movement. My thinking is that it should be a civil-service position. That would be a source of some
continuity within that department. I am wondering if we wanted to consider that option, is this the
time to do that while we are having this discussion?
Mr. Rezentes: That is the Council's prerogative of how they want to
place it in the budget.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p28
Ms. Nakamura: So, if we were to keep it at...so you are saying now,
that you want it to read Economic Development Technician? If it is civil-service, what would be the
pay?
Mr. Barreira: Councilmember, we can check on that, on the starting
pay. But one thing that I can inform you on is that by virtue of what Ms. Rapozo was talking about
yesterday in our H.R. discussions, that would have to start in the A level so the salary—they made
no discretion other than a special request to recruit at a higher minimum. Mr. Rezentes will be
checking on that number for you.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion on this matter? Further questions for
Ernie? Mr. Chang, you have the floor.
Mr. Chang: I do not think I have any questions.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair, are we moving on while we are waiting?
Chair Furfaro: I am asking Economic Development questions.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: We are still on Economic Development?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. If there is any more questions on Economic
Development while we are waiting for the answer because I will ask a question. As I stated earlier,
does this department not have whether we are worried about civil-service or why do they not have a
deputy? With all of the concerns that we have about the economy today, rather than looking at this
position here as such, as a technician. I think it was yesterday, on channel 4, they were doing this
County presentation for May Day and everything. Mr. Kawakami presented for the island of
Kaua`i—he brought this spread out of products from Kauai. There were food products, beverage
products, sun tan lotion, and skin lotion. It was pretty impressive. A lot of the Kauai products that
were on the presentation really sent a message about the entrepreneurial ship that we have on
Kauai. Of course, we had the famous Kaua`i Cookies. They had the manju from Lawa`i and the
black bean sauce that was bottled. There were some great things. Some of the work we are doing
right now in the CEDS? Program is focused on some of these initiatives to establish diversification
for our economy and so forth. Was there any discussion about why that department does not deserve
a deputy versus a technician?
Mr. Barreira: I am not aware of any discussion or any reasons why
or why not the deputy does not exist. Perhaps Director Rezentes can comment.
Chair Furfaro: any Y Wally, was there ever discussion about this
department why it would not have a director assistant. I mean, deputy director?
Mr. Rezentes: The only thing I can say, when there was a discussion
with the director about his needs, he had indicated that primarily his most important needs is in the
technician level type of position, due to his research of the type of duties and responsibilities at that
level. Relative to a deputy, that discussion really did not take place with us. But when asked about
the priority needs of the department, the most pressing need was at the technician level and that
was the reason for his request at that level.
Chair Furfaro: Just in the last day, we have had discussions about
keeping the pulse on the star report and how our competitive profile with the other islands—the fact
it
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p29
that we have CEDS programs that are initiating a program for a slaughterhouse for the Cattlemen
Association and the pork farmers. We seem to have been turning the corner on our economic
development. We are trying to kick off a lot of these programs and in my opinion, not give it the
same attention that it is deserved in other departments. If you are telling me this Technical
Assistant was signed off by the Director, then I can go with that. I just wanted to raise questions.
Small business support is important. Yes, we have a Chamber of Commerce, but we have got a lot of
entrepreneurial ship going on. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I am a bit lost and I think we are looking for some
answers but while we are talking about Economic Development, I actually worked at that
department at one time. It is sort of like topic oriented; film, tourism, and energy. This position is
intended to be support for all those folks or is it for a new program for Kaua`i Made or Kauai Grown,
a new topic? I am confused.
Chair Furfaro: Let me summarize. When I was a young man, we had
hotel and sugar. That is what we had. Now, we have Farmer's Markets, Kaua`i Products, and a
booming film industry which Kawakami delivered a very good message on the State program. We
have this need for diversification. We want to expand cattle. Whether we are slaughtering and
cryovac packing, we have one guy. He is George. Yes, he is an Ag. Specialist. But we are also in the
middle of doing an important Ag. land study. We have an energy guy, but we are trying to find out
how much of the land we are going to share for food production versus energy production. We have
expanded to an energy team. It is all coming under Economic Development. If all of a sudden if we
were to diversify our economy, did we give thought about getting someone who is able to wear
multiple hats and expedite conclusions versus a technician. That is all I wanted to say.
Mr. Rezentes: The only thing I can say is that I know you folks had
your opportunity and I am sure I should say the other way. George has had his opportunity to
explain in his budget session what his needs were and I believe what he had articulated were those
needs and priorities with you. I can understand, Chair, where you are coming from. All I can say is
without George being here, he is requesting that level of a position.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. You answered my question. If that is what he
requested at that level, then that is what it is. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I share the Chair's concerns. I do not know what the
solution is but we had testimony at public hearing. Somebody brought up a 40 year old plan for
Kapa'a Town. That has not been implemented in 40 years. In my experience around the Country,
this office would be doing downtown redevelopment, accessing tax incremental financing, and using
mechanisms that are available. I have talked to George about that. He has got a huge learning
curve because we do not have that kind of focus in this department now and I think at the detriment
of these processes. George has not been here in a couple of years but we had this dialogue but he is
overwhelmed with all these projects. But, the Council has also put in CEDS and things about
diversifying the economy and not being targeted just at those pieces. I feel for Hanapepe, Waimea,
and Kapa`a. We are not using these mechanisms that are available to us and available all over the
Country. Eventually that leadership has to come not only from the County, but from that
department and they do not have that person. I think that is consistent to what the Chair is saying.
Chair Furfaro: That is very consistent. We have a changing
community.
Mr. Bynum: We do target an investment there for economic
development. That eventually means more tax revenues for us. I do not know if we are supposed to
do this during Decision Making but I share all of those concerns. I want to be clear with where we
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p30
are going with this. Technician head at civil-service makes sense in terms of support but what the
Chair is saying about taking that department to at least develop some of the things I am talking
about is the frustration I have had for five years. Why are we not using these finance mechanisms?
Why are we not doing a big picture redevelopment for our downtown areas?
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure we do not start leading into this.
I am saying we are adding one position. Are we adding it at the right level? This is about decision
making. We had the chance to hear this from George. I am just asking one more time, is this the
right position you want because we are making decisions today. I heard from the Administration,
that is what you gave us and that is the discussion from Economic Development. We are not here to
reconstrue what he presented to us but it is also a way for us to say, "Hey with this additional
person, is it an opportunity for us to say is that what we really want? We got a lot that is cooking
over there. Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I think this has been a very stimulating discussion
and it is reflective of the changing role of the Office of Economic Development. I am thinking with
what has been requested here. In the period before the next budget, that the Office of Economic
Development be encouraged to engage in a discussion about their new and expanding role and what
kind of personnel and other infrastructure it is going to take to fully meet those new needs and
challenges. I think at that point it will be interesting to look at the other offices across the State. I
think the Big Island has a very interesting office. It would be good to do that research; engage in
discussion with the business community, farming community, and policy makers like us. Perhaps in
the next budget, Mr. Costa could come back with some ideas. I think I want to convey the real
appreciation that we have for the job he has taken on. A transition from a small office to a bigger
role is a lot to do. He has been conscientious and dynamic in his leadership.
Chair Furfaro: I do not want to have too much more n
co versation on
this but I believe what you said was very appropriate. He certainly needs the criteria from somebody
who is leading our economic development being that he has a great visitor industry background. At
the same time, he lives aloha. Mr. Kuali`i, Councilmember Nakamura, then Mr. Chang.
Mr. Kuali`i: Just very briefly, Mr. Chair. This all started with
having clarity whether it was SR-24 or SR-22 for Councilmember Nakamura's question. I do not
know if we had the motion yet, but I support SR-22 Economic Development Technician and I also
support it being civil-service. In addition to the Ag. Specialist, we should start committing long time
commitments to this department and to the work that it does. If the Director stated he wants a
technician to support all the specialists, as well as himself, let us give him that and let us put it in
SR-22 and civil-service. I am ready to second Councilmember's Nakamura's motion if that is what it
is.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. But our question is still not answered by the
Finance Director. If we go with civil-service, is this going to be a lower tier start.
Mr. Kuali`i: It would be lower.
Mr. Barreira: It definitely will be lower, Chair. I am trying to get a
definitive number. I am looking at a number of$43,296.00 but I am not familiar with this effective
date scale because I do not believe the scale has changed since 2009.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I am going to go to Councilmember Nakamura,
Member Chang, then Councilwoman Yukimura.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p31
Ms. Nakamura: I would support that motion that was implied by
Councilmember Kuali`i. I think the discussion that the Chair and Councilwoman Yukimura brought
up about the expanding of roles in this department is important to keep in mind as we move forward.
I like the steps that you outlined on how we should address it. I think this Council made an
important statement last year by outsourcing a big chunk of work to promote the industry faster. By
outsourcing work to K.E.B. and ? Internation Alliance to carry on some of the work recognizing the
expanding role of this department. We are continuing, in hopefully this budget, to carry that out.
We have given this department additional resources. I think you need to think long-term and this
would be a good short-term measure for a civil service, SR-22 position. I would also keep it open that
if the need should change over the next year, I would be open to increasing it to a specialist position
if that can be documented if we are clear about what that extended responsibility translates into. I
am very much open to that.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chairman. I want to speak on behalf of
being the Chair of Economic Development and I believe that I understand how that office works. I
believe that office needs tremendous help. I think George Costa being a hotelier most of his life,
learned what it was like working at a hotel morning, noon, and night. I think as a director, he is
finding out in his position that he is working way more hours than he does as a hotelier. I clearly
will say that I know for a fact that he needs help. There are so many moving parts in that situation
that we have modified specialists there that need support. I do not believe this title calling a
technician is really a technician. I think this is a very high level and high skilled position that is
helping and supporting every single facet of Economic Development. If Economic Development is a
driving force—we got small business, tourism, and agriculture. I am not one to go out there and
throw away some money but if you want the right people in the right positions, we have to be able to
support them and support them financially. Whoever is in that position, George definitely needs
help. As the Chair said, this is one situation in the County that we do not have a deputy. I can just
say for you—I am not speaking on behalf of George, but he works (inaudible) unbelievable. If you
look back at any email that you see, that you get at 2:54 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. or whatever the time is—
he is at every meeting. He is all over the island because that is what you need to be. You need to be
from the north shore to the west side. You need to be everywhere, all the time. When you are living
aloha, it is not via email or it is not via texting; it is being face to face. I think that this department,
speaking on behalf of being the Chair of Economic Development, needs help. I am going to support
the funding and I agree with everyone that I think that as we go along to see where we are at to
create a position or positions. You are talking about specialists in this changing world. It is amazing
what happens in the Economic Development office. Everything that pertains to life and business
and the well-being of Kaua`i is going through the Economic Development office. It is really fast-
moving, Kaua`i Made, Kauai Grown, Agriculture, Tourism and Film Industry. He definitely needs
help and I think this position needs to be supported. I am going to support this position because I
need to tell you what is going on in the office. I do know what is going on in the island and I think
we need help. I will ask my members to support this position. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: But I want to make sure you clarify yourself. You
support it as the proposed amendment, as the civil-service position; or as presented in the budget,
non-civil service at $55,000.00. That is where I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding of what
we are doing here. Councilmember Nakamura suggested it become civil-service. It was seconded
by—was it opposite?
Ms. Nakamura: That was Mr. Kuali`i.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p32
Mr. Kuali`i: The correction was technician, not specialist. And SR-
22. They helped us with that also.
Chair Furfaro: Right. What I want to say for my 38 years in
business, actively, the reality is that position deserves the recognition at $55,000.00 as a noncivil-
service position because this person has got to be out beating the bush, talking to business, on a
plane, going here, and being at the flower show. All of those pieces. And I was only asking the
question, maybe that title should be deputy. Now, we need to keep moving here. Vice-Chair
Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: My understanding is, we can designate it civil-service
but because this office is under the Office of the Mayor, it really is the manager's choice whether they
make it civil-service or exempt. Whether it is civil-service or otherwise, I supported at the
$55,000.00 because I am not comfortable changing it unless I talk to George, personally. I really
respect his leadership and trust his judgment so I am just going to go with this unless he gives us a
signal that it is something else that he wants. As I understand it, it is a choice he makes as a
manager.
Chair Furfaro: We have had that discussion earlier. There is a
motion and a second on the table to change it to a civil-service position. But the discussion was also,
and I will recognize Mr. Bynum in a minute, is what was presented in the budget was the $55,000.00
Economic Development and it was proposed as non-civil service position. That decision is in the
hands of the director. Mr. Bynum, then Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Bynum: What is in here is what George requested?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Mr. Kuali`i: I would just say that when Councilmember
Nakamura articulated that this position--and this is how I understand it as well, is being added to
support all the specialists; the one in Agriculture, Tourism, Energy, Work Force, and the Film
Coordinator. Of those five positions that are being supported by this support technician, not
specialist, two of those positions is at the exact same salary level. So to bring in, and if you just look
at the budget, it is very clear. I am looking at numbers. I am not looking at personalities. I am
definitely not looking at some big high position that should be supporting George directly as a
deputy, I am looking at a position that is being added to support the work of the department to
support those five existing specialists, including the Film Coordinator and Work Force Investment
positions that are at $55,500.00. To me, the support position is critical. To make it at SR-22, that
SR-22 should be at the civil-service level, which starts lower than $55,000.00. That is all. It is
logical. I do not know if they missed it or if they have somebody special in mind with special skills
and they need a higher salary to attract them. The top of the range is $55,000.00, for SR-22 and the
bottom of the range for SR-24. Why is SR-24 at the same rate and the Film Coordinator SR-22 at the
same rate? I would imagine the Film Coordinator has probably been there for a few years. I do not
understand why it is the same salary. It should be a lower salary.
Chair Furfaro: Let me go through procedure wise here so we all
understand. We are voting on my agenda piece which shows up. First I need a motion if you desire
to add the position. Then it can be followed by what you want to amend what was submitted. Then
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p33
on the voting, if we decide to remove it, it is four votes to remove. If you want to amend what the
Mayor submitted, it is five votes. Those are the rules.
Mr. Kuali`i: But can you correct what the Mayor submitted?
Because what is on this paper is not what the Mayor submitted. Correct? It is Economic
Development Technician, specialist and it is SR-22 not SR-24. The $55,500.00 is correct. That is
what the Mayor submitted. But the position is Economic Development Technician, not Specialist
and SR-22 not SR-24. Now, when you look at those corrections, look back in the budget at the other
Economic Development Specialist, not Technician.
Chair Furfaro: Your point is well taken. First of all, I want to make
sure this is what Mr. Costa presented to us. Ernie, can you verify that was submitted in this roster
was the $55,000.00.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, it was reflected in our worksheets, our Excel
spread worksheets, which we have been working with the department. The $55,500.00 is reflected.
Chair Furfaro: What title was reflected?
Mr. Barreira: Economic Development Technician.
Chair Furfaro: The first part of what I have summarized with you
folks is we will need a motion and a second to take that. Then if there is an amendment to that, we
need a motion and a second to amend that. If we vote the position out, I want to remind you that we
can vote it out with four votes.
Mr. Chang: I might make a motion to approve the $55,500.00,
Chair Furfaro: Not stick with the request. Make it very clear.
Mr. Chang: $55,500.00—
Chair Furfaro: As a—Technician.
Mr. Chang: Correct. As what was requested by George Costa.
Chair Furfaro: Do I have second?
Mr. Kuali`i: Second.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Now, are there any amendments to that?
Mr. Kuali`i: I will make a motion to amend to leave it as Economic
Development Technician, to leave it at SR-22, but to make it civil-service to commit to long-term and
to have the salary be lower at the starting range of civil-service.
Chair Furfaro: Do I have second to the amendment?
Ms. Nakamura: Second.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Now, I just want to make sure before I have
any further discussion, we have heard that maybe this civil-service discussion is made by the
division head and not by the Council. I want to throw that out. Vice-Chair Yukimura.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p34
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to point out that if it is civil service then it
will be qualified for overtime. The Chair's point about how this job does not have real boundaries is
something to consider.
Chair Furfaro: Any further dialogue? I need to get Mr. Bynum in for
a vote. We are going to take a three minute break until we get Mr. Bynum in.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 12:48 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 12:52 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from recess. I want to summarize for all
of our benefits. Mr. Bynum had to step out for a minute. We have an item for a new position in the
Office of Economic Development. It takes four votes to add that position or it would take us four
votes to remove that position. The position is being amended on the motion to put it as a civil-service
position which would require to amend or add, in this case. That amendment is an addition because
it is a classification would take five votes. We have those motions on the table but Mr. Kuali`i would
like to have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
Ms. Nakamura: I withdraw my second.
Mr. Kuali`i: Now I would like to make a new amendment. My new
amendment would be to approve the position as Economic Development Technician at the level of
SS-22, not civil service, but with the salary of$48,500.00.
Chair Furfaro: With that, I want to make sure because we are
amending something in budget, will require a five-member vote. So, do I have a second for that
amendment?
Mr. Kuali`i moved to amend the position as Economic Development Technician at the level of SR-22,
not civil service, but with the salary of$48,500.00, seconded by Ms. Nakamura.
Mr. Kuali`i: I would just say, Chair, that civil-service rate at
starting was approximately $43,296.00.
Chair Furfaro: Now, I am going to call for the vote on the amendment
first. I am going to do it as a roll call vote.
The motion to amend the position as Economic Development Technician at the level of SR-22, not
civil service, but with the salary of$48,500.00, was then put and failed by the following vote:
FOR AMMENDMENT: Bynum, Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL-3,
AGAINST AMMENDMENT: Chang, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: The amendment fails. Now we are at the main
motion. Please do a roll call.As the budget was submitted by the Mayor.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p35
The motion to approval the main motion as submitted by the Mayor was then put and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-4,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL-2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
RECUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: So, we have four to two, keeping it in as submitted b
P g by
the Mayor. Let us go on to any other items here that is on the sheet. Any other amendments?
Ms.Yukimura: Like we did a motion to add the position as proposed
by the Mayor, are we assuming that if we have no amendments these are automatic, or are we going
to vote one by one on each?
Chair Furfaro: I would say that it would be the choice of the body.
Since the items that are here, we can vote on the amended submittals. But if you want to go item by
item, I do not have a problem. If I go back to the Council analysts, we voted to approve it so why
would we go back to vote it again. I think we vote on everything as amended.
Ms.Yukimura: I see. Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Are there any more items on here which we would like
to have discussions on?
Ms.Yukimura: So, we are also including the last three on the back
page.
Chair Furfaro: Yes. This is the whole thing.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I want to amend by removing the Law Office
Assistant Position in the Office of Prosecuting Attorney.
Chair Furfaro: Is there a second?
Mr. Bynum: Second. For discussion purposes.
Chair Furfaro: Members, there is a motion and a second to remove
the Law Office Assistant in the Prosecutin g Bynum.
Attorney's Office. Mr. B Y Y
Mr. Bynum: This is painful because in this department, we were
not allowed to have a complete dialogue during budget deliberation. Some of the questions we asked
in writing were not responded to. I want to make sure that we have an appropriately and
adequately funded Office of the Prosecuting Attorney but I do not have a complete set of the
information in order to make an informed decision. I am seeking information from other sources
because I cannot get it directly from the Prosecutor. That is going to take some time. Hopefully I
will get more information from other County empathies today. I did not have enough information to
make an informed decision so I have turned all of this dialogue into a question. If we remove this
position now, and if I can receive more information on Monday or Tuesday, can we revisit it?
Chair Furfaro: I do not plan to do that.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p36
Mr. Bynum: In good conscious, without having complete
information, I cannot support something I do not fully understand.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anyone else? Vice-Chair?
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to reiterate what Councilmember Bynum
has said. We have been put in a really untenable position by the refusal of the Prosecuting Attorney
to give us information. The public has been put in a bad position too because they have not been
entitled to hear and see the dialogue about it like how they have on all the other departments in the
County. I do not feel confident in voting for this position without full discussion dialogue ability to
question and discuss the entire budget of the Prosecuting Attorney.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we do not have enough
information then we do not support a change. The Mayor put this forward as his proposal. It took a
lot of discussion and a lot of information and back and forth with the Mayor with representatives
here to change something. We have tried some changes that we were unable to make. If we are not
comfortable because we do not have enough information, we definitely should not be removing
something or changing something that we, even as a Council, looks like approved in other Council
and fiscal year 2012. I am a little confused about that. You said something earlier about, "Maybe it
should not be on this list because we put things on that was already prior approved and we just
wanted to make sure you can approve it again." I do not understand.
Chair Furfaro: Folks, I have a different approach to this why I will
not be supporting it. I want to make sure you all are very clear. Last year, I voted for an additional
$140,000.00 that went to the Prosecutor's Office for some of the staffing issues. I am rounding that
off in my head but I take a quicker look at financial statements because it is the nature of my
business background. At the trans we are at now, there is going to be a sizable untapped budget
amount in the Prosecutor's Office again this year. For that reason, the Prosecutor's Office has the
ability to move and shift money within the budget. Am I correct, Wally? So I do not think she would
be prevented from doing that going forward. But I do not think to support that additional funded
position. It makes sense when I know the department is going to end with a rather large payroll
surplus. I will not be supporting this position. That is my rationale for you folks. Any discussion?
Yes, Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: So that rationale clearly could be used for all
departments as far as the laps that the Administration talked about reducing by 25%.
Councilmember Bynum and I and others expressing that we should be tightening even more on that
laps and that surplus. Clearly, I think (inaudible) and the prosecutor before us had brought that to
our attention that especially in the lower positions like Law Office Assistant; she does have needs to
have support. She has been addressing some of that need with the dollar funded positions and even
with the 89 day positions. We recognize that it is critical work being done by the Prosecutor with
Public Safety. We support that and to now remove a Law Office Assistant $35,000.00 position
because we can argue, "Do not worry because she will be able to take care of it anyway." She
requested it. The Mayor approved it. The Mayor included it in these positions. I do not know what
the motivation would be at this time to single out this position based on not having enough
information or not being able to make decisions. I thought that it was part of her presentation about
the support that comes from the low level. Yes, maybe she would be able to do it with 89 day
positions and maybe she would be able to do it with dollar funded positions. But, we did not apply
the same principles across the County and maybe we should. We could tighten the surplus and the
laps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p37
Chair Furfaro: Here is the difference, Mr. Kuali`i, that I need
everybody to hear. Not all those other departments came and asked for more money. That is where
I am coming from. It was more money given. That is my rationale.
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, we just gave ourselves two positions.
Chair Furfaro: Understood, with the appropriate rationale but we did
not ask for money in the year for the year. Anyway, I am ready to call for the vote on this. Let us do
a roll call vote.
Mr. Kuali`i: Can you repeat the motion, please.
Chair Furfaro: The motion was to remove the position. It was
seconded by Mr. Bynum. Then I gave my rationale.
FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-4,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL-2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
RECUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: We have an opportunity to entertain any more
amendments to the salary piece. If not, I am going to call for a vote to except it as we have gone
through all of the amendments. Any further discussion? Does everybody understand that we are
voting on the amendments and/or changes that we have done overall?
Ms. Nakamura: Mr. Chair, can I just make one technical amendment.
Chair Furfaro: I think so. This is the time.
Ms. Nakamura: My amendment would be on the position description
on the specialist position. Because the budget that was submitted reflects Specialists—
Mr. Kuali`i: We voted on Technicians.
Ms. Nakamura: Did we? Okay. I just wanted to double check. Thank
you.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? Now folks, I want to stay
here before we break for lunch because if we clean up the entire payroll, dollar funded pieces, and
the new positions; the reality is that early next week and things are going to go a lot smoother. We
have a motion and a second to approve the new positions as amended or removed from the Mayor's
budget. Because there is a removal, I need to make sure I have five votes. May I have a roll call vote
on the whole piece as amended?
The motion to approve the new positions as amended or removed from the Mayor's budget was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None. TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p38
Chair Furfaro: Wally, those changes has been done. Before we go too
far, we do not go anywhere because in 25 minutes we have to break for lunch and I want to go to the
page that we are dealing in Payroll on the dollar funded positions. Before I go into the dollar funded
positions, I want to get some advice from the Deputy County Clerk. I also want to share with you
folks that on the dollar-funded positions we have in the Budget Ordinance, provisos that say the
following, "Appropriations or authorizations for positions in this Ordinance shall constitute the
establishment of such positions. Departments having significant funds may hire dollar-funded
positions, provided the Council is informed of hiring or such positions. The Mayor shall inform the
Council on the monthly basis of any actions taken for dollar funded relocations, reclassifications, or
abolishments of any positions." What that (inaudible?) says is he needs to tell us. He does not need
to get approved. That is what the (inaudible) says. I want to make sure we all understand that.
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: I did want to say something about that as well. I have
some concerns with the dollar-funded positions. I will be making some proposals under provisos and
not exactly under this position at this time. But I did want to make note that what you just read
was indeed in our listed provisos in last year's Fiscal Budget but that the Mayor has removed it in
his proposal for this year's budget. I will be proposing to put it back again. I will also be proposing
to find the legal way possible to strengthen that and to bring the authority of budget making back to
this Council and to not allow so much flexibility in the use of dollar funded positions. Some
flexibility is needed for Operations but not so much that we basically usurp the authority of this
Council in creating positions to the point that in mid-year, positions can be altered. The title
changes, the duties change, and the salaries doubled. In essence, that is creating a new position. I
am going to address this with the provisos but I did want to make note that what you just read is not
even a part of this new proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we do have the provisos towards the later part.
I do not have a problem acknowledging the Dollar Funded Positions in there as long as the narrative
in the provisos recognizes that we are the financial officers for the County. We have that
responsibility. I would like to send that. I am going to ask that we come up with some verbiage and
we have the County Attorney take a look at it. Any further discussion, Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Mel has talked about if this is critically needed.
Clearly we are adding positions this year. I have had ones I want to have but that does not mean
that any of us are not being thoughtful about the implications of that being a long-term commitment.
One way or the other, I concur with this consensus here. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmember, let me recognize Councilmember
Nakamura first.
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to see further discussion.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Thank you for your comments. I want you to
make sure folks understand firmly where I am at. The Administration needs to come back to this
body for approval, not come back to inform us. My choices are that we get narrative in here that gets
checked by the Attorney that says, "Yes, you possibly have some needs to access these positions. We
have to introduce a money bill to get it done." Not get several positions that we just approved that
all of a sudden get canceled and they use the classification as Dollar Funded. The next thing you
know, it is done. We are not finished. You are new to the Council. I have dealt with this for ten
years and I am finished with it. I am finished with it. Either we get the proviso with the right thing,
and if they come back with approval, that is fine with me. If not, then I am prepared to go the other
way and remove everything that is Dollar Funded. Those are the two choices. I am sorry. I am very
passionate about this. I would like to leave the positions there and be able to have the interaction
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p39
with the Administration when they need the position versus to just cancel something we approve,
transfer the money, and go. Mr. Kuali`i and then Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Kuali`i: Very briefly, when Mr. Bynum said the fund the
Dollar Funded Position, we just approved a brand new Dollar Funded Position. The Department of
Public Works, Solid Waste, Refuse Collector Utility Worker. And it is being paid by the General
Fund. At this time, the budgeted amount is a dollar. The position is created so six months from
now, and into the new year; if the department decides they have that need and they have surplus
moneys, they can put money to that existing position. They can put it to that existing classification
and fill that position. But to change it, they should come back to the Council for approval. The only
other thing I would say too is that there are many Dollar Funded Positions out there that have been
created years ago, according to the data I get from our last Vacant Positions Report, as of March 31.
Y g g g p >
I do not know how reliable—I need to confirm with departments and what have you, and I plan to
work on that. That is why I am thinking instead of trying to go through and pick positions and ask
for deletion now, I am going to follow up with Human Resources and with the departments. As
Councilmember Nakamura suggested, is to see what those needs are and involving. Clearly, to give
gg g Y, g
them the flexibility, especially when they ask in advance, "We need this," like Solid Waste has done,
Utility Worker Dollar Funded, for that flexibility in the coming year. We have done that now. Use
that position in that division, in the department for the purpose you came and got approval for. If
you change anything about, move it to another department, change the job title, change the salary
even by a little bit, or change the classification even by one tiny step; you should come back to the
Council for approval because we approved it to begin with. That is our authority with the Budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to clarify one piece. I was speaking with
my American Express Carte Blanche across the board, I want to make sure we understand that
there are a couple Dollar Funded Positions that we cannot remove. Those deal with State Housing
and State Driver's Licenses. When the demand occurs, those positions have to be used for those
things. I am sorry I was so passionate in covering the whole thing but I want to make sure there are
rules like that too. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: (Inaudible)...
Chair Furfaro: Like I said, those are State Inspectors, they need to be
there by State Code. The ideal thing is to get the right narrative in the proviso first. That is the
ideal thing.
Mr. Bynum: Okay. I am sorry, may I continue?
Chair Furfaro: You have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: (Inaudible)...
Chair Furfaro: We are all talking story and everything like that but
all that is said is when you go for that extra scoop of rice, you just have to tell us so that next time we
can cook more. Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: May we ask questions of the Administration?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. I just wanted to make my statement about the
Dollar Funded thing. We need something more specific in the proviso.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p40
Ms.Yukimura: My question to the Administration is first of all, is
there a commitment to inform us as soon as it is filled?
Mr. Rezentes: If that is in the proviso, we should be complying what
is in the proviso. I believe you do receive reports from the Personnel Department on the hiring or
Vacancy Report et cetera. I am not sure on the timeliness but my understanding that it should be
coming your way in response—
Chair Furfaro: We read from the last report 59 days. The Charter
says ten. They got it to us in 30. The thing is just to inform is what is in the current proviso but I
am looking for to inform and yet approve.
Ms.Yukimura: I am thinking back, and maybe Jade can remember, I
think legally—I do not think approval is needed once a position is created. I think that was the
major source of contention between me as Mayor and the County Council. We can say that if you do
not...
Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, if I may, that is my problem.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I understand the problem.
Chair Furfaro: If by putting the authority in with the exception of the
pieces that we cannot do because State needs to act quickly, then we are going to send this to the
County Attorney. If we do not get approval on this then we need to talk about removing the Dollar
Funded positions.
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Chair Furfaro: I would rather have them come and ask for a Money
Bill.
Ms. Yukimura: It actually is about the level of trust between the
Council in various department heads. If we dollar fund something then are we not saying this is
needed but we recognize that—we are more concerned about morphing these positions or moving
them, right?
Chair Furfaro: That is right. We approve a position for one reason
but it goes through so many changes and comes out on the other end.
Ms.Yukimura: I think we could just say if they do that often, that
particular department does not get anymore Dollar Funded Positions. That maybe the same thing
you are saying.
Chair Furfaro: I will be fine with the positions that are in the Dollar
if we could have the Attorney look at this verbiage. But one way or the other, this Council has to
have a little bit more control over what we put in the Budget for the rationale given to us, then it
goes through metamorphosis and becomes something else. Are we all good with that? I want to do
all this payroll stuff before we go to lunch. Jade, please note that we are going to leave all of the
Dollar Funded Positions in there but we need to send this piece to the County Attorney. May I just
have all those in favor of the Dollar Funded Positions remaining at this point in the Budget until we
have consultation with the County Attorney?
IIf
By unanimous vote, the Dollar-Funded positions not previously amended were approved.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p41
Chair Furfaro: Now, let us go to the Bulk Overtime. I want to thank
the Finance Department in particular. We send over a list of requests by departments on the
overtime and we have a schedule, which I gave out in the packet. It came to $195,000.00 of changes
that were made in the Budget, almost $200,000.00. That was agreed that we would take out from
the Budget, from most departments, 7% of what they budgeted in overtime; with the exception of
Fire and Police, we took out 3.5%. For the Council, we took out 15% to demonstrate the way. But in
reality, I am going to have an amendment for you folks. I should not have applied the 15% to our
Elections Office because it is an election year. With that exception, that is what I would like to talk
about. We would like to take out the exception for Elections and leave Council Services in at 15%.
We are showing all of the numbers which Wally, you folks worked on us, which came to
the $195,000.00 that is in the schedule. Again, if you folks are okay with the one change I want to
make for Elections, I will just need a voice vote on this. Is there any discussion?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. I would like to make one amendment to this and
I thank you, Chair, for putting this all together. First of all, I want clarification because in the
Mayor's supplemented budget, there was a reduction for overtime.
Chair Furfaro: Yes. It is this schedule.
Ms. Nakamura: This is the schedule?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. I prepared the schedule. They did it. Wally
folks did it. It is reflected in the Budget. The only error that is reflected is that I also took 15% out
of Elections but I want to put it back.
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to make a request to reinstall the
overtime for Parks & Recreation. I want to make it for a very specific purpose. That purpose is to
increase two hours at Waimea and Kapa'a Pools during the summer break for children. Just as a
parent, I go down there to take my kids and at 4:30 p.m. on a summer afternoon, the pool is shut
down. There is a lot of daytime hour left and there are very few activities for kids during the
summer. My initial attempt was to add on to the pool hours. My research showed when talking to
the Parks & Recreation Department, it would result in increasing two positions. I really want to go
there in the future but the first step would be to do some overtime for our pool workers at both pools,
just during the summer break, get some information on how the usage is, and whether we could
move to eventually furthering of the hours. They believe right now that if we open the pool until
8:30 p.m. at night, it would be well used. After work, a lot of people can use it. We have the resource
but we are not putting the man power into it. My request would be to line item that for "Pool
Extended Hours during the Summer Break."
Chair Furfaro: I do want to say that I am a very active swimmer and
a pool man. I have some concerns about the operational hours. I have been in there and they have
got a lot of staff in the morning and no one in the afternoon. Then they modify the staff to
accommodate swim clubs and so forth, and then they close the pool. I have been swimming in
Kapa'a for ten years. I am going to support for what you are asking for but I do not think they have
a real good plan in place to manage our pool operations. I also want to point out that this is an
addition to us by just adding six part-time lifeguards. They do not mix pool lifeguards with ocean
lifeguards. I just want to make sure that we are all aware of that. It is a strange mixture with
certain lifeguards reporting to the Parks Department and other lifeguards reporting to the Fire
Department. I am going to approve this but there are parts there that need to be worked out. Mr.
Bynum.
-
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p42
Mr. Bynum: First, I would like to thank Councilmember
Nakamura for bringing this subject up because I cannot think of a better thing to do to keep those
pools open in the daylight hours, at least in the summer time. The cost benefit analysis would be
huge. I am not clear that putting $6,500.00 back into the overtime Budget will accomplish that goal.
We might need to amend the overtime Budget and give them additional for the pool. Will they do
it—have you had that conversation with them?
Chair Furfaro: Before I answer that, that conversation has to be in
front of the whole Council. I encourage what you just said should happen. I am going to tell you, in
my experience, to give them money but they close the pool but they are doing training. We have to
have a discussion with them about specifically what that extra money is for.
Mr. Bynum: (No audio)...
Chair Furfaro: I want you to know that you have done better than
me over ten years. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: I just want to say I think that is brilliant. I think it is
an unbelievable no-brainer just because of the fact that it is still p.m. it is still warm. The water
J p
temperature is maybe 75 or maybe more. I think that it is all exercise and it is an incredible point to
bring up. With Waimea and Kapa`a, what better thing to do than to be at the pool, especially at 6,
6:30, 7, or 7:30. It is not cold and the kids are exercising. I think it is beneficial and healthy. I think
it is a great idea and I am actually bummed out that I did not think of that.
Chair Furfaro: Before you give yourself too much credit about
brilliant idea, here is the brilliant idea. We do it a straight time. We started it six years ago when
the request first came up for nighttime pool swimming. We hired enough staff. That is brilliant.
This is just to accomplish it on over time. I am very serious. I have had so many discussions about
J P Y Y
the pool in Kapa'a being open late and having discussions for seniors that need swimming equipment
in the pool. I would say this is a great idea. Brilliant is doing it at straight time.
Mr. Chang: I think it is great.
Chair Furfaro: Can I recognize the Finance Director.
Mr. Rezentes: Hearing this discussion, where the County Council
wants to go with this matter, my concern on this side is that I do want to make sure we are giving
the Parks Department the necessary tools to accomplish what you are saying. I am not sure if there
has been enough discussion with Parks to determine if the number is $6,500.00. I think $6,500.00
for the whole summer—we may not have enough money there to accomplish that goal. If the
intention of the Council is to extend the hours for the summer, we should define those days and the
months and get back to our guys.
Chair Furfaro: That is why I said, we are going to have them come
back to the whole body. We are going to put the money in the Budget but we are going to hear from
Parks on how we really could accomplish it. Does it all have to be on overtime? How do we get the
operation more secure? They close the pool in Kapa'a when Fire has training. They close another
day of the week when there is a holiday. The idea is to have late swimming and we need a plan but
for short-term, I think what we are saying is we want to move on putting another $6,500.00 in for
over time. Then we will have in a regular Council Meeting, discussion with the Parks Department.
Mr. Bynum.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p43
Mr. Bynum: I just have to say this because it has been a long-term
frustration, I know, for the Chair. When we furloughed school kids and we furloughed, we closed the
pool on furlough days. I could not get the Administration to say, "Can we not close it on a Tuesday
instead of Friday when the kids are out of school?" The things you are talking about;people show up
with their swimsuits to the pool and they find out that it is closed that day. Anyway, this is great.
We can accomplish it. Let us do it.
Chair Furfaro: This is a great discussion. If we are going to use the
pool, the pool is closed the public on Monday and everybody knows that. Then Monday is when the
Fire Department needs to do their training. It is simple as that. Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I wish we could have a more detailed discussion in the
Parks &Recreation Department.
Chair Furfaro: That is what we are going to do.
Ms. Nakamura: I am not sure how you want to handle it here...
Chair Furfaro: I want to get the money in the Budget, and then have
the discussion.
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to share with you some of the discussions
that I have had with Lenny Rapozo and the (inaudible) Manager. We will do that in the discussion
on Monday or Tuesday.
Chair Furfaro: When that time comes, I am saying to you, I do not
want to do in Budget. I want them on the front here because everything you are going to tell me, I
heard three times already in ten years. "How do we close the pools when we had kids out of school?"
We have got to be community service minded in our Parks & Recreation area and I think there is a
new window here. But that is a Council Agenda discussion in the near future. That is what I would
do. I would also support the $6,500.00 for now. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chairman. I have no questions or
comments. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: So procedurally, yes, I am very excited about this
idea. Are we moving first to accept the...
Chair Furfaro: Yes. I was just talking to them and they fixed the
spreadsheets. We have a couple of things that we have done that I want to close here. I am getting
it up on the screen.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. Are we waiting for the revised sheets?
Chair Furfaro: I am waiting to find out if there are any more
questions about the Dollar Funded Positions and the overtime. The Dollar Funded is done. Any
more discussion on the overtime? Just the $6,500.00 adjustment.
Ms.Yukimura: And then Elections?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p44
Chair Furfaro: Yes. Okay. That is what we are doing. Is that Ashley
over there? Ashley, I cannot see the screen but the first thing we need to do is put up the changes on
the Overtime for Elections. Is that up there? Does everybody see the number up for Elections,
putting back the $11,000.00 overtime for Elections?
Ms.Yukimura: Was it 11 or 5?
Chair Furfaro: $11,250.00. That is right. Okay. Is there further
discussion on this addition in Elections? If not, all those in favor of this change, signify by saying
aye.
The motion to increase the Elections Division Overtime Line Item by $11,250.00 was then
put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Now let us do the Parks Department. Before we go to
that particular one, we are going to go to the County Clerk, Council Services. We are going to adjust
this by reducing overtime by $3,600.00 or 15%. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
The motion to reduce Council Services Overtime Line Item by $3,600.00 was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Now we want to do the overtime in Parks, which is an
addition. That is $6,500.00.
Ms. Nakamura: Chair, this would be $6,580.00 and it is specific to the
recreation.
Chair Furfaro: Recreation pools.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Recreation pools. Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura moved to increase the Overtime Line Item for Recreation-Pools by adding
$6,580.00, seconded by Mr. Bynum. The motion to increase the Overtime Line Item for
Recreation Pools was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: We have one more item. I believe we can do it before
we break for lunch. Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I would also like to propose that the Auditor's Office
overtime be reduced by more than the $700.00 that is being reflected here. This is the rationale.
Look the at Prosecutor Attorney's Office. With all the employees they have there, their proposed
time is $10,000.00. The Auditor's Office with five employees has a $10,000.00 overtime Budget. I
believe that there are much more time sensitive needs on the Prosecuting Attorney's Office than
there is on the Auditor's Office. I think this year's overtime was in the $5,000.00 range. I would
like to increase the reduction to $4,300.00.
Ms. Nakamura moved to reduce the overtime Line Item in the Auditor's Office by $4,300.00,
seconded by Mr. Kuali`i. The motion to reduce the Overtime Line Item in the Auditor's Office
by $4,300.00 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Now we have covered the overtime, the Dollar
Funded Positions, and the new positions. I am going to hit the mallet here in a second. This part of
f! our discussion is closed.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p45
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 1:42 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:05 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay. There are a couple of quick announcements
here for everyone. We have got a total on the changes we have made so far. One of the particular
pieces I have asked Jade to look at is; although it did not come over in the Budget recommendations
for May 8 and the resubmittal, we had changes made in the positions for the Fire Chief, Police Chief,
and two Deputys in the Police Department. That has not come to us a new Salary Commission
Review to be voted on. I think it would be wise for us for the purposes of the Budget to reflect those
recommendations. I do not want to get into a whole discussion about one week we have got the ? in
May going this way and the other time we have got the date specific going this way and so forth.
This is about Budget. This is not about the County Attorney's opinion. This is making sure we have
those resources in the right place in the financial portions. I would just like to ask this one question
and I would like to vote on it. Do you want to include, in this Budget piece that we are doing right
now, the last and latest recommendations that were made by the Salary Commission? If you do not,
then I want you to be prepared to have an Agenda item on some future Council Meeting to vote on
that item. You can make it where the vote is to take it out because we put it in the Budget or the
vote can be added back in because we did not put it in the Budget. Those are your two choices. I am
going to ask that we at least have a vote that says we put in the last recommendations from the
Salary Commission. If you vote no, that is your choice. I do not care. I just want us to have an
understanding of where we are at.
Ms.Yukimura: I am not even remembering actual communication
from the Salary Commission. Did they actually send...
Chair Furfaro: No. They have not communicated with us but they
did vote on the recommendations that were made. They increased 4 of the 14 recommendations. We
have not seen that come over and we have not voted on that yet. I just want to vote for the purpose
of the Budget. I think it is better to remove it because it is in versus to come back and add it because
we agreed to it.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. But it is not in right now so you are proposing
to put it in.
Chair Furfaro: Again, let me disclose that one more time. Because
we voted on the added positions, the actions of the Salary Commission were not in the March 15
piece, are in the May 8 piece, but were not reported on the add line that we just voted on.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, it does not have to be from the Salary
Commission, it is from the Police Commission, right?
Chair Furfaro: No. It is the Salary Commission Recommendations
that of the 14 positions that they met on; they bumped the Fire Chief, they bumped the Police Chief,
and the two Police Deputies. Okay. It is in the May submittal. It is not on the list we saw with
added positions. I want to know where you guys want to go because I want to close the door on this
subject.
Mr. Kuali`i: Chair, what do you mean about added positions? It
only said positions with higher rates.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p46
Chair Furfaro: Yes. But if there were rates that were changed, they
did not show up anywhere.
Mr. Kuali`i: But it is still not a new position?
Chair Furfaro: No. So I used the wrong terminology. What I am
saying is that we have never voted on the resolution.
Mr. Kuali`i: If the Mayor put it in the Budget, he also put in the
money in the Budget to pay for it.
Chair Furfaro: In May 8, yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: But it did not show up anywhere. I just want to make
sure you are clear. I want a vote not on approving because it needs to come to us. I just want a vote
on the fact that you know it is being reflected there. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: So, the bottom line is that the final decision will come
later, right?
Chair Furfaro: Final decision on the whole Budget will be coming
later but I want to include it in the new position salary schedule that we have right now so we know
it is in there, even though we did not vote on the resolution.
Mr. Bynum: I am sorry, I am confused.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let me go over this one time. No interruptions
and no waving hands. I need everybody's attention. On March 15, the Mayor submitted a Budget
that did not show or reflect the last actions by the Salary Commission. For the May Budget that he
submitted to us shows the last actions recommended by the Salary Commission. I want to make
sure that we have that clear because we have not voted on that yet. I do not want any
miscommunication that by voting on the Mayor's Budget for these new rates, that we are approving
what has not come over to us yet. I do not want anyone to say, "Yes, but you voted on it during
Budget time." No, we have not even seen the final resolution yet. I am just disclosing to you folks
that of the 14 positions were reviewed, there were 4 changes. It was the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and
the two Police Deputies which is in the Mayor's May 8 Budget. But I still hope we can reserve our
right to vote on that by being aware of it now, by disclosing it now, which what is in the Budget is
what the Salary Commission sent over, but we did not take action on it.
Mr. Bynum: So, the 4 positions are Police Chief, Fire Chief...
Chair Furfaro: And two Deputy Police.
Mr. Bynum: There is only one Deputy Police Chief, right?
Chair Furfaro: I think there are two positions. There were four
positions that were approved.
Mr. Bynum: But not the Deputy Fire Chief?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p47
Chair Furfaro: Well, to save all confusion, I can tell Ernie to take out
what we have not approved and then do a Budget modification when it comes over. Or, we can leave
it in there with the disclosure that says, "We have not voted on what the particulars are." If you are
expecting me to remember everything that I have seen and every correspondence, please forgive me
because I cannot do it. I just want to make sure you understand what we are voting on in this
Budget has those four positions.
Mr. Bynum: Part of the implications is that taking it out now
would make it—because adding it will—(inaudible) to take in the Salary Budget is four vote. That
has implications there too.
Chair Furfaro: That is what I am saying. I do not want anybody to
interpret and say, "Well, we have it in our Budget and you approved it." What I want to make sure
is that it is in the Budget and it stays in the Budget but we still reserve the right to vote on it when
it finally comes over.
Mr. Bynum: For what it is worth, my preference would be to take
it out now and add it later if necessary.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. That is not my preference but...Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Now we see the importance of the March 15 deadline
because not we are in a situation where it affects the Budget. I do not believe we have the authority
to post a higher salary than has been approved. I would agree that we need to restore that back to
the March 15 submittal and if it should pass out of this Council, the recommendations; then we need
to do a Budget modification.
Chair Furfaro: Again, I disagree with you. I think it is better, since
we are dealing with the Budget...and I had the same argument or even stronger argument when we
voted on this that March 15 is a date specific need. This is why. I am trying to disclose to you folks
how you want to handle it. I am for leaving it in and if the Salary Commission piece fails for some
reason with five votes then it comes out. If the Salary Commission recommendation is affirmed,
then we have to go back and modify the Budget later. We have had enough discussion on it. I am
just trying to disclose it so you folks heard from me.
Ms.Yukimura: I appreciate you raising it, I was not even aware of
the issue. Excuse my ignorance. I think it is cleaner because when we are voting for this, our
Budget—it is inconsistent that the salaries have not been set officially and properly, yet it is in the
Budget that way. I think it cleaner to remove it and then to amend it afterwards if the Salary
Ordinance is affirmed.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion before I call for a vote on that.
We know that if we do not agree for that for the purpose of Budgeting, that we are going to ask them
to take those recent raises that have not reached us yet; we are going to take it out of the Budget and
deal with is as a separate item. This would be a very good case study for why the "shall by March
15" is mandatory. Very good. We are going to pose the question and this is how I would like to pose
it. Mr. Chang, maybe you could do it this way. Without having voted on the salary resolution, the
recent salary resolution, that we will not put anything in the Budget that they recommended.
Mr. Chang: Without voting on the recent salary resolution, we
will take those raises out of this Budget.
Ms.Yukimura: Second.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p48
Chair Furfaro: Yes. And handle it when it comes over from the
Salary Commission. And we have a second. Any further discussion before I call for the vote?
Mr. Rapozo: I have a question. This can be a long distance
question. If we could get the positions that were altered from March 15...
Chair Furfaro: Wally, here is our question. We believe that there
were 4 of the 12 positions recently recommended by the Salary Commission to have increases. We
believe one was the Fire Chief, one was the Police Chief, and...
Mr. Rezentes: Yes. The Police Chief, Fire Chief, Fire Deputy, and
Police Deputy.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. It was the two Deputies, so I was right. But
what I am saying is this is now reflected in the Budget before we voted on it. I posed the question to
the group, "Should we leave what was approved in the Salary Commission in the Budget without us
taking action or should we take it out now?" This is the whole piece on the date specific question by
March 15 which they did not act on. I think I am hearing around the table that we are going to take
out about $15,000.00 right now, that if we vote on the Salary Commission's recommendation, one
way or the other we will put it back in later. That is where we are at. Is that what I understand
from members? Okay. Now we know the importance of March 15. I would like to call for a motion
and a second to reflect in the Budget right now the previous salaries for the Police Chief, Fire Chief,
and two Deputies until it actually gets voted on when the resolution comes to the Council. Let us do
a roll call vote.
The motion to reflect in the Budget are the previous salaries for the Police Chief, Fire Chief, and two
Deputies until it actually gets voted on when the salary resolution comes to the Council was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. The next area that I would like to go into—and
I want to make sure we have closed Payroll for now on the following areas; Added Positions, Dollar
Funded Positions pending the correct version of a proviso, and the amended overtime on these
positions. Right now, we are dealing with the Council's discussion items which include allowing 20
minutes for each Councilmember to go around the table on their concerns before we get into the
other operating departments. We are not going back to visit the new positions and the overtime
issues. That is all behind us. The Mayor's Office is behind us. We have two Council questions to
uphold and I would like to know in what order members would like to go with the 20 minutes. Does
anybody want to be last? Mr. KipuKai, Mr. Bynum. Mr. KipuKai, I am going to recognize Mr.
Bynum's seniority. He will go last; you will go second to last. Now, is there any discussion at this
point about replenishing the reserve? I am following the Agenda I put up. Is there any discussion
about replenishing the reserves? Mr. Rapozo then followed by Vice- Chair Yukimura.
Mr. Rapozo: Based on the current numbers that were provided,
we are at 16.8% of last year's General Fund Expenditures. Our Budget resolution says 20% to 25%.
The Budget Ordinance has been written with a proviso that basically decreases it. Reality trumps
the resolution because the Budget is an Ordinance versus the resolution. I am still hoping that we
can find some money later on. I am satisfied with the 16.8% and I am not going to make a big issue
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p49
of it but I am still looking for some funds to try to get that reserve up to 20% but that will not be the
deal breaker for me.
Chair Furfaro: Vice- Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: At$16.8 million, we are at 15%?
Mr. Rapozo: 16.8%.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, we are at 16.8%. And how much is that in
money?
Mr. Rapozo: $21 million I believe.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, you want to offer her that number?
Mr. Rezentes: Based on the May 8 Budget, the reserve would be
$21,345,835.00.
Ms.Yukimura: That is at 16.8%?
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Ms.Yukimura: We had it in last year's Budget at what percent?
Mr. Rezentes: $25,877,077.00.
Ms.Yukimura: You have that by memory. That was what
percentage?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe that was at 22%.
Ms. Yukimura: That was around 22%. Did we use any of it?
Mr. Rezentes: No.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, let me summarize this real quick. It was 22%
based on the Denver piece. Of that, 50% of it could be used for various issues from the
Administration by coming in front of us. In other words, that would be 12.5 million of that 25 they
could come to us to use. 6.25 million of that would be set-aside for immediate emergencies. These
are dollars. Which represents 25% of the total. 3.7 million with coming in front of the Council or
15% could be used for excessive costs on items that were budgeted for. 2.5 million or 10% could be
used for emergencies that come up in the course of the year for the year. That is how the breakdown
would be. That is only by resolution that copies Denver. The question before us today is—because
we actually only have until the end of the year to convert that resolution into an Ordinance. If not,
that resolution expires. The question in front of us right now, based on...Wally, you told us we had
22 left?
Mr. Rezentes: Based on the May 8 submittal, $21,347,835.00.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. That is what we have it at. Do we want to
have any discussion about replenishing that reserve at this point? Councilmember Nakamura.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p50
Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to say that I think I am very happy this
supplemental Budget is increased in amount taken away from the reserve. By adding an additional
$4 million, we are now in a better position and I think that is a good thing. I am comfortable with
the range in this proviso, maybe because the 15% to 20% range; I am okay with the lower percentage
mainly because I think we tend to over-Budget and (inaudible) cushion in there so I am comfortable.
Chair Furfaro: My level of comfort is based on the financial picture of
the State too. If we had something happening, how quick could they respond to us for assistance?
All of their accounts are (inaudible). There is no reserve. Is there anybody wanting to know about
replenishing the reserve during this Budget time?
Mr. Bynum: Yes. I have a response and I asked staff to put
something up on the board. I am feeling really distraught internally right now because I am so
frustrated with this whole topic. Let me just say, the reserve that we are talking about right now is
a real budgetary number. But it is not a real number. And I know everybody is tired of hearing this
from me. We should make these major financial decisions based on real actual numbers from our
Audited Budget Report.
Chair Furfaro: Before you go with a presentation, I just want to make
sure you understand. The question I put in the outline is, "Does anybody want to replenish this?" It
is agreeable and do we have an ordinance and when we refine these other pieces, Mr. Bynum, I do
not disagree with your concern. But the question is that we have used some of it and do we want to
have discussion about replenishing it. That is the question. I will give you six minutes according to
our rules for your presentation.
Mr. Bynum: Again, these numbers are the General Fund Balance
minus Committed and Restricted Funds. These are our last few Y ears. We started this Fiscal Year
with a 41%, not 15% or 20%; 41%. Those are real numbers. The point I am trying to make is that if
we agree to this for a budgetary figure that is fine. But in order to do some of the things we all want
to do, that budgetary number may end up at 12% or 9%. That does not mean our reserve fund is 9%.
That is a budgetary figure. This is the real figure. At the end of this Fiscal Year, we will see if we
came down from 41 but I can guarantee you, we are not going to come below 35%. I said at the
beginning of this meeting that whatever we put into the Budget is fine. I am going to ask for tax
reform in some other positions. That will make that budgetary number go down from the 16%
(inaudible). Maybe it will go down as low as 12%. I will be fine with that because those numbers are
budgetary numbers. These are the real numbers. For the last ten seconds, we all know that from
2008 to 2011 has been a down economy. We grew our surplus during the down economy. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to pose a question again to you folks. I
want to make sure you all understand. Until we have an ordinance, all of it is a surplus. End of
story. It is all a surplus until we have a Budget Ordinance that becomes law and this is where we
are going to apply it to. Now, the question on the table is not going back to charts and so forth. Is
there anybody here that wants to talk about any kind of replenishment for what we earmarked? Go
ahead,Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: If we put a proviso in this Budget Ordinance, then
there will be an ordinance guiding the reserve?
Chair Furfaro: We have to still create it. It is in as part of the
Budget Ordinance as a proviso. But what I am saying what we really need to step this up is an
ordinance.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p51
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. Basically, what you are saying is that we need
an enabling ordinance that sets up the reserve officially. And we follow through with our budgetary
numbers, accordingly.
Chair Furfaro: That is one of the reasons that the Denver piece was
used because it was quite generous in allowing the Administration to tap at least 50% of what they
felt they needed by coming to the Council. That is the only reason we followed the Denver
Ordinance.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I think it is a good model. I feel comfortable
with it. That Denver model said 22% as the limit.
Chair Furfaro: Of which half of that could be used by the
Administration in the event of an emergency.
Ms.Yukimura: I do not see any need to replenish the reserve at this
time. I actually see some leeway or flexibility for even...depending on what our budgetary decision
making comes to. Maybe even lowering the reserve one or two million.
Chair Furfaro: Bingo. You get the whole thing. That is why we are
asking the question now because we do not know what the outcome will be and if we start to spend
some or do something with the reserve, there will have to be a question about lowering it.
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Chair Furfaro: That is why I put it in the order that I did.
Ms. Yukimura: The question you first asked is, "Do we want to bring
it up again?" There seems to be a consensus that we can live with it right now and then we are going
to look at our Budget and see where else we need to go. I understand. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Good summary. Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can live with it for now
because like Councilmember Rapozo and Nakamura said, in the March submittal when it was 10-
15% and when the Administration was using 10.5 million of the reserve to cover operating expenses;
I was very uncomfortable with that. When they have come back, they put 6 million of that back into
the reserve.
Chair Furfaro: Wait, they put 6 million back in the reserve because
they only used 4.
Mr. Kuali`i: They changed it to 15-20%. And I am okay with that
for now, but what I am especially interested in is that when we move forward and refine this, you
might just need to clarify and separate out those categories. Because reserve, reserve, reserve,
surplus, extra money; we really have 51 million versus different figures. That stems to the idea that
amount of money that now becomes available because we did not use it according to the Budget for
next year's Budget. That is one kind of reserve surplus. The other kind of reserve which I think is
more important and that we have to be very clear about, and put it aside and leave it aside; is the
Rainy Day Fund type of reserve for the emergencies and whatever. But instead of putting it all in
one pot and allowing 50% to be used for working capital and operating expenses, make two pots.
Have one be very specific for a Rainy Day Fund; emergency. Then Councilmember Bynum can argue
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p52
all he wants about the pot that is surplus and reserve and fight with the Administration. But the
separate part of the reserve for Rainy Day Funds; I want to see protected.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i, and all members; the importance of
having an ordinance covers that. That is what we have been waiting for. Let us make sure we
understand my comment. We have a proviso that talks about the guidelines for a reserve. But there
are two separate definitions of reserve versus a surplus. Until we have an ordinance, it is all really
surplus. So I am back to the question, is anybody interested in replenishing the reserve fund at this
point? It is going to come up again in the end. It looks like we are not. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: In June or July, there will be a reserve ordinance put
before the Council. It just goes back to staffing. We cannot have staff prepared for Budget and...
Chair Furfaro: We better have one by December 1 (inaudible) can use
it all. Because it will be a new term for the Council. This policy right now is only good for the period
that the current body voted on.
Mr. Bynum: June or July.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. We will look forward to that. Next item. Is
there any discussion about paying down debt? We owe $118 million in debt. Is there any discussion
on that?
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair,just to confirm that there is a movement to
refinance that debt, right?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. They are going tentatively to the end of May.
Mr. Rapozo: I am satisfied with that.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Now we will go into a discussion and potential
proposals that might come up from various Councilmembers, before we go into reviewing the
operating departments. By our rules, I will give you 20 minutes to make your presentation and
discussion. If you are going to use less, Mr. Chang, then you had your one shot at it. I want to make
sure we are talking in terms of items that before we get into the operating discussions, members
have had an opportunity to talk about this. Is there any member that would like to go first? Mr.
Rapozo has the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: I will go first. Is my clock started? Can you let me
know when I have two minutes left? I may not even use the 20 minutes. While I was absent, and I
understand the Law Office Assistant position was removed in that session; I just wanted to clarify
that that position was the position that we had approved on April 4 here on the County Council. And
on April 15, that position had been filled. With the removal of that position, unfortunately that
warm body will have to be laid off.
Chair Furfaro: Why did it appear on the new position list?
Mr. Rapozo: I do not know, that should not have been on the list.
Chair Furfaro: The discussion, so that we are very clear, is there
is...no, I want to make sure you were not here. That was your choice. The fact of the matter is there
is a surplus in that account and it showed up as a new position, not as a position we approved in the
year for the year.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p53
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to make that point because we had just
had the discussion. Like I said, April 4 was the approval, April 15 was the personnel go ahead, and
then the person was hired. There is a person in that position.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we previously approved it. The discussion was
that it was a new position.
Mr. Rapozo: I respected your instruction to not go back but I am
using my own time. I just wanted everybody to...
Chair Furfaro: Let me put a P.S. on that. This is the only time we
will use your absence to go back. But you needed a full disclosure on what had come up.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Realizing my time is running, I just want
to say that a lot of the issues that I had on my list here; we had covered already. The reserve
account was one of them. My original intent was to replenish that back to 20%. I am satisfied with
the 16.8 and I appreciate the Administration. I like it the way you said, Mr. Chair. They put it in,
they just did not take as much. We are down to 16.8. In H.R., we have had that discussion. As far
as property taxes, I am not supporting the raising of taxes unless it is absolutely necessary. I still
believe we can find some areas of access. I am still trying to figure out what we need to be removing
to accommodate that balance Budget without having to raise taxes. As far as the reserve, I am not
supportive of any reduction of that reserve balance. That 16.8 is the lowest that I will go. That is a
struggle for me but like I said, that is not a deal breaker. I would not support dipping into that
surplus any further. I would recommend everyone to read the proviso because I think it is quite
clear in the proviso, as far as what that can be used and why it was set up. As we go through the
departments, and some of these are shared by other Councilmembers and if it were initiated by
another Councilmember; I am not going to repeat it. I will let them discuss it. I have asked staff to
separate, and I see the list for me, but the C.I.P. Budget includes a lot of equipment purchases. If
you look at the Charter, it is pretty clear what the Budget requires. It requires an Operating Budget
and a Capital Budget. The Capital Budget should only include Capital Programs, not Capital
Projects or equipment. The reason I want to see it back into those departments—again, it goes
through the six month funding. When the Administration comes across with a six month funding
line item, it really deceives the public into thinking that department has less expenses when in fact,
it may not be true. It is the same with the equipment. If we are approving a million dollars worth of
equipment that is going to go into Public Works, that should be reflected in the Operating Budget
and not the Capital Improvement Budget because it is very difficult to differentiate where those
expenses should be allocated to. I am going to asking for an amendment to move all of the
equipment into the appropriate departments. I hope I can get your support. Also, the cost of this
equipment—I know there is $5 million worth of equipment. Of course, it is spread into five years so
we are looking at five years. I do not know what is really needed and what is not needed but that is
one source of revenue we can tap into. I am not saying take it all but if we could tap about
$500,000.00, let the Administration prioritize the equipment purchase or leases that they need.
That is a source of revenue that I believe can be used instead of the reserve. We have dealt with the
overtime costs. Although I was absent, I appreciate those discussions and that the actions were
taken. There were a couple of positions that I am very interested in suggesting. One of them is the
K.P.D. Records Clerk. I believe that is long overdue. I believe K.P.D. is entitled and they should
have a records clerk because they are falling behind. That records clerk was not put into the Budget
and I believe it was converted to an I.D. Tech. When we get to the K.P.D. section I am going to
asking that that be put back. As I discussed during the Budget presentations, the Senior Legal
Advisor; I did pass out the position sheets on that. That is another position that I am seeking for
your support. Obviously, with what has occurred with the Kaua`i Police Department of recent
months, I believe with what they do they should have a Senior Legal Advisor. This is not to replace
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p54
the County Attorney as I mentioned in the presentation. It is to advise the day to day of the Kauai
Police Department and work in conjunction...bigger layers on between the County Attorney and the
department. I believe that Honolulu Police Department has that and it works well. That is one
position I would suggest we put in as well as one Assistant Chief for Kauai Fire Department. I
think the Fire Chief made his case when he mentioned how the department has grown and that he
has very limited resources in the upper echelon leadership. Unlike many of the administrative
departments that we see, the Fire Department really does not have that high level branch of
leadership that I would definitely support. For the Driver's Licensing Division, I had an opportunity
to meet with some of the employees there. They are going through some really tough times as far as
staffing. There are new additional duties laid on them with the new requirements by the State and
Federal laws. We definitely need to look at that. This is a plea and maybe I do not have the specifics
enough to determine what needs to be put in there but more importantly, it is a plea to the Finance
Department to give those people some help. We need to start looking at taking care of our line
personnel. The line personnel. We saw the accountant come in here during the presentation. She
fell apart. It was similar with Driver's Licensing. We need to start paying more attention to our line
personnel as opposed to the upper level management. We can have all the management, leaders,
and EM 5, 7, and 3, and all of that but if we do not have the line people on the ground doing the
work, our results are not going to get any different. I talked about the equipment purchases in the
C.I.P. Budget. I will be talking about the host community benefit funding increase. It is not going to
be a million dollars but I did have a chat with the Chair yesterday. He has a formula that I think I
could live with and I will let him explain that when we get to that point. I think it is a fair,
reasonable, and objective method that I am looking forward to supporting. The other issue and
again, more of a plea for Driver's Licensing D.M.V.; those workers need to have some kind of
windows put up. I do not know if that kind of funding is going to be available but that is on my list.
We have to make sure that our workers are safe. They need to be safe from bacteria, safe from
germs, safe from motorcycle helmets. These are things that have occurred to these workers. They
deserve to be protected. If we have to include safety funds to fortify their positions, I do not know
what they call it...plexiglass is all they are asking for. We do not need bullet proof funding. The
C.I.P. Civiler Patrol funding was cut by the Administration in half. I would like to restore that back
to $30,000.00. That would be an increase of$15,000.00 to keep those aircrafts in the air. They have
been stopped because of the State funding. The funding for the Federal Operations for rescue and
warning, those are all covered by the Federal Government but the training flights are not. The State
does not have the resources. Yes, we should not be coming to the rescue for every issue in the State
but when we rely on them, they show up. But if we cannot get the pilots in the air training and
flying during "peace time", it causes more of a problem for us when we really need them. I am
hoping we can reinstate that funding; the $15,000.00. Also, some T.V.R. enforcement. What I did
not see in here—in fact I think I saw a cut here, funding for T.V.R. enforcement. We heard the
dialogue d uring the Pla nnin g presentation th ey really wa n t to enforce t h e T.V.R. laws. I
know
Councilmember Nadine Nakamura is going to be making a proposal which I am fully going to
support and I hope the rest of you will too. I think it is important that we pass good laws but we also
have to enforce good laws. If KipuKai Kualii could close his ears for a little bit, I want to also
restore the funding for the Y.W.C.A. I noticed that got cut as well for 50%. I believe it was 50% for
the Sexual Assault Treatment Programs. That is one of the things I strongly suggest we continue.
They provide a valuable service to our people, victims, and also the perpetrators. I think that
funding should continue and I am hoping we can get the support to get that done. As far as Property
Taxes, I do not know where we will be because I have not heard what the other Councilmembers are
considering. As you can see, aside from a couple of positions, my requests are small stuff. I do not
anticipate having to dip into any reserves for that. I do want to make sure the people understand
that we are in some tough times and for the public, everybody is struggling right now. Businesses
are struggling, they really are. We may see a little hint of recovery here and there but overall when
you look at the big picture for the island of Kauai, a lot of people...that was my ten minutes?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. But I am giving everyone 20.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p55
Mr. Rapozo: That was only ten?
Chair Furfaro: That is ten. I am giving everybody 20.
Mr. Rapozo: You are generous. Mr. Chair, I am not going to use up
20 minutes. I went through my list already. I am going to summarize by saying that I believe we as
a Council have an opportunity. This is our only shot during the year that we have an opportunity to
change the direction that this County is headed. This is the one shot that we have and we need to
take that seriously. We need to make sure that we think things out. I really like the discussion that
we have had so far. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate your leadership and the way we have done the
Budget. There are many firsts that we have seen and I appreciate that. I appreciate the dialogue
even though we do not always agree. The ability to able to actually voice our positions and our
opinions in an environment that is relatively safe, I really appreciate that. I am anxious to listen to
other Councilmembers and I will not use any more time. Thank you very much.
Chair Furfaro: I do want to make sure that everybody understands. I
am giving you this time now to make your concerns known so when we get to things like the landfill,
you make the pitch then about the C.A.C. and not a lot of dialogue again. We understand it now.
Thank you for the comments on the organization. Councilmember Nakamura, you wanted to go
next.
Ms. Nakamura: Chair, I would like to make my comments as we go
through the Budget. They are very specific recommendations and I will be introducing amendments
at that time so I am going—in the interest time I would like to move it on.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I will note that. Again, I want to say, as we
are trying to go through the new format, the clock is still at the end there. Anyone want to go next?
Mr. Bynum, he has a presentation in his 20 minutes.
Mr. Bynum: I do not think I am going to take 20 minutes because
we are going to go through the Budget and I will make those things. One the top of my list is
Y.W.C.A. so we will be in agreement about that. The child family service is a small amount. They do
summer fun preschool but missed the Budget because of changes in their staff there. I am going to
be asking for $15,000.00 to continue that because they were only going to be able to go through
halfway through the summer. There are Repair and Maintenance items in the Building Division
that were cut by the Administration. A couple of them are big ticket but important. The K.P.D.
building roof is leaking and it needs to be repaired but that money was cut from the Budget. It is
$200,000.00. The same is for the Kekaha Landfill. These are roofs that are currently leaking. If
there is no money in the Budget, they will not get repaired this year. There is a smaller amount,
$15,000.00, for island-wide chain link fencing repairs. They will not have the materials—most of it
is done in house but the materials were cut. This is a big ticket item for the Lihu`e Civic Center
chillers replacement. That was not included in the Budget. They are over ten years old. By
replacing them, it will increase energy efficiency in that building. That is something we need to look
at. There is a difference between C.I.P. money and position money. In terms of positions, I am
seeking the Council's consideration for a Property Technical Officer in Real Property. That is a
technical person. Our assessors were here saying they spend close to half of their time doing
technical things. They are the only people without a position like that. The staff has helped me do
research on other Counties. That is very much appreciated.
pp
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, what is the name of that again?
Mr. Bynum: Property Technical Officer.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p56
Chair Furfaro: Got it.
Mr. Bynum: Especially with our very complex systems, right now I
am trying to work on a property tax proposal. I was surprised for the Homestead class and it is
taking them days to calculate it. With a P.T.O. and with a more normal property tax system, you
could calculate—we could do it right here.
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, Mr. Bynum. Did you have a number for
the Technical Officer? A dollar number estimate?
Mr. Bynum: The staff helped me with that. It is including
benefits, about 100.
Chair Furfaro: Do you have a number for the chill boxes?
Mr. Bynum: This is the chillers for the Lihu`e Civic Center?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I did get confirmation that it is not a critical item
because they have back up but it is a potential energy saving item. It is $500,000.00. The one I feel
more strongly about here are the roof repairs. And just that little one about chain link fences; let us
replacing those fences. I think the work is done in house and it is a materials item. I started
mentioning earlier for Council Services, I would like consideration about a Financial Analyst
Position. It should be someone who has a finance background. That is around the salary $80,000.00
plus benefits. I am looking at the potential of moving some positions from one department to
another. I will save that discussion for when we get to that department. I do not think that would
be a cost item at all. It will be a process item. That is as far as I got with my notes because I
thought I was going to go last.
Chair Furfaro: Are you going to make any presentation to us on the
rates?
Mr. Bynum: Let me take that few minutes to say, I know I
imposed on everybody a discussion about the complexities of our tax system and how difficult it is.
We are working with data that is not accurate. We will not have accurate data for some time. That
is also another cost item. I think the P.T.O. will help. I am also hoping that a Financial Analyst on
this side, and in lieu of that, some consultant money so we can get independent access or get money
for Real Property to make our cumbersome tax calculation system more user friendly in a way that
we can do our analysis. There are a couple of different options that will improve that. Yes, I intend
to make a Real Property Analysis and Steve Hunt is working as we speak. As he explained when he
was here, because of the complexities in the homestead class, they have to take trial and error runs
of their current tax software. I thought I had a figure set. I just got a note a little while ago that he
is still working on it. Yes, I intend to do that but it is important that it is accurate. It is very
difficult for us to get an accurate target.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. How much time was that?
Mr. Bynum: I only used six minutes. That is a miracle.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p57
Chair Furfaro: How much time is left was what I questioned. 14
minutes. Thank you. We have to be acutely aware of these things so I will hold the 14 minutes for
you.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Who wants to speak next? Going once? Going twice?
I told Mr. Kuali`i he could be last now that Mr. Bynum went earlier. Vice-Chair, go ahead.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I will keep some for our department by
department discussion. As Housing Chair, I want to talk about a couple of proposals that I want to
make. One of our goals is the timely and adequate provision of affordable housing. There were three
sub goals or objectives updating of the Affordable Housing Ordinance; Development of a Sound
Housing Data System and Development of a Housing Strategic Plan. In the updating of the
Affordable Housing Ordinance, I would like to form an Advisory Committee which draws upon
Affordable Housing partners such as K.E.O. and Catholic Charities, such as those. I would like to
involve them in the analysis of our Housing Ordinance and where we want to go with that. I am
asking for $12,000.00 in our Council Budget to support the bringing in of some experts and also to do
a tour which I hope all Councilmembers will join in, of looking for Affordable Housing projects
around our island. There are all kinds. It would be instructive to actually see and find out how they
were operated, how they were built, and how they are providing for need. That is in our Council
Budget. Then for the Development of a Housing Strategic Plan, I would like to suggest $60,000.00
for doing that work within the Housing Agency to look at the overall picture; the opportunities and
risks, see what potential housing projects there are around the island, look at the need using some of
the Housing report that Mr. Dan Miller brought forth, and then developing a strategic plan about
which are the low hanging fruit and what kind of resources we need, and also incorporate smart
growth ideas.
Chair Furfaro: Let me ask for clarity for myself. That $60,000.00,
you would put that in the Housing Budget?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Got it.
Ms.Yukimura: Should we discuss C.I.P. here too or is that for a later
discussion?
Chair Furfaro: I would like to keep C.I.P. separate if I can. I just
would not restrict you if you want to talk about it, JoAnn. We will go to C.I.P. separately but I will
not restrict you from talking about it.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I am just going to highlight what my concerns
are in the C.I.P. I am very concerned about the Housing project in `Ele`ele because I do not think it
has been thought through completely. I am concerned that it will draw most of our Housing
resources and focus there without a clear idea of where it sits in our big picture in Strategic Housing
Plan. We have never done a large subdivision ourselves. We have done Housing projects. There is a
deed restriction that restricts the development of market housing. I do not know how feasible this is.
We have never really done a good feasibility study. I would hate to proceed on expenditures for
design or implementation before we are really clear about the long range financing is going to be. I
have a concern about that project as well. Another C.I.P. project that I am concerned about is the
Northern Bypass in Koloa which in our K6loa, Po`ipu regional circulation plan was set as a very long
range project that was not supposed to happen right away. Actually, many other projects were
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p58
identified as a higher priority than that. The most important thing about the Northern Bypass is
that it commits us to a four lane system from the Tree Tunnel and even to Waimea. It commits us to
a four lane at the Tree Tunnel and it commits us to car dominated system. That is all happening
before we complete our Kauai Long Range Land Transportation Plan. I am just concerned that it is
not part of a current long range plan. I have some questions about pouring a lot of resources into
that. On the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center, I think there is $500,000.00 in the Budget. I am
not sure what that is for. I would feel much more comfortable if a feasibility study was done before
any moneys are expended in that line item. In Economic Development, I greatly appreciate the
leadership of Councilmember Nakamura in some of the projects that she will be proposing. I wanted
to highlight one which is of particular importance to me is The Keiki to Career Action Plan
Implementation which is a workforce readiness issue that is addressed or covered in our C.E.D.S. or
Comprehensive Economic Development Study Plan. This is a relatively new project. In the last year
or so, there has been a coming together of a lot of concerned individuals and organizations to look at
our system of support for our young people from preschool to early adulthood. That is why it is
called keiki to career because it addresses that continuum of development. We are concerned as a
community that we are failing our young people in many ways. There are amazing young people and
there are amazing wonderful positive things going on but there are a lot of things that are falling
through the cracks. This is an effort to look at that whole process comprehensively. It involves the
Department of Education, non-profits from the sporting groups to child and family service to Hale
`Opio and all of those groups. They are trying to do a community wide coordinated look and also
action plan. I think it is one of the most important efforts on our island. It has so many
ramifications in terms of our young people's readiness for life and for work. There is some money in
Economic Development that is going to be proposed by Councilmember Nakamura and I want to
support it and highlight it. I think it will show our County's commitment and partnership with all
the rest of the community agencies in developing a plan that will take us well into the future. It will
create a bright future for our young people. That is it for now.
Chair Furfaro: It is 3:00 p.m. We are going to change the tape. Do
not go far we are going to take five minutes.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 4:05 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 4:22 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay. We are back into wish list mode. Myself, Mr.
Chang, and KipuKai have not gone yet. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: I will take it item by item, Sir.
Chair Furfaro: I guess it is my turn because I promised KipuKai he
would go last. Scott, I would like to put on my list the fact that in the area of the C.E.D.S. studies; I
want to move approximately $200,000.00 from the technical studies in the general plan to the
C.E.D.S. projects. I want to put in $38,500.00 not as a transfer, but for an addition for C.E.D.S.
programs. Then, I want to move that $200,000.00 from those technical studies to the C.E.D.S.
program. So, we have a total of $488,000.00 just for the wish list piece. I want $50,000.00 in the
East Kauai Development Plan. I guess I do not have to visit this. We got $200,000.00 in the C.I.P.
because we are crossing over here to start the Environmental Assessment and the preliminary
design. I wanted to add $90,000.00 for the geological study at Salt Pond. We keep talking about the
value of that asset but nobody understands the way the water flows and the value of the salt ponds.
Then, the State comes in and trucks a driveway over it. I want to put $90,000.00 on my list. For
Civil Air Patrol, the Mayor had already addressed it, Mr. Rapozo. It was in the May 8 so I am taking
that off the list. It was back fully funded. I wanted to make sure I understood what Vice-Chair
Yukimura was talking about. I am to understand that when it comes to the pieces in the capital on
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p59
the Northern Bypass, as well as the L.E. project, you are advocating that those moneys get removed.
Put a footnote on that because that would remove about $900,000.00 with the two together. Put it
down as a footnote, not as a lined item. Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I primarily will have most of
my specific remarks during the different parts of the Budget operations as well. Some of the general
remarks I wanted to make was that I too have concerns about supporting any increases in the Real
Property Taxes. If the Administration is proposing to make revenue neutral, why is it only for a
couple of groups and not all? With regards to Human Resources and Finance, what is important to
me is having accurate and timely reports. We have several provisos that address those reports. I am
looking at each of those provisos and possibly proposing updates and slight modifications and
changes. The reports not only need to be accurate and timely, but they also need to be what I would
call Council friendly or put together in a way that of course, just prints out the extensive detail of
everything that is by lined item but also summary reports that present the big picture. In fact, if the
summary reports are all we really need printed, a report that is 500 pages longs and provides the
extensive detail could be submitted, I am hoping electronically so that we would have both. So, the
summary report is printed and the backup detail report is electronic. The electronic reports are to be
usable as well, not just for reading but for sorting and looking at it in different configurations. I
know that we cannot ask the Administration to do all of that for us but at least in the initial
provision of that information, if you allow us to have it in a format where we can change it to do our
analysis. That would be helpful. I know with Human Resources, the Quarterly Vacant Reports,
there has been some late information and missing information. I know we are moving forward and
with new systems, it is going to be better. I think part of it is how we ask for it too. I am working on
those provisos. As far as positions, I agree with much of what some of my fellow Councilmembers
have already said. I did hear the concern from Accounting regarding the lack of support for accurate
tracking of our assets. I want a report on our assets too. We need good tracking of that. I would
support that position. I am going to look again at the new position already included for Accounting
and hopefully it could cover some of that. Chair, much like what you did for over time, I am doing
something for travel and basically across the board. Even if we can only find $50,000.00 or
$100,000.00 worth of cuts, that is significant and I hope I can have support on that.
Chair Furfaro: You are talking travel County wide?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Including Council travel?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kuali`i: T.D.R. enforcement is a concern of mine also. I have
looked closely at some of the new leases and I have some potential proposals to remove a couple of
brand new leases under consideration. For one very specific item, I am looking to propose increasing
the Food Bank EBT moneys from $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. We have seen incredible success. I will
go into the detail later.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, but I am trying to put together a wish list here.
Now, this is in addition to the $20,000.00 that they are going to encumber this year and an
additional$28,000.00...
Mr. Kuali`i: In the Mayor's Budget, there is $30,000.00 and I am
proposing that to be $40,000.00, so $10,000.00 more.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p60
Chair Furfaro: So we will add $10,000.00 for that to the wish list.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is it for now. I reserve the balance of my time.
Chair Furfaro: Now, I want to make sure we all understand where
we are going. I have to give the staff a few minutes to put together this wish list. I want to put the
wish list in front of you because I took a quick look at it and it is about $1.6 million. I want to make
sure you understand, to add things to the Mayor's Budget, I am going to go thorough and if I cannot
get five votes on adding something, it is not going to be on the list before we go into the departments.
I want to point out that some of the numbers are items that are shifting location from where they are
currently at so the same will not apply to that. These are the new type items. I am going to
recognize Council Vice-Chair Yukimura, then I would like to give the staff time to talk story.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. Thank you, Chair. On the addition to the Food
Bank, which I support, I think the actual amount needed is another $28,000.00 because I just
learned that the $28,000.00 from this year is undergoing rescission because of the way it is worded.
We have to check that.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us ask Ernie to come up because I did not
understand it that way so between you and I, we might be getting different information.
Ms.Yukimura: What I heard from Economic Development today is
that the $28,000.00 in this year's Budget is going through a rescission which means it is going to be
lapsed? But you are procurement so you might know more than I do.
Chair Furfaro: Before you answer that that is not the answer they
gave the Chair.
Mr. Barreira: I hope I can clarify. From my understanding of what
is going on is that they are going to cancel the previous contract where the $28,000.00 was
encumbered to because of non-performance. That money is intended to be replaced and encumbered
for the purposes of the Food Bank contract. We are going to be doing a contract amendment and
amend those funds so that the appropriation with the encumbrance next year, notwithstanding
Councilmember KipuKai's recommendation, would be $58,000.00. The $30,000.00 of that passes
plus the $28,000.00.
Ms.Yukimura: If that is the case, I think that is what they wanted
and it should work so we probably do not need that additional $10,000.00 because the $30,000.00
plus the $28,000.00 is what...
Chair Furfaro: $58,000.00 total. Maybe I will give the floor to Mr.
KipuKai if he wants to add more comments to that.
Mr. Kuali`i: Maybe I do not have the current information but I
thought that the $28,000.00 was from the SNAP program, that that was going to be encumbered and
used for the...but I think the staffing of the E.B.T. piece. This other funding is for distribution to the
public. Maybe I do not have the latest information. That was from weeks ago.
Chair Furfaro: If we go on break, maybe you can research what
Councilmember Kuali`i was talking about. We will call you back up after the break. How is that?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p61
Ms.Yukimura: Right. That would be fine. I just want to make sure
because it is your proposal, Chair, and I support this KISC Invasive Species. Is that already in the...
Chair Furfaro: It is in the May 8 submittal. Am I correct?
Mr. Barreira: Yes. $50,000.00 is in the submittal.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. $50,000.00 is in there which is a total of
$100,000.00?
Chair Furfaro: I think it is only $50,000.00 because there was
nothing in the March 15 submittal so I did a written communication. I think I made a strong
statement and I want to clarify it again. We are going to have to step up every year unless we start
getting some support from the State Health Department. This is going to be the 4th year that they
did not give any money. I wrote over and asked for $50,000.00 and that is what is in there.
Mr. Barreira: Yes. The May submittal reflects $50,000.00.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. Lastly, on the Wailua Golf Course C.I.P.,
which I also support; I am not clear on the amount or where it is going. It is not on our list. I just
want to make sure that it is on our plus list.
Chair Furfaro: Actually, there are two parts to this. There is and
again, I have had some experience managing golf courses. There is the golf element and everything
from the type of grass we use to the depth of the sand bags. Then there is the amenity for the
Wailua Clubhouse. I was hoping to get $60,000.00 in one of the C.E.D.S. plans. I want to make sure
I am very clear. It is only for the clubhouse and concessions, not for the golf course per say. I think
that is another plan.
Ms.Yukimura: I am just a little bit concerned because I think the
plan for those ancillary functions need to follow the main mission of the golf course. Unless that is
clear and moving forward, it is hard to do the ancillary.
Chair Furfaro: I have to tell you, I disagree completely because the
ancillary are revenue generating pieces for us and the amenity needs to be there. To redo a whole
strategic plan for the golf course will take us two and half years on a good approach. I do not
disagree what needs to be done but we need a plan for those four concessioners and the actually
amenity called The Clubhouse.
Ms.Yukimura: Can we not be so adamant in the restriction of it just
so that there is maybe even just a review.
Chair Furfaro: You want me to be more flexible? Where is the
urgency? The urgency is that we will never increase the rounds of that golf course unless we
improve those concessions.
Ms.Yukimura: I totally agree.
Chair Furfaro: I agree with your long term look, but for short term,
we have to add some solutions now.
Ms.Yukimura: I agree that the focus can be there but there needs to
be some kind of reference back to a clear, current mission of the golf course.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p62
Chair Furfaro: Sure. Golf as you should know, and many golfers
would disagree, they are losing about 2.5% of their market segment a year because it has become a
pretty significant recreational sport when it comes to dollars. 2.5% of the market a year. Obviously,
many of the other golf courses we refer to end up being amenities for the sale of real-estate or to
improve the average rate in a hotel that is part of the operation. This is a municipal facility. That is
why it probably needs to be done in two parts. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chair. I was wondering if we can get a
very fast discussion about the invasive species. Last year, I believe we funded $50,000.00 and we
put that back. I just wanted to get some discussion with the Councilmembers entertaining the
thought that I think that is a very minimal amount.
Chair Furfaro: Here is what you have to understand. That
responsibility is the State's. Three years ago when Vice-Chair Yukimura and I chugged through
Lawa`i Valley to take our tour and so forth, we knew it was pretty isolated there. Yet, the State
poured a million dollars into the Big Island and could not conquer the problem because it is so
widespread. Our approach was that we gave the Invasive Species Council three years that we would
support them because we could control the invasion at that level by cooperating with the Invasive
Species Council. We still did not get any money. They have asked for this amount. I have no
problem if we bring them back, especially in your Committee, because I think it is an Economic
Development issue. The visitors get exposed to it then real estate prices drop. I think that is a
whole different discussion. For right now, the Invasive Species Council said to us that they need at
least $50,000.00 to keep the momentum going but that needs to be a future agenda item in your
Committee so that we can get to the State. It is some of our basic concerns. A million dollars later,
you still go to stay at the Hilo Lagoon and the sound of the frogs go right through the hotel room
windows. The only place that does not have them on the Big Island is Waimea because it is too cold.
But they are all over the Big Island. We need to put that on your agenda.
Mr. Chang: I appreciate that. I am thinking also of Miconia, and
Australian—everything else...the presentation you allowed...
Chair Furfaro: Again, those are State lands.
Mr. Chang: I understand that and I believe that it should be a
future agenda item. Because we got that discussion, I am just thinking like Vice-Chair was saying
in our discussion; it is a minimal amount of money for what the long term deal is going to be as far
as eradication is concerned.
Chair Furfaro: If you recall, I invited them and put them on a special
calendar to hear that because there is also a message there for the State Department Health. We
need some kokua here.
Mr. Chang: I understand.
Chair Furfaro: The trees came up along Wailua River and going
down at Lydgate. It is a navigable river. It is a State controlled river so if somebody needs to be
cutting the trees and dragging them away, it needs to be State. I hate to be so direct with Ken, but
we cannot be the forest rangers as well. Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to say that I do not know if
Councilmember Chang is proposed that many things. If he wants to co-propose another $25,000.00,
I will too.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p63
Chair Furfaro: So I can go back and say to you, "Mr. Chang, would
you like two more minutes in your turn around the table to propose something?"
Mr. Chang: Two more of my 20 or 18? No I would just like to say,
I am not asking for anything.
Chair Furfaro: But if you want to put $25,000.00 now, it sounds like
you have a second here.
Mr. Chang: I would settle for $25,000.00 but I would have asked
for $50,000.00. I think the few people that we have out there are incredible die hearts that we talked
about; out of sight, out of mind. They are living in eradication conditions.
Chair Furfaro: Dickie, that is not the question of this Council. The
question of the Council is, "Who's kuleana is it really?" And Ken, the County, on our purse strings
keep revisiting this problem which should be a partnership with the State.
Mr. Chang: I understand.
Chair Furfaro: So you are going to put $25,000.00 more on the list?
Okay. Now, if we could take a break for ten minutes so that we can put together the wish list. Then,
we will go into individual discussions knowing that Mr. Bynum's proposal to reserve 14 minutes
when the tax guys come over, is still valid.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 4:22 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 5:03 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: I want to let you know that we are getting to a point where we
are going to have some discussions on the material that we passed out because we are at hammer
time. I am giving you this list of wishes that we have here, it is a one point three million dollar
change in operating and it is a five hundred eighty-eight thousand five hundred dollar change for
additions in CIP. Some of these items you can see are based on moving some items but these are the
totals and I am not going to want to revisit with every Department, every item, I think we need to
start hammering down. Let me show you the formula—these are my notes that I have been working
with the staff about how we came up with the agenda but here is the formula (inaudible) this is what
we have up to this point. We have no tax increases, we have no rate on the reserve, we have a
process of spending money without deposits on hand and that is at one million three plus five
hundred thousand. So we have this wish list and we have two processes to go and it all starts with
hammer time. We got to be really serious about drilling this thing down if that is what we really
want to do and we need to go through voting on this or for the last three years we have been
evaluating our surplus carryover and I think the Administration has indicated that they are going to
be at twelve million, what is that number?
Mr. Barreira: It is at twelve million five hundred fifty-three thousand two
hundred seventy-three dollars.
Chair Furfaro: I am saying by the time we end this year, that will increase
with some reach by about a million five and that is from previous material that I sent you. So, we
can increase that line item on the budget worksheet to cover this but I will tell you it is very touchy
to touch the reserves because next... at the end of the month we are going to San Francisco to
refinance our debt which is going to save us substantial amount of money each year or we can go
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p64
through this whole exercise and we are going to through voting on these items and hopefully if we
come out about a million five, we at a point that we just say we are going to start with the idea that
the surplus is going to be closer to another million seven than the twelve something and that would
protect our credit status as we go in. The consequence of that if we end the year and the surplus is
not bigger than we do have to touch the reserve and the good news is —it will be after we made the
presentation to the Bond Company's. I am just laying that out to you because it is hammer time.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I just have a process question. We are going to go
through this list and then we are going to have some number that we are short. Where are we now
as far as what we already done?
Chair Furfaro: We are at fifty-eight thousand.
Mr. Rapozo: Plus or minus?
Chair Furfaro: Plus.
Mr. Rapozo: We are positive though, not negative.
Chair Furfaro: No, no—we have to add...
Mr. Rapozo: It is a relatively small amount in the red or in the black?
Chair Furfaro: Depends how you interpret red.
Mr. Rapozo: Red means we have... we need to replenish, we need to cut to
balance.
Chair Furfaro: Let me tell you where we are at... If that is the plus and
minus report for what we have gone through, we are pro how much...
Mr. Chang: State your name for the record.
Chair Furfaro: Come on... this is serious here... Jade, how much are we?
Ms. Tanigawa: The previous look we were in the high fifties.
Mr. Rapozo: Right, but it is just minimal.
Chair Furfaro: So, it is like I said, it around fifty-eight.
Mr. Rapozo: So, I am saying after we go through this and we end up with a
number and it is obviously be... we are going to need to find some funds as you just described?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Are we still going to have the opportunity to visit different
departments?
Chair Furfaro: Well, we still going to do that.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p65
Chair Furfaro: But what I am saying is, I do not want to go to every
department in the next day and try to do what we are adding and what we are deleting. I also want
to make sure everything on this list is going to require five votes.
Mr. Rapozo: Right.
Chair Furfaro: Because it is a change to the Mayor's budget.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Now, I want to make sure everybody understands I am giving
you an overview, I am not mandating to you what you do and so forth, I am giving you a solution.
But we have to know that there are solutions in this approach that before we start this process of
reviewing this and which items get five votes, there is a way to say that based on the trends we have
now, we can show twelve million five that actually is closer to fourteen. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Bynum: Just a couple of things on the list talking with Mr. Barreira,
the Child and Family Service fifteen thousand can come off of here because...
Chair Furfaro: We should wait for that when we go through the list, you can
have the floor then. We are going to go through the list.
Mr. Bynum: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us see how big this list ends up after we have gone
through it.
Mr. Bynum: And Civic Center roof is not one of the things I said — was
that somebody else's?
Chair Furfaro: That was me... maybe that was the KPD.
Mr. Bynum: KPD is one that I mentioned, the other one has to do with
Kekaha landfill but I do not know...
Chair Furfaro: Let us go through the list, let us not scatter here and go to
here... the exercise that we are going through right now is based on these review of Operating and
CIP to vote on them, I need five votes on each item if we add it and then see where we are at with
this bottom number, okay? The first item on this operating list which will require five votes is to add
fifty-five thousand...
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: So, if you are taking the vote on the first item, I want to
recuse myself.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, understood.
Mr. Kuali`i was noted as recused from this item.
Chair Furfaro: Everybody understands, I am going right down the list.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p66
Mr. Rapozo: These numbers are additional to what is already in the May 8
submittal?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: The TVR enforcement, you have twenty-five, you are going to
add that to the existing fund?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is what I am doing.
Mr. Rapozo: Got it.
Chair Furfaro: Unless the footnotes were over there like on Vice Chair
Yukimura's items that might help us... because she is talking about items that come out of CIP but
let us go to the first one. The YWCA is in need of us reconsidering fifty-five thousand dollars worth
of programs. I would like to have a motion on voting and then discussion.
Mr. Bynum moved to restore the fifty-five thousand, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion on this item?
Mr. Bynum: There is a front line social service agency and they have had
State cuts and to vow another program and they need this to... so when a victim calls, a human
being answers the call, you do not get a beeper.
Chair Furfaro: May I ask for a roll call vote please, on the YWCA, I am
looking for five votes.
The motion to reconsider fifty-five thousand dollars for the YWCA was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1.
Chair Furfaro: Now we have a records clerk, this is reflecting benefits as well
and this I believe was Mr. Rapozo's—Police Department.
Mr. Kuali`i was noted back in the Meeting.
Mr. Rapozo moved to replace KPD Records Clerk, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion on this? I do remember was a request of the
Police Chief.
Mr. Rapozo: One of many.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, do you want the floor before I call for the vote?
Mr. Bynum: Does this just reflect just the salary or the...
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p67
Chair Furfaro: Salary and benefits.
Mr. Bynum: I met with Chief Perry recently and said what are your
priorities and I did not hear this but when he was here he asked for it?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, thank you.
The motion to replace KPD Records Clerk was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR REPLACE: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—7,
AGAINST REPLACE: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: This next one is a Legal Advisor and this too is for the Police
Department. This is for the position and benefits so it is an attorney type.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes. We have had extension discussion. I did pass out the
position description. Mr. Chair, I think you remember years ago, we put this position in and it did
not get approved by the Council. Then that position was not filled. It was reallocated over to the
County Attorney's Office. Again, in light of recent happenings at the Kauai Police Department, and
speaking with some of the senior staff at the Honolulu Police Department, I find that this is a
necessary position. I did speak with the Chief and he is in support of it. I would hope that we could
get the position in there. The cost is based on the Honolulu—we took a range and it is in line with a
Deputy County Attorney salary. It is a requirement to be an attorney. Again, not to replace the
County Attorney, but to compliment the County Attorney's Office and act as the liaison. So, I will
make a motion to include the Legal Advisor into the K.P.D. Budget.
Mr. Rapozo moved to include the Legal Advisor into the K.P.D. Budget, seconded by Mr.
Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: Discussion, members?
Ms.Yukimura: I did not see the description.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. We can get another copy. I passed it out at the Budget
discussions.
Ms.Yukimura: Did you say that the other Counties have that too?
Mr. Rapozo: In Honolulu. I met with the Honolulu Police Department.
They have had that position for many years. Their Charter also, just so that people know, and
explained this again when we had the discussion; the Honolulu Charter is identical to ours as far as
the County Attorney and the department. Again, it does not replace the County Attorney's role as
the Chief Advisor and the legal representative of the Honolulu Police Department. This position
does allow or provide legal advice day to day. This is more specifically to be used towards the
accreditation process that K.P.D. is embarking on.
Ms.Yukimura: So, that still would be coordinated under...because there was
a County Attorney assigned to the Police Department. That is not there anymore?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p68
Mr. Rapozo: No. The County Attorney that is assigned is part of the
County Attorney's Office. It is not a position that is under K.P.D.
Ms.Yukimura: So why would you not have it in that arrangement as well?
What would...
Mr. Rapozo: It would give the Chief of Police the ability and the authority
to appoint a Legal Advisor that would service the department. When you read the description you
will see. I hate to waste that time. We went through it pretty intensively in the Budget discussion.
Ms.Yukimura: Can we put that at the end of the list so we have some time...
Chair Furfaro: I am going to throw it at the end so you can read the piece.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, did you want to speak now?
Mr. Bynum: Yes. If there is a County Attorney housed at the Police
Department, when that issue came up a couple of years ago, I told the Chief at the time; I would
support it being in his Budget if anybody made that argument. And if during Budget, it did not
happen and that person is there...I met with the Chief very recently. I said, "Do you have any
serious concerns about the Budget or anything that I missed?" He said, "I am kind of okay with it."
Like the other department heads, he was not happy about his H.R. person moving him to this H.R.
Department but he accepted that. He did not ask for anything else. He talked about some things in
his Budget in which he did not ask for but they were in there. I am not asking to remove those but
he did not say, "Hey, I really need this person." So I am probably not going to vote for this.
Mr. Rapozo: We can call him.
Mr. Chair: We are going to come back to the vote. Does anybody
urgently want to ask anything before we come back to this item later on?
Ms. Nakamura: Who would this attorney report to?
Mr. Rapozo: The Chief of Police.
Ms. Nakamura: So, would that mean that there would be one attorney
reporting to the Chief and a separate attorney for the Commission?
Mr. Rapozo: No. That would be up to the County Attorney on what he
wants to do with the existing County Attorney, the Deputy, which is assigned to the Police
Department. Again, this position serves a different role. The Charter mandates that the County
Attorney serve as the Legal Advisor and Legal Representative of...that will not change. What this
will do is provide the necessary expertise and experience in Law Enforcement so that the Chief can—
as they go through accreditation, I think people need to understand the complexities of accreditation
in the Police Department. It just does not require an attorney. It requires an attorney that is well
versed in the standards of conduct and the duty manuals and the general orders. Also, all of the
policies and procedures. That is what this person would be. It would be a specialist basically to help
get through as far as accreditation.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p69
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us keep that conversation for end. I believe the
next one—The Hawai`i Children's Theater, the adding of $10,000.00. I want the member who
introduced that item plan to make the motion please.
Mr. Rapozo: For the Hawaii Children's Theater, I was contacted by one of
the members of the Hawaii Children's Theater. Apparently, for their annual production which they
service over a 150 kids. Not service, but actually utilize and involve them. They used to have a
three week contract. They were paying $7,500.00 for three weeks at The Convention Hall. They
actually paid. We charged them. There was a change that the three weeks went to two weeks so
they had to raise the funds. He is just asking for some help. To me, that is a very good program,
they get a lot of the kids involved. I am not sure why we went and started to charge them. I know
we waive a lot of fees for a lot of things. I would like to see some assistance in The Hawai`i
Children's Theater because that is a service not only for those kids that are involved, but for the
entire community participates in that.
Mr. Rapozo moved to provide funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount
of$10,000.00 for the Hawai`i Children's Theater, seconded by Ms. Nakamura.
Chair Furfaro: I have a second. Now, time for discussion.
Ms. Nakamura: We received a list from the Parks & Recreation listing all of
the (inaudible) free use of that auditorium. We have that list and it was just recently circulated.
Why can't this group as a non-profit, be put on that list to prevent us from having to give them the
money that is going to come back to us in the long run.
Mr. Rapozo: That is because only the Mayor can waive the fees of The
Convention Hall. We do not have that authority. This is one way. I do not know why nor am I going
to get involved with that. They are asking for some help and this is a way we can help. Hopefully
we can get it done.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: I am sure it is a wonderful program. I am just worried about
opening up...the precedence of just having a lot of wonderful non-profit groups who want support
and help to request moneys. Unless we make a conscious decision that we are going to fund in this
area and we have a system for allocating and prioritizing and determining how we do this, I do not
feel real comfortable in supporting this in the way it is being asked. I will make personnel
contributions and so forth. We have so many incredible wonderful groups that could use $10,000.00
or more. How do you distinguish where we draw the line on this?
Chair Furfaro:a a o. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Although I share Councilmember Yukimura's concern in
general, The Hawai`i Children's Theater is doing incredible things. I am concerned to hear that they
are getting their fees waived because they have to have the auditorium. I need to support Mel's
motion on this one.
Chair Furfaro: Does anybody else want to speak on this item before I call for
a vote? Does anybody want to speak on the first item? Okay, Councilmember Nakamura, you have
the floor. This is your second time and I will only go around two times.
Ms. Nakamura: I am just going to say that I will support it. I think we need
to develop all of the spaces that the County (inaudible). It is one of our priorities which is Youth
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p70
Development. This one is clearly showing that a lot of you and the community that they have
touched. I think it is a worthy organization but I agree with Councilmember Yukimura that we need
framework as we proceed on this one.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: The way we can help is to go and see the Mayor and make
sure the fees are waived. I love children's theater. I love theater. I also think Youth Development,
yes. But how do we do it fairly?
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Unfortunately, there is no fair, right? It is when people bring
it to our attention that happens and we feel—I agree. I go down this list believe me, JoAnn, on
special projects under Economic Development and the Mayor's Office and some of those I am
thinking, "Why are we spending that money at a time like this?" I am talking about Sister Cities
and Lights on Rice and so forth. Yes they all provide a value. If the Mayor would consent and say
we waive the fees, we do not need the money. It is that simple. You want to put a proviso on this in
the event that the Mayor approves a waiver of this money? That is fine.
Ms.Yukimura: Why do we not just ask the Mayor right now?
Mr. Rapozo: I do not know if you would want to put him on the spot now. I
do not think it is fair to him. I do not know what his reasons are. If you want to put that proviso on
that, it is fine with me. We have a lot of opportunities. That is why we talk about the $40,000.00 of
our commitment to the anti-drug effort. That is something I failed to put on my list.
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure we stick to the subject title in here and
we discuss things on the value of the merit of that program. We could be here for a very long time
starting comparisons and so forth. I like Mr. Rapozo's suggestion that we leave the money there
with a proviso that we solicit to the Mayor to waive the fees. That is one option. Is there any further
discussion? Do I want to amend that motion that indicates what the proviso would be there? Let us
vote on the item as amended.
Ms. Nakamura moved to amend the proviso, seconded by Mr. Chang was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura TOTAL-6,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL-l.
Chair Furfaro: I will take it upon myself to write to the Mayor to solicit the
waiving of the fees.
Ms.Yukimura: We were voting on the motion as amended. So we need a
second?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. But I just want to let you know that I am writing to the
Mayor, one way or another. Now, we have The Hawaii Children's Theater as amended.
The motion to approve The Hawai`i Children's Theater as amended, was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p71
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL-5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None. TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT:Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-2.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us go to the T.V.R. Enforcement. Councilmember
Nakamura, this was on three of our lists but if you would like to make the motion.
Ms. Nakamura moved to increase the T.V.R. Enforcement line item that was originally
$5,000.00 to $25,000.00, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I agree with the rationale but my understanding is that there
are two full-time T.V.R. inspectors right now. This was a huge issue for a long time. They are going
through the applicants who have had the opportunity to grandfather. That is really difficult and
painful. Eventually we are going to get through that. Hopefully those inspectors will be free for
other types. So we put two in previously. They are working hard, there is no doubt about that
because we are doing this Committee process. Some of been denied and that has an end date. I do
not want to put additional funds in without more dialogue with Planning.
Chair Furfaro: We are not going to have time to do that.
Mr. Bynum: If there is not a need, I would revisit it in a month.
Chair Furfaro: Here is what I see the need is. Because our Planning
Department is doing a diligent job at reviewing all of these guys, grandfathering certain ones, and
forbidding others; there is more that have become illegal now. So there is more to enforce until they
actually walk away from it. I will be supporting this piece. Mr. Rapozo, then Mr. Chang.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe we had the dialogue when
Planning was here. I think we heard loud and clear from the Planning Department that they do not
have the resources right now because everyone is tied up. This is a onetime funding opportunity.
This is what we had suggested, that they go out and if they have to contract out, to at least get
caught up in the illegals that are going ramped right now. I heard loud and clear—I am not sure if
Mr. Bynum was here.
Mr. Bynum: I may not have been here.
Mr. Rapozo: But it was definitely clear to us that they could use some
funding. I was very surprised to see only $5,000.00 so I am going to support the $25,000.00.
Chair Furfaro: Let me see if there is anyone who wants to speak the first
time. Mr. Chang, you have the floor.
Mr. Chang: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for the audience and
members of the viewing audience that T.V.R. is Transient Vacation Rentals. I think it is a big issue
within our community because our community has obviously cried out to us that we need to have
some enforcement on the many illegal transient vacation rentals. I want the public to know that we
are doing something to hear their concerns by enforcing those who are illegally operating transient
vacation rentals, T.V.R.s. Thank you.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p72
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: For a point of clarification because I said here a couple of
months ago that part of the legislation that I supported said that if you advertise a T.V.R., you have
to put your permit number in the advertisement. That is not happening. That is an enforcement
issue. Is this for a position or is this for a contract hire? If it is a contract hire, I will support this
100%.
Mr. Rapozo: It is for Investigative Services. It will give them the
opportunity to bring on someone for 89 days. It would even give them an opportunity to go out and
contract somebody if they wanted to. The discussion as I recall, was for 89 day contracts to bring in
a couple of retired Police Investigators and go out on an 89 day contract.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you for that clarification. I support it.
Chair Furfaro: Let me give you more clarification. During the hearing with
the (inaudible), I wanted them to get two 89-day Enforcement Officers to go out and make sure that
all of those that became illegal or eliminated, they saw our presence in the community. The original
request was cut by $25,000.00 in the March 15 submittal. From the March 15 submittal, I am sorry
to the May 8. This amount only gets back to what we originally talked about. I just wanted to make
that clear. I really do not care if they get two 89-days to really—we have to have a presence to
enforce what we permitted. I hope that clarifies it for some. Vice-Chair Yukimura, you want the
floor?
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to say that laws are meaningless without
enforcement. This is a very big issue for our community. We spend a lot of time putting the law into
place. It is time to enforce it.
Chair Furfaro: Very good. I would like to have a roll call vote, please.
FOR ADD: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST ADD: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to restate my last statement. That $25,000.00
brings the funding to $30,000.00. The next item is Child and Family Services with an addition of
$15,000.00. I think that is Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Yes. This is about a summer Headstart program that we
have funded in the past. In discussion with the Administration, Parks has...I forgot what the name
of the fund but they are going to fund this for the rest of the year so we can remove this. It will
probably come back next year. It complements our summer fun program for the younger aged kids.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, may I have a nod or a really loud yes; this is a
duplicate then, it is in the Budget?
Ernie: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We will go to the next item, The Civic Center roof
repairs. I want to make sure; I transmitted some notes to Scott to build a wish list. I might have
transmitted it to roofs. It is not on the Civic Center. It is only on K.P.D. The Civic Center has been
removed.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p73
Mr. Bynum: Unfortunately, I do not have enough detail to deal with this.
I will follow up with Public Works. There is another leaking roof at Kekaha for the landfill. I do not
know how much they need for that because it was combined for painting and other things.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. We are only going to deal with K.P.D. This is a single
roof, not a dog bark. Let us move along here. Who made the motion on the K.P.D. roof?
Mr. Bynum: I did. It was in the Repair & Maintenance list that came in
our Budget but the funding for some of those items were removed. My question to them was what
they thought was critical. They said the roof was leaking. It is a Repair & Maintenance item for the
roof for that complex.
Mr. Bynum moved to approve the funding for the leaking roof in K.P.D., seconded by Ms.
Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Bynum: Tim, you have the assurance that they would be able to get
this project done in the next year?
Mr. Bynum: I did not ask that question. We can check.
Mr. Rapozo: Please do because it if is not going to be done, and I think the
standard rule is 18 months on a C.I.P.project. This is not a C.I.P.project.
Chair Furfaro: This is under Repair &Maintenance under Operations.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to make sure it is going to be done. I fully support
it but if maybe we can come back to that one.
Chair Furfaro: We need to make sure within the year, the contractor has got
an approved contract and the money is encumbered and so forth within that 12 months period.
Mr. Bynum: My sense would be yes because they do this stuff fairly
routinely at this level...
Mr. Rapozo: But for some reason it was removed. That is what concerns
me.
Mr. Bynum: If you look on the page, you see this whole list and the dollar
side is gone. That is not uncommon. I think for the Administration to say, "Hey we have to stay
within the Budget." I believe it is a prioritizing list and this was the next item that I recall. There
are things I want to add here that are really important.
Chair Furfaro: We had the discussion about what goes on. We are voting on
what is on the wish list here. I disagree. This goes on all the time. For my first ten years in the
building, call the County Council building; the roof leaked and they never fixed it. I hope they get
this one done, Mr. Bynum. Let us call for the vote.
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p74
Chair Furfaro: Next item is the Civic Center chill box. This item for me,
these chill boxes should have a life of 20 years. I asked Wally if he would check on the maintenance
contract, which is issued to O`ahu Air Conditioning. I would like to share with you folks that before
we visit this item, that we get a report on O`ahu Air Conditioning for the problem. Is it a
condensation problem or bent interior?
Mr. Bynum: I would concur at this time. Let us remove this one.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion about that? We will trace this for
some discussion with Oahu Air Conditioning. The next one is you Mr. Bynum, the Property
Technician Officer.
Mr. Bynum: This is a result on long discussions with Real Property. I will
not go through all of this because just the complexity of that work, the assessors are spending most
of their time doing technical stuff as opposed to their primary mission. We have a de facto person
who is doing this. It has taken them away from their intended position. We are the only County
who does not have even one person in this position. Maui has a Supervisor and four people doing
this. They are bigger but I just think it is a critical need and it goes on with all these other things I
have been saying about getting accurate information. I hope there is support for this.
Mr. Bynum moved to add the Property Technician Officer position, seconded by Ms. Yukimura was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADD: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-5,
AGAINST ADD: Kuali`i TOTAL-1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT: Rapozo TOTAL-1.
Chair Furfaro: Let us go to the Council Services Finance position. That is
you, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I have already made this argument. Our staff is awesome.
We have got new hires, thanks to the Chair. All the new hires appear to be awesome and they are
overwhelmed already. Finances are our primary task here. I would love for us to have a Financial
Analyst position. What I said earlier is that we approved a Legislative Analyst, which this could
either be a new position or a reclassification at that position at a higher salary because to get that
level of a person who has that level of expertise is about an $80,000.00 not a $55,000.00 position. I
wanted to have the dialogue at least but I would really like to see this position at Council Services so
we can take our primary fiscal responsibility and have that expertise.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. Chair, since it is your leadership in terms of the
positions we have already approved, was that slated for something else or is that a position that
could be turned into a high level fiscal analyst.
Chair Furfaro: I think I am going to let a cat out of the bag here when I
answer your question. Brace yourselves. We get this additional analyst which we put in for, I
actually expect the Auditor's Department to start making a monthly report to us on the financial
analysis of the monthly statements that we get. Meaning when the P.N.L.s come out, I expect the
Audit Department to review it, raise any issues with us, and make a presentation monthly.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay. But related to the new position we just approved.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p75
Chair Furfaro: I thought I just explained to you, with the seven Committees
that they have, I think I want an analyst to be responsible for those particular areas. I will not be
supporting this financial position because I have more expectations from the Auditor. If an auditor
should walk into a hotel, he audits your financial books and looks at your P.N.L.s and so forth. I
think there is more that can be done.
Ms.Yukimura: You are seeing it as using the Auditors as meeting most of the
needs that we might have for financial analysis.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to be at a point where we could call on them to
evaluate a P.N.L.
Ms.Yukimura: We should.
Chair Furfaro: We should. I do not think we are quite there yet. Anyone else
wants to comment before I call on Mr. Bynum a second time? Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I am not too familiar with what this position would do. I am
not going to be supporting it. I agree and I believe at the Auditor's Office, they have a C.P.A. there.
I believe we have some financial people that could help us so at this point I will not be supporting
this position.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I would just like to say. I had this discussion with the Chair.
I said at the beginning I wanted us to have this discussion, which we are having and I could see
removing this. I want to say that Mr. Pasion and Mr. Rawls over there are really akamai about
these issues and understand. I have asked for their assistance. They are very cautious and they
want to make sure that they are not working beyond their scope of work. If we clarify for them that
that is part of their scope of work, it would be nice to talk to them. Do you understand what I am
saying, Chair? They have been saying, "That is not really our role as we understand it." I would like
to make that clear to the Auditor and have some discussion with them.
Chair Furfaro: Having said that, and not getting to a point where I can
maximize the expectations from the Audit Department, Mr. Bynum is willing to take this out. Then
you and I could have a future discussion with them. This one comes out, please. This "Consultant
for the Movies." Please take that out. It was a mistranslation on my notes. I was talking about
Economic Development and the movies (inaudible).
Mr. Kuali`i: I want to ask for a special request to register my vote for the
Property Technician Officer as a"no", rather than silent.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Did you hear the request for the record? Now let us
move on to the `Ele`ele project feasibility study. We do not have any money in there, but it was
something that I believe Vice-Chair Yukimura wanted to have dialogue on her wish-list. There is no
money in it because I do not think any exists, does it?
Ms.Yukimura: Well, there is a huge amount of money in the Housing
Revolving Fund for the project and I am asking those moneys be removed, but we are not going to
take it up right now as a understand it, is that right?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p76
Chair Furfaro: Okay. `Ele`ele project. Housing Advisory Committee. This is
the $12,000.00 you wanted to be put in the Council Budget?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. You have to make a motion.
Ms. Yukimura moved to approve $12,000.00 to be put into the Council Budget for the `Ele`ele
Project—Housing Advisory Committee, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Chair Furfaro: Okay dialogue? You have the floor, Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: As I mentioned this would be -- and it is not J ust for the
Housing Advisory Committee, but they will be are part of the process of evaluating our existing law
and developing amendments to update our housing-- our Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Any further dialogue?
Ms.Yukimura: I hope it to be an expanded process in developing legislation.
Chair Furfaro: Can I take a roll call vote then? We have a motion and second
to add the $12,000.00 in the Council Budget for this Budget.
The motion to add $12,000.00 in the Council Budget was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADD: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST ADD: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Hello, Rick. Now, Housing Strategic Plan. This stays in the
Housing group.
Ms.Yukimura: This would be in the Housing Agency.
Chair Furfaro: Yes. $60,000 in Housing Agency
Ms.Yukimura: And it would be for a Facilitator Planner and if
Councilmember Nakamura was not a Councilmember she would be an ideal person to help the
Housing Department develop a strategic plan, which does a comprehensive look at what the
potential projects are, what our goals are for Housing. And the needs of the community. It would
take some public work -- work with public non-profits and others working on the housing issue and
help the Housing Agency develop a strategic plan for achieving the number of units we see needed
over a certain period of time.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: It basically would ensure we use our money and our time in
the best possible way to get the best returns in Housing.
Chair Furfaro: And this would be a contract that went out to a group, right?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p77
Chair Furfaro: Not a position?
Ms.Yukimura: Not a position at all. This is a one shot expense.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? If not, roll call please.
The motion to approve $60,000.00 for the Housing Strategic Plan in the Housing Agency, was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Just so we can get a real quick bearings myself. At this point
under the $1.32 that amount, we have deleted, voted against or took out $845,00.00 to this point.
That would be a $15,000.00 project, $200,000.00 project, $500,000.00 project, and a $130,000.00
project. Do you have that, Scott? And my totals add up, this is Wai`anae math, $845,000.00 to-date?
Moving right along, this next item would be on the Adolescent Drug Treatment Plan -- facility, I
guess.
Ms.Yukimura: Are we doing removals in C.I.P?
Chair Furfaro: No. I am just going down the list so I do not lose my place.
This one is a C.I.P. item that has been discussed about removal. This and the Northern Bypass. So
these are your items, Vice-Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: Are we voting on them now?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Or when we go into C.I.P?
Chair Furfaro: We are going to vote on them now.
Ms.Yukimura: All right. Basically, for the Adolescent Drug Treatment I
guess there is $500,000.00 for — I think it says feasibility and design or construction.
Chair Furfaro: Could you help us with this, Ernie?
Mr. Barreira: Chair, I believe that is all soft money in terms of design, and
feasibility. I would have to look at the C.I.P.
Ms. Yukimura: Let us look right now.
Chair Furfaro: I am sorry to have jumped around on you but I wanted to get
through the wish-list before we got to the end of the day.
Ms. Yukimura: Sorry, Scott can you help us as to where it is and what the
line item reads?
Chair Furfaro: Here is my C.I.P. It is in General Fund, page 6. Is that what
you said?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p78
Ms.Yukimura: Oops.
Chair Furfaro: Lucky, there is no coffee in that cup.
Chair Furfaro: Here, JoAnn. Pass it back after you find it, please.
Ms.Yukimura: I am not looking at the right one. Yes, it is Land Acquisition
and Improvements. So it is not soft money.
Chair Furfaro: Did you hear that, Ernie? This is for case goods.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, it is listed as correct as Land Acquisition and
Improvements, $500,000.00.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, until the feasibility study is done, it does not seem we
should move on any of that. I am concerned that this might be movement in the next year, even
though we have not completed the feasibility. So I mean we can either take it out or put a proviso
that there is no expenditure unless the Council approves.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: Or take it out for now.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to ask Mr. Rezentes if he would like to comment?
Mr. Rezentes.
Mr. Rezentes: I have no comment.
Chair Furfaro: I just caught a correction here, too. It is $300,000.00, not
$500,000.00. It got reduced. Wally, no comment? You have no problem if we put a proviso on it?
Mr Rezentes: I not think the Re e tes: do oft t e proviso would be legal, but you can put it
in.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to ask you the right thing and the wrong thing. If
I did not want your opinion, I would not call you u . Did you hear that, JoAnn?
Y p � Y p Y
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: He did not think it would be legal?
h r
Ms.Yukimura: For what?
Chair Furfaro: To put a proviso on the $300,000.00.
Mr. Rezentes: To condition the appropriation.
Ms.Yukimura: Why? We have done it many times before, I believe.
Chair Furfaro: I know we have at least two. We have our answer. I mean,
we are talking, is it legal? We do not have a motion. Wally just made us an offer we cannot refuse.
Okay. It could be a legal challenge there. That is my interpretation of that. So do we have a second
only this?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p79
Ms.Yukimura moved to remove $300,000.00, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: My background is in Social Services.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, wanted to give us more information.
Mr. Rezentes: I am sorry. I just got a call from the folks watching on the
other side. Ernie was actually right. It is misworded and it should say"Planning and Development",
instead of the Hard Costs. It is Soft Costs.
Chair Furfaro: So instead of Land Acquisition, for the Adolescent Drug
Treatment Plan, the verbiage on the list is wrong?
Mr. Rezentes: Right. It should say "Adolescent Drug Treatment Plan
Design."
Chair Furfaro: So let me ask this. Since we got the verbiage corrected, I
would hope, can I ask to remove the first, remove the second and then I will give Mr. Bynum the
floor?
Mr. Bynum: I will remove my second.
Ms.Yukimura: Why? I still want to move it.
Chair Furfaro: I understand you still want to remove it, but I want to make
sure that we have the right terminology. I will take another motion from you.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Before I get to the right motion, I want to make sure the
person that seconded your motion is fully aware of what the interpretation was.
Ms.Yukimura: All right, Chair.
Chair Furfaro: He removed his second and you removed your first. You still
have the floor, Vice-Chair—I am sorry, Mr. Bynum had the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I am not going to go through all the this history of the
Adolescent Drug Treatment Plan and we broke ground on one in Hanapepe and lost several
thousand dollars because we did not move forward because a lot of issues were not resolved. There
was feasibility study that we funded last year to see if built this building, could we actually operate
and sustain it. Five years ago the answer would have been yes, but in this era where the State
A.D.A.D. all the drug services have been cut and other adolescent programs have shutdown that did
exist. To spend more money like we did in Hanapepe, before we know it will actually come to
fruition and as reluctant as he am I am to do that and come across like I do not support us at
addressing this issue. It is not wise. So I am going to support in removing it for now until we see
that feasibility study and that we can actually operate it.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p80
Ms.Yukimura: We received a report from our Life Choices Kaua`i
Coordinator there were two procurements pending. One is $50,000.00 for a feasibility study of a
Kaua`i Adolescent Drug Treatment Center which I support, but there is also $250,000.00 for an
Environmental Assessment Land Use Planning Services and a Design and Construction Plans and
Bidding. That the Administration is in the process of encumbering and if the feasibility study shows
is not feasible will be a total waste. That is $250,000.00 and I do not know if there is a way to stop
this. This is from last year's budget. Let me get some clear yet. Ernie, could you come up for a
moment?
Chair Furfaro: First I am going to have Councilmember Nakamura recuse
herself.
Ms.Yukimura: Why?
Chair Furfaro: She felt she needed to because of the consultation with the
clinic workers. Is there $250,000.00 from the previous year's budget that they are working off of?
Mr. Barreira: I believe that is Current Years Funds, Sir.
Chair Furfaro: That is Current Year's Funded that have or have not been
encumbered?
Mr. Barreira: Not yet been encumbered because it has to rest a (inaudible)
during the process of negotiation to award on the professional service and solicitation I have shared
with the Council.
Chair Furfaro: She understands the urgency to encumber that. If not, it will
lapse.
Mr. Barreira: We are working on that feverishly before the jury duty
deadline.
Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to us clear get s c ear on the information that Council
Vice-Chair brought to our attention.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Sir.
Chair Furfaro: That is where that is at. You have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: I want to urge and request the Administration not to move
forward on $250,000.00 for a design, building plans, and an environmental assessment until the
feasibility study is completed and we are sure that it is feasible. So you can see that I am trying to
save money or not waste money from this year's budget and I am concerned how that money will be
used in this upcoming budget if we keep it in the budget. So that is my concern. Until we know we
can actually do this and I think everybody appreciates and wants to have a successful Adolescent
Drug Treatment Center but we do not want to have an unfeasible one and have spent all of this
money.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Members, any more discussion on this? We have a
motion and second? Mr. Bynum, you have spoken once on this subject, let me see if I have anybody
going once, twice, Mr. Bynum you have the floor again.
ga
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p81
Mr. Bynum: I am just having deja vu because in my first term, we broke
ground on an Adolescent Drug Treatment Facility and I will never forget that meeting because
Council Chair Asing took a courageous position and voted appropriately, I think, to try to continue.
And I was one of the votes that I regret, because Mr. Asing was correct, and we did not move forward
with that. So I just concur totally. We cannot put the cart before the horse here. I am not clear at
all that we could -- we could have a building that just sat there, because I am not clear in this
climate with social services, we can get provisos to run the facility. And so I am concerned as
Councilmember Yukimura pointed out and I voted for this funding last year, but I did not know it
would move forward until we answered that question. For this funding, I cannot see us going more
so I am going vote to remove it.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair, he want to get a procedural piece, our records
show that we removed the motion. So we need a motion.
Ms. Yukimura moved to remove or delete the item under C.I.P. Adolescent Drug Treatment
Center, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: Let me see if anybody else wants the floor. It does not look
like it. You have the floor again.
Ms.Yukimura: So besides the question of whether there is a way to sustain
it, because I do not know -- I have not been told where the operating monies are coming from. And if
this is something that is going to take County monies, this is a huge deviation from what we
normally spend county money for. We are entering full-on into human services in a very specialized
area which we have no expertise in. And so we do not know where the money is coming from. I
always assumed and even if the first presentation when the project was slated for the Humane
Society site at Salt Pond, there was going to be State monies to run this facility. I always assumed
maybe we would help start it and site it, but that the State would fund it. And I do not know where
those monies come from and I presume those questions would be answered by a feasibility study. So
those are the very big issues that have to be addressed before we start designing or doing building
plans.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I want to reaffirm something. As the County's Budget
and Procurement Officer, you feel confident that the $250,000.00 will be procured before June 30?
Mr. Barreira: What I can tell you it is currently approved funds in the
current Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. And that the professional services solicitation was let, and that
according to Ms. Koki, the negotiations are ongoing and the intention is to encumber those funds.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. You answered my question, because quite frankly, we
approved that in the previous C.I.P. and that is the end of the story. Story concluded. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Do you have any idea how long the feasibility would take?
Mr. Barreira: I have to research...
Chair Furfaro: She told us 8-10 months. I did not mean to intercede but that
is what she said.
Mr. Rapozo: No, I just wanted an answer. Thank you.
Mr. Barreira: I know it was reflected in her submission which came over
yesterday. It is quite heavy.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p82
Chair Furfaro: Is Mr. Chang here? I am getting ready to take a vote on this.
Did he leave? Ashley, how are you doing over there? Keeping up with us? Good. You are leaving,
the change of guards, you are going to sing "Hawai`i Aloha" tonight brother. We have a motion and
second. Five votes to remove this.
Ms.Yukimura: Four votes.
Chair Furfaro: I am sorry, four. I am getting -- I need some kind of chewing
gum to bring me back here. Wally, did you want to say anything before I took the vote? Okay, Wally
is here, Ernie, have a great evening and wonderful weekend and enjoy May Day. I would like to do a
roll call right now. And the motion is could you restate it, either Mr. Bynum or Vice-Chair
Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: To remove the line item for the Adolescent Drug Treatment
Center. We have done it before and I do not think anybody would challenge it legally if we want to
put a proviso in the event it is found feasible. I do not mind doing that, but I need some assurance
that money is not going to be spent before we know that.
Chair Furfaro: Let us fall back on that option after we take the vote.
Ms.Yukimura: We would amend it with a proviso, would we not?
Chair Furfaro: I would revisit it is what I am saying to you. Let us see where
the votes fall first. Okay, you agree, Mr. Bynum? The motion is to remove the $300,000.00 because
of the concerns of the feasibility studies that have not been completed. So it it $300,000.00. Okay.
Roll call vote, please?
The motion to remove $300,000.00 for the Adolescent Drug Treatment Plan Design was then put,
and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Yukimura TOTAL-4,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Nakamura TOTAL-1,
SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL-1.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: We need to amend the language -- sorry -- we need to amend
the language. It is removed. Forget it.
Chair Furfaro: We do not need to amend. The item is done for now. The vote
is four to remove, one no and one silent. Let us go to the next item, the Northern Leg Western
Bypass.
Ms.Yukimura moved to delete the monies for the Northern Bypass road in Koloa,
seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, may I ask a question on that? Is any of this work for
the bypass road and part of the C.F.D. funds or is that a future phase?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p83
Mr. Rezentes: I do not think it is part of the three approved items on the list.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmember Nakamura, we are moving on the discussion
to remove the Northern Leg Western Bypass, we have a motion and second. Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: Wally, I do not know how familiar you are with this item, and
I know we had this discussion at the budget. I just want to verify my information is accurate. This
project is on the S.T.I.P. The State S.T.I.P? So this is
p � a project that is planned to receive some State
funds to complete? You are checking? Okay. I believe it is. I think, and again?
Ms.Yukimura: It is.
Mr. Rapozo: It is on? That is fine. That is okay, Wally.
Chair Furfaro: Do we want to wait if he has any new information before we
call the vote?
Mr. Rapozo: Could I make a comment really quick?
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: We discussed this at length. It is part of a S.T.I.P. project and
I understand Councilmember Yukimura's concerns and I think it will be detrimental and take away
from the condition of Kukui'ula. I am not going support removing those funds.
Chair Furfaro: What is the motion on the floor?
Ms.Yukimura: To remove the funds.
Chair Furfaro: It was seconded by Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Kuali`i.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us do a roll call vote.
The motion to remove $400,000.00 for the Northern Leg of the Western Bypass road in Koloa, was
then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura TOTAL-3,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL-3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT: Kuali`i TOTAL-1.
Chair Furfaro: The motion failed, 3-3. Excuse me, read the Council votes by
name back to me. The motion was to remove the $400,000.00 on the Western bypass leg. That was
the motion. Who by name, who voted for it? One moment, let us get an interpretation from Ricky
Watanabe.
Mr. Rapozo: So the item is removed.
Chair Furfaro: Yes. It requires four votes. Next item is the `Ele`ele project
removal. That motion was from Vice-Chair Yukimura.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p84
Mr. Kualii: Mr. Chair, before we move on, can I still revisit my vote and
not be not silent.
Chair Furfaro: Let us have a motion to reconsideration. Ask one of your
colleagues for a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Kuali`i: If my vote was silent and I was registered with the prevailing
side then I can ask for reconsideration.
Chair Furfaro: Absolutely. Great interpretation. So you are going to ask for
a motion to reconsider?
Mr. Kuali`i: I am going to ask for a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Rapozo: Second.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i do you want me to call a new roll call?
Mr. Kuali`i: If I could say one quick comment and that is why I was
indecisive. I am concerned about the loss of Federal funds that are already in place. Also with some
of the things other Councilmembers have expressed.
Chair Furfaro Ok there is a second to his motion? Okay. Discussion?
Mr. Bynum: What was the motion?
Mr. Rapozo: To reconsider. May I hear just overall, all those in favor of
the reconsideration?
The motion to reconsider was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Now on that note, any further dialogue before I call for the
vote? Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: I have been watching this S.T.I.P. for 18 years and it is not
uncommon for projects to fall out and come back. I do not think the State or Feds will get upset with
us. The issue with the Northern leg is that we did -- we did a whole transportation plan for Koloa
and they said it was not the highest priority and we have these bypass roads and we never even
made the connectors, which would relieve traffic and solve some of this problem. So I have a really
hard time supporting, even though it is Federal money into a project that was not -- that our
professional planner said was not the highest priority and we could wait 20 years. And we just had a
successful C.F.D. and the bonds were sold and the County is going to get money to use for projects
that we identified. I just do not think this is a high-priority for all of our transportation needs. In
reality, watching the stip, it may mean that money goes to another County for now. I am still
supportive of removing this for those reasons.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Vice-Chair Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I supported the motion to reconsider, because I want
Councilmembers to be comfortable with what vote they choose and also informed. The thing about
the S.T.I.P. money now is that it is only the beginning of a lot more funding that will be needed. And
at least $4 million of County monies, which I do not believe Kukui`ula is supplying. It is going to be
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p85
County money and then what this does it ties us into an assumption of a lot of other supporting
roads. and expansion and I think if we look at oil becoming more than $100.00 a barrel, $6.00 a
gallon, and people laughed at me when I said $5.00 and we are almost there. We are going to have to
have a new way of doing transportation on this island and the long-range land transportation plan is
the time to discuss that and make decisions. So to just move ahead with a project that is far in the
future in terms priorities does not make sense and also a project that is going to tie you into
enormous funding into the future. And enormous funding -- there is so much funding we have to do,
the Wailua bypass and widening of the road to Lihu`e, the widening of the road to the Tree Tunnel
and then to Koloa. There needs to be rethinking on this. We need to do that before we commit
ourselves to a project like this.
Chair Furfaro: I am about ready to call for the vote? I voted no and I will
vote no again on the removal of this. I do not think it is as easy as standing in land anymore with
the shirnking Federal funds. I would at least like to be line to know that I do not have to get back in
the line later, reagardless of what direction we are going. That was my vote for no the first time. I
do not disagree with some of the comments that Councilwoman Yukimura is saying, but S.T.I.P.
funds will not come that easy. Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: I am concerned, but feel I do not have enough information and
I feel a need for a separate Council briefing on this matter and a better understanding of the context
within which this recommendation actually looking at the plan it was in the priority section.
Unfortunately it was and that is what it was based off of. There are concerns of why it got there and
why it became on the top of the list. So I would like to ask for that briefing through the Committee
of Public Works.
Chair Furfaro: We can have that, but today is about decision-making.
Ms. Nakamura Yes, in the future.
Chair Furfaro: You will have to vote one way or the other now. Is there
anybody who has not spoken to the item before we call for the vote? I am sorry. We have got much
more to do here. We all know this is a reconsideration.
Ms.Yukimura: I move to amend.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura moved to amend by putting the moneys into a contingency fund that
would be subject to a meeting and more information and a final vote on the Council, seconded
by Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Any discussion on that? Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: This is tough. And Councilmember Nakamura what she just
said is correct. I will bring this to a Committee, if my Committee is appropriate as soon as possible,
because I think we need that big-picture look. There are other elements to this. There is political
history and it is a pretty convoluted, thing. So if we could have an amendment that approves the
fund now, but keeps the expenditure from occurring until we can have a discussion, that would be a
reasonable compromise.
Ms.Yukimura: May I clarify my motion?
Chair Furfaro: You may.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p86
Ms.Yukimura: To put it in a contingency fund. Excuse me, Jade, we have
done that before. It would just be a contingency fund. We have done that before, right? Thank you.
Mr. Rapozo: I guess for the benefit of Councilmembers Kuali'i and
Nakamura and Chang and maybe even Bynum, I think the Kukui'ula rezoning was in 2003. I do not
believe you were here. Mr. Chair, JoAnn and myself were here and I do not know the reference to
political history but when we made those decisions we approved the zoning. We attached conditions
to that zoning and one condition was this northerly road. To put it in a contingency fund, I am not
sure what it would do. We already have a contingency fund with a $150,000.00 or so in there. If you
put it in a contingency fund, what does that do? Require a Council vote. This project is in motion, it
is on the S.T.I.P. It is like our bike path. I have some concerns about our bike path too but it is
there. It is approved. It is ongoing and I am not going to bring it up. Let it go because this is the
direction that County decided years ago and the same thing here. I think, if we touch this, we affect
the project and I would ask–I am not going to support it and I hope that we retain the money in this
account, the northern – we just call it the northerly western leg and we need to get the project
accomplished and that is the pressure we put on the Administration to get it done rather than
putting obstructions in the way. I will not be supporting it.
Chair Furfaro: I am not going to go around a second time for discussion. If
anybody wants to speak on this matter that has not spoken before on the reconsideration, if not, roll
call, please.
Ms.Yukimura: I vote on the amendment.
Chair Furfaro: On fact it has been amended is what we are voting on, okay?
And make sure everybody understands if you vote to put it in a contingency fund you have to go
through this dialogue again to take it out.
FOR AMENDMENT: Bynum, Nakamura,Yukimura TOTAL-3,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Chang, Kuali`i, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL-4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Now to the main motion. It has not changed for me since
2003. Let us vote on the main motion.
FOR MOTION: Bynum,Yukimura TOTAL-2,
AGAINST MOTION: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL-5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Now we are going to go— I think we are at the `Ele`ele
program. Are you coming right back, Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: I am.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Look, we are going to take a ten-minute break. We are
going to resolve this capital piece for the items that show up in the capital pieces and review the
operating pieces so that they do not come up on Monday again.
There being no objection, the meeting recessed at 6:23 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:35 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p87
Chair Furfaro: Just a reminder for everyone, CIP, although we made a
couple changes here, we will be having a CIP only discussion. Again, the idea we are putting
together all your wish list in the Operating piece is to have that discussion and end those items
today. The exception, Mr. Bynum has a reservation for fourteen (14) minutes on his tax piece but
probably will not be until Monday now.
Mr. Bynum: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. You are squared with that?
Mr. Bynum: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Let us go to the discussion about the `Ele`ele project removal,
that is in operations, am I right? And that is an amount that is not on your chart but it is seven
hundred and sixty-four thousand, five, forty-six ($764,546.00). Oh, did I have it wrong? Scott, tell us
what it is.
Mr. Sato: 734,546.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, so I gave you seven, six. It is 734,546 okay?
Ms.Yukimura: It is in the Housing Revolving Fund however, it is a restricted
fund I believe and Mr. Chair if after we do a strategic plan that this is deemed to be a high priority
project I am willing to go back to it but until we really know its feasibility, I do not think we should
spend a lot of money in planning or even construction. Again, if it is shown to be a feasible project
and a high priority in the mix of housing projects then I will be happy to support funding for it.
Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to say that I do not plan to support removing
right now but I supported earlier putting sixty thousand in to get a housing strategic plan in. I think
the money needs to be there if the outcome is a strong viable product, it is there, so I just wanted to
declared myself and you understood what I am... I supported the Housing strategic plan but I do not
want to touch that money.
Mr. Bynum: I will try to go through this quickly, this is about land that we
purchased in `Ele`ele Nani, before that especially after the economy turned, I lobby the
Administration to look at other alternatives especially closer in the Lihu`e. I really have a lot of
concerns that Councilmember Yukimura has regarding this however we purchased the land, we own
it, the Housing Agency is moving forward on this and I kind of... I think it needs to move forward, so
I am not going to support removing this because it is a work in progress and not only do we own that
land but we own it with restrictions that we cannot use it in other ways. I had serious concerns
about those, I would have voted against doing some of those things but now that we are there it is
like, okay we had made that decision and I want to support the Housing Agency and the work that
they are doing moving forward on this.
Mr. Rapozo: I am not going to be supporting the removal. Again, we have
had a lot of discussion and the Housing Agency, I think has done a really good job in getting this
project moving and I do not want to see the money removed.
Ms. Nakamura: This is another situation where I know there is history there
and I think it is again a topic of another separate meeting just to focus on this project and to
understand what are the moving pieces and decision points. I am just hesitant to remove it and not
having the context again.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p88
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to say that it is prime Ag land and I guess they
are going before the Land Use Commission to get it rezoned which is one of the issues again about
this whole thing and that is why there is so much... it actually removed good Ag land from Kaua`i
Coffee, I think. Just... why there are so many questions about it, I will leave it at that.
Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a seconded?
Ms. Yukimura moved to remove the line item for the `Ele`ele Housing Project in the Housing
Revolving Fund, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i, and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL:Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—6,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: Let us go to the next item, the next item is software for Real
Property Tax Evaluation and this estimate is my number, I want to make sure that it was referenced
by Mr. Bynum and I put that in based on the fact that I thought it should be in the Council budget,
so I just wanted to make sure I made that statement before we move forward.
Mr. Bynum: I think thirty thousand is a good number, thank you, Chair.
It is for the Council budget. I would just say that it should say "software/consultant services" to
make it more flexible and this is about having... and Real Property is committed to working with us
so we have access to this information... read only kind of access to this financial information but it is
going to mean training some people here on our staff and software —that kind of thing. I think... is
that accurate, Wally?
Mr. Rezentes: I guess. I think this maybe an Administrative/Legislative
matter as well so I am not sure where this item would stand from a legal perspective.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we will do this, we will call for a vote on this today and
if the County Attorney would like to make contact with me because there is a legal concern—we can
take it from there. I would like to call for the vote.
Ms.Yukimura: Are you concerned about it being more of a Administrative
matter than a Legislative one?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, right.
Ms. Yukimura: But if you bill it as training, that is a really...
Mr. Rezentes: (inaudible) software... manipulation of statistics or numbers
on the Real Property software, it is going to be a takeoff from the Real Property system which is last
I checked... Real Property Assessment is an Administrative function.
Ms.Yukimura: But it is not designed to... it is for information only right, it is
not to...
Mr. Rezentes: And usually you would get the information from the
Administration.
Mr. Bynum: Do not get me started, please.
AIMNOW
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p89
Chair Furfaro: Well, I am not going to give you the floor, so you do not have
to get started. Now, I have told the Finance Chair, you raised a good question and I am going to
make a query with the County Attorney but I would like to call for a vote. There is a motion and
second to add software for Real Property Tax indexes as well as consultant services.
Mr. Bynum moved to add software for Real Property Tax index as well as consultant
services, seconded by Ms. Nakamura.
Mr. Bynum: The Chair probably recalled earlier in the year, we had some
dialog about having the consultant come here and provide training for our staff, do you recall this
Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And so this is about be able to have access to public data in a
way that I think is helpful for both sides—Administration and if there legal questions, they can raise
them but at one point we were trying to bring them over but the timing did not work out.
The motion to add software for Real Property Tax index as well as Consultant Services, was then put
and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADD: Bynum, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST ADD: Chang, Rapozo TOTAL—2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to the next item which is the Salt Pond Geology
Study and I do want to let you know I just think something needs to be done there to understand the
natural flow of a resource that you pretty much only find in Kaua`i County. It would probably satisfy
a number of queries we have and especially help us have a document that we could fall back on when
we have other things in that area with the State. I would like to see if I can get the support for that.
g g Pp
I need somebody to make the motion other than myself.
Ms.Yukimura moved add Salt Pond Geology Study, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I am supportive of this, the Chair has talked about this for a
while and so I want to be supportive, my daughter is graduating from KCC, my wife is outside the
door and I promised her that I would leave. I hope my vote is not needed for some of these other
things because I generally (inaudible) some other questions about a few of them but thanks for
letting me... but if you need me to stay for the vote, I will hang around for a minute.
Ms.Yukimura: I just need to know where my motion put these moneys. Are
we putting it in Planning?
Chair Furfaro: Economic Development is where I would like to put it.
Ms.Yukimura: Economic Development? They will definitely need a position.
Chair Furfaro: And those are the kinds of things that we have the outreach
but for us to have a place that is wahi papa such as salt ponds and its value across the State and not
understanding how nature works there, we are not doing any justice.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p90
Ms. Yukimura moved to put ninety thousand for Salt Pond Geology Study in the Office of
Economic Development, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, we are going to take a vote here right after Mr.
Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo, did you want to speak.
Mr. Rapozo: No. I know he has to leave so let us just call for the vote.
Mr. Bynum: I am sorry.
Mr. Rapozo: No, you do not have to apologize.
Chair Furfaro: Did you want to say something real quick?
Ms. Nakamura: I just want to say that I think this needs to lead into a Master
Plan for Salt Pond.
Chair Furfaro: Absolutely.
Ms. Nakamura: That this is a first step of a longer planning product that we
can...
Chair Furfaro: And hopefully we can get the State to participate with us
since they got an airport and helicopters going in and out — a whole bit... all I want to do is find
myself, how do we preserve the pa`akai and knowing how the pa`akai work.
The motion to put $90,000.00 for Salt Pond Geology Study in the Office of Economic Development
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST ADD: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you Members and thank you for supporting this.
Mr. Bynum was noted excused from the Budget Decision Making Meeting.
Mr. Rapozo: This was something that KipuKai and myself went out to a
community meeting and prior to us leaving, you had given us the assurance that you would support
the funding of a study and we did relay to the community members at that meeting. They were very
excited and it was basically through my negligence or I just failed to follow up and so I appreciate
you putting this back in. The other thing that we did talk about was possibly setting up a sub-
Committee to work on salt pond issues and that is something that we can also consider at a future
date. I am glad to see the ninety thousand in there, you made good on your word and I think the
community will be very happy. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: The next is the CAC piece by putting sixty-four thousand in
there and I want to make sure I clarify something before I ask Mr. Rapozo to make the motion. I was
instrumental in putting the second eighty-five thousand in there to have a consultant to help them.
We have in this...
Ms. Yukimura: What is that?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p91
Chair Furfaro: The CAC — the Kekaha Group that has the landfill
stewardship. I forgot the (h) but I put this together just from hearing all you folks. Now, we
arbitrarily said we are going to set the CACSI by giving six hundred fifty thousand dollars in the
initial year. For the years thereafter, we were contributing, Wally, I believe it was fifty right, each
year that goes into that Kekaha CAC fund?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, for the services, yes.
Chair Furfaro: It is fifty every year.
Mr. Rezentes: I believe so.
Chair Furfaro: But what is now happened, I know we had testimony that
people were looking for that to the increase by another one time contribution of a million dollars and
I am sorry I do not think we can go there. But we recently increased the funding, I mean the tipping
fees from fifty dollars to ninety dollars and we have calculated the amount we give them based on
one dollar for every tonnage. Now, if our revenue is now at ninety dollars per ton, this only
represents appropriately putting in anther eighty cents for every dollar going forward. I think it is
since we cannot be going backwards at a million, I think going forward whether we are there seven
years, eight years, nine years... we should stay consistent with the parameters of what we said we
would give and therefore we would have to add another twenty-four thousand dollars next year
based on eighty cents more per ton and I am sorry I had the numbers that I arrived at for the last
three years that would bring us to about twenty-four thousand but at the same time, I want to
remind them when we do this, we need to make sure that we reconcile it based on the actual tonnage
each year because if everything should work well with us and we do a MERF, we should be putting
less in there. This was my rationale here to bump it by another sixty-four thousand dollars. I will
leave it at that. My second piece is the fact that this would be the third year that we gave them a
consultant and I think we are not so much at a consultant level like a Planner but maybe more like a
consultant from a standpoint of making sure that they fundamentally have a CPA looking at the
request to manage the fund versus having another Planning activity. The discussion right now is
the rationale about raising another eighty cents based on the tipping fees we are now charging but if
I could ask Mr. Rapozo to make that motion.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I do want to make a motion to increase it to a million, I
do not think I will get a second.
Chair Furfaro: I misinterpret, you will not get a second from me.
Mr. Rapozo moved to increase the Host Community Benefit Fund in the CIP, increase it by sixty-four
thousand, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Chair Furfaro: If I can make sure we understand, that is just an estimate, I
do want it... but I do want it going forward to tie to actually tonnage of a dollar eighty a tonnage.
Mr. Rapozo: I am going along with this and it is a substantially lowered
amount that I would like to have put in and realizing the tough economic times, I am going along
with this. Like you said, you have a rational practical formula that is objective but I will say this
and I do not know how long I will be here but I have a feeling that the landfill is going to be in
Kekaha's backyard for a long time. I think we are going to see a lot more expansions and I think we
are going to see possibly building a new landfill out in Kekaha, that is also an option that I have not
erased simply because of the trouble it takes to actually develop one. I will say this that in fact I am
still here and Kekaha gets task with or gets selected or they are forced again to house that landfill
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p92
then I will be seeking substantial amounts of money for the Host Community Benefit because I think
they deserve it. They need to get their CAC on track but I believe that community deserves
substantial Host Community Benefit but as of this moment, I will definitely support you.
Chair Furfaro: And again, I just want to say I wanted to be rational,
objective and that is why I came up with a dollar eighty. On the flip side, I do not disagree that if we
were going to look at a onetime substantial infusion that then maybe that is something that can be
considered in a future bond rather than the tipping fee. Any further discussion on this, we have a
motion to increase the CAC funding approximately sixty-four thousand dollars.
The motion to put sixty-four thousand dollars to the Host Community Benefit was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: We are going now to the CEDS study, I think there is some
duplication on what I suggested we do a narrative earlier but I am going to leave this discussion to
Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: It might be easier if I just go through the first item there, the
CEDS study to move two hundred thousand from the technical study General Plan. Right now there
are technical studies that are being commissioned and there is a line item that is in the CIP budget
to do the work. There is also an additional two hundred fifty thousand dollars in there to do the
General Plan update. Now the General Plan update will not happened... the technical studies will
take about a year to eighteen months to do, so there is no need for the two hundred fifty thousand
dollars. The idea is to move some of the funds to implement some of the CEDS studies and projects.
There is a handout that you all received with the breakdown on the types of projects that would be
follow up to last years budget approval. Unfortunately, we are going to be briefed on the results of
the feasibility studies later on this month and early next month, so we had to... because of the
budget process, kind of get in front of that but there will be follow up on the multispecies processing
facility modular slaughter house, the next step would be to do a business plan, an organizational
development plan, site selection plan, site control and at the same time do a beef quality study. The
next project is the incubation commercial kitchen, again the next steps there would be to do a
business plan, organizational development, seek additional... leverage our county funding to get
outside funding and then implement. Then on the digital media facility, again, doing a business
plan, organizational development work, all of that would be contracted studies that would be
through the Office of Economic Development to Kaua`i Economic Development Board to carryout the
studies. There are projects related to arts and culture having a facility feasibility study to look at
multiuse facility that would also take a look at the multiuse arena and have discussions to see what
is the best way to approach it on Kaua`i and involve all of the stakeholders. Councilmember
Yukimura talked about the Keiki to Career action plan that is also on this list. Under sustainable
technologies and practices, there is a need to look at what are the economic opportunities once we
recycle materials and develop a MERF and while that is being worked on, we also need to look at
what do we do with the materials once we separate them and what is the market for these
materials? Finally, the Wailua Golf Course strategic plan and business plan, that we have discussed
earlier.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p93
Ms. Nakamura: So when you add all of that up there is a need to move these
funds in order to cover those expenses and then the next line is to find thirty-eight thousand five
hundred dollars to complete those studies and then we would, I think the next line might be... is that
the duplication that you are talking about Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: I am not sure what that third line is about...
Chair Furfaro: Make reference to the title for everyone.
Ms. Nakamura: General Plan.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is not part of this discussion.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, so we can take that out.
Mr. Rapozo: The General Plan?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: So, here is the summary is on the worksheet that
Councilmember Nakamura shared with you. It is actually moving two hundred thousand from
technical studies in the General Plan to CEDS with actually adding an additional thirty-eight
thousand five which is summarized in her worksheet which gets you to the four, fifty from the
transfer getting a total to a four hundred and fifty thousand and then adding new money of thirty-
eight, five to get us the total amount of four, eighty-eight. The only increase in moneys is the thirty-
eight thousand.
Ms. Nakamura: And again, we will be briefed on all of these projects or at
least the top three in the coming months and the others, at a future date.
Ms.Yukimura: So, the clarification is we move two hundred thousand to the
CEDS in the Office of the Economic Development?
Ms. Nakamura: No... this is in the...
Ms.Yukimura: It moves to CIP?
Ms. Nakamura: It is in the CIP fund and the idea is to keep it in the CIP
funds under... move it to the CEDS line item.
Ms.Yukimura: Which already have two hundred fifty?
Ms. Nakamura: Exactly.
Ms.Yukimura: So, that is a total of four hundred fifty and what you need is
that additional thirty-eight thousand?
Ms. Nakamura: Exactly.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p94
Ms. Nakamura moved the amount of $200,000.00 from technical studies in the General Plan to
CEDS and added an additional $38,500.00 [which is summarized in her worksheet which gets you to
the four, fifty from the transfer getting a total to a four hundred and fifty thousand and then adding
new money of thirty-eight, five to get us the total amount of four, eighty-eight] for a total amount of
$488,000.00 for CEDS, seconded by Ms.Yukimura, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Those pieces are done and now we are going to travel
reduction...
Ms.Yukimura: East Kauai.
Chair Furfaro: Oh, I am sorry. East Kauai Development Plan - fifty
thousand.
Ms. Nakamura: This is to complete the East Kauai Development Plan which
is been really languished for a while. It is starting up again, there is a commitment from the
Department to complete it, there is a need for some additional funds to get it through the review
process to get it through the Citizens Advisory Review process, to get it through the Planning
Commission review process and bring it up to the Council with a draft document and an ordinance,
so this is to complete it. Just to give you some perspective, this started off with a budget of two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, there was an increase to about... I think it got increased it to
four hundred fifty thousand, so this would take it up to five hundred thousand dollars but keep in
mind that the Lihu`e development plan budget is nine hundred thousand dollars. The Koloa
Development Plan is at six hundred fifty thousand dollars, so considering what this project has gone
through, I think this is a reasonable request.
Ms. Nakamura moved to increase fifty thousand dollars to complete the East Kauai
Development Plan, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I am real glad to see that we are resurrecting the planning
and bringing it to fruition, I know a lot of hard work has been put into it by both consultants and the
citizens. It is not the way we want to do our plans but that era hopefully is over and we are
embarking on a hopefully wonderful planning process. Thank you for bringing it to completion.
The motion to increase fifty thousand dollars to complete the East Kauai Development Plan
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: I do want to hit all of these here, travel reductions—there has
been some discussion from Councilmember Kualii and I do want to point out it is my understanding
that the travel budget for the Administrative Offices have been reduced once already, is that correct?
Okay, and I also want to make sure you also understand the travel budget for the Council has not
been touched. We need to be dealing possibly with some equity here and I believe Mr. Kuali`i, you
had a worksheet for us?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p95
Mr. Kuali`i: I want to wait on this, I may not be introducing it. If we can
go through the rest and I...
Ms.Yukimura: On Monday?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, maybe on Monday.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Let us go to the removal of vehicle leases —undecided
at this point too?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I think I want to wait on this one also.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kuali`i: The other thing I wanted to mention is that we did throw this
out as wish list but we were still going to go by Departments?
Chair Furfaro: What I am going to do is this, we threw these wish list items
out and I am going to vote on them now with the exception of now travel, removal of vehicle leases
and the discussion on the Legal Advisor for the Police Department.
Mr. Kuali`i: (inaudible)
Chair Furfaro: The chill box is out... so, those three items. Everything that
we vote on here, I am not planning on revisit but if we have mutual agreement to pick these three
things up later then that is fine. Now, I am going to the Food Bank increases after getting the
verifications from... is this no longer on the list?
Mr. Kuali`i: No, it is still on the list.
Chair Furfaro It is still on the list?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, you have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify, so I thought that the twenty-
eight thousand would have been encumbered or added in and I thought that the thirty thousand
would become fifty-eight. But that is not the case. The thirty thousand is the new figure for the new
year.
Chair Furfaro: Right.
Mr. Kuali`i: So, with that in mind when I met with the Director of the
Food Bank, I got some extensive information and actually I was really excited about it because I first
sort of... heard more about it...
Mr. Chang: Excuse me. I am sorry. Can we just clarify that we are
talking about the Kauai Independent Food Bank.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is correct — the Kaua`i Independent Food Bank who
already started the pilot project with the EBT at our markets and then the confusion with the other
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p96
twenty-eight thousand was with their SNAP project where they had all that difficulties and so their
program got on hold. That is why that twenty-eight thousand was not delivered because it was in
the SNAP program. But in there, EBT at the markets program, it was incredibly successful and we
heard about it get the Get Fit Kaua`i annual meeting and that is where I met the new Executive
Director from the Food Bank for the first time and the young woman who actually works at the Food
Banks issuing the selling the 2 for 1 EBT programs. In fact, they are at four markets and from this
past Fall — month after month it has just been growing and growing and their most successful
markets are at KCC and Kapa'a and literally from month to month, they were growing by like thirty
percent, forty percent. What they want to do is expand to even more market, so to go from four
markets to eight markets and they also want to give more of a benefit to the families because right
now they have to limit it because it is such a limited amount of funding to just five dollars. A family
comes with five dollars in EBT and they match it with an additional five dollars, so now instead of
five dollars, they have ten dollars to spend. Well if you might imagine, a families that are in this
situation cannot do very much with ten dollars, but it is of course exposing them to the market place
and to fresh vegetables and it has been incredibly successful. With forty thousand dollars, they could
increase the amount of what they are giving to each individual and they could also go into several
more markets and so that is what I am asking for — is the increase from thirty thousand to forty
thousand, an increase of ten thousand dollars.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to increase the Kaua`i Independent Food Bank by ten thousand dollars, a total of
forty thousand dollars instead of thirty thousand dollars, seconded by Ms. Nakamura.
Ms.Yukimura: When I talk to them, they basically wanted fifty-eight
thousand and I thought that would cover their work. I am sure everybody could use more but if we
are talking necessity and need for everybody.
Mr. Kuali`i: You said fifty-eight thousand.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: Where do Y ou have the...
Chair Furfaro: He had the twenty-eight plus the thirty...
Ms.Yukimura: Right, they are going to have thirty thousand that they
requested plus twenty-eight thousand for this fiscal year because they are encumbering it now.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is the part that I was not clear from Ernie, I did not
think that the twenty-eight was still available to them.
Ms.Yukimura: It is.
Chair Furfaro: It is.
Mr. Kuali`i: And the twenty-eight thousand is going to be used for the
EBT program?
Chair Furfaro: It can be, yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: It can be, okay.
Ms.Yukimura: So, I am thinking that with the twenty-eight plus the thirty,
we are giving them a hundred percent of what they asked for.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p97
Mr. Kuali`i: It is fifty-eight thousand.
Mr. Rapozo: I do not want to doubt anybody but I do not know if Wally has
an answer, what I heard from Ernie was that the contract was rescinded, that is what I heard from
Ernie.
Chair Furfaro: I heard from him, he invalided what contract they had and
they are pursuing a new procurement.
Mr. Rezentes: With the recertification of the...
Chair Furfaro: With the recertification of the group.
Mr. Kuali`i: So the thirty thousand in the budget plus the twenty-eight
thousand that is re-contracted that will give them a total of fifty-eight thousand?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: The twenty-eight thousand is from this year?
Mr. Rezentes: Current.
Mr. Rapozo: It is not new money.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, they are still serving this.
Mr. Rezentes: Fiscal 12 money.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct, so as we move into Fiscal Year 13 which is what the
budget we are looking at, what are they getting from the County?
• Mr. Kuali`i: Thirty thousand.
Mr. Rezentes: They will get the thirty for 14.
Mr. Rapozo: The thirty thousand.
Mr. Rezentes: For 14.
Mr. Rapozo: No twenty-eight thousand?
Mr. Rezentes: The twenty-eight thousand will be done... Ernie was stating
that the twenty-eight thousand would be... the intent would be to complete that certification and
contract this year.
Mr. Rapozo: With this years funds?
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Mr. Rapozo: You are going to encumber?
Mr. Rezentes: That is the intent.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p98
Mr. Rapozo: For the twenty-eight thousand?
Mr. Rezentes: That is correct.
Chair Furfaro: And start the year with the new amount of thirty.
Mr. Rapozo: So, that twenty-eight thousand does not exist. In the new
year going forward, we have allocated thirty thousand dollars from the County of Kauai.
Chair Furfaro: Which is two thousand more than what they gotten on
regular years.
Mr. Rapozo: That is what I understand is going to happen. So, it is not
fifty-eight thousand. It is thirty thousand, currently.
Mr. Kuali`i: That is what I understood in my meeting with the Executive
Director was that with... they would want the 241 funding level to be raised to forty thousand to
accommodate the growing number of participants and to expand into the other markets to basically
copy the huge successes they already been having in the markets that they are in. They said that
the investment is returned to the County in a form of additional revenues according to USDAs
report. For every five dollars the economic benefit is nine dollars and twenty cents. Clearly this is a
direct benefit to our families that are going to the market but there is a direct benefit to our farmers
who are selling at the market and the multiple layers of benefit and economic development in our
community is a good one for ten thousand dollars more.
Ms. Yukimura: It is a wonderful program and there has been great success
and I talked to Mr. Ranger this morning and he said there is a thirty thousand coming, there is
twenty-eight thousand that is going to be encumbered, he did not care how he got it. Either it lapsed
and was put in the budget or he would encumber it and have it basically for expenditure in the next
fiscal year. I think their request is fulfilled.
Chair Furfaro: I have to tell you what I conversation with him, I had it twice.
First conversation is, why have you not gotten that money secured in this year and he basically said
I am just filling a new position and I am getting my feet in. The second time I saw him, I said have
you secured that twenty-eight thousand that needs to be encumbered now, and he said Jay, I am
doing that right now with the office and I said you will use it for next year, and he said yes he would.
I understand you come onboard and you have not had a lot of time to recruit for money or raise
money but you got to get the right information to the Office of Economic Development and I think
you might have to restart securing that money. I left that meeting feeling for the year, he was going
to get fifty-eight thousand... twenty-eight plus thirty. I think that is where I am going to stay
because I really appreciate you going to bat for that effort Mr. Kuali`i but what he told me and the
late start they had and so forth, they were going to get fifty-eight thousand and now I understand
their nose is to the grind stone to secure it that way.
Mr. Kuali`i: When Councilmember Chang talked about the Invasive
Species and Councilmember Yukimura suggested you are not asking for anything, go ahead and
make a motion and I have been prepared to proposed for cuts to help in this fiscal responsibility and
that is the only thing I am asking for—ten thousand.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I will go this way sir, I will support the extra ten
thousand but I am going to tell you right now, if they do not do what they need to do to secure that
twenty-eight thousand, then do not come and see me over spilt milk because you did not get the
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p99
money. That is where I will be. Okay, any further discussion? The vote on the table is a motion to
increase that by ten thousand dollars and you folks heard my condition about not extending any
encumbering.
The motion to approve ten thousand dollars to the Kaua`i Independent Food Bank was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: I want to complete this list today so let us go to the KIS
twenty-five increase, we got fifty thousand in there, Mr. Chang, you know my position, it is time for
the State to step to the plate but we put this one in and you have to make the motion.
Mr. Chang: I agree with you a hundred percent that we have to rally our
troops and get the State involved however, I am requesting twenty-five thousand dollars increase. I
think it is very much needed, we had that presentation that you assisted us with and I think the sad
part of about is, again I use that phrase out of sight out of mind and I think there is a lot of things
going on within our valleys and mountains and soon to be neighborhoods so I think that that is the
small portion that we can donate these exceptional people do that work that they do.
Chair Furfaro: I did hear from Councilmember Yukimura that she would be
willing to second this?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I seconded it.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion?
Ms.Yukimura: As we recognized it, this is not just about conservation and
environment, it is really about economic development. The cost of invasive species to farming to
impact on visitors is tremendous and the group that is doing this uses money so efficiently and
effectively, so I think it is worth this and we should send the message and actually should include it
in our Legislative Package to seek State funding. This is a critical thing; I think they are worried
about mongoose actually arriving on the island. The bee issue, I mean we have such a premium for
market for queen bees and the honey industry but if(inaudible) and others come here, it is extremely
dangerous. I think it is worth it, prevention is far more effective.
Chair Furfaro: I do not doubt it and I have been a very big advocate for this
but I just want to say to all the political subdivisions, get in the game...
Ms. Nakamura: I am going to support this as well, thank you Councilmember
Chang. When we had the conservation workshop, there were many organizations doing wonderful
things on this island. I think this is one of many organizations similar to the Youth Development, I
think we need a policy and knowing that the State is responsible for this and does not have the
resources to do a lot, I think we should move in a policy direction of trying to support and facilitate
the good work that is done out there. I would like to have that discussion in the future.
Chair Furfaro: Let us put it in somebody's Committee and I think I made my
point, let us all get in the game. Any further discussion before I call for the vote?
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p100
Mr. Rapozo: I just would say what I said years ago when I spoke to the Big
Island Council about the coqui frogs and they said Mel, we would put in five million dollars today if
we knew we would get rid of the frog and that is all I need to know. I will definitely support this.
Ms.Yukimura: The wonderful thing about the conservation groups is- they
work together so well and they match a lot of private funding in the conservation effort too. Those
are advantages to help with them.
The motion to increase twenty-five thousand dollars to the Kaua`i Invasive Species Committee was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: It is now 6:20 and I want to remind all of you, the latest we
can go is 6:37. We have about four items to do here and then we need to talk about how we are going
to approach the funding on this. The next item is the feral cat task force.
Ms. Nakamura moved to put thirty thousand dollars in the Office of Economic Development to bring
g
all the different stakeholders together to develop Kaua`i solution to the issue of feral cats on Kauai.
There was a lot of discussion when Councilmember Rapozo introduced a Resolution on trap, neuter
and release at which lead to this... identifying the needs for a community discussion. This is to fund
a process to come up with very specific results and that would be very inclusive to all the different
stakeholders, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure you all understand, this is a process to
have the discussion to find out if there is any reasonable solutions, this does not mean that we are
committed to all the various pieces but coming out with a strategy and for that reason, I will support
it.
The motion was then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Chair Furfaro: Kapa'a Elementary Dolphin matching funds. I want to share
with you in my opinion that we need to not specify a specific school but we need to talk about
perhaps a Dolphin Club type activity, so that other schools can apply to.
Ms. Nakamura: After school?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, after school. I want to make sure this is a dangerous
precedent by earmarking which school. I do not know what they call the Dolphin Program in a
mission statement or if somebody has something similar that...
Ms. Nakamura: It could be after school matching funds.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, I like that better. I do not want to get confused with
what the State is supposed to do with after school funds.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p101
Ms. Nakamura: Very different from A+.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to make sure we are all square about A+ because
there seems to be diminishing amount of State support even at the City and County of Honolulu,
they limited the afterhours and the summer fun programs, they are short money so a lot of State
funds are not going to be coming into programs like this.
Ms.Yukimura: I will second it for discussion. I think the program sounded
like a wonderful thing and again there are a lot of wonderful programs but I am very concerned that
we are entering an area that has not... that actually will open up the flood gates and how we defined
how we are going to fund it is a real concern. I do support the idea of... I do believe County
government has a role in supporting the development of young people and so... but I am hoping that
part of the cradle to career will help define what role that would play. I think it is a bigger issue
than it appears and I mean maybe we can do a one shot thing but no more until we develop some
kind of conceptual idea about how we give out these moneys otherwise you will see in our next
budget, we are going to have a thousand applications.
Mr. Rapozo: I agree with Councilmember Yukimura. The County does
have an opportunity for these agencies to secure funds through the Anti-Drug Office for programs.
Ms. Nakamura: Not this time.
Mr. Rapozo: They got denied?
Ms. Nakamura: It has to be a best practice.
Mr. Rapozo: I do not know. I just saw the list of recipients of some County
Anti-Drug funds and I did not see too many best practices and again like the Hawai`i Childrens
Theatre —it is a County facility that is charging the money and I think that separates... that makes
it different for me. This one here, I tell you, I would agree that we would get a lot of request, we get
them a lot as Councilmembers just individual for individual contributions. I agree it is a good
program but I do not know if we should be getting in that arena. I do support the program but again
I think and if we are not... if for some reason the Anti-Drug Office is not awarding these money to
groups like this which provided Anti-Drug the opportunity then I think we explore why but I know
the Pop Warner for a coaches clinic, we receive money from the Anti-Drug Office and that is not a
best practice. I would challenge the Anti-Drug Office to open up their barriers if there are any but it
will be difficult for me to support this.
Mr. Chang: The very, very unfortunate conclusion is that there are so
many schools and well deserved programs that are out there and I know that a lot of the schools
through their parent/teacher conference does a lot of their own fundraising and I just to probably say
on a personal note that I am sure if we do fund one school then the flood gates are going to be open
and I think people are going to personally come up to us with personal relationships and it is very
difficult to explain to them. I think if you do it for one, it is hard not to do it for everyone. I believe
there are a lot of people out there that wish that we could fund them and I just believe that it is
going to open up a whole different can of worms if you will. I just think it is a very difficult call.
Mr. Kuali`i: I did want to say that this was one of those that I have been
thinking too... like in the Mayor's budget, there is Special Projects and there are things like JPO
picnic and Boys and Girls Club and in the Parks & Recreation budget—special projects there are K-
PAL and good beginnings, so maybe that going to the Mayor is more appropriate for something like
this.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p102
Ms. Nakamura: I hear a lot of discussion about opening up the flood gates,
Good Beginning Alliance gets twenty thousand dollars to do Pre-kindergarten summer program for
seventeen children. Child and Family services gets twenty-five thousand dollars to do a Pre-school
summer program for children under four years old and they have not provided how many students
are (inaudible). As Councilmember Kuali`i mentioned, of course K-PAL also receives ten thousand
dollars, Councilmember Yukimura's organization Boys and Girls Club is receiving funding, I have a
hard time with this concept with opening of flood gates because the flood gates are already opened.
Why are we now saying that we are... this past year, we had fifty-one million dollars sitting in our
bank because it was not expended. This year we are bringing over twelve million dollars from the
previous year budget because it was sitting in our bank. This program will serve four to five
hundred students every school year and what is wrong with that?
Chair Furfaro: I do not think anything wrong with it but I want to be careful
with what you said about the financial issues because we had fifty-one million but we took twenty-
five of it to set up a reserve, so that was earmarked. We had nine million that went to projects in
the year for the year that we budgeted. Now we are using about six of that to get us started, so I just
want to make sure that the public understands that it is not that we are sitting on fifty-one million.
Ms. Nakamura: I am just using from a previous CAFR number. My feeling is
that yes we need to look at a broader policy for this County and I believe that after school
enrichment programs is a policy that benefits so many children, that could benefit so many more if
you get the PTSA's involved that are raising funds and saying just come to the table with matching
funds because there are not a lot of funding out there for these programs and operating programs
like this. I can count votes as well but I really do not think we should wait around for the policy, let
us get programs like this going and develop a policy while we are contemplating how we should
approach it in the future.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to say also, I understand your passion for this and
I just want to say, in my hometown the State is talking about discontinuing bus service to go to
public school, that is the kind of situations that we are in. That is what I am thinking that some of
us are aware of and I can support this right now if it is a one time deal but until we have a policy,
the State is (inaudible) they are scratching all over for money and basically getting yourself to school
is at risk for a lot of parents because the State does not have that kind of money.
Ms.Yukimura: I think we definitely need more quality after school programs
and I know Councilmember Nakamura has been really instrumental in developing the programs at
Kapa'a Elementary School. I am thinking... a lot of the programs that you mentioned are tied into
summer fun programs or some connection to the County — KPAL, right now... I think the buildings
of Boys and Girls Club they are using buildings that are part of the County facilities. I would be in
favor of developing a policy that does show how we would do this rather than just jumping into the
policy before that. I think with some really clear rules and guidelines that we could —well at least
we could look at how it would work.
Chair Furfaro: Shall I call for the vote?
The motion to approve funds for the After School Programs (Dolphin Club) was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL—2,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Chang, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p103
Chair Furfaro: I am going to end today over here but I want to make some
rules very clear to you folks. We at are what started off as a wish list of one million three hundred
twenty-five thousand two, ninety-five — we have next from the wish list eight hundred sixty
thousand dollars. Leaving us the wish list right now is at three, sixty-five, two, ninety-five. If you
take the programs that were there—fifteen thousand, two hundred thousand, five thousand... that is
eight, sixty—round numbers. Take the eight, sixty away from the one million three, twenty-five, we
are still talking about a wish list of three hundred sixty-five thousand dollars in round numbers. Do
you want to challenge my round numbers?
Mr. Chang: No. But I would think it is closer to four hundred thousand
dollars.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, well I do not know what you might have had that fall
into the CIP category and so forth and let me finish the discussion. I am not opening up the wish list
for Operations when we get together on Monday because you thought of something when you was
eating shaved ice at Pono Kai. We are not doing that. What we still have on the list are items that
deal with the travel reduction, the removal of vehicle leases, the Parks and Recreation volunteers
appreciation, the CEDS for Kapa`a, the CEDS for KEDB—okay? Let me finish... so, when we finish
this, we will have a number because we have to find the money folks, okay? So, I am not
entertaining building this to find more money. Then when we go to the Operating Department's, if
there is something that you want to specifically want to talk about, that operating department then
we will discuss it again. But I am not opening the door for wish list again. You better have a very
good way to approach that based on the fact that we did all the new positions, we did all the over
time. We have a policy now on dollar funded positions, now when we get into the CIP discussion,
three items fell into category now but we are now going to have a separate discussion about CIP.
This is the operating wish list and we just cannot go on like this. We are going to have basically two
working days to finish this, find the money and we still have to talk about revenues and looking at
the fact that we might increase the twelve million five that we are starting the budget with, with
other anticipated surplus money.
Ms. Nakamura: Chair, there was one item that was not added to this list.
Chair Furfaro: Which item was that?
Ms. Nakamura: I will give you the information—in Planning Department.
Chair Furfaro: Just give me the description item right now.
Ms. Nakamura: So it would be... I do not have it in front of me... Planning
Department—Other services adding twenty thousand dollars.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, to the list of items that we have not touched on, we are
adding Planning Department other services twenty thousand, we have CEDS for twenty thousand
for KEDB, we have CEDS for twenty thousand for KPAA, we have volunteer recognition for ten
thousand, we have removal of vehicle leases and we have travel reductions, along with discussion on
the legal advisor. When we finish that we are going to establish where we are getting that three
hundred and sixty-five thousand, two hundred ninety-five dollars that Mr. Chang has different math
than I do but we have to establish that and then move on... move on... is everybody okay with that?
Ms.Yukimura: So, you do not mind cuts being proposed?
Chair Furfaro: Absolutely not.
May 11, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p104
There being no objections, the decision making process was recessed at 7:44 p.m.
Cl
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.1
The departmental budget decision making reconvened on May 14, 2012 at 9:15 a.m., and proceeded
as follows:
Honorable Dickie Chang(present 10:00 a.m.)
Chair Furfaro: I am calling back from recess our budgetary reviews and
accordingly we have four items to continue with on our wish list that we are going to start the
discussion with this morning, if I can ask you to come up, Ernie. I also want to share with the
members... remind everybody that Mr. Chang is running about thirty minutes late, he will be here
shortly but also I wanted to take the time and remind everybody what is operationally on the wish
list, we will act on and clean up going forward then we will go in and look at the CIP budget of which
a couple items here did appear on as CIP items. Where we left off Ernie is on an item called Parks
and Recreation Volunteer Appreciation Event and I am not sure who made that motion... okay, I
would give you the floor Councilmember.
Ms. Nakamura: This was a request to... in discussion with Parks and
Recreation because there are so many community volunteers who help to make improvements at our
park, maintain our parks, the thought was to do some volunteer appreciation event similar to the
RSVP event where volunteers are recognized and I think the volunteers in our community saves our
County millions of dollars, so this is a token of appreciation and continue support for these types of
activities. The number that we came up with... Lenny Rapozo came up with that number.
Chair Furfaro: Any more discussion on this item but I would like to have a
second.
Ms.Yukimura: Seconded.
Mr. Kuali`i: I just have a quick question, do we know what the budget
funding is for the appreciation for the seniors with Elderly Affairs?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, we also tried to get that number and gave that number
to Lenny, so he had something to compare with. I think it was in the fourteen thousand dollar
range. And because it would not be at a hotel, it would be at a County facility, the number was
reduced.
Mr. Rapozo: I definitely support the concept. I just wanted to make sure,
like the RSVP there is some pretty stringent structure to that program as far as keeping track of
hours and there is really awesome oversight in my opinion by the RSVP office that would be my only
caveat would be that a similar structure be created so that we keep track of the volunteer hours and
that the proper people get recognized and appreciated. Because there are so many volunteers on this
island and the return on investment obviously is ridiculous, we could never get the things done
without the volunteer effort both at RSVP as well as Parks. I will definitely support it but the only
concern is that we create a structure, the Parks Department create a structure, copy what RSVP has
— sign in sheets and so forth and there is some kind of structure but I will definitely support the
effort.
Mr. Bynum: I definitely have support for this — just as history when I
worked in the Mayor's Office, we worked on Adopt-a-Park kind of program, we funded it and part of
that was this kind of recognition. Also for parks volunteers and part of it was also acknowledgment
in the Parks like on the Parks signs like this is adopted by these folks, those things never happened
even though we funded them. I am assuming that there is a commitment to actually do those if we
give them the funding and I am totally in support of that.
e
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.2
Ms. Nakamura: One thing that Mr. Lenny Rapozo mentioned would be the
concern of leaving anyone out and that is a concern but I think you need to start somewhere and get
it going.
Chair Furfaro: So you are saying in his discussion he would build a volunteer
list so that we are making sure we are inviting people that were actually were volunteers.
Ms. Nakamura: And working with the leaders those representatives for each
of the groups to make sure that the list is complete.
Mr. Bynum: I would hope that that exist because there has been an Adopt-
a-park program and somebody identified to coordinate it and part of it is making tools available and
that kind of thing. I know in the park I volunteer in, we keep really accurate records of all the
volunteer hours and who is involved and so I concur that with Mel's... but I would hope that it is
already in place because we put it in place, we fund it and I have not followed up with what the
current status but maybe we can do that in a Parks Committee going forward.
Mr. Rapozo: I know there are a few individuals on this island that spend a
lot of time at County cemetery's and they do not do it for recognition, and I know they are not
identified on any County list, it is just what they do. I just ran into one of them at Kekaha over the
weekend and it was storming over Kekaha but he had come stopped at Menehune Food Mart and he
has been doing it for... and this is Angie's brother and he does it. He does not just do one grave site,
he does the entire cemetery and that is what he dedicated his life to nobody knows that... again I do
not think he shows up on the list so the first priority would be to try to identify this list, like you
said Mr. Bynum. We need to create this list because there are many non-organized volunteers I
think we would like to capture like the gentleman that takes care... and there is many of those
people. Maryann Kusaka is another one, former Mayor Maryann Kusaka spends a lot of time, her
and her husband working on County parcels that do not show up on any list. I think the challenge is
to... how do you capture this information? I have faith that it can be done and this is a very good
start.
Ms.Yukimura: This is a good discussion and I am thinking that there is not
the kind of infrastructure the Elderly has right now and that the first year of funding might be used
to sort of do that setting up of infrastructure so that everybody can be included and then... so it may
not result in an event even the first year but the second year, they will be ready to go. Something
like that. I see RSVP programs, recognition days is fourteen thousand and then RSVP program is
thirty-four thousand, I do not know if that is the infrastructure or how they manage it all. It is great
that we have a template in another Department.
Chair Furfaro: I have to say that granted that this is funding for Parks and
Recreation County cemetery's appreciation piece, this is not to be confused with Adopt-a-highway
which is a State program and so forth but I would think if we are going to move forward with this
our first year, we would probably want this to be twice the month that we put in here. That is my
feeling. I would like to support it but I just think that RSVP is probably about fifteen and the kind of
work that we have going on all over Kekaha to Hanalei to Lydgate; this might not be enough money
if we want to do it.
Ms.Yukimura: I think you are right that when we do a final inventory of all
the volunteers that there is in Parks and as Councilmember Rapozo has pointed out—cemetery's and
who knows what else there might be, we might want to give a year for them to actually set up the
program and make it clear that that money actually could be... I do not even know what it will take
but to set it up and come back to us and say this is what we have. We do not know exactly what
they will find out.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.3
Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to throw that out.
Ms.Yukimura: I think you are right. I think they are going to come back and
say we found this out and this is what we need in order to recognize people but until we know.
Mr. Bynum: There is a history here again, when we did this with Kaleo o
Kaua`i this controversial thing that I thought was wonderful; I worked on it so I am bias. When we
did a annual recognition and it was not just park volunteers, it was volunteers that worked on a
variety of things, there were hundreds of people involved and hundreds of examples and it was
structured and part of that effort turned into this Adopt-a-park concept. We had volunteers who
would say I would volunteer more but do I have to bring my own rake, can I get a rake, can we get
some tools and so the last time I checked there was that structure. Eddie Sorita is kind of focusing
on it but it never reached the level that Kaleo did, the Mayor did not continue that program but I
believe there is still elements intact so I am agreeing with all of this but I think for now, this is
sufficient amount of funds to get on track because I think there are some other funds. I would have
to research it but if it is not sufficient, we should come back and support those volunteers because it
is amazing the... as Mel said the return on investment we get from volunteerism. There were other
concerns for liability concerns and make sure that our volunteers are safe when they volunteer in
our parks.
The motion to set up a Volunteer Appreciation Event in the amount of ten thousand dollars
was then put, and unanimously carried
Chair Furfaro: Next item is the CEDS, "k", "p", "a", "a", line item for twenty
thousand.
Ms.Yukimura: This is actually part of the Keiki to Career Program that we
funded in another part under this CEDS or County Economic Development Strategy and this part is
for the facilitation of the meetings that will be needed. This is part of that really important County
leadership element for developing a system that supports our young people from cradle to grave
essentially. Actually cradle to career.
Mr. Bynum: Seconded.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion on this item. Roll call will not be necessary on
this item.
The motion to for Keiki to Career Program was then put, and unanimously carried.
Ms.Yukimura: The last one is...
Chair Furfaro: "K", "E", "D", "B".
Ms. Yukimura: That is also for the facilitation of KEDB's programs that they
are going to be doing for the County to implement the Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy.
Mr. Rapozo: Seconded.
Chair Furfaro: Discussion members?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.4
Mr. Bynum: I am in support of the CEDS efforts and appreciate the
leadership that has come from several Councilmembers, primarily Councilmember Nakamura
because this is targeted investment for Economic Development. It is not a commitment for ongoing
operational funds. It is about trying to structure and do what we all have said is important
diversifying our economy and identifying industries for the public. We have talked about that for
years but now we are actually putting some resources behind it and so I am very much in support of
this.
Chair Furfaro: Further discussion, members? We will go ahead with an
overall call out.
The motion to support the KEDB programs was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: The last item dealing with operating at this point is the
twenty thousand for the Planning Department to support other services and that was made by
Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: This is for the Planning Department; there is a line item
under other services. It covers contested case hearings, transcripts, hearing officer, mediation
services as it relates to the work of the Planning Commission. Originally, there was a request for
something... fifty something thousand and it got reduced to twenty-one thousand. There is a
difference of thirty-nine and I just wanted to give them a little more resources in order to do their
work that would mean adding additional twenty thousand dollars just so they have the capacity to
conduct their work.
Chair Furfaro: What line item is that on?
Ms. Nakamura: This is under"other services" on page sixty-nine.
Mr. Rapozo: Seconded.
Chair Furfaro: Discussion?
Mr. Rapozo: I believe some of the discussion when we had the Planning
Department here was that they had felt that the contested case hearings were kind of on the down
swing that there was not going to be a real need to have as much money but we just approved
another twenty-five thousand dollars or twenty thousand, I guess it was.
Ms. Nakamura: Twenty-five.
Mr. Rapozo: Twenty-five thousand for investigations on the TVR, I would
anticipate a few more contested case hearings as we move forward. Those are not cheap but it is the
necessary evil that we have to deal with so I am going to support it. It is restricted funds although
we know it can be moved but I would again, I support it for that intent that it is used specifically for
what is stated in that line item in the text column. I will be supporting that as well.
Ms.Yukimura: I will be supporting this too because I do believe that
contested cases may be coming up this year but also because it allows for facilitation and my
experience with the transient vacation rental bill was that... and we had a facilitation using
Elizabeth Kent and her assistant. It was extremely valuable in actually develop problem solving and
policy building and developing a proposal for a bill or for a law. I think actually we have to move
more and more into that arena that Planning is a lot about facilitating, diverse and often polarized
interest in coming up to a common ground of solution. I am in favor of adding capacity in this area.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.5
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion?
The motion to support "other services" in the Planning Department was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bynum wanted to have a few
minutes because during this process he indicated that there were two items that he had discussed on
this wish list that did not get in. I am going to go back to that and that is it folks, we cannot go
through the rest of the agendas and not realize what we are sharing.
Mr. Bynum: Just to clarify, one of these I am certain I discussed during
that discussion and the other one, I do not recall if I did or not but it is something I would like to
address at this time because...
Chair Furfaro: But you do understand what I am saying. We got to move
forward, so this is the time.
Mr. Bynum: The first one that I know I discussed during this discussion
was in the Public Works repair and maintenance budget is a line item every year for fencing
materials and this year it was cut fifteen thousand and in my discussions with them, most of this are
done in house. Our guys repair the fencing and this is primarily for materials and I would hate to
see us get behind on keeping up those park facilities that require fencing repairs. Cars run into
them and that kind of thing happen and so that one item is the fifteen thousand for fencing, that was
in the...on the list for Building Division.
Chair Furfaro: Do we have a line item for new fencing in the CIP budget?
Make sure we are not duplicating something here. It would be in the Parks section.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Because if it is new fencing, it is a new item not a repair and
maintenance.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Bynum mentioned Buildings Division.
Mr. Bynum: They run the repair and maintenance under Bryan InouY e.
Mr. Rapozo: They do the fencing, not Parks?
Mr. Bynum: They do the fencing is my understanding.
Mr. Rapozo: I was under the impression that Parks does that.
Mr. Bynum: You can look in the budget and you will see there is this list of
R&M items that got zero out but the item is still there, it just does not have an amount. It is the
true of the KPD building as well.
Chair Furfaro: Wally.
Mr. Rezentes: I believe what Councilmember Bynum is referring to is the
R&M budget within the Building Division of Public Works.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.6
Chair Furfaro: Not Parks.
Mr. Rezentes: More than likely if it is in the Building Division of Public
Works, it is relative to a Public Works management property. Usually if it is in Parks, Parks does
their own or contracts out fencing on their own for various parks across the island.
Mr. Rapozo: You are probably not the right person to ask, I guess it would
be Doug but what was the reason it was removed, was it because they do not foresee any projects or
was it to remove to balance the budget?
Mr. Rezentes: They have a laundry list of projects that is prioritized every
year and we get to a certain sum and part of the reason we go to a certain sum of the projects is past
performance when in the past I recall funding numerous projects within the Building Division and
they get to fifty, sixty percent of them. This is a small amount relatively simple to bid out, so it is...
Mr. Rapozo: Wally, we get plenty small amounts.
Mr. Rezentes: I know.
Mr. Rapozo: And I want to make sure that it is something that they can
do. What does that line item look like over the last five years, have they touched it at all?
Mr. Rezentes: The R&M account? They do touch it every year. They do
repair and maintenance projects every year, some are more complicate than others some are formal
bid reconstruction or reroof say of a large facility kind of project. This one is a small amount.
Mr. Rapozo: More specific to fencing and maybe Mr. Bynum knows, do you
have any plans for some fencing projects this year?
Mr. Bynum: I think my understanding of this I have been following is that
fencing stuff happens all the time.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: Up in Homesteads, everybody who lives in Homesteads, cars
run into the park fence once every two years and it is like forty feet.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, got it.
Mr. Bynum: And they need the materials to do it.
Mr. Rapozo: I got it, thank you.
Mr. Bynum: And if I may make just one other comment, this is not a
criticism of the Administration at all because what Wally just said was accurate. They are tasked
with saying what are your R&M things, I am not objecting that a lot of those were cut because that is
just... that is a normal budget thing. There were two items that I thought we should look at— one
was fencing materials, it was small and the other was the KPD roof that we dealt with last week.
This is not a big deal but I do not want to come across that I am saying, you guys cut all the R&M,
you do that normally, that is part of prioritizing available resources.
Chair Furfaro: I am just going to move on here because we are spending
time on items... remember we still have to write provisos tomorrow. Page 161 is blank on R&M for
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.7
fencing, there is a motion on the floor from Mr. Bynum a fifteen thousand dollar item, and is that
correct?
Ms.Yukimura: Seconded.
The motion to support R&M with the amount of fifteen thousand dollars was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Mr. Bynum: Last one for me...
Chair Furfaro: No, no...it is the last one. We need to get to a place where we
are making a decision if not what the Mayor submitted becomes law.
Mr. Bynum: That would be accurate, I do not recall if I discussed this
during the original list, so I want to be accurate. I know I talked about the fencing but this one has
to do with Council Services, we moved into this building and we brought equipment in and it has to
do with... I am asking for fifteen thousand for IT related equipment and there are two issues
primarily. Right now we have half the computers here are on Microsoft 2010 and half are on 07.
The software and it has caused some incompatibility and some differences like one staff member is
working on ten and one is working on seven and they are significantly different.
Chair Furfaro: IT is aware of that.
Mr. Bynum: I was hoping that we could get... and the other one has to do
deal with monitors. The people who spend their entire day looking at computer monitors
particularly if they are working with spreadsheets and technical things, our monitors are pretty
standard and small, I would like some money to get some wide screen monitors for certain staff
members including myself because I work a lot with spreadsheets. I work at home on a wide screen
monitor and it is all there and so this would be additional monitors for key staff that work with this
and who want it. For those two purposes, I am asking fifteen thousand.
Ms.Yukimura: Seconded.
Chair Furfaro: I just want to remind us all that we also bumped on our wish
list software for Real Property Taxes and consulting services for Council, this is a request for an
additional fifteen, I am not sure if it is covered under the miscellaneous lines for IT but I do not
have a problem for putting this on. I would ask that if it is approved in the final budget that Mr.
Bynum write a narrative over to IT so that we can all follow what that money will be used for.
Mr. Rapozo: Do we have a... I am trying to look through our budget right
now, do we have an existing... we have R&M computers, R&M equipment, we have... I am not sure
what the protocol is as far as if Councilmembers or staff wanted a bigger monitor? Unless everybody
needs a bigger monitor, I do not need a bigger monitor. I am just trying to figure out in our budget
where would that be covered?
Chair Furfaro: Jade, is right behind you.
Mr. Rapozo: The R&M equipment. How much is in there now?
Mr. Barreira: I sent a quick query to Mr. Raynes to see if there are money's
for software upgrades and monitors, I suspect those are normally budgeted separately. I am not
clear if it is in the R&M budget but it could be, so hopefully we get a quick reply.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.8
Chair Furfaro: Further discussion, members? Where we are at right now is
we do not have clarity from IT as I was instructed, so I do not have a problem putting this fifteen
thousand in. I would hope Mr. Bynum would get together with IT and write a more specific
summary for us and also identify what the appropriate protocol is for who would actually get the
wider screens.
Mr. Bynum: The response I got from IT was put it in the budget and staff
did some research about the cost of those and so I would be looking to our Clerk and our Deputy
Clerk to determine specifically but I know two or three people that would benefit... it is important to
give, like I said people that spend all day staring at a computer screen are working with these things
having a high resolution monitor, it increases productivity and also just with worker safety issues
are logged at some level too and then identify where those needs are the greatest.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to call for a vote on this.
The motion to support fifteen thousand dollars for Council Services Office was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: That is the close of this for now, members, what I would like
to do is give ourselves ten minutes, no more than ten minutes to get us caught up on what started at
one million, three, sixty-five... I think it is down somewhere, Dickie will be happy to hear this,
somewhere in the four hundred thousand dollar range. It is about one, third of what it started with.
We are going to take a ten minute recess to give the staff some time to give us a much firmer
number.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:00 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 10:03 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back in session and we have a couple Personnel items
to revisit on the list and for all of your information for those of you keeping plus and minus here, of
the million, three that I spoke about we added plus eight hundred, four thousand, zero, fifty-four.
We are going to be going into the CIP next but in the CIP we took out net one hundred, forty-seven,
five hundred for the plus's on the wish list to date of six, fifty-six... "five," "five," "four". Now, we
have some unfinished business before we move into the rest of the CIP and they deal with an item
that was presented by Mr. Rapozo and that item and I am going to give you the floor in a minute but
I want to go over those three items. That would be the legal advisor that you proposed for the Police
Department, some discussion on the Engineering Aid that should have been removed and then the
law office assistant, it looks like our pieces were crossing over and remember we are going to go back
and revisit Engineering, the Police Department and so forth but quite frankly what crosses over on
the law office assistant on March 14, we had approved that position five to two. It went in the
current budget, they hired for that position, so I will be getting to a point where I am going to ask for
a reconsideration on that vote and when we get to the Prosecutor's Office, we can have further
discussion but it looks like on the 14 we send it over the add and on the 15 the Mayor's Office sent
over that it was still a new position. There were I guess I cannot make that motion but maybe who
voted to remove with me at that time would have been Mr. Chang, if you would like to make a
motion to reconsider the...
Mr. Chang: Chair, thank you. My understanding is that we did hire a
warm body that is already in place and I actually questioned this because I thought back then it was
actually a typo, so I would like to make a motion to reconsider my vote because we do actually have a
warm body in place. This position was approved as you mentioned and I am not sure if my dates are
wrong but I think the body actually was there since April?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.9
Chair Furfaro: The vacancy was filled in April and I will second the motion
for reconsideration.
Mr. Rapozo: Second.
Chair Furfaro: I can second, I checked. I was looking at the votes but you
were not present or were you?
Mr. Rapozo: I was not present but the motion to reconsider requires just
the willing party to make the motion but I believe anyone can make the second.
Chair Furfaro: Oh, I did not understand it that way so then I will take your
second. I thought it had to be somebody who voted accordingly. Again, I have the backup and again
as I said we will be visiting the Departments but on March 14, we did vote five to two to fill that
position. I am going to call for a vote on the reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration of the law clerk was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: I guess we need a vote that we are reconsidering the removal,
we need to vote on the actual activity.
Ms.Yukimura: I have a question first of the Administration, is it true that
there is a warm body there?
Mr. Barreira: I did not seek confirmation, I can do so if that is the Council's
request.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I would like that since that has been given as the
rationale.
Chair Furfaro: I have confirmation, I called. I called the Prosecutor's Office.
Ms.Yukimura: Can you check... (inaudible)
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:16 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 10:18 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back in session and can I get a confirmation that
reconfirms what I found out?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Chair, the position has been hired.
Chair Furfaro: So, the information that I brought to the table is correct?
Mr. Barreira: It is accurate.
Chair Furfaro: And that will do on that one because reality is the
reconsideration did not remove it, so it is there and then when we get into discussions about these
other Departments that will be fine.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.10
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair procedurally I think the vote was to remove it so
we now need to vote on it if we are reconsidering it.
Chair Furfaro: I just talked to the staff and the reconsideration was okay... it
is different information than I got from the Clerk but can I get a motion to reinstate it? Can I get a
motion from somebody?
Mr. Rapozo: So moved.
Mr. Kuali`i: Seconded.
Chair Furfaro: All those in favor for reinstating the position that was...
Mr. Bynum: ...
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure everybody understands that the position
was believed at the time to have been a new position, unfilled and the reality of tracing everything,
we had taken action in March and that position was filled in April. It was not reflected accordingly
as a vacancy in the May 8 presentation, it was incorrect, that vacancy did not exist. When we go into
the Department's we will have an opportunity to review all positions, the exercises we were going
through were about new positions. We have a motion and a seconded although the Clerk indicated
to me we did not have to do this, we are going to do it and Mr. Bynum has the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I will save my comments when we get to the departmental.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to make sure we... and I understand what you are
trying to do but this position on the sheet that was voted on was not a new position.
Chair Furfaro: Understood and I think you understand what I am saying, it
was on the list as a new position. The reality is we approved it on the 14 and the position was filled
in April and I just asked for a motion to reconsider that position existed, now I am not going to
recognize anybody else, I want to move on... you just gave me your answer Mr. Bynum, that you
were going to wait until we get to the department.
Mr. Bynum: But a different topic came up.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to say and this is just procedurally the motion on
the floor was to remove, so that motion was reconsidered so we are back to that motion, so that
motion is actually to remove, it is not to replace. It should be to remove. That is my only comment.
Mr. Kuali`i: I remove my seconded. I make a new motion...
Ms.Yukimura: It is there already.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I think Wally, did the County Council create any new
positions since the last budget other than this budget?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe this is the only position that was approved in the
course of the fiscal year.
Mr. Bynum: So in...
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.11
Mr. Rezentes: Other than the budget ordinance.
Mr. Bynum: In my mind it showed up on the list because it is a new
position that was not there in the last budget, correct?
Mr. Rezentes: Again, I am sorry Councilmember Bynum, I am not sure what
document you are referring to but when I look at page twenty-five of the Prosecutor's budget, we
indicate there on the bottom that with a double asterisk that the council approved the position in
communication 2012-76 in fiscal year 12. I think in the budget ordinance we identified correctly.
Mr. Bynum: In the May submittal.
Mr. Rezentes: It could have not been in the March because it was not
approved till April.
Chair Furfaro: It was not approved till April. That is the end of the
conversation. I'm going to call for the vote because we're going to revisit this department. Motion and
second.All those in favor,please signify by saying aye?
Mr. Bynum: What are we voting on?
Ms.Yukimura: Motion to remove.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, the motion is to remove. Does the staff understand
nobody voted on that to remove?
Mr. Watanabe: Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, to the clerk I recognize.
Mr. Watanabe: Given council rules, silent vote when all members are present
at the meeting, silent vote means it goes with the motion. However, you should ask for any no's?
Chair Furfaro: Are there any no's?
Councilmembers: No.
Chair Furfaro: Let's go forward here and talk about the engineering aide,
was it, in fact, removed bit administration?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Council. We do not wish it be included in the May
submission and it was.
Chair Furfaro: And it was?
Mr. Barreira: Yes. Our worksheet did not reflect it, but I think the
confusion it was in the March incorrectly and it got populated by staff in the May.
Chair Furfaro: Will the clerk please come up and speak to all of us if there is
still confusion. Come up to the mic, Ricky. I want everybody's attention when we're talking about
staff positions that we're on to another Engineering Aide position in the discussion.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.12
Mr. Watanabe: Vice Chair asked me for some clarification.
Chair Furfaro: Clarify it for the public as well what we just did.
Mr. Watanabe: Vice Chair, if you could repeat the question.
Ms.Yukimura: I thought I didn't want to bother everybody.
Chair Furfaro: We were onto engineering.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you, I am sorry. I had asked if there were no votes,
then are the silent votes?Are they yay or nay?And you want to give your answer, Rick?
Mr. Watanabe: The silent vote would go with the majority of the motion.
Ms.Yukimura: It would go with the majority?I mean I heard three nos.
Mr.Watanabe: I'm not sure what the final tally was on the votes.
Chair Furfaro: Explain to everybody and I will do a roll call vote here, okay?
We'll do a roll call vote. Rick, explain it to the members?
Mr. Watanabe: Wait, let me get the rules.
Chair Furfaro: Don't leave your chairs. Three-minute recess.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:40 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 10:48 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Rick, the motion on the floor was to keep the person that has
recently been hired in the budget, right?
Mr.Watanabe: Correct. According to the rules, Silent vote — unless the
member is absent from voting the member's silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote fort
motion and record in the journal or reported to the presiding officer, who shall announce the result to
the council or commitment. In this case what happened was there was a motion and a second made
to leave the position in the budget. Or to remove the position from the budget and the motion on the
vote, all those in favor of removing the position, was 0.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo state your motion again very clearly for everyone.
Mr. Rapozo: The motion is not my motion. It was the motion on the floor
on the day the vote was taken, which was to remove. That is what is on the table and the silent vote
would count towards the motion. So it would be to remove. Mr. Chair, I would ask for a roll call vote.
The motion to remove the position was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: None TOTAL—0,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.13
Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen from the Administration, can we come back up to
talk about the Engineering Aide and Ernie if you could you make it as clear as a bell for us. Make my
head ring. What are we doing with the Engineering Aide?
Mr. Barreira: The Engineering Aide was not included in the May submittal
and Council staff with all good intentions thought we forget it because it was in the March submittal.
It was in the worksheets that you were working off, but never included in our May submittal.
Chair Furfaro: So what was our action to that point? It was to include it;
right? So you are asking us to not remove it?
Mr. Barreira: Yes. From your worksheet.
Chair Furfaro: Everybody is clear?
Mr. Rapozo: Clear.
Ms. Nakamura moved to remove Engineering Aide position, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Bynum: So this is the fourth one on our list called Engineering Aide 1.
Okay, that answers, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Could you restate the motion, please, Councilmember
Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, the motion is to remove Engineering Aide 1 from the
budget.
The motion to remove Engineering Aide 1 from the budget was then put, and unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Now we are in a discussion about the Law Assistant for the
Police Department.And I am going to make note that that was a suggestion from Mr. Rapozo, if I am
correct?
Mr. Rapozo: That is correct.
Chair Furfaro: On the Legal Advisor. So I would like to give you a few
minutes to revisit that discussion before I ask for a motion.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. I had asked Ricky to redefine or restate the
responsibilities of this position because there was the perception that this position would be in
conflict with the County Attorney's role as Chief Legal Advisor of all departments. So the attempt is
to reclassify this as a Senior Police Legal analyst and that person would in no way, shape or form be
in a position to offer any type of legal opinions to the Kaua`i Police Department. In fact, this position
would be acting as a liaison between the various agencies that the Police Department deals with.
More specifically, the attempt here is to provide a resource to the Police Chief, two things —number
one is to focus on accreditation, as I discussed at last week's meeting. They have over the years and
we have seen it back when Assistant Chief Clay Arnaga was here. They keep putting police officers
in the role of accreditations officers and those people keep rotating out and go to another department
and get remoted and so forth. This would bring in continuity to the effort and be in the capacity of a
legal analyst. And also to bring the department up to speed in conjunction with the accreditation
effort to bring the Police Department up to speed with their outdated policies, procedures. They have
and I do not have the number with me, but it is hundreds and hundreds of polices/procedures that
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.14
require updating and it needs to be done in a legal fashion. The attempt here is to provide that
much like we have access to two legal analysts here at Council Services. They do not replace the
County Attorney. They do not provide us with legal opinions, but what they do is keep us on track as
we create legislation or as we start to work on projects going forward.And in our little office here we
have two legal analysts. Again, they do not circumvent the office of the County Attorney. They
simply provide us the legal advice that we need as we move forward on our day. So I think that the
Kaua`i Police Department should be entitled to that similar type of assistance. That is why I have
asked Ricky to restate it for it to be more in line with what our legal analyst provides this
department. That we would offer that same type of assistance to the Police Department in this very
important time.As we have seen in recent years lawsuits and some of the things that have occurred.
Obviously the shootings and things that we're not really present in the years past, but as the Chief is
trying to achieve accreditation and update the department, I think this is a very wise investment for
the Chief to be able to appoint a legal analyst and the by product of this would be accreditation. So I
am hoping for the support and not sure if the Police Chief is available to answer questions, if
anybody has. I did have discussions with him and he is very supportive of the position as far as a
senior legal police analyst. I would ask your favorable support and make that motion to include the
senior police legal analyst and again Ricky will have the information for anyone who wants to see it.
Mr. Rapozo moved to include the Senior Police Legal Analyst in the budget, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Ms.Yukimura: This would be a person that is part of the bar and an
Attorney?
Mr. Rapozo: May I? Yes, the requirements would be obviously a legal
person, an attorney, licensed to practice law in Hawai`i, with the necessary background in law
enforcement.
Ms.Yukimura: And my understanding was that we had provided an attorney
through the County Attorney's Office and that he has been working on accreditation and attending
meetings and doing all of that already. So it seems like there is an ongoing support in that area.
Mr. Rapozo: I guess I would ask you Councilmember Yukimura would you
feel comfortable with the County Attorney appointing our legal analyst? That is the best way I can
respond to it.
Ms.Yukimura: So the Chief is not present with the current County Attorney
providing?
Mr. Rapozo: He is not comfortable because of the lack of experience in law
enforcement. You know, it is a different animal. It is not general law. It is specific law and the Chief
wants an opportunity to appoint someone that has the abilities and the training and the experience
in law enforcement.
Ms.Yukimura: What is this additional information that Rick has that we
should see?
Mr. Rapozo: A redescription of what was originally presented to you?
Ms. Yukimura: Can we see that?
Mr. Rapozo: I am not sure if Ricky is done. He is almost done. In Oahu, the
senior legal advisor actually acts in the capacity of an advisor and actually represents the Chief of
Police in certain hearings. I have asked Ricky to remove all of that, so there is no conflict with the
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.15
County Attorney's Office and the county attorney will, in fact, be the sole representative of the
Kaua`i Police Department. However, the Chief would have an opportunity, like we do. We appoint
our own legal advisors, people we feel are best fit for what we do, he wants that similar type of
support, and as a former member of Kaua`i Police Department, I believe it is very important. And I
think accreditation should be the priority at this point. Based on what we have seen in, again, in
officer-involved incidents that I think needs to be clarified through an update of all the polices and
procedures.
Ms.Yukimura: There is a difference though, and that is that we're a
legislative body and there is an administrate body and I know we have this ongoing question about
what the powers of the Mayor are vis-a-vis the Chief and the Police Commission but they still are all
in the Administrative branch. That is a really big difference. We have our own procurement officer
for the whole administration. So in that respect, the Police Department is not in the same category
structurally as the Council is.
Mr. Rapozo: I agree. I'm just trying to provide the resources to get the
accreditation as soon as possible. It has not happened and we have talked about it and the big
problem is that has been no do you continuity on the effort. I have talk to the officers who have been
assigned to accreditation, but every single one of them has some other job and when they have time
they work on accreditation. The effort with the Deputy County Attorney now was supposed to be a
priority it has not been. That was manipulated out of department and replaced way Deputy County
Attorney and this is. I am note arguing with that. If the Deputy Chief County Attorney remains,
that is fine. This is an additional position to assist the Chief, must like we do in much of these new
positions. This is an opportunity for the Chief to be able to appoint someone to help him reach
accreditation.
Chair Furfaro: Hold on members, who had the floor?
Ms.Yukimura: I did, he was asking the question of the maker?
Chair Furfaro: And he answered the question.You still have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: So what we are looking at is that the Police Department is
going to have an advisor from the County Attorney's Office assigned and is going to have a legal
analyst position as well. And where does the line drawn between the work that they do? So that the
senior legal analyst does not provide advice to the police, but the County Attorney does? I am just
not clear about the lines.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: The charter draws the line, the same way the charter draws
the line for this department, we cannot ask our legal analyst for an opinion. We cannot ask our legal
analyst to do the County Attorney's work. The charter draws the line. It is perfectly clear and, in fact
if you read the Honolulu description, it talks about the legal advisor and again, we are changing it to
"legal analyst." But the legal advisor act as the liaison with the County Attorney's office in the
request for opinions and so forth. It is still the function of the County Attorney. That is what
Honolulu does and again, we are changing it up a little, because I, too, am concerned about that
possible cross. We are going to remove any reference to the legal advising as it relates to law. But
give the Chief the resources that he needs, so we can go ahead and achieve accreditation, which I
think is sorely needed in this County.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.16
Ms.Yukimura: So one other question is what exactly is meant by "law
enforcement experience?" Are you meaning that this person will have had to have been a police
officer? What if they were a public defender or Prosecuting Attorney?
Mr. Rapozo: That is going to be up to the Chief. It is his call who he wants
to appoint. Much like how we operate. We operate with people with legislative assistance. Does it
mean they have to be a Councilmember or Legislator at the state?That is up to the appointing body.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, I want to ask a further follow-up question.
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Ms.Yukimura: It is a distinction you have made between this position and
the County Attorney position that they would have law enforcement experience. So I am just
wondering what is how do you measure that? I mean the present County Attorney and maybe even
Deputy County Attorney assigned was a Prosecuting Attorney and maybe even a criminal defense
attorney.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: If you read the minimum qualifications, which would not
change as far as the job description, except for an amendment that... and it is not even an
amendment because it is not our description. It is a combination of education and experience,
substantially equivalent to grocery from an accredited college or law and five years of experience as a
practicing attorney in criminal law. That is how the description will be made. It could be a public
defender, it could be a prosecutor, however that five years of experience. Again, that is up to the
Chief. He is at the appointing authority and I would leave that up to the Chiefs discretion?
Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair, would you yield the floor for Mr. Bynum?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I think this is an important discussion to have but it happens
in the context of budget. Mr. Rapozo says the County Clerk is working the description now and we
are working on creating a position that I do not believe has ever existed in the County of Kaua`i and
Mr. Rapozo spoke about it being manipulated. That is not my memory of what came down a few
years ago, if he is referring to the same thing. This will take me a few minutes, to be able to vote and
speak the truth of what is happening in the County right now. A few years-ago ago, this is my
memory and it's on the public record. That there was would be a position in the County Attorney's
Office assigned to the Police Department. At the time I spoke with the Chief who said I might prefer
to have it in the department. When that vote came, that is not what came and nobody made a motion
to change it. What came is that we are going to approve this Attorney. That person is going to be
assigned to the Police Department and will be physically housed at the Police Department. All of
that happened and that attorney is at the Police Department now they are working on accreditation
now. The Chiefs email says, "if the County Attorney decided to pull that person." Well that has not
happened. But besides all of that, I think the arguments that Mel is making are worthy of our
discussion, but it should not happen now in budget in a truncated form. I will have questions of the
County Attorney about creating this position and I will want a lot of discussion and clarity about the
job description to make sure that it is consistent with the charter and not having the County Clerk
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.17
lining it out as we speak, as I am speaking right now. And then this happens in context. And this is
the bottom line was everything was fine a few months ago, and then the Mayor and the Chief got
into a dispute about who had authority to hire and fire and to make personnel moves. My position
about that is that the Council should not inject themselves into that discussion and I have tried not
to do that. But we have seen opinions that were written by the county attorney, which are the source
of the controversial right now. People who do not accept those opinions, and now I have a long
history on this council saying let us release these opinions to the public so that they know what we
are talking about. That one has not been released yet, but it is in the context that this discussion is
happening. What I did support as a Councilmember along with my colleagues was funds for Special
Counsel for the Planning Commission to take this question before the courts.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, point of order? I have the right to make a point.
I'm just saying we have drifted.
Chair Furfaro: He is calling for a point. He gets the floor. Point of order, Mr.
Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: The discussion is on a position and now we are in a Police
Commission/Police Chief and that is not the discussion and if the record will show clearly that this
request from mine did not start a few months ago. As along as I have been on this Council I have
been advocating for this Council and to say it was caused because of the recent.
Mr. Bynum: Can we stick with the point of order.
Mr. Rapozo: I am making my point that, in fact, we have drifted and I
would like to get back to the merits of the position and if Mr. Bynum does not want to support it, he
can simply vote no. Let me make another point, well that is not appropriate further point. That is my
point of order.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to take a short recess on the point of order.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:51 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 10:56 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from that recess and I want to ask all the
members to know that how to this budget process what we should be talking about is the tangible
benefits of the potential of this new position. What value the new position brings to us, brings to
KPD in particular and what kind of functional issues surface with this new position? We should
steer away from arguments that deal with past perception of issues that the Council really should
not be involved in between the Police Commission, the Mayor and the County Attorney. So I would
like us to stay in the frame of talking about tangible measurements and the benefits of this position
going forward. If somebody brings up comments that were brought up in the email that you have
gotten that references past problems from the Chief, that would probably be irregular, too. So that is
my decision.Mr. Bynum, you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I do not think I understand your decision.
Chair Furfaro: Stay back from going back to issues that deal with past
practices and so forth and focus on the tangible benefits of this position going forward and if you
cannot, I suggest you vote the way you feel you want to go. Okay, we are going to go on a recess here
because I am making a judgment and I want to get further clarifications on the role of the Chair, not
what I just stated, the role of the Chair.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.18
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 11:04 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 11:21 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from recess. Again, a point of order was called. I
made my interpretation about discussing this on what could be perceived as the tangible benefits of
having a legal advisor in the Police Department as a new position. That it is for the benefit of KPD
going forward on finance functional issues and it is a key part of accreditation, all of those particular
pieces are in the discussions. I made a ruling that was the point of order of the Chair and I would
like to ask Peter Morimoto to come up, and I would like to reference particular rules.
PETER MORIMOTO: Good morning, Councilmembers, Peter Morimoto, analyst for
the Council. The rule that the Chair was six "J" Point of order a point of order may be rised at any
point other than the call of the roll when the ayes and nos are called for. When any member things
that the rules are violated thereby calling upon the vary and such callings shall be decided by the
chair without debate, subject to an appeal by the council. In addition, the Chair may call for the
sense of body on any question of order. Whenever any person is called to order while specking that
person shall be in possession of floor after the question of order is decided an may proceed with the
matter under discussion within the ruling made on the question of order.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Peter, also, as it relates to calling a recess. Those
are the privilege of chair at any time?
Mr. Morimoto: That is correct.
Chair Furfaro: If I would like to ask member if they would like to debate the
decision I made, to get a sense of the interpretation I made on the order of the body, it would be
entertained at this time?
Mr. Morimoto: That is correct. Although generally speaking there is no
debate. The ruling that you make is subject to an appeal to the members, but there is generally no
discussion.
Chair Furfaro: I used the wrong terminology, there would be no debate, but
there could be a call for an affirmation of my interpretation?
Mr. Morimoto: I guess that would be one way of putting it, yes.
Chair Furfaro: So I would like to go there at this point.
Ms.Yukimura: Question?
Chair Furfaro: Could you instruct me how the measure should be made?
Should it be made by Mr. Bynum?By Mr. Rapozo?To have a sense of the body?
Mr. Morimoto: Depending upon your ruling the party against whom the
ruling is made can make the appeal to the body.
Chair Furfaro: So that would be Mr. Bynum in this interpretation?
Mr. Morimoto: Pardon my ignorance.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.19
Chair Furfaro: You were not.
Mr. Morimoto: I was not watching the proceedings.
Chair Furfaro: So I could recognize Mr. Bynum, if he wants to have a vote for
the sense of the body?
Mr. Morimoto: That is correct.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Bynum, do you wish to call for a vote?
Mr. Bynum: I do I have the floor?
Chair Furfaro: I gave you the floor, Vice Chair, please let me get the order of
sequence here together. The first thing I have done is that I have asked one of our legal personnel to
give us the rule.
Ms.Yukimura: I have a question about his advice to us.
Chair Furfaro: Let me find out what Mr. Bynum wants to do first. Mr.
Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Chair, at this point I am just trying to understand your
ruling, so I can determine if I want to challenge it or not. To me, I am just trying to put my vote on
this issue in context and explain my reasoning. You know, Mr. Rapozo made a point of order and he
said why he did it. I was not able to respond to that. And I just want to understand.
Chair Furfaro: You were not able to respond, because when a member calls
for a point of order, it is my jurisdiction to ask to either acknowledge that, get an interpretation on
the order, which I did and now I have one of our legal analysts confirming that. Now I am talking
again and I will say it, going forward on the merits of the item that are on the discussion is about the
tangible benefits that could be made available going forward with this position, its support of KPD,
its accreditation benefits. This is not about bringing up the history of what transpired between the
Mayor and the Police Commission and the Police Chief and so forth. That is my ruling. Would you
like to ask to survey the sense of the body?
Mr. Bynum: I am at a loss. I just want to complete the statement he was
trying to make. I am not going to intentionally not follow your ruling, but I am just not clear what
that ruling is. If the ruling is that you cansay this and not that, I guess I need more clarity what I
cannot stay, what I am not allowed to say in the public quorum.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair, my question will help?
Chair Furfaro: I did not recognize you?
Ms.Yukimura: I know.
Chair Furfaro: I did not recognize you. That is a rule. Mr. Bynum, I will
respond. I do not want this body to bring up issues that have past transpired between the Police
Commission, the Mayor and the Police Chief and so forth. I want to discussion the merits of the
position, what was given to us as a job description, whether I believe it is premature or so forth. I do
not that I do not want to talk about the challenges between the Mayor, the Police Commission and
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.20
the Police Chief. I want to talk about the merits and the tangible benefits of the position that is
being posed.
Mr. Bynum: Then I will attempt to complete my statement within the
bonds of your ruling and if I stray, I would encourage you to interrupt me, which I would rarely
encourage someone to interrupt me.
Chair Furfaro: I have been known to interrupt members when I think they
have gone outside of the bounds. I will give you the floor back when that time comes. Vice Chair
Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: I have a question for the attorney. Is it not the point of order
appropriate when there is a breach of rules?
Mr. Morimoto: That is correct.
Ms.Yukimura: And so doesn't the person making the point of order have to
state the rule that is being breached?
Mr. Morimoto: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: So what is not clear to me is what rule was being breached.
Mr. Morimoto: Again, I apologize, I was not paying attention.
Chair Furfaro: I will answer your question by going into another recess. Let
us make it 15 minutes and let us plan to make it a very late-night tonight.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 12:16 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 12:10 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: I think when we left we summarized my ruling and we
referenced our own rules and the right from a member to survey the Council, if need be. But I also
understood from Mr. Bynum he wanted to finish his piece as a long as he stayed within that
guideline, I would be fine with that. So you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you, sir. All I was trying to say is that - well, first of
all, decisions that we make here have implications in other departments and other places. But all I
was saying that this is... I could see where I could support this proposal, but I do not think we
should make this kind of fundamental decision that has implications with other departments, and in
the current context, I would like to see this be a money bill, that I can make sure that the job
description is consistent with the charter. Where we can ask those questions back and forth. I would
want to put some questions in writing to the county attorney and get an opinion that the council
could share. And this could all happen as soon as some member wants to introduce it. I am just not
prepared to vote on this particular one because of the complexities right now in budget. But I could
see me, after I have all of the questions answered and I understand it fully, voting to support this in
the very near future, depending on the outcome of those questions. I just do not think we have time
to give this ample consideration right now.
Mr. Chang: Chair, I was going ask, I just noticed that the Chief... is it
appropriate to see if we can ask him questions?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.21
Chair Furfaro: I would not have a problem asking the Chief to come up, but I
want to make sure you folks understand, my ruling has not changed. I want to talk about the
tangible benefits of this going forward and the use of this new position for KPD's needs, and also the
importance of this position dealing where accreditation.As long as we do not go backwards about the
history of how things happened and issues with the Police Commission, I would call up the Police
Chief.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, May I, before we bring up the Chief. I have to use
the remainder of my time, I would do that as well. There was some question about what this person
would be and staff has prepared the position description and it is a senior legal analyst, and it is
broken down. And I do not think the Chief has seen this, assist the Chief of Police for accreditation
30%, research laws, prepares drafts and compiles information requested on legal issues associated
with the Police Department and conducts meetings with the Chief of Police upon such, 25% of the
time, serves as liaison to the Police Chief. The focus is on the accreditation and updates to the
policies and procedures.
Chair Furfaro: Could I call the County Attorney forward. Could someone
from the staff make those arrangements? Chief, thank you for coming over. I would like to go ahead
and give you the floor to talk about this proposal to add at the very beginning of the budget some
legal assistance for your office, specifically as an advisor. I think you heard six months into the new
year there are other members that would be willing to perhaps do a money bill to start this six
months into the new year or with the new year, it does not seem to be a lot of understanding right
now of questions that have not been surfaced and that is why I am calling over for the County
Attorney but I wanted to give you the floor now, if I could to talk about the pros and cons of this
position.
DARRYL PERRY, Police Chief: Darryl Perry, Chief of the Police for the County of
Kaua`i.Again, it was already stated the benefits of the position, and the individual that we select, as
you know, would be in keeping with our mission statement. I have explained that before, and you
received an email on that. What we are looking for is someone who can direct the Chief or assist the
Chief in all legal matters concerning policies and procedures, and as we move towards the
accreditation process. We need someone in there that will be able to liaison on the outside without
any influence, influence from other entities at all levels of government. This person needs to be an
independent thinker. Somebody that represents the Chief of Police, that does not serve other
individuals that may have contrary agendas and I will not go into the past, but may not be actually
best serving the Police Department. I do not want to go into great detail, but what was stated by
Councilmember Rapozo is basically the kind of position that we need within the department.
Somebody who is not influenced by outside entities that would give an objective opinion when
requested by the Chief of Police.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Questions for the Chief?
Mr. Chang: Chief, thank you for being here. You know, I want to ask a
question. How long does it take to get accreditation? Like we have the best person out there to assist
you with accreditation and updating procedures and related to the Police Department. Researches
the laws and drafts and he is the best person and he is hired right now. He is working right now.
How long would it take to get the accreditation that we are looking for?
Mr. Perry: Let us use KPD as an example. We already started this
process about a year and a half ago and we are well within the accreditation process. It is not so
much getting the accreditation that is important, but maintaining the accreditation. Getting the
accreditation is the easy part, but for us to maintain our accreditation by providing proof of
standards and the rest, it is much more difficult. And that is why the other agencies such as Maui
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.22
and the Honolulu Police Departments, they must provide all of the documentation that says we have
these rules and we are following these rules. So if we had the best person available, we have already
done our basic background work. We are about a year and a half out. I would say within a year and a
half KPD, Kaua`i Police Department should be accredited. Well, let us just say two years given the
best scenario. But that is the easy part as I said. Maintaining your accreditation is much more
difficult and at one point the Honolulu Police Department was having some issues with that.
Fortunately, it was fixed and they were able to continue to maintain their accreditation.
Mr. Chang: So the current assigned attorney that you have has been
doing the job to try to get us to the point, but we need to push it above and beyond?
Mr. Perry: He has been assisting us in the accreditation process, yes he
has.
Mr. Chang: So if we did have somebody who came into the position, I
would imagine it would probably be someone neutral that is maybe not even from Kauai. Wouldn't
that be the most neutral person that does not have any history or contact with the island issues of
the past?Would that person be best off from being outside of Kaua`i?
Mr. Perry: No, it would be the best qualified person. That is who we
would be looking for. Based on the qualifications and based on the criteria that we set for KPD, by
that I mean you can have somebody who has the greatest qualifications, but the character might be
in question and that is a kind of person we cannot have within the department because of the
sensitivity of the work we do. So it has to be a variety of qualifications, including your basic
knowledge on how to go about helping us with accreditation. Looking at policies and procedures and
other liability issues that KPD faces on a daily basis.
Mr. Chang: So who would ultimately be the decision-maker for who would
be hired?
Mr. Perry: It would be the Chief of Police because I am the appointing
authority for the Kauai Police Department.
Mr. Chang: Okay.
Mr. Perry: On recommendation, of course.
Mr. Chang: Correct. Because I am thinking if it was a perfect world and
we could do it in two years, would that be something that we might be able to find a consultant that
has pushed Police Departments into that accreditation and more so follow-up to maintain that
accreditation.
Mr. Perry: By consultant you mean someone you hire on a part-time
basis that comes in only when you need it? It will not work. We need somebody there on a daily
basis, because the department is fluid. It is dynamic. Things could happen a minute from now and I
could get a call saying something is going on and Chief we need to address that. I do not have time to
look for a consultant when something like that happens. They have to respond now, when the need
is there.
Mr. Chang: Could the consultant work with the Deputy Attorney that is
already in your office? Somebody that is always there anyways, would the consultant be able to
work with that attorney?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.23
Mr. Perry: I do not know. What I am trying to do, as I mentioned, I am
trying to get somebody there that has institutional knowledge. Right now it is a precarious situation
because the position is not with the Police Department. It is with the County Attorney's office. At
any time regardless of who is there, that position might be gone tomorrow. Or they might put
something else in there. We need somebody there who has institutional knowledge of the way that
the Police Department works, how it works, the reason why we do the things that we do, and all of
the other sensitive things that happen. This person would go through a screening process, unlike any
other screening process that this county puts its employees through. We may even... I am looking at
working with the feds, so this person will need to get secret clearance. That is the level of
competency that we need in this position.
Mr. Chang: Thank you.
Mr. Perry: Excuse me, sir. Right now we are having somebody just
assigned to us and saying here you go, this is your position, take it or leave it. If you do not like it,
that is the way it goes.And that in my opinion not the way it should be.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, thank you Chairman.
Chair Furfaro: Chief, how long has this assigned attorney been with you? Is
it two years?
Mr. Perry: I believe it is a little bit over two years. Prior to that, it was
Mrs. Lani Nakazawa before she moved to the Auditor's side.
Chair Furfaro: I want to tell you my feelings right now. I understanding
what we need. I just do not think we all understand the components right now to rush it into this
budget. But I am very much pledged to within the next six months to begin some discussion on some
of the criteria, the logistical support, the quick response for officers and so forth. And I would
certainly be supportive of a money bill for the later six months of the term. Because I think there is a
lot more that we need to know about your expectations of this support person and the tangible
benefits that they bring to the Police Department. So I just wanted to say, for me at this point, I
would almost immediately begin discussions on that in a public safety committee and I could with
the right outcomes of understanding the measurable benefits be willing to support a money bill, but
for me, Chief, I need to start that discussion. And I could say to you, I would pledge getting that on
the agenda relatively quickly in the Public Safety Committee but right now there is just too many
unknowns about what the tangible benefits are. How the interaction will be? The conduits between
the County Attorney's Office, the support for the officers? I would like to get some input from
SHOPO. There are many items, but you have my pledge to put it on the agenda.
Mr. Bynum: I do not know if you see my comments before you came in
today, that is exactly where I was going. I want to support this, but it has charter implications that I
do not think we have time to work out today. Any member can put a money bill on and we can go
through the process. So the question is this something that needs to be decided today or you can wait
what might be a one or two-month delay in terms of getting the funding? Even if we approved it
today, it would be July 1st the soonest we could make the funding available. The money bill might
come in August or September and then we will have the time to have the dialogue back and forth
and make sure that we have the right job description. That it is consistent with our charter, not the
Honolulu charter, but our charter. And that is the position that is similar to the Chair that I was
taking prior to you coming in. That I would like to have this dialogue, but I think it is premature to
make the decision today. The question is, sorry, can you wait a couple of extra months or is this a
decision you need today?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.24
Mr. Perry: If I had an option, I would want it done today. That is my
option. But I am a realist and if council feels that that is the position you take, I have to deal with
that. We will address those issues, and make sure that as long as there is a discussion and perhaps
you may not make a decision against it, but you understand my position. And I think what is really
difficult for me is the fact that I am... not only myself, but the deputy and the officers on the front
line, we have to deal on a daily basis what happens within the department. And you have to be
comfortable that there is someone that lack of a better term that has got your back. I am not saying I
do not feel that way, but there are times. There are times when I do feel that there are issues there.
And so if I had my position, my option, I would want the decision made today, so July 1st we can
move forward. But I will take your recommendation.
Chair Furfaro: And chief, from now until July, could you start some
conversations with my office? Because I would like to make sure when we get this on the agenda for
July, we are covering all of the verbiage that needs to be considered. Now the vote could come out
different today and you do not need to do that, but if it does not come out that way, you have my
feelings that I want to get some critical points discussed and we will do that starting in July which is
had 45 days away. Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor?
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Chief how long did HPD take to get accredited
and if you do not know, that is fine.
Mr. Perry: Well I was there and we were working on it for about three
years, maybe a little bit over three years about. It took a while.
Mr. Rapozo: As I rule it was about five years. You were not here when I
started this discussion years ago. Maui took seven years. They had dedicated staff to accreditation.
They did not have the part-time additional duty personnel to help with accreditation. They had
people assigned full-time to accreditation and even with that, they took 5-7 years. And we started
this process back, probably over 10 years ago, way before you came. But it goes and it stops. It goes
and then it stops. And you know, I guess I will apologize upfront, I have not made my argument
convincingly because I can see it is not going to pass. As the Public Safety Chair I have had this
discussion with you and your predecessors for many years now. And you know, I had hoped that my
colleagues would trust my judgment and say he is the committee chair and probably been in
discussions, but how long have we been talking about, you and I?
Mr. Perry: Way back even. In fact, I believe we were discussing that
prior when we first got the position taken away from us.
Mr. Rapozo: Right and I guess we had this discussion as well at the budget
session, when you were here for your budget session, you talked about it and we had a discussion
and Mr. Bynum may not have been here for that discussion. So the rest of us were. So I think we had
some discussion and maybe not enough to satisfy some of the members, but this is not something
that I just dropped last week, which I'm beginning to feel like that is the perception. But this is years
long. And I kind of hoped that this year would be the year that we could have actually said yes.
Again, I respect whatever happens here happens here. I am instructing staff right now to submit a
money bill now, because there may be an opportunity to get it done before the end of this fiscal year.I
mean, if is that important, why wait? If I cannot get it in in budget we'll do it through our normal
channels. I guess I wanted you to understand and your men and women to understand, that I see it
as a very high priority, a lot more high priority than a lot of positions we already approved, but that
is the democratic process and I will live with the results. Let us live with the results at this point,
however it comes out.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.25
Chair Furfaro: I think you know you made a strong statement, but it is not
typical for me to bring department heads back.You are the second one I have brought back. We need
to get a decision by the end of tomorrow. Chief, I am going to ask you now, however the vote comes
out, begin that dialogue, begin it with Mr. Rapozo, so we can get something on the Council floor as
soon as possible. I have questions from other Councilmembers for you, Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Chief for being here and stating your views. I
guess I am a little confused, because when we received your responses to the questions during our
budget your budget presentation. And unfortunately I just got it this morning, so I really did not
have the time to digest it all, but one of the questions that I posed was what positions do you need to
meet accreditation? And the response that I got was, "to ensure that we can meet our three-year
deadline we need a full-time sergeant, officer and clerk assigned to accreditation." And I think that
where I wanted to go with that was to move in that direction. But now I am hearing that you also in
addition to that are looking for a legal analyst. Is that correct?
Mr. Perry: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: So it is not stated in your response that you needed alegal
analyst, is that correct?
Mr. Perry: It is not in that report that I sent to you.
Ms. Nakamura: But you think you would need the three positions, and a legal
analyst to get us there?
Mr. Perry: Yes.Actually we would need more than that.
Ms. Nakamura: And so I think I would agree with the chair that I think this is
an important discussion to have. If we are all working towards that goal, we want to make sure that
you have the positions that you need to get there. And I am not sure of these three positions here
that you need, what is actually in the budget.
Mr. Perry: And I will be frank with you, and the other Councilmembers,
what we need and what we put in there is two separate things. What we need realistically is all of
the positions that are put in there from the beginning to my beat expansion to the internal affairs, to
the kpal program, to even labor relations specialist. We need all of those things, but realistically
speaking I have to put in there what the possibility of us getting. And so if you wanted me to put
everything in that there that I really need, I will go ahead and do that, but it is never happened. It's
never happened and the positions that we put in there are consequently taken away by the Mayor's
Office. Now if we are going to be truthful about the way the positions are coming to KPD, then I will
put it in there and I will leave it up to the council to approve those positions. But realistically, it is
not going to happen. It never happens and when we did get the positions, they were taken away. So I
am not sure where we are going with this and excuse my emotions, but we have been down this path
before, and the Committee Chair Rapozo, I did not think we would get it that is why we did not put it
in there. Committee Chair Rapozo, excuse me, put it in there and he did it because there is a fled,
but I did not think we were going to get it. I didn't even think that anybody here understood what we
were trying to do, except for Mr. Rapozo. I apologize for that. It is frustrating for me.
Chair Furfaro: I accept your apologies Chief, but we are going to go in two
parts to answer her question number 1, you can work directly with Mr. Rapozo, because we will be
having something come up in his committee about your legal support. Now for me, I would like to see
a five-year plan.And if you want to make it at the Police Commission, I will come and attend, but we
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.26
have got to have a starting point and 36 hours before the budget is due is not going to work for us. It
just is not. Okay? Council Vice Chair?
Ms.Yukimura: Hi Chief, I have similar questions, like are you expecting the
legal analyst to take the lead on accreditation? That sort of thing. How it would all work, but I think
we are looking at a subsequent one. So I am not going to go into those questions right now and I
think a good discussion will be helpful to actually moving in the direction that you want to move in.
But our problem is that we have to look at the whole county and so we can't give any department
everything that they need.
Mr. Perry: I understand.
Ms.Yukimura: And so we have to prioritize amongst departments, as well as
you have to prioritize within. But I think we will have more time out of this context in a more
regular course rather than budget. I thank you for keeping us focused on the accreditation track,
because we know that is something that is going to improve the services to the department and
hopefully the quality of work for your employees, too.
Mr. Perry: I understand your need to balance. You have only so much
money in the pot and you can only allow for so much. I understand that. The positions that I asked
for and the positions that are put in are not something that are frivolous. They are not. They are
needed. Other agencies, other law enforcement departments have this. It is been in place for a long,
long time and I am trying to bring KPD up to speed where we should have been ten years ago. And
that is why I am frustrated. So I hope you understand. The Council has always been supportive of
KPD and I do appreciate that. And so please forgive me for my emotional outburst. I will always
thank you.
Chair Furfaro: That has already been accepted. Chief, I want to make sure
we are very clear, the urgent pieces for Mr. Rapozo's Committee are about the need for the legal
support. The piece that I am asking you for, I would like to see over the next five years. And
obviously, then I would like to engage in some discussion with the police commission. So if you can
get those to us, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Perry: I will do one better than that, I will give you one for 20 years.
Chair Furfaro: That is wonderful. You do realize I have term limits? We will
leave it at that. I am going to ask the County Attorney to come up. Amy, this is going to be very
short. He wanted somebody from the County Attorney's office to hear where we are going with this,
what the Chiefs needs are for public safety and so forth and I want to make sure that you can allow
me an opportunity with one of your attorneys to have dialogue about the long-range plan for the
department and I would like to get that information. So when I start to interact with the five-year
plan, I can participate with some knowledge with the Police Commission. Is that possible can do that
for us? I do not have any more questions for you. I just wanted to make sure that that statement is
made. I appreciate you coming over and hearing the Police Chief. Members we have a motion on the
floor, and we have had quite a bit of dialogue that deals with this position that Mr. Rapozo has
indicated. We have to give some immediate attention to, it short-term attention to, and then some
long-term attention. I think it has been suggested that we initiate in his Committee more dialogue
on these items, but I am going to defy you give you the floor before I call for the vote.
Mr. Rapozo: And I will try one more last-ditch effort because there is a
possibility to provide six-month funding for this position. We could provide 6-month funding. I do not
like money bills because we do not know if the money exist, money bills is taken them out of surplus.
Chief, I saw your emotion and we approved positions last week that was not approved by the
- -
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.27
administration. We did that last week, so I do not think it is that uncommon that sometimes
Committee Chairs may have a different relationship and more information than the other members
of the Council. That happens to be the case here and although we have never had that opportunity,
but I would ask this council to consider 6-month funding of this position. So we could get to work
immediately. And you will have six months to work with the County Attorney's Office to get this
position hired. So Mr. Chair I will amend my motion to amend the funding of this senior legal
analyst, remember analyst and I want you to understand it is the same relationship that our legal
analyst in our council has as would be to the chief. I would make the motion to include that at a 6-
month funding rate to give us six months from July 1st to secure the person in that position. That
would be my amended motion. If I could get a second.
Chair Furfaro: So we have an amendment which would bring an additional
$76 thousand, one, forty-seven into the Police Department starting January 1st for the purpose... I
will reference this title here senior legal analyst Police Department.
Mr. Chang: So, what we want to do is a money bill for six months but the
position...
Chair Furfaro: No, no. What we want to do is...
Mr. Chang: Not the money bill... I am sorry... but the position would not
start until January?
Chair Furfaro: We would start to talk about the position in Mr. Rapozo's
Committee but the money would not be there to hire anybody until January 1.
Mr. Chang: Just for clarification, if we wait until July, from what I am
hearing is that we are supportive to the idea of having discussion in Public Safety?
Chair Furfaro: We are open to this discussion on the motion as amended.
Mr. Chang: I am hoping that people will be supportive of a money bill, I
would like to wait until July.
Ms.Yukimura: To pass six months funding, it would be to assume that we
have gone through all the discussions that I think we want to go through and that it is a given and I
do not think we are there yet. I think we really have to have the discussion that the Chair has
envision and so I am not voting for the amendment.
Mr. Bynum: My motivation coming in this morning was to explain the
reasons why I would like to have this to appear as a money bill as oppose voting today. I think I was
able to do that eventually and it could happen before January 1. My motive was to say I cannot vote
for this right now in the budget but I want to set this up to do this soon and have this discussion to
support this position and go through the process and I think that will be the outcome.
Mr. Kuali`i: I really appreciate what Councilmember Rapozo is trying to
do because he did say that if we do the money bill than at that time we are going to have to go and
find the money. By at least putting in place six months forth of funding, that started in July, in the
budget, we would be at least be up front of the commitment and knowing that at least half of the
money would be there. We could still go right to work with the Public Safety Committee in a matter
of weeks when it can next get on the agenda. If we determine at that time that we would like it to
start earlier than our quest for a money bill and the amounts of funding that we would have to find
would be only from the period that it would start. Whether it be July 1 or August 1 or September 1
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.28
until January 1 where we would already have funding in place. It is just so odd to hear different
qualifications of what applies to this position that we are trying to make a decision about and what
applies to another position that we already approved in the Real Property Tax Division. We did not
see no job description, there was not the same kind of vetting of what we need before we can approve.
All I need is to hear from the Chief and I know the importance of this and from our Public Safety
Chair. Of course, I am ready to support this today. The amendment... if not a six month funding
from the budget and then going to the money bill and making decisions and finding out however
much more money we have to find even the full amount in an contingency, I do not know what the
options are but I can supporting this.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion before I call for the vote on the
amended version? That being a funding of seventy-six thousand, one, four, seven starting January 1
for a legal analyst in the Police Department.
The motion to approve as amended a 6-month funding for a legal analyst for the Kaua`i
Police Department, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i, was then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura TOTAL—3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: It does not pass. Chief, you have my pledge to put this in
July's piece.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Now, we are going to vote for the full funding as submitted by
Mr. Rapozo but I kept very little narrative, I just wanted to make sure you heard me on the fact that
I am supportive of getting this in the Committee. Mr. Rapozo, the amendment fails but you have the
floor again to speak on the original submission.
Mr. Rapozo: I guess it is the way the chips fall. It is what it is. I would
have really liked to have offered that commitment to the Police Department that... I heard that in
the dialogue. I heard the commitment and I heard the support, I just did not hear the votes. So that
is the way the cookie crumbles. Obviously, if the amendment did not pass, I don't anticipate the full
funding that will pass and I am not going to belabor this, because I could make another amended
motion for a dollar-funded position with no money except for a dollar. So I understand the feeling of
council. I will not belabor it and I will call for the question.
The motion to approve full funding for a senior legal analyst for the Kaua`i Police
Department, was then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—3,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura TOTAL—3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1.
Chair Furfaro: Only that note, look forward to your documentation from the
Police Chief and we'll go from there. Thank you for coming over, Chief. Now we need to move on and
you want you at lunch hour to call your spouses and let them know you are going to be here all night.
Now we are going to go to the CIP. Does everybody have their CIP worksheet? Now we are going to
the CIP as submitted. I want to remind everyone that earlier we took a couple CIP items and we had
identified $588,500 in our wish-list, but when the vote fell, $500,000 came out. And we have about
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.29
85,000 acknowledged, which was made up of $35,000 in CEDS additional funds, and $50,000 for
East Kaua`i Development Plan. I would like to see, since this has been part of the discussion already,
I would like to see us only surfacing items that can be challenged, because you feel it needs to come
out. It needs to come out. And I am going to take it by sections. First and foremost, there is the list
on bond funds. I am sorry, the first one is bikeway funds. Any discussion there? None? Next item I
want to talk about is bond fund. The next item I would like is to take the development fund. No
discussion? The highway fund? There was previous discussion on the northern leg of the Koloa
bypass, but that stayed in, I believe. Okay, we are in Highway Fund. Sewer fund? Okay. We are
going down to the General Fund.
Ms.Yukimura: We have already taken $300,000 out of the Adolescent Drug
Treatment Center.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: I have a proposal to move that to the Operating Budget. I
would like to bring that up right after lunch, if that is okay?
Chair Furfaro: Okay, we have 25 minutes after lunch, so whatever time I
told you to plan tonight, add another 25 minutes to that. Okay?I am moving right along.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? I apologize, I am waiting for a copy of my CIP
thing. Go ahead, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Just to let you know where we are at. We are through the
other funds, except we are now in General Fund. Questions?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I believe I am looking at... yes, because it has $3 million
or $2 million plus more than the March 15th Capital Budget.
Chair Furfaro: You should be looking at one that had a hand written note
May 8th on it. That is the one I am working off of.
Ms.Yukimura: I have the huge one that came in a huge stack on May 8th.
Chair Furfaro: Let us take a five-minute recess to make sure we are all
reading from the same pages. Staff, would you take a look at what people have.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 12:17 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 12:18 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Are we okay? Everybody on the right pages? Staff, you ready?
Everybody has the May 8th piece? For those members who weren't here, we have no changes to the
Bike Fund. We have no changes to the Bond Fund.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, on the bond fund?
Chair Furfaro: No, I am not going back. I have two members who left more
than 12 minutes and started to go through it. Development funds, Sewer Trust Fund and we are now
on the General Fund and you have the floor.You have the floor.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.30
Ms.Yukimura: I asked already for some time right after lunch, and maybe if
we can end earlier before lunch we will not need time after lunch. And I did ask about the materials
recycling facility, which is dollar-funded in the General Fund, but it is been pointed out to me there
is the $200,000 mentioned in the Mayor's May 8th message and it is on page 4.
Chair Furfaro: Page 4.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Other members wanting to talk about the General
Fund on CIP? Okay we are moving right along. Speak up.
Mr. Bynum: I just have a question and I know this probably should have
been asked during hearings, but the hardy street is zeroed out. Is that because it is pau already?
Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Let the tv audience that Mr. Barrera shook his head and
affirmed Mr. Bynum's question. Okay. Going over to Special Trust Funds for parks and playgrounds.
Koloa district, Lihu`e district, Kawaihau district.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, there is Waimea on the previous page 5.
Chair Furfaro: I am sorry, thank you very much. Waimea. Kawaihau.
Hanalei. Okay. May we start your discussion now, Councilmember Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I noticed Kilauea Park Playground resurface is twenty but I
think the total is supposed to be $60,000 for completion of that. Page 6 at the bottom.
Chair Furfaro: In the Hanalei district trust?
Ms.Yukimura: Actually I think we had an email from the department about
that.
Chair Furfaro: I think we did as well. Because I sent them some photographs
after a site visit.
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to make sure there is enough money in there.
Chair Furfaro: Does anybody recall that? Okay. So those are the two items
we are going to begin the dialogue on for the members.
Ms.Yukimura: After lunch?
Chair Furfaro: You are hungry today, huh?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, sir.
Mr. Rapozo: The Veteran's Cemetery Renovation, I understand that they
moved $100,000 back over into the bond. I believe it went... let me see. Yes, it went to the bond,
$100,000.And I am just wondering if that is enough because I go there quite often and that building
is just terribly eaten by termites. And the wood damage and I just question if, in fact, that is even
enough. We talk about it every year. It was this Council years ago that put the original money in
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.31
there to even get the extra worker, but I really want to see that done. I want to see that Veteran's
Cemetery, that area and I do not know what $100,000 will get us based on what the project cost.
Ms.Yukimura: There is $350,000 right below it.
Mr. Rapozo: That is $350,000 for the improvements, additional urn space.
I have not seen that the plans or what the intent is. I believe they are expanding the Veteran's
Cemetery as well.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, can you help us with any of those questions about the
money being moved to Bond?
Mr. Barreira: Chair, the PID would include the details of what is intended
for the amount of money allocated. I would be remiss to comment without looking at the PID.
Chair Furfaro: Can we ask you to do that during the lunch hour?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, sir.
Mr. Rapozo: I believe we may have it but the confirmation would be good,
thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to finish CIP first thing after lunch. These are
the items we are going to concentrate on Adolescent Drug Treatment Center. There is a query about
moving $300,000 to operations. We are going to talk about the dollar-funded in the materials
recycling facility and get more specific as the new $200,000 MRF dollars came over. We are looking
at Kilauea park and playground area, and an understanding that we had that number was going to
be bumped from $20,000 to $60,000 on repairs.And then the detail on the $100,000 moved into Bond
regarding the Veterans Cemetery. That is what we're talking about when we come back from lunch.
Okay? So we are going to be gone for 1 hour and 15 minutes, because we do not want to interrupt
your lunch. We are giving you an extra 15 minutes to do that research, okay?
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 12:30 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 1:39 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Okay we are back from our lunch recess. We are trying to
finalize the CIP. Mr. Bynum, I thought I saw him around the building. Mr. Rapozo gave me a call
about five minutes ago, he is running ten minutes late five minutes ago, but we need to start.
Ms.Yukimura: Did staff call Mr. Bynum?
Chair Furfaro: I think they did. I think Eddie did. If you could do it again.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. If he is in the building.
Chair Furfaro: Come on folks, we said 1:30 and we had an hour and 15
minutes and now we are taking an hour and a half and let continue. Now the first item I listed to you
what I am going to entertain. The first one I will start the parks district at resurfacing of the Kilauea
playground, the cost would be $60,000 and what we got in the budget was $20,000. So I want to say-
- I want people to be realizing, too, that at this point we are over $1 million already, folks. And you
better start coming up with your ideas, which also should include where you found the money, okay?
Because if you remember the piece I told you I was comfortable with about $1.5 million difference in
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.32
my PowerPoint from the past on reconciling what has been spent. But we are at that point. And so
what I am thinking, if you want to do that for Kilauea, one of the things we could do is we have a
project contingency in the CIP of $81,000. I would suggest if we consider bumping that by $40,000
and take some of that money out of that contingency. That is what I wanted to say, because I want to
support it. The email that I made reference to, and Vice Chair Yukimura, we did find it and it was
communicated via the Administration. But I want to make sure we understand that we are at that
point now. So if you want to make that motion and indicate that in the $40,000 would come out of
contingency, than the money is there, as well as the addition.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, it would take four votes to reduce it and five votes to
add it.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura moved to reduce the line item in the contingency fund by $40,000 and
increase it in the Kilauea playground equipment line parks fund by $40,000, seconded by
Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Vice Chair, for the benefit of Councilmember Rapozo who just
walked in, can you just recap.
Chair Furfaro: Why don't I recap what we are doing. Mel, before you got
here, I had mentioned you were running a little late, but I reminded members we need to start... if
we are adding something we need to find a place where we are finding it from. So I made a
suggestion to Vice Chair Yukimura who was looking for the moneys to increase that amount by and I
indicate there had is $81,000 in the Capital Contingency Plan. We found the email from the
Administration on moving the playground pieces at Kilauea to $60,000. But they only put $20,000 in
the line item. So I am suggesting that the motion is a dual motion to increase the resurfacing for the
Kilauea park playground by $40,000 and reducing the contingency of$81,000 down to $41,000 and
that is where we are at and is that what I indicated I would support. So Vice Chair Yukimura made
that motion. Mr. Chang seconded it. And now we are open for discussion and since its your motion,
Vice Chair, you have the floor.
Chair Furfaro: Actually at our last budget last year, this issue was brought
to our attention by a petition. And the Administration said that they could handle it with the monies
that they had, which is why we did not put it in the budget. However, the project has not been
addressed for a year. And parks did analyze the situation, did come back with a memo, and I can
circulate copies, if you want to. It is a memo dated February 7, 2012 showing that, in fact, it says,
"parks is proposing in our budget $60,000, which would include replacement of the current surface
with a surface of solid rubber or one with astro turf." So that really does we just want to make sure
there is enough money to address this problem this year.And not go another year and not go another
year. The community... it is a highly used park just like many of our parks. Young children come
and play whenever there are soccer games going on the main field or baseball or the numerous
events and things that happen at the Kilauea gym and Neighborhood Center. So it is a worthy
project, and parks is familiar with it and I think by supporting them with the proper amounts, we'll
get that job done.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. And I want to know I have visited the park, as I have
given in testimony and it is really way overdue on this resurfacing and I will certainly be supporting
this increase for the playground area with a decrease in the contingency. Any further dialogue? If
not, may I have a roll call, please.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.33
The motion to reduce the line item in the contingency fund by $40,000 and increase it in the
Kilauea playground equipment line parks fund by $40,000 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL—7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
SILENT: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to get some clarity, Vice Chair Yukimura, and the
Administration did put $200,000 in for the MRF and Vice Chair Yukimura wanted to revisit this
dollar funding?
Ms.Yukimura: No.
Chair Furfaro: I was just making sure that there was money for the MRF
and there is in another fund and so I am quite delighted actually to see money's there. The
Administration did affirm that it is going to be owned by the County but operated and built and
designed possibly privately, which makes sense in many ways. So I think I am good about that.
Chair Furfaro: Very good. I, too, got clarification that the intent is to have
the MRF operated by an outside party. Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, that is not what I have been told. From what I
have been told these monies will be used for a feasibility study that would explore the potential... the
differences in ownership, whether it is private or county. That is what I was told. That is what the
feasibility study would be done for and if that has changed I would like to have confirmation.
Because I do not want to support a sum of that much money if the outcome has already been
predetermined. I was under the impression these moneys were soft cost moneys to do a feasibility, to
determine what kind of ownership would work for this County and I am not sure who is able to give
that clarification but I was operating under that assumption and if that has changed I would have to
change my position.
Chair Furfaro: The written response I got is that the $200,000 that Mr. Dill
indicated to us in the Engineering Department will primarily be used for number 1, an
environmental assessment and two very preliminary design work. Now I did not indicate anything
more than the use of the money, but I was told that we would be having this operated by an outside
party.
Mr. Barreira: That is correct, Chair. That is assumed county ownership and
contracted out to a private entity?
Chair Furfaro: For the operation?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: So then I was informed wrong that this is not for a feasibility
study?
Mr. Barreira: No, the $200,000, Councilmember Rapozo, is intended for two
purposes, an environmental assessment, feasibility study, as well as a... I am drawing a blank on the
final component conceptual design. Thank you.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.34
Mr. Rapozo: Which is fine, but how are you able to determine that it is
going to be county-owned prior to a feasibility study is my question, similar to the question on the
adolescent drug treatment center. Why would we fund this money when we do not know it is
feasible. That is the question.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 1:50 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 1:52 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back in session and the note I have is about the CIP
money, but let us look for the explanation in the PID. Do we have a copy of the PID that you can
share with Mr. Barrera? Ernie, you heard what I read from? When I raised the question?You heard
that earlier, right?
Mr. Barreira: I do not think I did, Chair.
Chair Furfaro: That Mr. Dill indicated to me that the $200,000 would
primarily be used for environmental assessment and preliminary design work. What does the PID
say?Let's all take our time and let him read.
Mr. Barreira: The first two objectives, Chair. The project scope is to conduct
well, I am reading from item 5 and the only perspective I don't have is current date in terms of where
we are. What you had stated earlier, Chair, what you just read was the last information that I
received before we submitted the budget. The project scope makes reference to a feasibility study,
but what I cannot speak to from this point is what has already been achieved. That information is
accurate as far as I know.
Chair Furfaro: The information that I read from?
Mr. Barreira: That is the information that I received?
Chair Furfaro: Let Vice Chair Yukimura pose a question and I will give Mr.
Rapozo the floor again.
Ms.Yukimura: I believe we got that PID at the time of briefing on the March
15th budget, right?The PID?I mean the problem with the PID is that it doesn't get updated.
Mr. Barreira: I had thought this PID was updated after our discussions to
include it. It still makes reference to the feasibility study.
Ms.Yukimura: And it is $200,000 is the figure there? Because there was
nothing in the first budget and they were still in the process of decision-making, as I understood it.
So I thought this Mayor's supplemental was a new development between March 15th and May 5th or
4th. Can you talk to your Public Works people?We need the latest.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, I believe there was an updated PID. I just got off the
phone with Mr. Dill and he did indicate what he said to the chair was the intended purpose.
Ms.Yukimura: Repeat that.
II
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.35
Chair Furfaro: What he said to me was an EA, and very preliminary design.
What the PID says is begun to conduct a feasibility study to determine the most efficient way to
proceed on mixed stream recyclables on Kaua`i and generate a facility or contract based on outcomes.
Mr. Barreira: Chair I received the communication that the PID was not
updated.
Chair Furfaro: This was not updated?
Mr. Barreira: Not for the May submission.
Chair Furfaro: Before I give the floor to Mr. Rapozo, the information I gave to
you is where we are at?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Thanks to Councilmember Nakamura, because I did not get
this. Apparently it just came in today although it is dated May 4th from Larry Dill. It is a question
that was sent over that says please provide us a status report on the Administration's plans for the
MRF and this is May 4th. Currently the Division of Solid Waste Management is completing a
feasibility assessment on various options for the MRF addressing issues related to ownership, site,
design, construction and operations. I got to believe that is the most current. How is the determine
made if the feasibility study is not done and I am not sure if you are the right person to answer these
questions, because you would not know. I hate to go back into budget discussions.
Chair Furfaro: We are not.
Mr. Rapozo: Good. Because I can only respond to the information I have
been provided and again, as the landfill and Environmental Services Chair I have the opportunity to
meet with Mr. Dill. What I am hearing from Councilmember Yukimura is not what I have heard
from Larry Dill and so I am concerned. I was ready to support it until I heard the comment about the
ownership. Because that cannot be determined until the feasibility study is done. Mr. Chair, that is
all I have.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill is going to come over. We can come back to this. I
believe what we want to make sure and I'm going to tell you as an operations person, I sure as heck
do not think we are going to do a better job operating a MRF that could be cost-effective. So I am of
the impression it is not something that we would operate. How we got there, I do not know. What I
got, the piece I shared with you and it doesn't talk about inclusive of us operating the facility. We
will hold on this item until we come with Mr. Dill. I do not want to have a long, drawn out
discussion, folks, because we have a long ways to go tonight.
Mr. Barreira: Chair, if I may, according to your Manager Director Heu, who
sent me a message it looks like the decision in terms of how to proceed was made just before the May
submission which is the communication that I received that you have related, the good news is that
Mr. Dill is on his way.
Chair Furfaro: Let us hold that until Mr. Dill get here.
Mr. Rapozo: Just a request that maybe Mr. Dill can bring over the
feasibility study that justifies County ownership.
Chair Furfaro: If it exist.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.36
Mr. Barreira: I will try to catch him.
Chair Furfaro: I am going into one of the other four items that was there and
that was the conversation about the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center. There was a question
about transferring monies to operations from this CIP piece. I will turn over the floor to Vice Chair
Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, it is not so much about the Adolescent Drug Treatment
Center, because we have already made a decision about that. There is money's right now in this
year's budget that is going to be used for a feasibility study to the tune of$50,000 and then another
$250,000 in this year's budget that we told are soon to be encumbered for design, architecture,
building plans and an environmental assessment, which I question the expenditure of, because we
have not completed the... we have not even he encumbered the consultant to do the feasibility study.
So that decision has been made, but my proposal was to take the monies we have taken out of the
line item for the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center and to put it into the operating budget and I
have circulated a proposal, which was stimulated by our discussions last Friday about a proposed
afterschool program. We choose not to fund it, I think, not because we did not appreciate how
wonderful the program is, but because we were not clear how we were going to get applications and
process what could be a lot of applications from many worthy programs. So over the weekend I
developed this proposal, and I wanted to put forward. It is a bold proposal, but I think it is aligned
with our goals and objectives as a county and as a Council. But we will have discussions to see
whether it is. This proposal is to appropriate $300,000 as a pilot project for one-time competitive
awards to high-quality preschool — do you have a copy? To high-quality Pre-School and afterschool
programs in the context of anti-drug or actually it should be "in the context of drug prevention."And
it is youth drug prevention. And the mission of this project would be to build immunity to drugs and
other problem adolescent behaviors by providing skill-building, recognition and opportunities for
children and youth in a way that builds character, and positive connection to community. Those
words come from the theory of social development, which says if we want our young people to be
drug-free, we have to have high, clear standards in the four groups that influence them. Family,
school, peer groups, and community at-large and in order to have those standards adopted by young
people, we have to have them bonded and feel like they are part of the community and we have to
have them care about the community. And so, these grants shall be supported by the Life Choices
Office, our former Anti-Drug Office and the committee shall consist of five people from the
community, with their background in children and youth development. Who shall be chosen by the
Mayor from a list provided by the County Council, which is a relatively new structure, but I wanted
to see what you thought of it. The grant shall be awarded on the following criteria for the first year:
grants can be of any size, but no greater than $15,000. Preference shall be based on numbers of
young people served, quality of the programs based on such factors as training of staff and
volunteers, and I say, for example, positive coaching. Because you know, if our coaches aren't well-
trained, it is almost better not to have the program than to have really bad coaches and such other
factors as how families are involved in the program and preference should be based on number of
low-income children served and how well the applicant programs meet the mission of this grant
program, which is stated above. No grant money shall be used to pay salaries or benefits, because
this is not meant an ongoing program. It is meant as a one-shot deal and we do not want agencies to
become dependent on county monies as a in perpetuity kind of funding. I'm suggesting $150,000 of
the $300,000 be used for k-12 afterschool programs and $150,000 be granted to preschool programs.
And then prior to March 15th, I should say of 2013. That would be next year, the grants committee
shall submit a report to the Mayor and Council summarizing the insights and lessons from the first
year and recommending modifications, continuation, or discontinuation as the case may be. So this is
the proposal. I just want to say that prevention is really the focus, I think, of county anti-drug work.
And enforcement to the extent that we have our police officers. Treatment has been traditionally a
State kuleana. I think some of us recognize the need for a treatment center and we were willing to
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.37
think of maybe the County starting it, but I never thought of the County continually funding or
administering a treatment center. And we do not even know, even if the State could do it, whether it
is feasible based on many other factors. And if we were willing to spend money on treatment to the
tune of at least $1 million, that would benefit about 60 young people a year. This program at about
$300,000 would benefit hundreds of children a year in a way that prevents them from even
beginning to take on drugs. And so it is cost-effective, and it's preventative. And in that way, it is
worthy of consideration this may be premature, and in our discussions that come forward, we could
look at next year, but as a starter I thought maybe I would like to put it on the table.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill is here right now. I want to just say to you that I do
not think a pilot program like this should start with $300,000 in it. I think it should start with
maybe $150,000. That being said and the caps on the grants are $15,000, because you know, we are
getting situations in our County that State agencies and others are really starting to depend on us
for social programs or even invasive species we do not get money from state on. So I just want to say
where we are at financially, and this is a pilot program, I would certainly entertain something like
$150,000, but at this point, Mr. Dill, welcome back. I want to tell you that we are looking over your
project initiation document proposal and we are trying to get some clarity. The question came up
who would be in the end result operating this MRF and yet, I think we thought we had some
agreement "we" we are talking as a body that the actual operation would be contracted out. What
will the $200,000 cover in this proposal that I understood to be environmental assessment and
preliminary design work? Knowing that I vocalized that I do not think this is something that the
staff, the payroll and other operating costs should be borne by the County, but rather a tenant. But
we are trying to get some clarity what the intent is here? And on that note, I will let Mr. Rapozo
expand the question as he sees it. If you could just refer back to the PID.
Mr. Rapozo: Larry, the simple question is has a determination been made
that this facility will be County-owned?
LARRY DILL, County Engineer: As I have been stating, we have been doing
feasibilities work on MRF, three basic scenarios; County-own/County operated, County-owned
privately operated. We had decided and one hundred percent nothing is firm of course until we get
further down the road but the leading candidate is for a County owned/privately operated facility.
Mr. Rapozo: And that was based on a study that was done?
Mr. Dill: Based on our in-house work.
Mr. Rapozo: And are we privy to that study or work?
Mr. Dill: There is no document that summarizes the information.
Mr. Rapozo: The analysis, can I see the analysis?
Mr. Dill: I can share with you the work we have done, I have to put
something together because it is not in a presentable format. But we can get something to you.
Mr. Rapozo: We need it today because we are voting today.
Mr. Dill: The intent for us to move forward with a MRF. Like I said
the leading candidate is for a County owned/privately operated MRF. I cannot tell you a hundred
percent that we have decided and that is how it is going to be. The money that we requested for next
year and I apologize if you just getting the PID before you...
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.38
Mr. Rapozo: We just got it right now.
Mr. Dill: Under number four, we are requesting funding for planning,
engineering, design and permitting. Under the planning we would revisit and either confirm or
justify the assumptions and decisions — the results that we have made in our own feasibility study
before moving on and finalizing the other parts there. That would be part of the effort would be to
confirm the conclusions that we have reached.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, well that is fine. Thank you, Larry. That does not
satisfy my question on the feasibility study but thank you for your answer.
Chair Furfaro: I appreciate you coming over, we are not going to dwell on
this because it is a Council Meeting. Engineering is your favoring CPO which is a County built,
privately operated.
Mr. Dill: That is correct.
Chair Furfaro: But a PPO is still in the mix and a CCO is still in the mix.
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: That is all we needed to know.
Ms.Yukimura: Actually one of your options is that it might be privately built,
right?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Ms.Yukimura: You might do a design, build, operate—is that...
Mr. Dill: That is one of the options we looked at. We are leaning
towards the design-build and then separately an operating contract.
Ms.Yukimura: Actually based on what I know, I think that is probably the
best. But at some point we will get your analysis and that will show how you got to that conclusion?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: So Larry, that was covered in the privately built/privately
operated. For now, county-built/privately operated is the choice?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Members, can we continue on this CIP
item for discussion before we call for the vote?
Ms.Yukimura: I do not think any vote is necessary because we are not
suggesting any changes.
Chair Furfaro: Absolutely correct. We are not proposing any changes.
Somewhere that got lost into the dialogue of what we are doing. So there is no change.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.39
Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the $200,000.
Chair Furfaro: For a lack of a second, that fails and we will leave this the
way it is. Jade, did I cover all four of those items?I did, did I not?I am sorry. The Veterans Cemetery
getting some more details over here. Shall I give you the floor, Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: I did get a copy of the PID and I am not going to ask any
questions. The PID works. Just at the facility assessment is due or according to this is due in June. I
just want to see that facility get done that is all. And this PID seems to have it covered. So we will
just monitor and make sure it gets done. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: And then one new item is from Mr. Bynum, and I am going to
give Mr. Bynum the floor. I want to make sure there are no other items out there, folks, because we
are going to close this after we take action on this next item. Go ahead, Mr. Bynum, you have the
floor.
Mr. Bynum: Hopefully you all recall discussions during budget about the
12 acres that the County has acquired in Kapa`a, with the intention to do sports facility there. The
County has already acquired the land from the State. They have already done the environmental
permitting and it is tied directly to being able to redo the Kapa'a town park into a passive park but
Kapa'a Business Association has had this that they did not want to deny the one soccer field that
was there until there were alternatives for the kids. And so this project had legs. It was moving and
we spent money and we have environmental studies done. And it got stalled since the new Mayor
has been here. Last year he said they were going to see it as part of the whole Kapa'a new town park,
which it is adjacent, across the canal. But it is just stalled. So I am asking for $125,000 for design or
design-build procurement for the 12-acre Kapa'a facility. The County has acquired the land and done
the environmental permitting and the community association was here and showed us this was part
of the plan 40 years ago and they have been waiting patiently and they came here to testify. Also
here was Cathy Cowan, who is a new business owner in Kapa`a, a group of people that I have met
there that have started the second Saturday event. That is putting focus on Kapa'a town, and she
spoke about the desire to have a passive park that would support the business and the community
and so I just think we could acquire a consultant to begin the procurement this year. Then next year,
visit with that information, which would include cost estimates of whether it could be in a future
CIP. So I hope there would be support to listen to the Kapa'a business folks, who have been asking
for this for... on one level 40 years and on another level the last 10. So I would like to add this as a
CIP item.
Mr. Bynum moved to add $125,000 for design or design-build procurement for the 12 acre
Kapa'a facility to the CIP item, seconded Ms.Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: And I just want to be very cautious here as we go along
spending here. This might fit into my comment earlier about the proposal, which we are going to get
back to for Council Vice Yukimura about setting up this Special Grants in the amount of $150,000
and I also want to just for everybody's knowledge in the late 80s and early 90s, I was President Of
the Coconut Coast and President of the Kapa'a Business Association, so I know this has been an
agenda item for a number of years. May I ask if there is no other discussion along that line, I have to
step out but before we go into that discussion, Mr. Bynum, you did not come in and I was saying if
we are going to change things from the CIP, where would you take the money from? This is a
question and I just gave you an answer.
Mr. Bynum: I will accept that answer.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.40
Chair Furfaro: I think we need to be consistent on finding money now and
Mr. Rapozo, I hope you do not mind, but I will let you run the meeting while I step out to return a
phone call and I would appreciate if you acknowledge yourself last.
Chair Furfaro, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Any other discussion? i
Ms.Yukimura: I support everything to move the project ahead, but I'm
concerned about the capacity of the Parks Department to do the kind of procurement you are asking
for. So I would like to ask Councilmember Bynum how he sees that aspect of moving this project
ahead? I think they had said it was coming later because they were going to do some things in the
main park first.
Mr. Bynum: That is the answer I have heard for three years, well we are
doing to focus on Kapa'a new town and I keep saying why does it have to be one or the other? To put
out a design or a design-build and that would be their choice, which way procurement is not a
cumbersome process. The Parks Department, we created has a Planning Division with positions in
it. There is a full time Park Planner, there is a boss of that division which is currently vacant and
there is... I forgot the title but basically we have Dave and William now and the place vacated by
Mel Nishihara, they have a Planning Division and this is a project that Kapa'a Business has been
pressing us. The idea that we have a 12' fence along the highway separating that park from the
public in order to facilitate the sports and this is tied directly to Economic Development.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Bynum the question was does parks have the capacity?
Mr. Bynum: I have faith that Parks has the capacity. I would be
interested if they would say no, we cannot, given that we have three full-time positions in the
Planning Department.
Ms.Yukimura: That is interesting if in the top position is vacant in the
Planning Division of Parks? Because he was the one who for several years introduced the park
planner position, because we knew how important that was and I have to say that I have not seen
the level of performance that I had been anticipating.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I understand. I do not want to get into a debate on...
Mr. Bynum: I would just like to respond to that, may I?
Mr. Rapozo: Sure, but just keep it to that.
Mr. Bynum: I will keep it to the point.
Mr. Rapozo: Not to that point. Keep it to the point of how... do we have
the concurrence of the parks department that they can make it happen, that is the real question. I do
not think we are going to ask Lenny. The chair can bring them back later. These are the things that
should have been done prior to today. If you have additions, it should be attached to concurrence
from the department heads. Thank you for coming back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bynum: I meet with Lenny on a regular basis and that position is
vacant. They went out, they got a list. Lenny said, none of the none of the applicants we got had
the level of expertise I wanted. So I want to support him in taking his time to get the right applicant
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.41
for that position. It is not that he has been sitting on it or anything. So I loved that answer. He said,
look, we interviewed people.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Bynum, again you are going back.
Mr. Bynum: That answers the question.
Mr. Rapozo: She is not asking the question. The question is there an
assurance that the Parks can get it done?And you said you have faith.
Mr. Bynum: I have faith.
Mr. Rapozo: Any other comments, Mr. Chair, before I bring it back to you?
Mr. Rapozo returned the Chairmanship to Chair Furfaro.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: I am very hesitant to approve these kind of large
expenditures for Departments that we have no concurrence and Councilmember Yukimura that goes
to your earlier one with Life Choices. We have plans on the book for a five thousand seat at Vidinha
Stadium that goes back thirty years, forty years... Since the last time with the Kapa'a beach park,
from the soccer folks saying do not touch that. We need that for soccer. I do not see any assurances
from the Parks Department and Mr. Chair, I am not asking for them to come. They came and went.I
will just not support any expenditures that we really don't have any assurance from the
Administration that he can get it done. I remember last year Mayor Bernard slamming the table and
saying what you trying to do, set me up to fail? So I respect that, but I would have much rather seen
some kind of justification and assurance from the administration that they can. This is a huge
project. It is not just as simple as getting a consultant because the procurement process does take
time that. Is my comments. Thank you.
Ms.Yukimura: When I heard the citizens, I was thinking perhaps a $50,000
grant to begin the master planning of the town park which would be ready when the soccer... this 12-
acre sports facility was completed and the move could be made as a way that maybe could be done.
But I did have problems as to who exactly would do that. But I feel like there is a lot of energy
around developing plans for the town park or the beach park and maybe that could be ongoing.
Chair Furfaro: Anyone else?
Ms.Yukimura: So like $50,000 instead of the 12-acre sports facility. Because
I am not sure that parks will move on it and otherwise that money will just sit there.
Ms. Nakamura: In recent discussions with Lenny Rapozo and discussions
around the stadium park, you know I think there is a recognition that yes, this has been on the
books for a long time. And the focus just for this year was to get the locker room, the field conditions
at the stadium side addressed. The acknowledgment that this was the next year plan of action and I
do not know the history of all of this and I know there is a lot of history, but that was the tone of the
discussion with the Park Department. So that sounded like a reasonable approach, but I know it is
frustrating that it has been on the back burner for a long time.
Mr. Bynum: I would like to make one closing comment and take the vote.
40 years, we heard him read from the Kapa'a — Wailua Development Plan, 40 years ago and what
Councilmember Rapozo says that is exactly the point. We do not want to take the soccer one field
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.42
that is there in our town park away until there is an alternative. We this vibrant community --
business community out there that has come and asked and you are right, the frame was oh, we are
going to focus on this first and then get to that next year. I have heard that four years in a row.We'll
get to it next year. This is a rear view relatively simple thing to put out and begin the design-build
process and that will set us up for next year to have construction money. If we do not do it this year
and the funds are not available, it will be at least three years we will have the fence up at Kapa`a.
That is why we have a planning division in the park department with three full-time employees. I
think they could do that community engagement for conceptual design for the beach park in-house. If
you cannot do that with three people, so yes, I am frustrated. Because I think this is an important
economic development move for Kapa`a, and we have already spent a bunch of money and boom, four
or five years dead in the water. So I think this is not a difficult kind of next-step. This is the next
step, I have been assured and I do not think putting out a design or design-build procurement
contracting is that cumbersome when you have employees. When you have Ernie Barreira running
the procurement, so I made my pitch and I will keep making it until it is successful some day.
Chair Furfaro: Is there any more discussion before I share a few comments?
I will go ahead and share a few comments then. I want you folks to know that I have been privileged
to be part of the parks planning discussion with Councilmember Nakamura and I think the $50,000
exception that has been made for preliminary with Vice Chair Yukimura is nice to hear that kind of
support is out there. But I want you to know in my meeting we had school principals, we had athletic
directors, we had football coaches and we talked about Kapa'a in general. And the first two
priorities, which we... I walked away from that meeting knowing that we were going to focus our
attention on the field, for football. We were going focus our attention on locker facilities. And even
maybe even moving one of the pavilions so that we could reset the bleachers. In that discussion, in a
phase 2 was discussion about this park plan. And I think that is what I had committed to the group
that I had met with and it will be on next year's processing list to get done. Okay. May I call for a
vote.
Ms.Yukimura: May I say one more thing?
Chair Furfaro: Sure, good right head.
Ms.Yukimura: I think I am not going to vote for this, because what I hope I
have heard is a commitment that it will be in next year's budget. And with that, hopefully Mr.
Bynum's dreams will come to fruition as all of us who want to see that. Because I think we all want
to stop this 40 years plus of talk and no action. But I do think we need the Parks Division or Parks
Department's support in order to actually get it done. I appreciate the constant advocacy that
Councilmember Bynum is showing and also the support from everyone else. If we can make it a
commitment for next year, then I think that might make it happen.
Chair Furfaro: Well, again I think we all appreciate this focus. I have been
on the council for 10 years and I am 40 percent more anxious that Mr. Bynum, but it is phase 2 for
me and I want him to know he has my commitment for next year. The focus is on the field, the
bleachers and maybe even move one of the pole pavilions at this time. May I have a roll call vote,
please.
The motion to add $125,000 for design or design-build procurement for the 12 acre Kapa'a
facility to the CIP item, seconded Ms.Yukimura.
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum TOTAL— 1,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL—6,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.43
Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure we all understand, we are making a
commitment here for next year when we talk around the table here. Next year, let us walk the talk.
Ms.Yukimura: I presume that is a message to Parks as well.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, and like I said with the cooperation of Councilmember
Nakamura and coordinated Ashley was part of our team that went out to the Kapa'a field and like I
said, we had educators, athletic directors, parks people all in attendance, it was a very good meeting.
So we are moving on here. You want to say one more thing? I just wanted to reassure you have my
support next year.
Mr. Bynum: I appreciate that and I am sure that for the athletic people
they set their priorities. This is the business community and economic development and it is been
their priority for 40 years. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: I understand that as well. I am committed to what I said and
we are going to move on here. Vice Chair Yukimura, I want to come back to the last item on Capital,
so we can move on to Operating Departments and it was your proposal on the $300,000 that was
outlined in the CIP and you have the action plan to be reallocated to a grant process and activities
that fight drug abuse.
Ms.Yukimura: I do not think there is a motion and I will make a motion and
hope for a second and have some discussion, so I can hear other thoughts about this, Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Do I have a second?
Ms. Yukimura moved to$300,000 that was outlined in the CIP and have the action plan to be
reallocated to a grant process and activities that fight drug abuse, second by Mr. Chang.
Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? I have already said my peace, folks. I
am fine with moving it into Operations at no more than a hundred and fifty thousand dollars but to
start a pilot program with that kind of money and not know the outcome. As I said, I do not want it
to become something that becomes dependent on. That is where I am at. I will not support anything
more than a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. Rapozo: I tried to make contact with the Life Choices Office during
lunch and was unsuccessful. Again, what I think I talked about Councilmember Bynum's proposal, I
have the same feeling as far as the Life Choices Office. I believe this is a good direction to head in,
but again, I am not sure that the office is in concurrence and I am sure she would like $300,000, but
the mechanics is something and also the other question would be after I read this during the lunch
break, if the council even has the authority to establish the way that the monies are allocated. I
think that is a concern for me and might be a legal issue as far as the separation of powers but I
definitely think $40,000 is what we give to the Anti-Drug Office as a County. I think that is
embarrassing for a County that talks so much about Anti-Drug, but again, without hearing from the
Life Choices Office, it is very difficult to support that kind of money and even at $150,000, I am
hesitant and again, I am not asking for them to be here because it is too late for that. Two things, the
concurrence or their acceptance and second, are we allowed to dictate and be part of that process of
the grant?Those are my two concerns.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, in fairness, I intend if this were approved to send
over the questions to the county attorney before we do anything about it its legalities as processing
grants.Very good question.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.44
Mr. Chang: Vice Chair, just for clarification, was the monies requested by
the Life Choices Office? I just wanted to clarification that was not a request?
Ms.Yukimura: No. This is something that came out of our discussions last
Friday and also from the work I have been doing since 2002 as part of the Anti-Drug effort, which I
think all of us have been participating in one way or the other. And I guess I initially thought that
this was something we could work on in the next year, but then I thought, over the weekend, just
partly because of Councilmember Nakamura's passion about afterschool programs and I was
reflecting on that and the fact that afterschool programs are well-done. I mean programs that are
well-done are very much drug -prevention programs so that is why all of this kind of came up during
the weekend, and I just put it down on paper today.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Councilwoman Yukimura.
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, I have a personal privilege?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: I am just putting two and two together and it seems like if
this fund is created, much like the specific fund that the drug prevention life choices program has for
prevention work at the YMCA we have a youth program that does prevention and they may be
entitled to apply for this and I want to recuse myself?
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: It is not necessary.
Chair Furfaro: Well what you think and what the Councilmember wants to
do is the Councilmember's choice.
Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to thank you for putting this proposal together.
It is a bold proposal and I wanted to let you know after last year's budget process I sat down with
Theresa Koki to talk about the possibility of putting some kind of funding like this together and the
number I was tossing around in my head was $250,000 for something similar to what you are
proposing. I would be very comfortable with the Chair's proposal of$150,000 as a pilot program and
pending County Attorney's advice about the structure. This might be a proposal, but it could be
worked out through the Anti-Drug Office to come up with an actual program. But I think this is a
great start. I would added that it would be matching funds, you know? The amount could be, if you
are going to do $150,000, it could go down to $10,000 as a maximum amount. I do not think we
should say how much should be used for this or that, but give them the flexibility and that prior to
March 15, 2013, no matter where they are in the program that we would get some kind of response
back. But what I wanted to say is that this county spends about $26 million on our Police
Department's budget. We spend $3.8 million, this is budgeted for our Prosecutor's Office. If we only
take a fraction of that amount towards prevention, hopefully those long-term costs that keep on
escalating can come down. Because our youth will be steered in a positive direction. And so I think
this is a fraction of what we spend once the crime is done, and if we can refocus our policy on the
front-end, this community and this island will benefit. So I would support this as a pilot project with
the lower amount suggested by the Chair.
Mr. Bynum: I am glad we're having this discussion. I did not expect it
today and I know I have talked with Councilmember Nakamura and my background is social
services and I love prevention and I love these programs. I have talked with Councilmember
Nakamura about my caution as a Councilmember because as a policy subdivision that the state
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.45
generally funds these items. My concern about the kind of... so when the Dolphin Club came here,
>
you immediately want to say yes, you do such wonderful work, but then the Sunshine Club at
Kalaheo School and so if we are moving in this direction, I have three thoughts. One is that it is
precedent-setting. We are setting a precedent. On the other hand I agree with what Councilmember
Nakamura just said, if we do not go crazy with huge amounts of money, these kind of small grants to
those community-based programs go a huge, long way, because they are already so efficient at
spending every penny. And if we are going to do it, it needs to be in this kind of mechanism, where it
is not individual grantees coming to the County Council and asking for this project. But that they are
there is a process. And so if we're moving in this direction, this is the way I would like to see it
happen and my other thought would be that the anti-drug program started a lot with earmarked
money. They have done a lot of this kind of procurement, and set these kind of parameters, the
speeding quickness clinics and shattered dreams. I have forgotten
p g q a all
of the names of the programs,
but they have that expertise. They have that talent and my guess is that if Theresa was listening on-
line right now, she would be going yes, yes, yes, because of the passion to do it and this is the right
way to do it. They know how to do it and I would be supportive of the $150,000 as let us start it this
way. But I also agree with the Chair that we should say based on standards that are set by the
Department and they can let us know what their procurement and how they would like to do it.
Enough said. I think if we are going to do it, this is the right way to do it.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I will support $150,000, but I will support
$150,000 as it relates to special projects on page 8, that it goes under the "special projects lines for
Boards and Commissions." I do not think we should be approving funds today and asking for a legal
opinion. We just went through that with the police deal and I would expect that same type of
caution. I do not believe first of all that we can set these parameters of them. I believe it is a
violation of the separation, but I would definitely support the $150,000 going to special projects, their
anti-drug programs.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to have on more recusal as Councilmember
Nakamura's husband does work for Boards and Commissions. She is going to step out. That is the
call, but what I am hearing from you, I want to remind all of you, to add this it has to be a perfect
five votes.Anybody else going to speak before I speak?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I mean I am on the advisory board of directors of the
boys and girls club, but I do not feel there is a conflict of interest because we are setting up system
where everybody is going to be treated equally. So it is not where we are making decisions for one
group versus another group. If it were, I would be stepping out. I do not see that it is a conflict at this
point. And I will make a request to affirm that or find out if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure it is
not.
Mr. Rapozo: I want to make sure that the motion is?
Chair Furfaro: You can go ahead and make the motion.
Mr. Rapozo: I think JoAnn may have made the motion. I am not sure
because it does not specify where it's going to go.
Chair Furfaro: You can specify where it is going to go and amend the
amount.
Ms. Yukimura: I did intend it to be in the Life Choices budget.
Chair Furfaro: Which is Boards and Commissions.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.46
Ms.Yukimura: Right. In fact, I will accept it as a friendly amendment and we
do not have to even vote on it.
Mr. Rapozo: That is fine. That is all. I just wanted to clarify the motion
that the $150,000 would be added to page 8.
Ms.Yukimura: But I do want to say that it is for afterschool and preschool
programs.
Mr. Rapozo: Again, I am not sure how much flexibility we have with that.
Ms.Yukimura: We can specify that.
II
Chair Furfaro: We will send it over as a question. I want to make sure by
putting it in Boards and Commissions the fact that the application process, the critique needed in
the applications and so forth, by being in Boards and Commissions we are pretty much assured that
Life Choices would be involved in setting up this process.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair, my motion is for afterschool and preschool
programs, because that is the crux of the anti-drug evidence-based work. And Kpal, if you give to
Kpal, we are specifying a program. This is a little bit more generic, but I am sure we can make that
specification and for me, we would have to do that, because otherwise, you know? Some of our anti-
drug monies for example went for a youth magazine. You know? It could go all over the place. We
want this focused on the kinds of programs that actually make a difference in our young people
saying yes or no to drugs.
Chair Furfaro: I think we have a friendly confirmation from Mr. Rapozo on
that. So we are going need all five votes and this would transfer $150,000 into an operating account
under Boards and Commissions. You folks are all in agreement with the motion as I just
summarized it and now we'll do a roll call vote, please.
The motion to transfer $150,000 into an operating account under Boards and Commission,
was then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Rapozo,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED &NOT VOTING: Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL—2.
Chair Furfaro: Now let us bring in the members back. Go ahead, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Just while they are coming back, I just wanted to say that I
appreciate the caution that Councilmembers are taking regarding conflicts, but it is different than in
the instance of the "Y"here, this was not to put anything into their budget.
Chair Furfaro: I have to ask them to step out if we are going to have dialog
because you are talking about"Y," I am going to send them out again.
Mr. Bynum: In both of these instances, this was not direct funding to the
"Y" and I am not clear exactly what Councilmember Nakamura — her husband provides legal work
but I do not see that as being a conflict when we are adding something to that budget. I appreciate
the caution but if you are a direct beneficiary then do it, you have a contract directly or the agency
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.47
you working for is getting funded directly but when there is this many layers of distance. Because
eventually and if one more person would have recused themselves, we could not do it.
Chair Furfaro: That is right and I had that argument before, let us not go
there. People are cautious at their choice. I do not know if they would agree to have you defend
them but they are being cautious is their choice. Vice Chair Yukimura is on the Boys and Girls Club
and unless her daughter is a beneficiary, I do not think she should recuse herself. I was on the Board
of Habitat and unless is my daughter was getting a house... I do not understand the real particular
with some of these pieces but that is not what we are discussing here. We have two members that
recused themselves and now I'm going to ask them to come back in.
Ms.Yukimura: Can I say one quick thing? This issue of conflict of interest is
very important for us. It affects whether we can do our work or not and the credibility of our work.
Chair Furfaro: Sure.
Ms.Yukimura: It is not only if my daughter gets...
Chair Furfaro: I just used that example.
Ms.Yukimura: If the organization on which I sit is getting money I think I
need to recuse myself, but it is also in another organization could get the money had a my
organization is getting, I feel like I am not supposed to vote on that organization either. In this case,
we are just setting up a system, we are not making the choices and I do not think there is conflict.
Chair Furfaro: I do not want to have any more conversation on that. I have
resigned on three Boards and the question was but you received County money? Well, I will just
recuse myself from the vote. Ethics told me no, I cannot. So end of story, let us bring the other
members back in. I don't want to talk about anything. I just want to go forward.
Mr. Chang: Vice Chair on number 4, on your proposal, it says k-12 and we
are having discussion about preschool. So just the sake of it we are going to do preschoolers.
Ms.Yukimura: $75,000 to preschool and $75,000 to k-12.
Mr. Chang: Vice Chair thank you for putting this together, because it
shows the human elements. We are talking about CIP and talking about all of this other funding,
but this is really about the people and the future for Kaua`i.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, in the future if you have questions about proposals and
so forth, state them before we vote to get clarification after we vote is not appropriate, I think. Ask it
before we vote, okay? So you folks have that change? CIP is finished. Close the book on that. Now I
am going to take and go into departmental reviews, next Ernie, but I need to get my order of reviews
and I need a break for myself. The Mayor's Office we have covered already. Risk management, half of
the piece we have covered. Personnel Department, we have covered. Okay? Now I am going to go
through some of the simpler items in various departments that I have not heard any changes to, and
this is not about adding, although we can talk about deleting. This is about coming to concurrence,
for example, we are all happy with CIP? Yes, because we just closed the books on it. So it is off the
list. Next one, Department of Liquor Control.Any changes in what we have been briefed on, what we
saw on the budget? I am working off of this sheet here. Okay?And since we finished CIP, I am going
backwards. Is there any discussion on Liquor Controls? Hearing none. Transportation? We had a
pretty thorough presentation. We covered a lot of those and got some grant money for shelters.
Okay? Go ahead?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.48
Mr. Bynum: Can I just make a comment? I am not trying to propose
anything. I would just encourage the Administration to look at the transportation and the elderly
affairs director's position. I cannot figure out why they are lower than other agencies that are
similar. So I am not prepared to make any motion on that, but I would like those two positioned to be
followed up on. I do not understand. So thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you for your comment on that. Transportation Agency?
We are going to move on? Housing Agency? We made some changes earlier. This is the Operating
Department for Housing.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I apologize. I had a question and last week when
we were here, Leilani from UPW had a concern and Mr. Kuali`i, I am not sure if you followed up on
that. It was the transfer of a position and I believe it is the mechanical repair... I cannot remember
which one it was. Maybe Mr. Kuali`i can help refresh my recollection. Do you recall that discussion?
Mr. Kuali`i: It was the mechanic and they were moving over... what is it?
Position from the repair shop and small equipment repair.
Mr. Rapozo: My memory tells me what she was talking about was that
they did not concur or confer with the union and I wanted to follow-up on that and to be honest, Mr.
Chair, he completely forget.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, are you aware of what we are talking about here?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, sir.
Chair Furfaro: Could you enlighten us another time here on what that
discussion about the mechanic and small equipment repairs?
Mr. Barreira: Yes, sir. I believe, I cannot tell you the outcome of the
discussions, but there were discussions that were spearheaded by Transportation Director with the
UPW. I cannot speak to the outcome of those discussions, but there was dialogue.
Chair Furfaro: Could Wally?Take a moment and brief him on the question.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair,just because I want to avoid a grievance, if, in fact,
this transfer could be done at a later time I would be more comfortable and I apologize I did not
follow-up and I should have.
Chair Furfaro: Is the Administration copacetic with UPW on a particular
position?
Mr. Barreira: My understanding is that if consultation is required, I believe
that has been achieved. I cannot say for certain there is concurrence or agreement. I am not sure
that is a required element in the contract. I believe that consultation is required and as you know
from the Mayor's message, this initiative is critical in terms of facilitating timely and effective small
equipment repair.
Chair Furfaro: We will accept that for now, but please note the concern. We
are going to move out of Transportation now. Go to the Housing Agency. Any additional queries and
if not, we will put that behind us and go to Elderly Affairs. I am going to draw a line through Elderly
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.49
affairs and I am going to take a ten-minute break so you can look through your notes because I need
to move through here, getting back up to the top.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 2:59 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 3:11 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from the last recess. I do want to make a footnote
as we passed over the Transportation Agency, the mechanic issue that is still in what they call a
"105 review" of which there is an issue with one of the mechanics, that its placement on this. So I am
making sure that we know there is still a negotiated item over there and that came up with the
Administration just on May 11th. For the record I want to make that special note.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to add to that, there has been no meeting yet.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: The letter was sent... the UPW received the letter of the
interest to transfer on May 11th, like you stated, but there has been no meeting and, in fact the
union is not in agreement, but that has yet to be worked out.
Chair Furfaro: There will be that footnote for us on this May 11th letter for
the Transportation concern with UPW. Okay? Now we are going to go to the Department of Parks
and Recreation. Which is broken down in several areas. Did somebody try to call Mr. Bynum? You
did? Okay. We will just move ahead. Question on administrative items with Parks?
Mr. Kuali`i: It has to do with proposed new leases and I have two, three
items. I do not know if I should do them one at a time?
Chair Furfaro: Let us go through them one at a time and when you say
"leases,"you are talking about leases for equipment or office space or all of the above?
Mr. Kuali`i: That is correct. Number one is the new area lift truck
$185,000. I am assuming that is the full amount. So if it is a five-year lease, than the part that would
apply to this year is 1/5th of$185,000. My proposal would be to defer it for one year. It is a new lease
and justification in the narrative from the Parks was that the Parks are growing and the urban
forest for which we are responsible is also growing. It's difficult to utilize the equipment from Public
Works as far as scheduling. I think this is a high-cost item and I would ask if perhaps we could defer
it one year and in that one year, track the scheduling of the seriousness of the inability to share the
existing equipment and also just to provide more... instead of just a narrative which is one sentence
that says, "the urban forest is growing and there is more to take care of." Show us some numbers,
what was our inventory ten years ago, five years ago and today?What was our scheduling request to
public works when it was denied? I know the Parks Director talking about the Lydgate Pond
mentioned a piece of equipment that they needed and that public works had it in Hanalei at the
time. So they hired it out, so if, in fact, the ability to share the equipment is possible, but there are
times when it is not and more cost effective to hire it out on those few occasions, you know what I
mean?We just get any of that kind of information.
Chair Furfaro: Let us see if Ernie has anything to add for you.
Mr. Barreira: Only what Councilmember Kuali`i has articulated, there is
quite a bit of work to do in terms of maintenance and they are not able to get to it because of the
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.50
height issues and the equipment is simply not available on that unless on weekends, which
encumbers higher overtime costs. That was the crux of the matter on that piece of equipment.
Chair Furfaro: Could you restate what you wanted to do there?
Mr. Kuali`i moved to defer this new lease for one year and the value is $37,000, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo.
Chair Furfaro: For the purposes of discussion, could somebody describe that
piece of equipment to us.
Mr. Kuali`i: In the narrative I see new area lift truck with chipper. Ernie,
might have something more.
Mr. Barreira: The specifications for that type of equipment is due August
26th, prior to the procurement process. I am sure there are specifications, but I do not have that with
necessity with me here.
Chair Furfaro: Do I understand this to be... is that a $185,000 is the total
amount?
Mr. Kuali`i: A hundred and eighty-five thousand is the total amount and I
am assuming that is for the total lease and if it is a five year lease which... then I am assuming
because they saying... no. I asked for the information and that is how I got it. There was no detail.
Mr. Rezentes: In the text, the numbers indicate the estimated purchase
price and then the new lease —I believe it is 186 in the budget for Parks and Recreation. So the list
of prices that correspond to each piece of equipment is the estimated purchase price, and then the
lease amount $87,342 relates to the annual lease payment estimate for those respective vehicles.
Mr. Kuali`i: During the budget presentation I remembered I had asked
how it breaks down per piece of equipment and we never got that information. Basically you are
saying that the $87,000 is for those four vehicles, the area lift truck, a forklift and a tractor loader?
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: Wally, the lift truck being the most expensive items of those?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: It has one of those buckets on it?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, to carry the individual.
Mr. Bynum: And the chipper?
Mr. Kuali`i: I think it would be, if you just went by percentages, you could
say that of the $87,342, nearly half or maybe $40,000 would be the amount for the lift truck. That is
the expensive piece of equipment?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is $185,000.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.51
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay. So maybe instead of $37,000 savings by deferring one
year, maybe even$40,000.
Mr. Bynum: These are lease-to-own, right? Thank you.
Mr. Rapozo: I would not suppose you folks have the information as to how
many times that lift is used? I believe we have another lift in the County. We had that discussion
back and forth between Parks and Public Works that it is an issue of who can operate it and Mr.
Kuali`i referred to one case they rented a lift truck and the question is do we really need a new aerial
lift at $185,000? Is it justified to get a second lift truck for this island? I do not know that we use the
truck everyday and it may be just cheaper to rent on the days there is conflict between Parks and
Public Works. That is the question, I think he was asking and never got a response to and I did not
either.
Mr. Kuali`i: I was basically deferring we defer one year and in the next
year, you track and bring us back that information and provide us the detail of the use, the shared
use of the existing equipment, the daily log. I mean how often do you need it and can't get to it? How
many times you had to contract out, if you will? They paid for the cleaning of Lydgate pond because
that other piece of equipment was already been used in Hanalei. I heard that. And then to basically
show us the numbers and justify this investment at this time. You know, because if we have two
pieces of the same equipment, and even if 30% of the time one or the other is sitting idle, than it may
not be the wisest investment. Or move... But it may be and in a year you can show us.
Mr. Barreira: Mr. Chair, I have a figure that was relied to me by our budget
analyst. It is $40,396 would be the yearly lease payment for the lift.
Chair Furfaro: Well, on that note, if I go to Vegas, I will take Kuali`i with me
for luck. So that adjusted the number by how much?
Mr. Barreira: If it is removed?It is $42,000 that would remain?
Chair Furfaro: That is the balance of all those vehicles?
Mr. Barreira: $40,396.
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me that is the balance?
Mr. Barreira: No.We are calculating the balance for you right now, sir.
Mr. Rezentes: $46,946 if the $40,396 is removed.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: I have a long history of working with the Parks Department
and getting the men that work for us the right tools is a really important issue. So I am going to tell
two stories really quick. I promise to be quick, because I want to support them. First of all, the
Mayor, I am sure there would be more in here, but they have to justify in your budget process and
things get cut. This is a big-ticket item that I'm certain if we asked Lenny, he has deferred in the
past and so I do want to provide the tools. Two stories I will tell really quick when I first started
being a volunteer with Friends of Kamalani, there was a weed wacker and the guys who wanted to
weed whack had to wait and get it from another park and spend the whole day weed wacking. The
Friends of Kamalani just bought them weed whackers for years until Mayor Baptiste worked on a
equipment schedule that we actually planned when we wanted to replace equipment. We have done
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.52
a better job as County to provide tools to our workers for productivity. I also want to talk about that
stage. I lobbied for that stage and it was a big-ticket item and wow, it is a lot money and we got by
having Roads guys spend a whole day building a wood stage and taking it from our storage yard. So I
will not tell the whole story.
Chair Furfaro: I will not allow you to tell the whole story.
Mr. Bynum: It turned out it was three days work for five guys to set up a
stage every time we do it. That has increased our productivity. So I am going to support the Parks
Directors request for his equipment. I think going with this lease the purchase is a good way to go. I
have had some discussions in past about that. And you know, these big-ticket items do not show up
very often, because they usually wait three, four years until they convince the Mayor to find a slot to
put it in and I am sure that is the case in this instance.
Chair Furfaro: Because you have done so many things, to get these things in
the past they always took five votes. Okay? So we need five votes to remove this, we need four votes
to keep it in.
Mr. Rapozo: Four to remove, five to add.
Chair Furfaro: We need five votes to add. Four to take out.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: So now that we know all of that, Mr. Rapozo, we have a
motion and second on the floor. Did you still want to speak?
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to say, like a said a few days ago, I would love to
give everybody what they ask, but the numbers are rising. We keep adding to the budget and we
have to cutback. I had earlier spoke of removing $500,000 from the equipment leasing amount and
let the Administration determine and prioritize what they want to remove or defer, should, in fact,
we get to a point that we need to cut the budget. But we are, I believe, the last I counted we were
changing about $730,000, but I think that has since changed. I think it is even more than that now.
But I would much rather have the Administration... So we are at $1 million now? So we keep adding
and adding and adding and we got to find this money somewhere. From what I have heard, what Mr.
Kuali`i touched on and the discussions we had and the reality is that we have not gotten the
information requested on justification, I will support that. And probably more from equipment
purchases, because those can be deferred, I believe. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, and your point is well-taken, because I have said it
several times, even going through CIP, I would prefer if you have an add, you have a takeaway, but
let us call for the vote. Roll call, please.
The motion to defer the new lease agreement on the new aerial lift truck for one year which
is equivalent to $40,396, leaving a balance of$49,946 for the other equipment lists, was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Rapozo,Yukimura TOTAL—3,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Furfaro TOTAL—4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: Status fails for the removal. Next item is fiscal Personnel and
Personnel Division for Recreation, we have gone through staffing on the adds but we had a question
_ ,.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.53
that came up about lifeguards. I am very, very concern. I am going to say something out loud right
now, when we ask the question from Parks and Recreation about taking the money out for overtime
and then we had Councilmember Nakamura add in $6,500.00 for Summer Fun. Now we have got a
whole new number from them. Okay? I am just saying this. This is not about Parks. This is not
about lifeguards. This is about getting department heads to the table to understand how important
their message is to us about plusses and minuses on their operating accounts. So I am going to give
the floor to Councilmember Nakamura to share with us the recent information we have. Now I am
going to turn to the Deputy Clerk and first say we took out overtime from parks and recreation in
our general piece when we discussed overtime, right?How much did we take out?It is the long sheet
that we all discussed. We took out from Parks and Recreation total payroll for the Department not
just lifeguards, we took out... $680,000, recommending 7% of their overtime budget. Their overtime
budget was $94,000. Now we have got this piece that comes back to add the $6,500.00 for lifeguards
in the summertime for the pools.You have the floor.
Ms. Nakamura: When we were in budget discussions with Parks and
Recreation, I asked the question of what it would take to extend the pool hours at the two pools?
Chair Furfaro: In the summer?
Ms. Nakamura: I think my initial inquiry was just general if we were to
extend the pool hours and they came back with a proposal to add two new full-time positions that
would be at$31,000, two full-time positions, with overtime and all of that. It total $122,000 proposal.
Chair Furfaro: Clarify that. Two full-time positions with overtime included
and so form, what is the straight time pay?
Ms. Nakamura: The straight time pay was $31,212 times two, because two
positions, with the fringe, the total would have been $119,149.00. And if with were to add coverage
during holidays, and staff leave, there would be an additional need for $3,243.00 in overtime. So the
total was $122,392.00. That was their original response to my question.
Chair Furfaro That was their response to your question. We all did not see
that, but they agreed to the Parks and Recreation Department having a $6,580.00 reduction in their
total overtime, which was submitted in their budget at $94,000.00. Now our question is are we trying
to add two more full-time lifeguards or adding the overtime in the discussion for the summer and
special schedules?
Ms. Nakamura: What happened was my thinking was this was a big jump to
make to two full-time positions. So I asked Ernie and Lenny to look at what would be some middle
ground here?And the response earlier was the $6,580.00 that set aside for the overtime would not be
enough, because there would be staff burnout and inconsistent opening of the pool usage without
more staff.
Chair Furfaro: Is that it the real answer you gave us, Ernie? Is that the real
answer you gave that this would be staff burnout or the real answer is that they will be chomping at
the bit for overtime to sit in the sun?
Mr. Barreira: I can only speak to the answer that was provided based on the
analysis by the Director and I think the concern I heard from Council was to have continuity to make
sure those hours were regular and reliable as opposed to some days it works, some day it did not.
Chair Furfaro: Did that schedule happened? Did we have a discussion with
Parks and Recreation and say when the pool is closed on Mondays that is when the Fire Department
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.54
gets to train. Not close another day? That the overtime would be used in the summertime hours so
the pool would be open to 8:00 at night?
Mr. Barreira: I have not had that detailed discussion with Parks. My
discussion is limited to the Council's interest in having expanded hours during the summertime.
Chair Furfaro: That would have been how much money?
Mr. Barreira: Councilmember Nakamura has it.
Chair Furfaro: $100,000?
Mr. Barreira: No, sir. The last option we looked at was a 19-hour, two
people working 19 hours a week, which was the far more acceptable compromise from a budget
management perspective. Councilmember has that number in front of her.
Chair Furfaro: How much is that, say it out loud, how much is that?
Ms. Nakamura: So 19-hour pool guards and anticipated overtime the total is
$37,148.00. We have already approved the allocated the overtime of $6,580.00, so the balance is
$30,568.00 that is under this scenario.
Chair Furfaro: Jade, where did we allocate $6,580.00? When did we do that?
Was that during the overtime discussion? We allocated it or we took it away? I do not agree with
this discussion, but we will go from there. That is a proposal from Councilmember Nakamura. Do
you want to restate your plan?
Ms. Nakamura moved that the balance is $30,568.00 that would be needed to fund two 19-
1 hour pool guards and the balance of the projected overtime, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Mr. Chang: Is this year-round or just extended summer hours? -
Ms. Nakamura: Ernie, can you please help me whether it is year-round or just
during the summer hours?
Mr. Barreira: Based on my understanding of what Council had intended, it
is strictly limited to the summer months and additional hours during those months for both pools,
Kapa'a and Waimea.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. I think it is annual pay.
Chair Furfaro: That is what I am going through. If it is the summer it is 304
hours times the hourly rate of pay is what this should be bumped.What we have here is putting back
the part-time equipment of a 2,080-hour a year employee.
Mr. Rapozo: I would suspect if you divide that by four (4), you will get a
three month employee.
Chair Furfaro: But that is two (2) guys is what I am trying to say... So for
those two (2)people, Ernie, it should be about twelve thousand, eight hundred dollars ($2,800.00) for
nineteen hours during the summer months.
}
Mr. Barreira: If the intent is to have summer months only.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.55
Chair Furfaro: That is the intent. I would make your motion based on adding
additional lifeguard cover in the summer months equal to twelve thousand eight hundred dollars
($12,800.00) of pay.
Ms. Nakamura: For the two (2)positions?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: For four months?
Chair Furfaro: Let us see if there are any more discussion before we go there.
Mr. Bynum: This is to keep the pool open when people would actually
want to use it, right?We keep it open until 8:00 at night?
Chair Furfaro: And on the weekends...
Mr. Bynum: And frankly, I was hoping that $30,000.00 would do it year-
round, because I this is a very worthwhile proposal. We have these facilities, kids, adults, seniors,
everybody uses it. We are in an environment where summer and winter it is a usable place to keep
that pool open in September, for kids that are out of school at 2:00 or 3:00 to stay, I would love these
pools to be open until 8:00 year-round and I thought the $30,000 would do that, because it talks
about full-time positions and I would support that. 120%.
Chair Furfaro: Let us get some feedback from the Finance person and then
JoAnn.
Mr. Rezentes: In discussion with Parks, it would be difficult to maintain a
year-round program with a couple of 19-hour a week personnel if you just keep them....
Chair Furfaro: Oh, we need a tape change. Wally, stay close. Five minutes,
B.C.?
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:42 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 3:45 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, before we go any further to make sure we have
everybody on the same page here... when we allocated Parks and Recreations seven percent (7%)
reduction in overtime, it was for that whole Department. But we said we are taking that sixty-five
hundred and we are not touching the lifeguards with them. What we did not do is we did not put in
a reduction for the rest of the Department. In other words, there is no requested contribution for
reduction in the ninety-four thousand that is allocated to grounds keepers or mowers or anything.
We gave it all to the Lifeguard Association - pools and what I am saying that is all fine and well and
we are establishing the fact that Parks and Recreation would not have any reduction in their
overtime for other working shifts and that was probably where we went astray. So what I am
thinking is we should probably leave that $6,580.00 reduction in Parks, right? And just have this
discussion about the four-month a year lifeguards, and some additional overtime for them. Are you
following that, Jade and Scott? Okay. So you calculated seven thousand, one... what did you
calculate Yvette? Seven thousand, four hundred fifteen($7,415.00)per nineteen (19) hour lifeguard
times two (2) lifeguards gives us fourteen thousand, eight hundred thirty dollars ($14,830.00) and
how much potential overtime do we want to add to that number?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.56
Mr. Barreira: Chair, the overtime that Mr. Rapozo was referring to was in
terms if these people not provide services for whatever reason, his regular staff would have to be
provided the overtime.
Chair Furfaro: How often would that be?
Mr. Barreira: One of those unknown variables, sir. We would have to
determine the ballpark to provide you with.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to throw out a ballpark of 15% because the federal
law says if you hire 19-hour employees they can work in a week, they can work up to 40 hours
sometimes, right?
Mr. Barreira: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: The only time it gets tricky for overtime, if they work more
than one month or eight payrolls - no... four payrolls or eight weeks more than 40 hours. Then you
have to pay them benefits. Does everybody follow that discussion? In other words, if we hired four
part-time lifeguards, and they worked at straight time, they could work a period of eight weeks on
straight 40 hours a week. Once they go past that week, I don't know what the labor contract says,
but the Federal Government says then you must offer them benefits.
Mr. Barreira: Chair, given your 15%, that would be $2,224.00.
Chair Furfaro: $2,224.00?
Mr. Barreira: Roughly.
Chair Furfaro: Okay so the motion on the table should be and I want to
correct the old piece first. We had two part-time lifeguards for a four-month period, and an
additional cost of $14,830.00. We will also allocate another $2,224.00 for overtime for that summer
period. That being said, we should take back that $6,580.00 reduction. Do you follow? Because the
overtime we wanted to give was for the pool attendant, but what we took out was the overtime share
for the entire Parks Department. Are we all copacetic?We are good?And then, of course, we have to
add the benefits for that period, just like social security and some of the other small ones. Now
Wally, if my interpretation is over on federal rules, you will correct that and get that to us, right? If
we have a part-timer 19 hours a week and in a week somebody is going to the Philippines or
something, we can work them full-time. It does not mean we immediately have to give them benefits,
okay? Vice Chair Yukimura, you had a question?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes. I just wanted to confirm now the amount that we are
putting in for lifeguard summer service?
Chair Furfaro: $14,830.00 of straight time, $2,224.00 of potential overtime.
Ms.Yukimura: So that is $17,054.00?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.And we need that in a motion.
Ms. Nakamura moved to propose $17,054.00 for two 19-hour pool guards during the four
months in the summer and that includes 15% overtime, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.57
Chair Furfaro: It is an amendment; right? Because I think you made a
motion already? So this would either be a removal of the first motion and removal of the second and
a new motion.
Ms.Yukimura: Either way.
Chair Furfaro: I would like to do it this way.
Ms. Nakamura withdrew the initial motion, Ms.Yukimura withdrew the second.
Ms. Nakamura moved to propose $17,054.00 for two 19-hour pool guards during the four
months in the summer and that includes 15% overtime, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion?
Mr. Chang: Chairman, thank you. Just for clarification, does this part-
timer come in at like 5:00 or does the person work all the way through?
Chair Furfaro: They could work them backwards from 9-1. From 1-5. They
clean the pool tile, I mean, that is not for us to decide.
Mr. Chang: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: That is up to Lenny. All those in favor, please signify by
saying aye?
The motion to approve the proposed amount of$17,054.00 for two 19-hour pool guards during
the four months in the summer and that includes 15% overtime, was then put and
unanimously carried.
Chair Furfaro: Moving right on. We have in the Parks Department this
planning and development, any discussion on that? Seems like we had some of that at capital time.
Any specifics about other recreational activities? Any agenda dialogue on park maintenance for the
division? On beautification? On stadium divisions? On Convention Hall? On the golf course
operations?No?We got some CEDS money for that. We are pau with Parks and Recreation.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Public Works - Administration? Fiscal accounts in Public
Works? The Engineering Division in Public Works?The Building Division in Public Works?
Ms. Nakamura: Can I just make one comment?
Chair Furfaro: Sure.
Ms. Nakamura: That Public Works, Larry Dill prepared a memorandum
responding to the questions raised during budget presentations that was dated May 4th, and yet we
received this packet just today, I believe on May 12th. Today is the 14th.
Chair Furfaro: So you concur what I told Ernie, we are getting information
on the day we are making decisions.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.58
Ms. Nakamura: Which really makes this process ineffective, because we have
not had the time to process the questions that were asked during the budget presentations to make
any discussion about this budget meaningful.
Chair Furfaro: You get my point, we have give them 48 hours to responds
urgently and now we're down to the last 32 hours before we have to pass a budget. Councilmember
Nakamura, you still have the floor?
Ms. Nakamura: I guess my point it seems like the memorandum was done
May 4th but for eight days it was somewhere and not transmitted to the Council, which would have
been time for us to review it and make some recommendations.
Chair Furfaro: So Ernie, that arena reinforces my email, you need to move it
off your tables.
Mr. Barreira: Chair, all I can tell you is that the date that I received it, I
walked it to Council. I am not sure if they document...
Chair Furfaro: I do not think you quite understand what I am saying. There
seems to a control point somewhere other than yourself and if the memorandums are going there on
the 4th of May and do not get turned around to us until the 11th, guess what? They are parked
someplace too long. Okay?
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to note that if we do away with the supplemental
budget, the Administration will have a lot of time to respond to our questions.
Chair Furfaro: We hope that is the outcome. That we are not doing the
supplemental and not doing it twice, the reality, it would provide you more time for a one-time
answer. That is the hope. Okay.Automotive Division?Solid Waste Division?
Mr. Rapozo: We had made a lot of suggestions during the mar March 15th
discussion and I had the concern of overtime at solid waste and the recommendation was to hire
someone to get a full-time worker and not necessarily pay overtime every single day. I do not see any
- and maybe it was rectified or changed? I do not see that and I am not going to attempt to put in a
position right now, because it will affect the overtime and all of that. But it is really a follow-up to
what Councilmember Nakamura is saying that I have requested information as well from Finance
that I have not received and just got a note "anticipated tomorrow." But it is difficult, and I just
want to keep that door open that granted we have to get this all done by tomorrow, but if, in fact, we
get information that is submitted late, like we just got Public Works, that you give us the latitude to
revisit some items should there be time. At the end of this process. Because really, I think it is not
fair for us to be handed this information today, and not have an opportunity to revisit something,
should the information we received be vital in our decision-making.
Chair Furfaro: I will consider that the depending on the question.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Chair Furfaro: For me to go back and change what we have been trying to
get through... it would be very difficult.
Mr. Rapozo: I am only suggesting if it's a issue that pertains to something
that we received late.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.59
Chair Furfaro: We will have that discussion at that time. Okay.
Wastewater? So, Public Works is done. Civil Division Agency?You want to go back?
Ms.Yukimura: No.
Chair Furfaro: Civil defense? None. We are going to go to the Fire
Department now.You want a recess?
Ms.Yukimura: Please.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:59 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 4:21 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We are back from recess and I would like to share with you
folks, I passed out some budgetary presentations, page 4746, if you would like. This is much more
clarity on the very much talked about positions on the new aerial truck and the chipper and so forth.
This is more fyi—it was a narrative that was presented to us by the Council and I am going to Civil
Defense Agency. I raised the question if there was any discussion before we go to Fire Department.
Mr. Rapozo: I got some. There are a few concerns I have and let me just
start off by saying that my concerns that I had last year is no different than this year. That the
staffing of that office, for an office of four to have two EM5 level managers is of concern. I believe two
EM5's in an office of four is too much. The other concern, the disaster contingency line item is only
$1,000.00. I am not sure if they have other funds available and I am not sure where they get their
funding from as far as contingency. I know we rely on federal and state, but as far as County
contingency, there is $1,000 and I would like discussion on that and I did not receive, but we had
asked some specific questions about the rentals for the radio site leases. I am still bothered by the
$47,000.00 for the Kukuiolono Park. If anybody got the response, he did not.
Chair Furfaro: I did not get it either.
Mr. Rapozo: So anyway, Mr. Chair those are my concerns and I would love
to hear some discussion if possible.
Chair Furfaro: I would pose the first question to Wally, do you have anything
to share with us regarding the Kukuiolono Park lease. It was a question that came up about some
future negotiations, when that lease expires and are we able to negotiate a better financial position?
Mr. Rezentes: I apologize, I do not have the details on that lease
renegotiation.
Chair Furfaro: And then number 2, this contingency of only $1,000.00 in the
disaster response. That seems exceptionally low?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe the Charter has a provision to allow for $50,000.00
contingency for disaster. We do, though, have the ability under the procurement code to proceed on
an emergency basis and follow the requisite guidelines that the code allows.
Chair Furfaro: So regardless of what we put in the contingency account, the
fact of the matter just like this last storm, folks. When I think it was Gary, I talked to, indicated that
you folks were going to initiate some of those emergency monies. It does not necessarily need to be on
that line, because by H.R.S.you have that authority?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.60
Mr. Rezentes: Correct and if we engage in emergency contracts, life, health
and safety, we would need to come up in a very short point in time and provide the Council with
what we did.And request for the money bill funding.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, are you planning to have some discussion on the
em5 position?
Mr. Rapozo: It was a discussion that we had last year and I was hoping to
have some discussion amongst Councilmembers. If anyone else shares my concern, I guess that is the
question. Two EM5s for a Department of 4. I think it is overkill. But it is what it is and again, I
raised it last year, and it is here again. So I was curious to others.
Chair Furfaro: Is there going to be some discussion on that subject matter?
Could I have an acknowledgment? Well, then, I am going to turn the meeting over to you at this
point, since we answered the other two questions, because I am going to err on the side of caution.
One of those that are probably on this discussion list has been registered as an active campaign
person in my organization. So I will recuse myself right Now you have the meeting. On the side of
caution I will recuse myself.
Chair Furfaro was noted as recused from this item.
Ms.Yukimura: I share Councilmember Rapozo's concerns about the top-
heavy nature of the staffing at this point and would ask the administration to take a look at that.
This is a very critical office in times of emergency, but not just in times of emergency. Actually, the
preparation is even more critical than time of emergency. And I think we are looking for top-level
performance. And that kind of high-level staffing really raises very big expectations and if there is
not, I think some real attention to it. I think the Council is going to look really hard at it, at least
next budget.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I just wanted to say that I share the same concerns, and,
in fact, one of these very positions was the position when I started a year-ago that I was objecting to
because it was - certain things happened in Civil Defense, where someone retired and the other
person was promoted and the vacant position was a grant-writing position in the $50,000.00 range
and that position vacant at $50,000.00 was the title was changed. The duties were changed. The
salary was doubled and it became an EMS, and then somebody was appointed into position.And that
was called a "reallocation," or whatever and I think that is the creation of a new position and when
new positions are created by putting funds to pay for a position and then to hire someone or appoint
somebody, you are creating a new position.And I think that when that happened mid-year, that was
usurping the Council's authority to set the best budget and to approve positions.And we need to step
up and do our responsibility as a Council, and make it clear to the Administration that what
happened in that case was wrong. And even though we may not have the legal authority to force the
Administration to come back and ask for our approval, we do need them to come to us and inform us
in advance of putting a warm body into that position, because once you do, you put us in the difficult
position and if you keep pushing us in that corner, but we will have no choice, but to remove the
funding from a position that you create without our input. And that could impact some person you
put in that position, which you should not have. and so this is that have position. There was another
incumbent and that incumbent left and it is very sad to see. I think it is horrible to spend the
taxpayers hard-earned money to have basically two-top, nearly $100,000.00 positions doing nearly
the same job and having one of them be the long time position that has been there, but adding a new
layer of an Executive Assistant that reports to the Mayor for a Division that has five total positions.
Mr. Rapozo: Four.
1
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.61
Mr. Kuali`i: Four total positions, it is just not right. Not right by the
taxpayers, they deserve better.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Councilmember Rapozo for raising this concern. I
had a chance to look at the response from the Civil Defense Administration based on our budget
presentation and questions raised. One of the things we asked for was for a description and of
responsibilities and duties of EMS, getting paid $83,532.00 and EMS, getting paid Executive
Assistant to the Mayor getting paid $96,000.00. In the areas of planning and prepared especial,
Administration and Supervisory, emergency operations, communications and training, it seemed
very similar and the only difference is that one reports to the Mayor and the other does not. So I
would agree with your concern and I just think that every position counts in this County and to have
this level of redundancy is very difficult to go along with.
Mr. Rapozo: Any other comments? If not, that is where the buck stops
here. If there is redundancy in positions, this is the body that makes the corrections. We had the
discussion last year. We lost a grants person. I have to agree with Councilmember Kuali`i, we lost a
grants person and we were told that the grants were going to be handled by different people. And I
have not seen much success in that area. We also lost another grants person in the Administration
Ann Wooten and again, reassigned, reclassified and now we do not have that resource as well. So I
cannot make a motion, because I'm here sitting as the chair right now, but if anyone has a problem
with the redundancy and if we allow it to continue we are just as guilty if it is a big problem. I cannot
disagree with Councilmember Kuali`i the way it was done and the concerns we had and Mr. Kuali`i I
know you brought up the fact that some may view it as illegal for that kind of reassignment of a
position is illegal, but I disagree. I think if the position is changed and we have a new position mid-
budget it should require the Council's approval because it is a new position. It's the deviation from
the budget proved by this body, but I am not going to argue that here. There is an opportunity if you
feel the duplication is of significance, we'll make a motion to remove it, if not, we will move on.
Ms. Nakamura moved to remove position E-2503, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Rapozo: Any further discussion?
Mr. Bynum: I do not fully understand why this position was created. We
had this discussion last year. But now that is the way that the Department has been functioning for
a year, and me last year my vote to approve that was out of deference to the Mayor and allowing him
to staff the way he chooses. And me not voting to remove it will be for the same reason. I am
deferring to his judgment and concerned about what - the implications of that would be they have to
let somebody go. So out of deference to the Mayor, I am going to not support this removal.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.Anyone else?
Ms. Yukimura: Having been the Mayor, I do give and also having had to
handle an emergency, a natural disaster, I know how important it is for the mayor to have somebody
that he trusts and have basic say over who is in that office. I will not vote for this at this time, but
because I want to give the Mayor the chance to address this in a way that will work for the
community, but I am giving notice that if no changes are made in this next year, that I may join the
motion next year.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Kuali`i: I just have to say that I will vote for this at this time to give a
strong message to the Mayor and to stand up for the people. I think and for Councilmember Bynum
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.62
to say that deference to choosing to manage, if you look at this, you cannot say that you think this is
how a division of four people should be managed, with two nearly $100,000 positions, doing nearly
the same job and the only difference being that they report to the Mayor. So this is a blatant misuse
of power and I just have to say, has to be a strong signal to the Mayor that this kind of stuff cannot
happen and if I am the only one voting at that way at this time I choose to stands up and vote that
way.
Mr. Rapozo: Anyone else, I will just say before I call for the question, the
message was sent last year. The message was sent loud and clear last year. And I am kind of
surprised to see it back here and part of me is not. So I am definitely going to support it. As we go
through this budget process, like I said, we have been adding quite a bit of stuff and as we look at
things to cut, one of the things we need to hook at look at is the redundancy or duplication of service
and I have read the job descriptions as well. It is almost identical. Office of four with two EM5's,
unacceptable. The motion to remove E-2503 roll call.
The motion to remove E-2503 was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR REMOVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—3,
AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura TOTAL—3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Furfaro TOTAL— 1.
Mr. Rapozo: Motion fails, thank you.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 4:38 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 4:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Rapozo, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to Chair Furfaro.
Chair Furfaro: Now we are in the Fire Department. We have had a lot of
discussion about the pool life guards, but Ocean Safety Bureau, the pools and the ocean safety
bureau for the ocean have two different reporting conduits. Lifeguard pools report to Parks - Ocean
Safety reports to the Fire Department.Any discussion there?
Mr. Rapozo: The Fire Chief was up here during his presentation and
made some very compelling arguments as far as expanding the leadership or executive branch of the
Fire Department to really service all of the aspects of the Fire Department. And I guess what I am
asking is that we entertain some dialogue going forward. I am not prepared today unless someone
else is, but I am not prepared today to propose those positions, simply because I am getting really
nervous with the amount of money we have to find going forward. But I do believe that the Fire
Chief has made an argument that justifies - I believe he requested for two assistant chiefs. I would
like to provide that for him. Obviously, I do not think we have the funds this year but as we move
forward, try to work with and maybe it's in my committee that we work with the Fire Chief to
establish some kind of- I do not know what you would call it as a management plan going forward, a
staffing guide, as you call it, and revisit this maybe mid-year or at some point. Because I do believe
for the Fire Department to get to the point where they need to be especially in the water safety area,
with the lifeguards that they need some executive level management. Unless others feel like we can
do it now, I would love to support it now, but looking at the those numbers I am getting kind of
worried where we will be.
Chair Furfaro: The numbers are getting up there, but I would entertain an
item in Public Safety Committee to have this discussion.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.63
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Chang: I would agree with that strategy. I think we have to talk
about this position and I believe we all want to be supportive of the Fire Department, but it is almost
like in the same principle of us trying to have a conversation with the Police Chief and his staffing.
So I think it should be an agenda item very soon in Public Safety. Thank you.
Mr. Kuali`i: I want to support the Fire Chief in his needs. He was very
clear to us when he was here. We have already approved another position and it was the majority,
but I would argue that we should be supporting where public safety and the critical needs are first,
rather than the real property tax technical analysis and all of that. So just to make the point...
Chair Furfaro: Well, to be covering this with the Fire Chief, he is still
reaching out for accreditation, so I think we need to have more thorough discussion in the Public
Safety Committee. On that note I would like to go to the Fire Training Bureau. Any discussion with
Fire Training Bureau? Any discussion with Fire Prevention Bureau? Any discussion about the Fire
Department's Operations Bureau? Fire Department Administration? Now Ernie, are they completely
moved?
Mr. Barreira: Yes Chair. They are now moved in and so are we as their new
neighbors upstairs.
Chair Furfaro: Are you in that building now too?
Mr. Barreira: We are temporarily located up there, we meaning the
Department of Purchasing. It is the Pi'ikoi structure.
Chair Furfaro: Are you way of any Administrative needs after the move?
Mr. Barreira: Not to my knowledge.
Chair Furfaro: We are now complete with the Fire Department. I am going to
hold the Police Department for now, as well as I think I need to back up here to our own office. Does
anybody have any discussion about the Council Offices?
Ms. Yukimura: The Auditor's rent was included in the Mayor's?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, it was. The Auditor's adjusted rent was included in the
Mayor's piece. The Auditor's we already did. They were in the Mayor's budget for the rent.
Ms. Nakamura: Are you going to take Elections and then Auditor's?
Chair Furfaro: Yes. Council services, nothing. Okay, I am going to go now to
any further discussion about the Auditor?
Ms. Nakamura: I would like to propose that the consultant services line item
under the "Auditor's Office." be reduced. Right now the line item is reflecting $675,000.00. In the
write-up, in our response from the auditor about the consultant fees needed or being used this year,
that totaled $695,000.00 that has been encumbered this year and that the projected need was about
$160,000.00 that was needed to complete the year. Looking forward to next year, we know there is a
need for accounting services in order to do the CAFR, the comprehensive annual financial report.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.64
And so there are a lot of studies in play right now, and I am not sure what the full $675,000.00. I
guess part of the issue is not knowing what next year's work plan is going to be. I reduced the
amount. Excuse me, can I just confer with staff for one second?
Chair Furfaro: Sure. You have to remember the CAFR is in there,
$250,000.00 right off the bat, paid by the Auditor.
Ms. Nakamura: I am sorry, I think there was a miscommunication with staff
that it was going to be the other way around.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, I figured because I just told them that the CAFR is in
that line item and it is $250,000.00.
Ms. Nakamura: Right but I guess my larger concern is that we have five
people in this Auditor's - in our Auditor's Division and they are making $114,000.00 or up to,
$103,000.00, $89,000.00, $64,000.00 and $42,000.00.
Chair Furfaro: And by Charter, the Salary Commission sets those salaries,
them and the Mayor.
Ms. Nakamura: Just the Auditors?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, but that is the big one.
Ms. Nakamura: But the others are right up there. I guess my concern is that if
we are funding these positions at high levels, then why are we contracting out so much of the work
and if it is justified and if it is special investigations and so forth, that is justified.
Chair Furfaro: This is a reduced number from previous years, but the first
thing is that you want to switch this?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes please.
Chair Furfaro: So that$475,000.00 actually including$250,000 of the CAFR.
Ms. Nakamura: Right.
Chair Furfaro: And then the $275,000.00 is left for other contract services?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Can we correct this?
Ms. Nakamura: And this is part of, since I have added so much to this budget
through the number of requests I have made over the past few days I was trying to find areas in the
budget where I thought we might have some excess. So that is my proposal.
Ms.Yukimura: Chair, did you say that the CAFR is $250,000. I have in my
notes $215,000 but I may have misheard.
Chair Furfaro: I think one of the contracts was $215,000 and he put in at
$250,000 this time around. But then we had call-backs, which were additional charges. So that is the
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.65
reason is that the $250,000 and the wiggle room. You want to change that to $205,000 then there
will be a money bill if we call the Auditor's back.
Ms.Yukimura: So we are saying $250,000 and $160,000 is what was
projected as needed, Councilmember Nakamura?
Chair Furfaro: No, here is what it is. $250,000 should be anticipated for the
audit. Another $425,000 was put in his May 8th submittal to give a total of $675,000. What the
Councilwoman is proposing is if the CAFR will take that portion of the audit, we should reduce this
to only another $275,000 of other contracts, making the change reviewed by the Council reducing the
consultant services line by $200,000 instead of$475,000, right?Did I get that right?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Did you folks have a new one of these to give us? You will
print one out?Thank you. Further discussion?
Ms.Yukimura: So we are removing $200,000 and the remaining will be
$475,000?
Chair Furfaro: Which includes $250,000 for the CAFR.
Ms.Yukimura: For the CAFR. Okay, I am clear and I will wait for the written
amendments, I guess. Is that what we are doing?
Chair Furfaro: Any more questions at this point? Staff, you are clear what we
are doing here?While we wait for that, let us talk about the Elections Division. I want to make sure
that you folks understand that I corrected the overtime requests originally. I took out of overtime
from the Elections Office and it is now my understanding put back in, am I correct, Scott? Okay. For
elections. Anybody have any further discussions about Elections? If not, we will go back to the
County Auditors. We have a new printed amendment.You have the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I have a question. What was it originally?You said
it was reduced?Was it from last year it was reduced?
Chair Furfaro: The first year was $500,000 for all other audits in our first
year and $250,000 for the CAFR. That is when we used the group from Pennsylvania, I think.
Ms. Nakamura: One of the reasons why I am trying to be a little more
stringent about this budget is because when we first approved the program support technician at
$27,756 a year-ago, that number is are now reflected as $42,132 in this budget.
Chair Furfaro: I think that was part of a year. Do I stand corrected it was
only part of the year? Yes. So you have got your amendment going around. Is there any further
discussion?Did we get a second on your amendment?
Ms. Nakamura moved to remove $200,000 and the remaining will be $475,000, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: Any discussion?
Mr. Bynum: I am just a little bit surprised that this one because I had not
seen it coming for one, and my own view of the Auditor's Office in their first year is that there were
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.66
some hiccups and things that council members pointed out, but they have adjusted and I am really
supportive of their work and I think the recent audits we have gotten are improved from the first
ones. I am really reluctant to take away resources from this Department. They are still new. I think
you just said, Councilmember, that this is similar to last year's amount and they encumbered and
used most of it is that correct, this year? So I do not know that I can support removing this resource
from the Auditor's Office.
Ms.Yukimura: I just want to know the answer to Councilmember Bynum's
question. Was the full amount of$675,000?It was encumbered fully?
Chair Furfaro: For this year?Yes, go ahead?
Ms. Nakamura: We budgeted $615,000 for consultant services. $695,000 was
encumbered.
Ms.Yukimura: How did we do that?
Chair Furfaro: With a money bill.
Ms. Nakamura: My question was where did that money come from?
Chair Furfaro: In the year, for the year we passed the additional... if you are
asking about the amount and Mr. Bynum is saying... the reality is this actually is closer to what
they are expecting. Their work has been a good quality, I guess, I should say and I think that of
their consultants. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Others, who have not had a chance?
Ms.Yukimura: I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable if we might
touch basis with the Auditor.
Chair Furfaro: Well, we had that opportunity and he is actually in Arizona.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, so we are kind of doing this without any feedback from
him?
Chair Furfaro: Well, he submitted some particular pieces during their budget
presentation and he gave us an explanation. I asked him why his business plan was not completed
and he said he was waiting on the contingency of some of the other reports that were coming for this
year. I excepted that but as you recall I have shared with them before that they will be called back
in front of us in June before we end this year to finalize what was in his business plan. So, the
question right now is there is an amendment to reduce the budget submittal by two hundred
thousand dollars in the Auditor's Department. Anybody else wish to speak?
Mr. Bynum: I want to follow-up some and that I have said this before, I
worked in the County 26 years ago, where we had external and internal auditors and I really came
to an appreciation of how in the long run they saved money for the County, especially in avoiding
lawsuits, but just in productivity gains and keeping managers on board. That is an internal audit
that we do not have. This year, I want to use this as an example, audited for Public Works and they
hired a consultant, Mr. Periclese Mentos. Overall they agreed in the long run that that kind of
consultant and that dialogue was really helpful for them and allowed them to kind of learn some
things and rethink how they are doing. So I want to put Mr. Mentos out as an example how the
monies are spent. I could not imagine how they did that audit without his expertise. That individual
spent years in the state system, doing procurement and had worked in the private system. I really
liked the way that all played out. At the beginning there was this tension and in the long run, this
_
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.67
was a helpful experience for us. So I do not know how you function as an auditor without that
consultant expertise. So thank you.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, I am going to call for the vote. The roll call
vote. This is to reduce the Auditor's budget for services. I am sorry? Go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: I appreciate Councilmember Nakamura's diligence in this
Department. I am uncomfortable right now simply because I have not had the chance to speak to—I
was not aware that they encumbered so much money this year. Some of the potential audits that he
mentioned in his dialogue were pretty critical audits, I think hiring practices and so forth. I am not
going support the motion right now, but I am creating a little bucket here that before tomorrow, we
have to start cutting, this is one that would be in the bucket as well. For the moment, I am a little
more comfortable with what his plans are, because I think the audit function is an important one
here. But I to appreciate the diligence, because I believe all departments require that kind of
oversight. Thank you?
Mr. Kuali`i: Just quickly. I just wanted to thank Councilmember
Nakamura for putting this forward and I will support it, because I think it is a fine example of what
we are supposed to be doing, finding the cuts to make up for the things that we have been adding.
And I still see $475,000 remains. And we can do a few audits with$475,000, I am sure.
Chair Furfaro: May I call for the vote now?
Ms. Yukimura: I think I am uncomfortable too about cutting it until we hear
from the Auditor, particularly because he did use all of his monies last year.
Chair Furfaro: And then some.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. For those, I just want to share with you folks, you
know, once we get into the next year, if we have something that we do want him to look at, it is
easier to have him use the money that is there, rather than generate a new money bill. And we have
done some pretty big one-time audits in the last two years. And I would say that I will keep my
judgment on the character of these special audits in professional services until the June date. So for
now, I am going to leave it the way it is and not support the amendment. So could I call for the vote.
The motion to reduce services from $675,000.00 to $475,000.00 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR REDUCE: Kuali`i, Nakamura TOTAL—2,
AGAINST REDUCE: Bynum, Chang, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Chair Furfaro: So, we are finished with the County Clerk and Auditor
Department. I would like to go to Finance and Mr. Rezentes is here. Risk Management with the
previous approval of the new Personnel Department, we have one-half of the Risk Management
activities with Janine in the new H.R. section, then we have insurance lost prevention and Risk
Management staying in Finance with Gerald. So would there be any more discussion on the Risk
Management portion? Members? Well can I ask you when would we actually see the new premiums
for some of our insurance policies, that comes up later in the year?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.68
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I cannot think of the month but I think in about three or
four months, I can send you an email along those lines.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, could you answer that for me, just my email is fine.
Okay, moving onto Division of Purchasing. We have someone who is in charge of that in front of us
right now. Any questions of the Division of Purchasing? Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Rezentes: In (27) years of government service, I have never worn less
than four (4) or five (5)hats.
Chair Furfaro: Be careful with that, we may give you a few more.
?Mr. Bynum: Purchasing is a really super key position and I have always
thought that it was a pretty overwhelming one as well. I know you are a very detail-oriented
individual. I admire that a lot because I am not. And I have a concern about, I am actually really
happy that you are involved in the budget process. I have that concern but I also believe there was
one position in Finance maybe not in your division but...
Mr. Rezentes: We have a dollar funded position that we requested to
redescribe to an entry-level specialist.
Mr. Bynum: I think and Wally you have a new position right? You have a
new position in...
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Could we hold onto that discussion until we get to the
administrative section of Finance.
Mr. Bynum: I just thought I would be done with this. I am happy that you
had that new position because I think that what I have observed over the last five years is you are
running this show and you almost have to bite the bullet and do a good example and probably that
position was overdue. Until for next year I really ask you to evaluate how this new rule for Ernie
went and about whether that division might need some help next year, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Real Property collections, any questions? Item E is the
only one I am going to carry over to tomorrow morning because under Real Property Assessment
Division I am going to allow Mr. Bynum to make a (14) minute presentation to balance out his time.
So Treasury, Motor Vehicle, and I.T., any...Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: I had a question Mr. Chair, and it is regarding the accounting
got in your position, correct?
?: Requested Accountant 3.
?: It is being treated as new position council member.
Mr. Rapozo: It is being treated as a new position?
?: Yes sir.
II,
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.69
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Now I would like to go to Kaua`i Humane Society comes under
your function and we heard from them, they asked for no new money this year but we were going to
have some dialogue about the spade and neuter pieces in future months as an agenda item.
Mr. Rapozo: I had a question.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Actually more of a comment but it will be a question as well,
Wally are we working on a new contract for the Humane Society?
Mr. Rezentes: We do every fiscal year. Annually.
Mr. Rapozo: Their contract expires, is it only an annual contract?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: I was going to save that question for the County Attorney.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Which, we have not come to yet. But we can go ahead now.
Mr. Rapozo: My questions are specific to The Humane Society and one of
my concerns and these are some concerns that come from the community as well and we have had
some testimony but you know the state law requires us to contract with The Humane Society for
certain functions. Our contract is a lot broader. The reason I am bringing this up today is I asked
The Humane Society we formally requested a breakdown of their funding because as I look at what
they propose or what they send us in their budget message, the salaries that they are claiming that
we fund are like $700,000.00 which goes way beyond of what we give them. And, some comments
have been made that The Humane Society is subsidizing the County Operations but I guess my
concern is that, and I have asked for this from The Humane Society and we have been denied
information. They sent a response back and said we are not providing you with that because we are
a private non-profit and we do not have to. I take offense to that because for the funding source of
$660,000.00 and if the council is asking for a breakdown of your entire budget, really what I want to
see as far as the what is required by state law and how much money are we funding, now I think and
this would be a question for the County Attorney, but anything beyond that requirement by the
State law whether spade or neuter, I would guess would require it to go out to bid.
Ms. Esaki: Kaua`i Humane Society for the County of Kauai only.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct. But if you notice what the statute states, it is
specific as to what functions we are required to contract with The Humane Society. Do not get me
wrong, I am not here to bash The Humane Society. I appreciate what they do, but we are paying for
a lot more services then are required by the state law.
Ms. Esaki: Well, I think because we are under a settlement agreement
with the federal agency for The Endangered Species Act, there are some concerns about the spade
and neuter program.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.70
Mr. Rapozo: I am not talking about this recent spade and neuter question
about the birds, I am talking about the state law says that you will contract with The Kaua`i
Humane Society for A,B,C,D, and E which is all pertaining to dogs, nothing about birds, nothing
about cats, nothing about hamsters, nothing about gerbils, dogs. This County, out of the goodness of
their heart, created a contract that provides The Humane Society with substantial sums of money
that goes over and beyond what the scope or what the statute requires. So I have asked, I wanted a
breakdown of what Humane Society services provide that are required for us to provide, and I have
not gotten that information. The question I have is anything that goes outside of the requirement by
state law and let us use the spade and neuter program as an example. Why would that not have to
go out to bid? Because it is not a requirement of the State law but we have over the years, somehow
got that into the contract, but not giving anybody else outside an opportunity to compete for that
money but more importantly, and again everyone is subject to getting their budgets cut and I don't
want to cut the budget of The Humane Society but I do not want to pay them more then we are
required to pay. We are trying to keep this budget afloat. So, I have gotten the outright denial from
the executive director saying I am not going to give you that information because we are not required
to because we are a private non-profit. Then I want to make sure that we are not subsidizing there,
as taxpayers. I know this is going to be construed as anti-humane society but we have to provide the
same oversight with Planning, Public Works, everywhere, Finance, Civil Defense, as the same
standard to The Humane Society as well.
Ms. Esaki: What we can do is take a look at the contract and see where
we can...
Mr. Rapozo: Take a look at the statute.
Ms. Esaki: I will take a look at the statute, as well as the contract and
see what language we can then amend.
Mr. Rapozo: I am encountered at a disadvantage because the information
that I requested from them was not provided. That frustrates me and I am not sure if there is
something you can do about that but I believe we are entitled to looking at The Kaua`i Humane
Society Budget to make sure that the monies we are allocating, that we are not subsidizing outside of
what we are really required to fund, and in a perfect world, perfect economy, I think we definitely
should be able to expand services everywhere but right now we are trying to find a million or so
dollars and I want to make sure we are only paying for the services that we are required to pay for.
Ms. Esaki: Again, I will take a look at it.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Esaki: Thank you.
Man?: Councilmember Rapozo, in the budget support package that
was submitted in their testimony, did they delineate the $660,000.00 that are expended, is that what
you were asking of them or did you want their entire operating budget?
Mr. Rapozo: The entire budget. That was what was denied. They
submitted their annual report or the quarterly reports. What I requested because of the comments
made that we were basically being subsidized, the County was being subsidized by The Humane
Society and I do not believe that was true because I think the $660,000.00 that we provide, I believe,
by just looking at the numbers of unlicensed dogs, loose dogs and so forth, that the state requires us
to contract with The Humane Society. I believe that is enough. I do not think we are relying on
private donor monies to fund that part of what is required of the state law.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.71
Chair Furfaro: And Amy, one more question on that, the contract is reviewed
annually and I wanted to make sure from the presentation we had from The Humane Society that
you folks begin some dialogue with them as we prepare the next contract especially on spayed and
neutered.
Ms. Esaki: I believe the Finance director and I will be conversing with
them, thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Terrific. Okay.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you Amy, I just wanted to add to that and say with the
budget that we did receive from them when they compared the income and the expenses; they
showed a total budget for $777,000.00, so more than the County's share. But that was on the income
side, $770,000.00 and on the expense side; they showed over a million dollars. So, according to what
they call the County budget they are showing a deficit or a net loss of $300,000.00 so I think that
was what she is saying was The Humane Society subsidizing the County's programs but a big part of
that is the spay and neuter or something like over $300,000.00. I really think it is important going
forward especially since we look at the contracts, negotiate the contracts every year, to try and figure
out what part we play in the bigger picture and separate that out and then we may still decide to
spend monies on the basic things that we are supposed to be contracted with them and then maybe
also some amount on the spay and neuter but then we have to look at that separately and say, "Can
we afford to be doing more and can we ask more of them"? They are this large organization that our
citizens support in two ways. Many citizens on their own go and contribute directly to The Humane
Society and then of course all our other citizens are supporting for the services through the County
with the taxes that they paid. But I do think $600,000.00 is a huge amount and we need to be more
aware of how exactly it is all being spent. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Anymore dialogue about the Department of Finance
and some of the contracts knowing that tomorrow we are going to take Real Property Assessment on
this category. That is where we are at. Amy, now we are going to go over the County Attorney's
office so you might stay there.
Mr. Rapozo: It was actually for D.M.V. and I think you may have heard
my comments regarding some sort of security plexi glass, and I do not think we need to add, I think
that is relatively inexpensive and we can get it from an existing budget line but something that I
would hope we can get done as soon as possible.
Man: I can tell you Councilmember Rapozo, that there have been
two meetings in two weeks in terms of those concerns that have been expressed and building
manager Brian Inouye was in the second meeting. I was brought in because I have done similar
construction projects in terms of security so the concerns have been heard and deliberations and
discussions are going on to address the issue. What we do not know at this point is the cost.
Chair Furfaro: Do you have an estimate?
Mr. Rapozo: Plexi glass?
Chair Furfaro: Framing?
Man: We really do not have any indication of...
Chair Furfaro: Speaker puka?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.72
Man: I know here we are at deliberations and I am telling you I
could run down a number from Brian I perhaps but it is not going to help you. I apologize.
Mr. Kuali`i: Well we can figure out and pinch the monies from here and
there or wherever.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, because I would not expect it to be a really, I mean it is
going to cost some money but not, at least a temporary measure. We can always work from a more
permanent bullet proof, but he is probably getting it right now. Yes, I just want to make sure it gets
done and if funding is required, I would definitely make that motion but if not, if you think we can
get it done with the existing budget, I am good with that as well.
Chair Furfaro: Get it done with not the existing budget but by pinching...
Mr. Kuali`i: Pulling from different lined items potentially that...
Mr. Rapozo: So we are good?
Mr. Kuali`i: I think we can figure out something. If it is not going to be a
$100,000.00.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I do not know.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, I know, I think we are doing that analysis...
Mr. Rapozo: I guess what I do not want to happen which I have not heard
in many years, which is a good thing is, "Well we want to do it but the Council didn't give us the
money". I haven't heard that in years so it is a good thing. But I do not want that to be a reason,
"The council didn't give us the money". Because I am hear saying I do not think we would have any
opposition putting that money in if we need to. But if you are telling me we have enough funds and
it is just a matter of...
Mr. Kuali`i: Well, I think they are analyzing it. If it is not a $100,000.00
kind of lined item, if it is a $10,000.00 kind of item, we can figure out ways to maneuver funds
around to get what we need. But by Brian not having a number, it is hard to say it is a guarantee.
Mr. Rapozo: It is a priority. Okay, but it is something that we are going to
get done?
Mr. Kuali`i: We can figure it out to get it done.
Man: And Councilmember Rapozo, it is going to be done in house
which is why Mr. Inouye was brought in.
Mr. Rapozo: That is fine. I really do not care who does it, but when the
lady told me that they get sneezed on, and that line does not stop, we have all been in there, and if it
is something that basic, I think, even if it is a half-sheet, I do not know what it is, but we need to
address it because I believe it is a health issue.
Man: The framing issues and plexi glass is not a problem if you
avoid the electronic elements, the cost is minimized substantially.
4k
1
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.73
Chair Furfaro: Okay, just to know, "pinch and pull" and "done in house"
means there is supposed to money in the building departments R and M as of right now. Right now
there is supposed to be R and M money in the building department and that is how we are taking
that question. So let us go to Amy. Okay. Office of the County Attorney. Do you have any...I am
really referring to the members, do they have any questions of you? We did a pretty thorough
review. We will see you tomorrow. Wednesday, have a good day off. Thank you. Any questions on
the County Attorney's office? Mr. Bynum?
Mr. Bynum: Amy, earlier in the March submittal there was going to be a
new Deputy County Attorney and in the May submittal, that is gone. Is that correct?
Ms. Esaki: I believe so.
Mr. Bynum: And was the County Attorney's office aware of that before the
May submittal?
Ms. Esaki: I do not know, I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Bynum: So, can you explain to me why that went away?
Ms. Esaki: I do not think I can answer that question either. Except, we
did notice that it was not there.
Mr. Bynum: You noticed it was not there?
Ms. Esaki: Yes, we noticed the second time around.
Chair Furfaro: Here is a question Ernie, when the May 8th budget revision
came in, the additional attorney in the County Attorney's office was removed. And Mr. Bynum is
asking, was that office involved in that discussion or is that something that should be directed to you
and Wally? And that is Mr. Bynum's question.
Mr. Barreira: We do not notify every department of every change we make.
Sometimes we have to make decisions without their involvement and having to prioritize limited
resources so it is fair to say that that position was prioritized more heavily to another pursuit.
Mr. Bynum: Where did it go?
Mr. Rezentes: That was position E-71 which was then used as the vehicle for
dollar funded positions to support the ? Commisions Clerk. Which I believe Council cleared the first
day of liberations.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions for the County Attorney? Okay. Amy, we
still need you later so please stay by. I would like to go to Planning Department. Any Planning
Department questions? Okay. Go the Department of Economic Development. I am going to take a
note that we are going to take a break now for ten (10) minutes and when we come back we only
have two areas, Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Police Department. At eight (8) minutes send
people to go collect members.
(RECESS)
Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are back here and I want go over tomorrow's agenda
with you folks because in speaking with the staff they may need some time to prepare things, so let
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.74
us plan to start at nine thirty tomorrow. Because as we go through the pieces here at nine thirty
approximately Mr. Bynum will give his (14) minutes on the Real Property piece. That's at nine
thirty, and will then go to the provisos both new that the staff has been attempting to verbalize and
old or revised ones. Then we will take the vote and then we will take some commentary before we
break up of what we would like to include in the budget message. That is what I have planned for
tomorrow. We will start at nine thirty, okay. So let us get back to the pieces right now. We are
going to go to the Police Department.
Man?: I would like to the Chair and my colleagues to entertain that
we break tonight now and pick up in the morning. I have some things I really need to talk to the
County Attorney about. I have talked with Amy and I cannot resolve that, I understand Mr. Castillo
will be back here soon in the next hour or so but I have a difficult time proceeding with these next
two departments without some of that advice and I am just tired, so I wanted to throw that out for
consideration.
Chair Furfaro: Discussion to break now, it is quarter to six, and start
tomorrow at 9:30. Vice Chair?
Ms.Yukimura: I do feel tired now too but, and I really want to thank you
Chair for the way you have structured this, I am thinking tomorrow given the agenda we have, we
could do an hour of what we are going to do tonight and still make it by the end of the...at four
thirty.
Chair Furfaro: Yes, we have (45) minutes now before we break for a dinner
break or we start with those two departments in the morning for the first hour and then we go to the
Real Property Assessment.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes?
Mr. Rapozo: Earlier you made an announcement, you told us to call you
family, call your spouses, and call everybody. It is going to be a late night. I have done that. I am
tired. I am tired every day. We have a schedule; you know I would like everyone to respect our time
as well. I mean...
Chair Furfaro: I agree, I made those comments and part of those comments
were, we have those first few weeks to review everything and so forth but we were getting into a
point that we were having narrative on every item that was coming up and I am tired and I have a
long way to go and I do not have a problem doing this knowing now where we are at. Knowing now
where we are at. So, my apologies to your family and if it was taken as the fact that you called them
and they went out to a movie or dinner or so forth, my apologies. I talked to council member Kuali`i
and my attitude has changed a little bit too because there is the D.H.H.L. hearings tonight as well,
they start at five thirty Mr. Kuali`i? six o'clock? And I am thinking I may want to pop in for that as
well.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I am going to ask that we are given the same courtesy in
a future time as well because I think that this is the priority, the budget is a priority. We should get
through what we can. And tomorrow is another day. But tomorrow there is a deadline.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.75
Mr. Rapozo; Tomorrow there is a deadline. So, whatever we can get out
today, I suggest we do and then finish up tomorrow. Tomorrow we are going to have a long day as
well because we are talking provisos, we talking about Real Property Tax and we talking about all of
those things and at the rate we are going...
Chair Furfaro: Well, I am almost, you know, I am almost ashamed of what I
shared with everybody but I did not know any other way to move us along and yet at the same time I
do not want to repeat myself but the other point is we have D.H.H.L. here and I also know that Mr.
Kuali`i will be departing us at five o'clock tomorrow.
Mr. Rapozo: That is another concern of mine.
Chair Furfaro: You know, I am throwing it all out on the table now, I feel
really bad, but you know folks, rehashing these items when we are in decision making process and I
would like to have a fresh mind too and if we go until six thirty, I will get home by seven thirty. I
will be up early tomorrow. So, we had a motion about breaking up now and then cutting (45)
minutes short out of our schedule time. I have a tendency to think I would like to do that. Vice Chair
Yukimura?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I had a five thirty meeting which I said I am not going to
be there but I would prefer to stop here because I think we can finish within the time we have
scheduled for tomorrow which I presume everybody set aside for tomorrow. Unless, people make
schedules for tomorrow but that was set aside.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilmember Nakamura?
Ms. Nakamura: My preference was to proceed because tomorrow night I have
an award ceremony at Kapa'a High School that I need to attend for my daughter, so I would be
leaving at five thirty. Tonight is my night to do as much as I can.
Ms.Yukimura: Right.
Chair Furfaro: Well look we have a Police Attorney, forty five minutes now or
we have an hour to start tomorrow at nine thirty to ten thirty. We then have a (14) minute Property
Assessment presentation that deals with Property Tax Division. I will give that an hour. It takes us
to eleven thirty. Then we have the beginnings of some proviso. Maybe we should do the new ones
first and revisit the old then we vote. Then we take comments which you can send electronically to
the staff about narrative in the budget. That is tomorrow. Mr. Kuali`i?
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, you did say you were starting tomorrow at nine
thirty?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, nine thirty.
Mr. Kuali`i: So I propose that we start earlier tomorrow.
Chair Furfaro: That is another option.
Mr. Kuali`i: Maybe an hour earlier since you are talking about (45)
minutes.
Chair Furfaro: Can we do that? Can we post it at nine?
May 14, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.76
Mr. Kua1i`i: Post it at nine?
Chair Furfaro: We have to start it at nine.
Mr. Kuali`i: But nine, not nine thirty?
Chair Furfaro: We can start at nine, not nine thirty. Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair?
Chair Furfaro: Yes?
Ms.Yukimura: On the narrative in the past, I can see taking input but the
staff does the draft and we get to look at it afterwards right? I have an event tomorrow night too but
I am thinking we will be able to finish by four thirty.
Chair Furfaro: I think we can too. So we will start at nine tomorrow. Okay,
and I apologize if I made anybody's evening, but I have to tell you at ten o' clock this morning I did
not think we would be through Parks and Recreation. So I need a motion. Do I have a motion and
second?
Mr. Rapozo: To adjourn or recess.
Chair Furfaro: Recess? Yes, okay. All those in favor of recess until nine o'
clock tomorrow morning signified by saying Aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
There being no objections, the decision making process was recessed at 5:51 p.m.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.1
The departmental budget decision making reconvened on May 15, 2012 at 9:11 a.m., and proceeded
as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Aloha and good morning, I am calling back from
recess the budget reviews for the upcoming Operating Budget. We will take public testimony this
morning, for those in the audience, I want to share with you folks that you will also have an
opportunity tomorrow to speak again at our 8:30 meeting and then we have our final review on May
23 and you are welcome to come and give testimony on those days as well. Could I have the first
individual that would like to offer testimony to the County Council?
Mr. Topenio: Mr. Chair we have 2, the first one is Chuck Trembath
followed by Healani Trembath.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay come right up Chuck.
CHUCK TREMBATH: Thank you very much members of the Council and
Mr. Furfaro, thank you. My name is Charles Trembath, my friends know me as Chuck. I live in
Lihu`e the Ulu Mahi area and I was looking at the...
Mr. Furfaro: The seal.
Mr. Trembath: The picture of the poi pounders.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh yes, the very unique poi pounder to Kaua`i and
Ni`ihau only.
Mr. Trembath: The headline in the paper today is Makaweli Poi
Company may be going out of business and Kauai provide a large percentage of the Kalo (poi) for
Hawai`i. I would sure like to see the pressure put on OHA for example too... back them up financially
they give out money for all kinds of causes and they were involved when Makaweli poi first went in
business and I don't know whether they ran out of money because they are getting money from the
State and maybe other resources. However I hate to see the poi mill go out Makaweli poi, I have no
family involved in it but for local people it's very important. My testimony is related to property tax,
real property tax and thoughts of it being raised. I think at this time in the economy it's not a good
idea but I realize that you folks in the driver's seat along with the Mayor and all the administration
have to push maybe for more money. I mean you look at all the things that are done for example the
Fire Department they're now going on rescue missions and they're pulling someone out of the ocean
they have to retrieve boats. Every week you read about helicopters having to bring someone out of
Kalalau Valley or some valley and the tourist come here and we lure them which I think is
counterproductive, I mean they bring in... it's questionable whether it's worth it. I can remember
back when they were pushing the tourist business at the State level and Peter Apo who is on the
OHA Board now said that tourism is a double edge sword, it has the good points and bad points. But
you see the Fire Department had to get a new boat it's not just a jet ski anymore it's a major boat
and I don't know how much that thing cost but I'm sure its lots of money. If you drive around Lihu`e
especially around the County Building area on the weekend and you see all the white county vehicles
you think about yourself paying 5 dollars a gallon for gas now, well the county's going to pay that for
all those vehicles. The cost for the county are surely going up just with more people here the cost is
going up. The roads, many places are in need of repair but perhaps they don't have the resources in
that department to do the work so then the parks continual thing is to be concerned about how you
take care of those parks. Lydgate Park for example has a lot going on about who's suppose to take
care of it and why they don't take care of this and who does this and who does that and the county
has to hire extra people to help take care of that park. But for the property taxes I followed some of
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.2
the discussion by Louis in the paper and Tim Bynum in the paper and there were several other
letters to the editor about not wanting an increase in the property tax at this time anyway. I think if
the economy was booming, there were a lot of jobs for a lot of people and the jobs were decent paying
jobs then it would be a different story. There are a lot of people that don't have a job, can't find a job,
or the jobs that they're looking for don't pay enough money to even pay the bills so why not just stay
on unemployment for awhile and maybe you get some reimbursement from the state or federal level
I don't know. I would like to agree with those that are against property tax being raised.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, Chuck that was your first 3 minutes, you
still have another 3 minutes.
Mr. Trembath: Oh thank you. So another issue in the property taxes
exemptions and I was at a meeting yesterday with the Cost Control Commission and they were
talking about these exemptions. There are people that pay no property tax and there are some that
pay only 25 dollars and you wonder if it's even worth the while to even collect that money from those
people if they qualify for such a low cost. I think it came out that it cost 150 dollars just to service
those people to do the paper work and getting the tax information to them, the bill to them and if
there's no money coming in to bring the mail back and so forth. I'm not saying those folks don't
deserve it or don't need it and I'm not sure how all the exemptions will play out but we get a couple
exemptions. We get one for age and for homeowner occupied and certainly those exemptions should
be kept. Some people talked about the Veterans maybe there should be an exemption for Veterans of
wars that have made our life possible in many cases. Those can be discussed I guess and maybe you
can bring them up when you go over those issues. So you look in Washington and the money that's
being spent on Politicians it is just incredible and you wonder what's wrong with that process. I
know following the news on 1% and 99% of the people and you think are we a part of the 99% or
who's the 1%? Well you guys are sitting in the driver's seat and all of you have decent pay, health
benefits which are huge in many areas. In the United States there are like 40 million people that
have no health insurance so I think the economy is tight and the budget should be tight. The 2% we
were living to live with, the cap they had on property taxes and that seemed to be a pretty easy thing
to contend with but with the (inaudible) going on between the Council and the Mayor and who's who
and what's this and what's that. There is so much huki, huki going on that you lose sight of the fact
and it's hard to plan as an individual family property tax and you want to plan for next year but if
you don't know what's going to happen it's difficult to plan anything.
Mr. Furfaro: Chuck, I just want to thank you for your testimony
and I want to touch on a few pieces before I ask the other members if they have questions for you.
The PHU the cap I know very well because that was my bill. It has been adjusted to the consumer
price index of 3.4 percent I believe, but the cap at present still exists. On the Veterans I do want to
let you know that we treated that as a onetime credit for previous battles and combat areas and now
we have a standing place that if any of our reserve members on Kaua`i find themselves being called
up for a combat area they can qualify for the exemptions and that is in place by this council as well.
You are taking advantage of the age exemptions? That is the reason it is there and I also want to let
you know that the pieces we have to work with at the budget right now are those pieces that have
been submitted by the Mayor and we still have 2 public hearings where your more than welcome to
participate again. Let me see if other members have questions for you. Members any questions for
Chuck?Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Aloha Chuck. You will be happy to know that there is
no proposal so far for any kind of real property tax increase for the homestead class the owner
occupant class.
Mr. Trembath: Good, thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.3
Ms.Yukimura: But there may be a proposal for a cut in the tax rate
for the homestead class. Is that something you favor or disfavor?
Mr. Trembath: Mr. Bynum mentioned that in one of his articles and I
am pretty neutral on it I sure would like a tax cut, I think everybody would like a tax cut but with
the cuts and the things you add on will probably counterbalance.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay and I guess that is it, thank you.
Mr. Trembath: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Any other questions for Chuck? If not, thank you very
much Chuck, thank you for the feedback.
HEALANI TREMBATH: Aloha, I come with the same intention of my husband
and as you can tell we're not very focused many time because we love Kauai. We live here I have
been born here over 75 years ago and have seen a lot of changes and have a lot of concerns. Today I
agree with what my husband is saying on the exemption and I would like for you to kind of keep in
mind that some point in time well just a couple of weeks ago I went to a (inaudible) project where it
was about caregivers and Kupuna, any many years ago I had gone to one and was concerned about
them living in the communities and overtime they decided that the Kupuna's did not want to live in
the community situation due to the expense and other things. So now they are wanting to stay in the
home and so that's what the project was all about trying to figure out a way where the caregivers
and Kupuna are there to be able to meet their needs. Of course what's happening now is your kids
and grandkids are also coming home and baby boomers and whatever so it seems like there should
be some kind of tension or maybe re-looking at the laws that encompass that area so that concern
which will uncertainly already starting and increase over time.
The other concern I have is that of our Kuleana down in Hulaea. It's just a small area and
my daughter is there trying to raise Kala but their tax is so very adsorbent that I went to inquire as
to why it was so much. The answer I got and the kuleana is surrounded by the Federal Land and the
Company Grove Farm or whoever they are around there. That's pretty much all but maybe one
house on our lot and the others have no building or taro fields. The answer to me was that they
couldn't figure out because there were no houses around us so they had to go to the next complex. We
are open agriculture and so they had to go to suburban which is Lihu`e and that's where they got the
thing and I'm going but... but... we are all surrounded by Federal Lands, I'm not going to say stolen
lands but all this property and they're not being charged that much and how come... so I don't know
its little man down the corner because you're so involved in so many different things or situations
that involve the bigger public but at least some point in time maybe do an analysis of what that's all
about. I'm sure maybe perhaps there are other areas that are like that where their trying to eak out
a living and there's nothing around but yet you get booked for something that's even humungous for
like I say"open ag"to agriculture. That's all thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me Healani, may I ask if you could leave your
contact number for us because I might ask Mauna Kea Trask to call you about your Kuleana. The
fact of the matter is we do have a Kuleana recordation that we work with OHA which might help you
qualify.
Ms. Trembath: It does not, we have researched it.
Mr. Furfaro: It does not?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.4
Ms. Trembath: Yeah, because at some point there was a non
Hawaiian got involved in one property and the other one we kind of know we're linked because he
adopts one of our children but we don't know him because he was an elderly person and he died in
Moloka`i. We are still searching but I appreciate it thank you very much.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you for your testimony this morning. Members
we are going to now move into finishing the operating accounts that we left off on last night. I believe
we left off on the Police Department. Mr. Barreira, thank you again thank you Chuck. We are going
to start up with the Police Department, then the Prosecutors Office, and then we are going to give
Mr. Bynum time on the Real property Tax Assessment. Okay, as we address the Police Department,
the Police Department was broken down into 5 areas. First and foremost was the Patrol Services
Bureau. Next the Investigative Services Bureau, go ahead you have the floor.
Ms. Nakamura: This is going back to the Chiefs Office.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh, we have not gotten there yet.
Ms. Nakamura: I am sorry.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, Investigative Services Bureau, Administrative
and Technical Bureau. Councilmember Nakamura, we are now at the Chiefs Office. Would you like
the floor?
Ms. Nakamura: This is a proposal to use basically is in the overtime
line category. The proposal is to use the existing line item but to add some text to the line item
showing that providing designated overtime for KPAL activities and the amount that is being
proposed is fifty thousand dollars. This line item is being proposed to compensate officers who use a
lot of their volunteer time to promote KPAL activities that serve over 900 children throughout the
year and it is a way to just allow them to use this overtime to support that activity. The first attempt
was to try to have designated police officers and just given the fact that there are so many vacancies
and the need to fill the beats that the first priority. This is just a way to compensate those officers
that are putting in so much volunteer time to make this program work. I ran this by the Chief the
other day and he did support it.
Ms. Nakamura moved to add some text to the line item showing that providing designated
overtime for KPAL activities and the amount that is being proposed is fifty thousand dollars,
seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Ms.Yukimura: I just have of question of Mr. Barreira. I thought
under FLSA, the Fair Labor Standards Act - don't we have to pay overtime for volunteers when they
do volunteer work?
Mr. Barreira: Good morning, Vice Chair, Ernie Barreira, Budget &
Purchasing Director. There is no compensation of volunteer work to the extent of my knowledge of
the law. The overtime requirements kick in depending on certain minimum hours a week that are
extended either beyond eight hours a day or 40 hours a week, and certain designated personnel are
defined as having to fall within that provision and are entitled to compensation whether they are
civil service or excluded. I do not know if volunteerism impacts upon that provision.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, thank you, and I am not clear either that is
why I asked.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.5
Mr. Kuali`i: So, the fifty thousand dollars proposed is off of the
line item of retiming the amount of 1.1 million? Is that what it is? So, would it now be specifically
designated and then moved somewhere else like oh well that is training overtime? But it will be
specifically designated for KPAL?
Ms. Nakamura: It is just a text change.
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: It will come from the total amount in that line item.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to say and Mr. Barreira was not here
back then but we got sued twice and the two law suits tell us that even volunteers. If you are a Police
Officer volunteering for a function, we are required to pay them overtime. That was a big issue many
years ago when we got sued twice.
Mr. Furfaro: Would you state that again please?
Mr. Rapozo: I am just saying 2 lawsuits tell us that the FLSA Law
requires compensation to Police Officers and Fireman because that is who we were sued by. That
even if they volunteer or they go and they volunteer in a capacity of an officer or any way, shape, or
form representing the Police Department that they are to be compensated. That is the Federal Law
and I think most of us remember the discussions in that law suit and that is what really prevented
many volunteerism activities of the police and fire because it would trigger the overtime. Unless
that's has changed we are required to choose to volunteer and that's what makes it tough.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, any further discussion?
li Ms.Yukimura: Yeah, I will support this measure mainly as a text
change, it shows intention but I would like to get an answer from the Administration in terms of how
this policy this FLSA Policy is being implemented in this context of police volunteers.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, do we have an attorney in the building? Okay
let us take a 10 minute recess brief her and let us see if we have better answers when we come back
from recess.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 9:38 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 9:52 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, before we went on recess Marc could you come
right up please. We had Vice Chair Yukimura asking some questions about FLSA and the overtime
policies within the Police Department so I will give her the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. Marc my question was under the Fair
Labor Standards Act are we required to pay overtime for police volunteer activities with KPAL?
MARC GUYOT: Good morning Vice Chair, Chair, Councilmembers,
my name is Marc Guyot, Deputy County Attorney. In addition the FLSA Law you also have the
police contract as well as the need to know the background on intricacy of how KPAL is integrated
into the police department. If I can just take a moment to explain a little of the complications on that
normally employees are not compensated when they volunteer for something. However if they
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.6
volunteer for something that is very closely related to the actual job that they do it then counts as
actual time that is compensable by the employer. For example a carpenter working on a County
volunteer project that's doing carpentry would have to be compensated where as if he was just
directed traffic in the parking lot for the Charity Walk or something the county's associated with. If
he was there volunteering building the stands than that would be a compensable type of thing.
Ms. I
s.Yukimu •ra. am leaving it on your good judgment as to whether
this advice needs to be done in Executive Session or not but Okay I hear your answer and I
understand what it says. So in order to find out I mean we need to know how the Police Department
is applying this then?
Mr. Guyot: That would be correct and how integrated KPAL is in
with the department. Do they take any outside volunteers?What is the role of the officer there? If he
is administering the program and he plays a significant or pivotal role within it then it would appear
to be a job related duty that he would need to be compensated for.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Marc. I do not think we have any more
questions. Thank you very much but stay close by please. Did you arrive to give testimony? Okay
because I was going to give you the floor if you had testimony. There is a lot of subjects on Kaua`i
pick any one you want its wide open but you have to do it in 6 minutes. Okay no testimony? Okay we
are not there yet but you have no testimony? Okay we will call for the vote. We have a motion and a
second.
The motion to add some text to the line item showing that providing designated overtime for
KPAL activities in the amount of fifty thousand dollars, was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADD: Bynum, Chang, Kuali`i, Rapozo, Nakamura,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL—7,
AGAINST ADD: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, going forward any further discussion on the
Chiefs office? Okay hearing none the Police Department is now complete. Now we will go to the
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.
Ms.Yukimura: I have some proposals. I can start talking as soon as I
( get a copy thank you. I am proposing to take in the Prosecutor's Office - the salaries that are
II identified for the different attorneys are the top level authorized amounts. The actual salaries are
quite a bit lower and so I am proposing to take out a hundred sixty five thousand seven hundred
dollars which is the difference between the budgeted and the actual but leaving in 90 thousand for
some salary adjustments that may be made during the year. So this is what I propose and I move as
to amend the budget as circulated.
Ms. Yukimura move to delete a hundred sixty five thousand seven hundred dollars which is
the difference between the budgeted and the actual but leaving in 90 thousand for some
salary adjustments that may be made during the year, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.7
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, the Department Heads the Deputy
Department Heads in all the departments but more specifically County Attorney and Prosecuting
Attorneys the Deputy's salaries are set by ordinance. That is Salary Resolution when it gets adopted
I believe requires the council to fully fund those positions. I do not believe we have the authority to
set the salary or fund a salary. We have had this discussion numerous times in the salary
commission/salary resolution hearings but I don't believe we have the authority to set any
Department Head or Deputy Department Head at a rate lower than what is required by the
ordinance. Obviously I cannot support this, I mean if we start manipulating the salary ordinance
which is an ordinance, it's a salary ordinance it's a resolution that becomes law and because the
department heads can set the salary less than what the salary commission has approved, we don't
have the flexibility to cut the salary. We are required as I have been told many years passed we are
required to fund those positions at the level that have been approved by the salary commission. So I
am not going to be supporting this and in fact I think the County Clerk and if we can ask the
County Clerk I think he has some history on this because it's been discussed so many times.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, if we can reach out to the County Clerk and
Mr. KipuKai you have the floor.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually appreciate what the
Vice Chair is trying to do and I would love to see such an attempt at reducing the lapse in funding
for salaries across the County. Of course I agree with Councilmember Rapozo and that in these
particular positions that are set by ordinance much like the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney's as well as
the County Attorney's and Deputy County Attorney's would require a change in the ordinance to
have that flexibility in the range of the salary. As long as it's established by the Salary Commission
and this council as the resolution comes before us and passes whether we act on it or not the top
level is capped at where the position could be whether it is or not. Other than that and so in this
particular case I cannot support it but I would love to see your formula apply throughout the county
that eliminates the gap or at least half of the gap between what is put in the budget as the salary
that would be paid and what is,actually paid. I think being that salaries are our largest expense,
that's where most of the padding if you will or lapse can be found and I appreciate the
administration making the attempt to lesson that lapse by twenty five percent this budget cycle
however I think we can do even better but I cannot support this at this time.
Mr. Furfaro: Anyone else wants to speak on this item for the first
time?You have a question for the County Attorney?Where did the County Attorney go? Or there he
is. Can we have the County Attorney up?
Ms. Nakamura: Al thank you for being here.
AL CASTILLO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, You are welcome, for the record Al Castillo,
County Attorney and I'm not wearing my coat I have my official barong tagalong today. I'm sorry
Councilmember Nadine.
Ms. Nakamura: Al, the question was raised whether we are able to
budget at a salary lower then specified in the salary resolution adopted by the Council earlier this
year?
Mr. Castillo: You know whether you are able to budget I don't
know the specific answer to whether or not I know the salary ordinance and I don't have the salary
ordinance with me right now. I can look into that but my understanding is I know how I do my
budget where we are budgeted for the amount but we can pay less so I'm not familiar on how she's
doing her budget so I can look at that.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.8
Ms. Nakamura: So, your budget for the County Attorney's Office it
specified what you, your deputy and your attorneys are paid by the budget salary resolution?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: Do you when you prepare your budget, budget at
amounts lower than what is in the Salary Resolution?
Mr. Castillo: No, in my budget if you saw it I budget the max
amount allowable by the Salary Commission then I pay accordingly... well I adjust their salaries
according to their skills.
Ms. Nakamura: And you do that just out of practice or you don't know
whether...
Mr. Castillo: Yeah I'm sorry I don't...
Ms. Nakamura: So, we would need to get that opinion.
Mr. Rapozo: Al, this question is not about the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office or the County Attorney's Office.
Mr. Castillo: I understand.
Mr. Rapozo: The question is the Salary Commission sends forth a
resolution that this Council adopts.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Those salaries are fixed by the Salary Commission.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
• Mr. Rapozo: My question is - does this Council have the authority
to set the salary lower then what the ordinance salary ordinance dictates?
Mr. Castillo: I would like to say that power is within the power of
the Prosecuting Attorney.
Mr. Rapozo: No, I am not talking about what the Prosecutor does
or you. Any department head, any appointing authority can set the salary lower that's not the
question.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: We are here with a proposal to drop the salary that
was basically ordered by the salary commission, it's an ordinance.
Mr. Castillo: Okay then I will need time to get you guys an answer.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay that's fine.
{
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.9
Mr. Furfaro: Let me ask the County Attorney. Would you want a
few minutes to look at the salary ordinance and some of these rules now?
Mr. Castillo: Yes and I don't know how soon you need this answer
but I could go get the okay now.
Mr. Furfaro: We do today is the last day for us to conclude...
Mr. Castillo: Okay I got it I got it.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay now before I call for a recess, is there any
questions that would like to be burdened on the county attorney at this time so when he's doing his
research he's researching all the questions. Let's stay focused on that Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: We were talking about your practice and your office.
Your Deputy County Attorney's are budgeted at 94 thousand 454.
Mr. Castillo: Yes that's the maximum allowed.
Mr. Bynum: And some of those attorneys's actual pay is less than
that?
Mr. Castillo: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: And is it like 40/50 percent less?
Mr. Castillo: No.
Mr. Bynum: Okay so salaries in the prosecuting attorney's office
are budgeted for the deputy's at a 101 thousand, zero sixty six. There is one deputy that is being paid
55 thousand even though it's budgeted at 101.
Mr. Castillo: I see that.
Mr. Bynum: Is that similar to the kind of reduction that you have?
Mr. Castillo: No.
Mr. Bynum: Can you share with us how much differentiation a
deputy might have from what's budgeted in your office?
Mr. Castillo: Not that's great percentage.
Mr. Furfaro: Take that we are only posing you questions to
research. Could you research that question?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: When we take this recess okay. I'm going to go down
to Vice Chair Yukimura than to Councilmember Kualii. Again keep your questions focused on items
that the county attorney may have to do research on.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.10
Mr. Castillo: Excuse me, Council Chair for Councilmember
Bynum's question it would be if the maximum is and just for instance 95 you said 94 something so
let's just call it 95. It would be not less than 10-15 thousand less than that amount.
Mr. Bynum: So you budget at that range for new deputies in order
for you to give some room to give some room to make increases for merit and that kind of thing?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: But not more than 10 thousand less?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, Vice Chair Yukimura. Please again keep it
focused so we can go on a break and get some answers.
Ms.Yukimura: I would like to request that the proposal that I'm
making be given to Mr. Castillo?
Mr. Furfaro: I believe it was.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay you have it great.
Mr. Castillo: Yeah I was just given this a few minutes ago.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay great and I just wanted to show you that while
I'm proposing to reduce the total salary amount based on the difference between the authorized and
the actual. I'm also proposing to leave 90 thousand in the budget for salary adjustments. So I'm not
saying that they have to stay at the levels that are budgeted. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr. Castillo: So correct me if I'm wrong. What you're doing is you
would be and I'm looking at what is this? This proposal and I look at the actual salary so what you're
saying is you will be going 90 thousand above these amounts?
Ms.Yukimura: Above the total of actual salaries to allow some
adjustments that need to be made.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: So it's not like tying them the prosecuting attorney to
the salaries and there is leeway for adjustments.
Mr. Castillo: So basically what you're saying is although on the
budgeted salary you're intent regarding this proposal is not to give all of the amounts but 90
thousand?
Ms.Yukimura: No the intent is to give six hundred eighty three
thousand, two hundred sixty eight...
Mr. Castillo: Plus ninety?
Ms.Yukimura: I mean it still comes down to Councilmember
Nakamura's question bottom line is whether the council is required to put in the authorized salary.
r.1
'i�
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.11
Mr. Castillo: Yeah the entire amount.
Ms.Yukimura: Rather than the actual with some for ability to shift
and make adjustments whether up or down but actually up giving that leeway.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay is that as understood? So the question again at
the 683 Vice Chair is saying we leave an allowance of 90 thousand for other salary contingencies.
Mr. KipuKai. Did I get that right Vice Chair?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes you did.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Kipu Kai.
Mr. Kualii: Mr. Chair mine is more of a process question and I do
want to say that every minute that goes by today is very vital to me because I have to leave at a
certain time because I have a flight to catch and it is for council business. I want to see us not
continue this discussion and let the attorney go get the answer because if the answer is that the
salary commission says it's the caps and the caps have to be in place than this whole proposal is
moved. So why argue it or question it, this is what the county attorney does and I would prefer if we
not take a recess because I believe I heard Vice Chair say she had multiple proposals for the Office of
the Prosecuting Attorney, so while this proposal is being investigated lest get on with the next
proposal if possible thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay well the recess was first for him to have 10
minutes to do some research, I don't think he can sit there and do the research to answer the
questions. Secondly I have said that I would take this 10 minute recess to give him some time and if
he comes back and says we need more time than that than we have to make a different type of
decision. I'm going to ask Mr. Rapozo if you have a question.
Mr. Rapozo: Well I originally asked for the County Clerk to come
up and...
Mr. Furfaro: I have the County Clerk ready for that we can do it
when we come back from recess.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Al we're going to take a recess here so you can
answer some of these questions. I'm not ending the meeting Mr. Bynum I'm giving him sometime to
ask some questions.
Mr. Bynum: I know.
Mr. Furfaro: We're in a ten minute recess.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:13 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 10:23 a.m. and proceeded as follows.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.12
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Castillo we're back in session if you could address
the questions posed to you.
Mr. Castillo: Okay I guess a little bit backwards. On the exact
amounts for the County Attorney's Office on the exact amounts for the County Attorney's Office
Deputies, someone is getting that information for you because I don't have that information right
now. In terms of whether or not this council has the ability to reduce the budgeted salary amounts as
contained in the first column and the answer to that is no and it is guided by the salary resolution.
So it would be in this case the 101,066 and in terms of the 50 thousand 533 and the 80 thousand,
that's the prosecuting attorneys prerogative at that time in submitting her budget to you but the
council would be your usurping the powers of not only the salary commission but the also the
appointing body. If the council were to change the numbers do what's stated in the right hand
column of this chart.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Castillo: You're welcome.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay any more questions Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I don't have a question.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay thank you we're going to bring up the County
Clerk now.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair we don't need the county clerk.
Mr. Furfaro: We don't need the county clerk?
Mr. Rapozo: Yeah because the county attorney has just made it
clear.
Mr. Furfaro: I wasn't sure exactly your rationality and the next set
of questions okay, thank you Al.
Mr. Castillo: You're welcome.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to make some clarifications because I
had the opportunity to work at the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for almost 2 years well a year and a
half. I think first of all some of these salaries the actual salaries I mean I'm sorry the budgeted
salaries you know some of these positions are grant funded partially grant funded so what we're
reflecting are the salaries that the county pays. Also Mr. Bynum referenced the fifty five thousand
and if you look on the text it says law clerk in parentheses because I think what the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office does which I think is a smart thing is they hire law clerks which are attorneys that
are either from another jurisdiction awaiting the bar or law school graduates that have taken the bar
and are awaiting the results. They are hired as law clerks and they do all the research and all the
legal work to help the attorneys and when they pass the bar they get bumped up to a prosecuting
attorney's status. I think it's a smart way to budget because you get the use of an attorney although
maybe not passing the Hawaii bar, you get the use of the attorney at a much lower pay.At that point
that person passes the bar and becomes a Hawaii Attorney than the pay gets bumped so I just
wanted to make sure the public understands some of the low salaries are partially grant funded so
the county input is a lot less and the 55 dollar again as its stated in the text is not an attorney it's a
law clerk and that's the reason thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.13
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: First of all, I would like to be able to make these
comments uninterrupted and based on past experience I'm concerned that I will be. I accept and
understand the county attorney's opinion here and Mel is correct it has been the practice of the
current attorney to bring in people who have not passed the bar in the State of Hawai`i as law clerks
at a lower salary, have them working in the office until they become attorney's and then pay them.
Some of these are 30 thousand or usually they don't go to the 101 and usually in our budget we have
3 dollar funded positions that as far as we know are vacant and they've been filled with those salary
savings. Of course I had to go to personnel to discover that because the prosecuting attorney wouldn't
answer questions when she was here at budget. When she was here at budget she had a lengthily
presentation and then we had a lot of discussion and recesses and both councilmember Yukimura
and I asked for a budget call back in order to finish questions not related to POHAKU but to other
elements of her budget. Also in writing when we asked written questions the prosecutor refused to
answer those until she was given an attorney which has happened yet also the council funded an
attorney. We have not been able to ask the questions on these positions, on a lot of the other things
she presented that day, we have not done our full due diligence and we've been restricted from doing
that by a refusal of the prosecuting attorney to answer our questions.
In addition to that so I'm left with having to get information from other sources and I was
able to get information from personnel and discovered that some of the things that Mr. Kualii has
been talking about filling dollar funded positions without informing the council. Morphing positions
that say one thing and turn into something entirely different has been a common practice at the
prosecutor's office. We have a position in here call Executive Protocol Officer that didn't exist prior to
this prosecuting attorney. I was never able to ask the questions of what that position entails and how
it was created and how it was morphed. There is also another position that seems to be dedicated to
diversion programs and according to personnel records that individual was hired as a victim witness
counselor and was in that position for 30 days and then the position morphed into a new title at a
higher salary. I don't know exactly what that persons activities are, I can assume that they're for
diversion programs based on other proposals. There are line items in here for 20 thousand dollars for
diversion programs and I would like to know how that funding was used last year. The prosecuting
attorney told us that when she created POHAKU that we would have a update and a briefing but
subsequent to that without any discussion among the council new positions have been created,
monies have been expanded that we don't know what they were for. I can make some assumptions
that they were for the...
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay your point?
Mr. Kuali`i: I just want to let and in the interest of time, we had a
motion, we had a second, we had the attorney come and tell us basically that what the motion was
trying to accomplish we cannot do. So what we haven't had is we haven't had the motion and the
second to remove that motion which is the logical thing to do so that we can move on. Instead what
we're having is discussion that's going all over the place and we're not accomplishing what we need
to get done so Mr. Chair, please move this along.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, do want to say anything before I make a
ruling?
Mr. Bynum: Absolutely.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.14
Mr. Furfaro: To me, before I make a ruling.
Mr. Bynum: You know, I predicted I would be interrupted it's a
common experience for me here at the Council. This motion came up, Mel spoke to it, then we got the
ruling from the County Attorney and he spoke to it again and...
Mr. Kuali`i: And you just spoke to it.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, Mr. Kuali`i let me handle these members,
let me handle this. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I have a right to speak, it is being truncated and
denied by these tactics and I believe I have a right to continue and to be engaged as a
councilmember. We have to stop pretending like there are no problems at the prosecutor's office and
we have to be able to speak about them...
Mr. Kuali`i: Not now.
Mr. Bynum: So in the interest of time Mr. Rapozo gets to speak but
Mr. Bynum does not is what Mr. Kipukai...
Mr. Furfaro: I am making that decision and now you can address
me go ahead.
III Mr. Bynum: I will listen to your decision.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and so I am asking since the advice we got from
the county attorney was such that it was not recommended that we attempt to modify those
particular pieces, do you have a new proposal?
Mr. Bynum: I will.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: I think I should be afforded the same courtesy Mr.
Rapozo had...
Mr. Furfaro: Don't imply that I did not give you the same courtesy.
I asked you a question, I asked you a question. Do you have a new proposal?
Mr. Bynum: I will eventually.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay do you want to take a recess now to make that
proposal?
Mr. Bynum: I want us to continue in the interest of time.
Mr. Furfaro: And I am not going to allow you more than 6 minutes
for comments, that's the rules.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I want to raise a point as well. Rule 13C
which is where members need to stay on topic. I spoke on the motion. I spoke on the proposed motion
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.15
that was presented by Councilmember Yukimura. I did not speak about an executive protocol officer,
I did not speak about any other... those issues can be discussed at a later time.
Mr. Furfaro: And Mr. Rapozo I have made my statement and I am
letting him have his 6 minutes which is covered in the rules. Please continue.
Mr. Bynum: Of course I do not remember where I was because I
had my comments interrupted.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let's take a recess.
Mr. Bynum: We do not need a recess, Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Well then do not make the comment that you did not
have your thought together. Please continue with your 6 minutes. Come on folks, we have a lot to
cover here and I am quite exhausted myself so please continue.
Mr. Bynum: How do we make informed decisions when
information that every other department head from this county has not provided us and in good
conscious there are things that I can't vote for when I don't know how their used. That's why I was
saying we funded an amount for diversion programs last budget and there are request for more
funding, 10 thousand here and 20 thousand here that I assume for diversion programs but I don't
know because I wasn't able to ask the questions. I don't know for sure but I do know and I want to
know how those funds were spent previously. I believe that a significant amount of them was spent
on POHAKU items like orange bags and orange brochures that were passed out...
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I have to raise a point because we are not
on the motion we are off the motion and Mr. Bynum will have an opportunity to remove these monies
at a later time. Rule 13C is point that I am raising.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, I will be silence again Chair, you do not have to
rule.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, I call for the question, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, on the motion.
Ms. Yukimura withdrew the motion based on the County Attorney's opinion, Mr. Bynum
withdrew the second.
Mr. Furfaro: And I want to make something clear here, I am
embarrassed here. I am embarrassed from both sides of the table so let's stay on point and if you're
not happy with something then just vote no okay. Council women Yukimura you have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you, my next proposal is being circulated.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, would you see that we have a County Attorney
in the audience.
Ms. Yukimura moved to approve proviso in Other Services and Community Prosecution that
there be no funding for Diversion Programs accept for Teen Court or Drug Court without
Council approval, seconded by Mr. Chang.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.16
Ms.Yukimura: Yes Mr. Chair, thank you. This is designed to make
sure that there is no funding for the future funding of the POHAKU Project. It is unprecedented that
a department head would refuse to answer legitimate questions about our budget for no good reason
and on that ground alone I think we have justification to remove the POHAKU Project from the
budget. The goals of the project are very noble and inspiring, I agree and I think all of us agree that
an effort to divert many first time offenders from incarceration is a good goal but we all know the
adage that the role to hell is paved with good intentions and good intentions are not enough.
Implementation is the key to any program and from what we've been able to tell based on public
record implementation has been very disappointing and possibly not even legal. It's putting the
credibility of the prosecuting attorney's office in question and possibly exposing the county to
liability. As I mentioned everything I'm saying here is based on public record. So far as we can
determine there is no contract between the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Strategic Justice
Partners that allegedly is implementing the POHAKU Project and actually Dr. Blackwell verified
that when she testified. We haven't been able to raise questions and it's unheard of that there's an
ongoing county project without a contract. I think it actually raises questions as to whether the
procurement laws have been followed. We are also apparently directing defendants or the
prosecuting attorney's office to a contractor for which there is no contract which means there is no
indemnification protection for the county.
There is an appearance of double dealing when the First Deputy is listed as the special agent
of the contractor doing business with the office of the prosecuting attorney using the address of the
county prosecuting attorney's office which is public property. We are having public property used as
an address for a private company and there has been no evidence of competitive processing in
selecting the POHAKU contractor which I find to be an insult to local non-profits which are highly
qualified and deserve a chance to bid to deliver services for the county. There is also a requirement of
200 dollars for defendants in the POHAKU Project to pay in order to participate in the program
which in my mind discriminates against those who cannot afford a 200 dollar fee. For all of these
reasons It is unconscionable in my mind to allow the program to continue especially when the
prosecutor will not avail herself to answer questions about it. That's why I am proposing this proviso
that will not allow any monies to be used for a diversion program except Teen Court and Drug Court
without council approval.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Before I recognize you on the floor, you know folks I
want to tell you that you need to follow our rules and I want to make sure before this gets more
difficult, I will take a recess when I think it's necessary and I reserve that right. When you make a
motion or any member wants to get a ruling on a point of order you are required to state the point of
order in the rule that you are taking. I will make that decision, if you are unhappy with the decision
you may appeal it for a 4 person vote. Let's follow that and stop getting up from the table walking
away and people standing up and so forth. Those are the rules okay those are the rules. So we've
heard from Councilmember Yukimura and now I will recognize Mr. Rapozo as we did not have a
second on the motion.
Mr. Rapozo: Dickie, made the second.
Mr. Furfaro: Did we, thank you very much. Mr. Rapozo you have
the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to say that the reason we didn't have
the discussion of the POHAKU Program was because that was under the advice of the County
Attorney. And I know that Mr. Chair because you were absent and I was here and that was the
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.17
reason and Mr. All Carillon can attest to that but the reason why we didn't have the discussion on
POHAKU was not because the prosecutor did not avail herself it was because the county attorney
had advised this council not to go there until further things. My comments are very simple, that
whole POHAKU issue is moving through a process that we don't know what the outcome of that
process will be. I'm not going to be supporting this motion simply because I believe the POHAKU
Program is a good program, I believe that as I have spoken to the District Court Judge, Trudy Senda,
I have spoken to some instructors and I have actually spoken to some of the clients that have
participated. Now we're standing the question about procurement and that's being addressed, I'm
talking about the program and this motion is about the program itself. Should the results of the
inquiry find that procurement was a problem than I'm assuming that will be addressed?I don't want
to hamper that success to that program at this point if in fact it is found that the program cannot be
utilized than the program won't be utilized. At this point I think it's too premature to exclude the
funds and again usurping the authority of the department head to utilize the funds as you see fit so
g p g Y p
Y
I'm not going to be supporting this thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: You're correct in your statement that the POHAKU
review is to be discussed on the May 23 Council Meeting so I just wanted to confirm that. Go ahead
councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Chair, I have a question for the County Attorney.Al, I
have a question regarding this proposal before us. Only because I recall previous budget discussions
that we're not able to approve the budget contingent upon further council approval and this does
that. So I just wanted to clarify, do we have the authority to approve a budget line item with a
contingent that you have to come back to the council?
Mr. Castillo: That is what probomatic in this proposal is without
council approval and yes you have identified a problem here because it would be a second approval
as you've stated. So I don't know well anyway I just wanted to answer your question and I agree.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, stay right there. Mr. Kipukai.
Mr. Kualii: Mr. Chair in hearing that and I will keep my
comments really brief. I just wanted to say that during the budget process Vice Chair Yukimura
submitted several questions to the Prosecutor some including the POHAKU program and we got
nearly 150 pages back from the prosecutor. More information, more micromanaging if you will by
this department, by this council on this department than any other but a lot of information right
here Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: Except the contract which I asked for.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, you weren't recognized and I can give you
the floor, everybody lets control our temperament please. I will recognize you but I want to make a
personal point of privilege right now Al. This is directed at the county clerk; please make sure that
our staff breaks at lunch, some of them at 11:30 and some of them at 12:30 because we'll be working
through lunch.Vice Chair Yukimura you have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Castillo without council approval is not on any
program that's being approved in this budget so there is no second approval it's just saying that if
you want any other proposal you need to come. I mean we could probably just take it out right and it
would be fine?
it
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.18
Mr. Castillo: I think you're comment is a little bit different from
Councilmember Nakamura's comment regarding coming in for a second approval after the item has
been approved. I think that's kind of like two different things because one begs the second approval.
Ms.Yukimura: I mean so the question is whether this is actually a
second approval and therefore inappropriate?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: It is?
Mr. Castillo: It would be if there's a requirement to come in with a
second approval after the approval for the line item has been approved.
Ms.Yukimura: Well it says that if you want another program you
have to come in for approval, that's all it says so it's like a first approval.
Mr. Castillo: Than it would be clearer if there's line item and you
approve that line item without any condition precedent.
Ms.Yukimura: There is no condition president it just says that it
cannot be used for anything but Teen Court and Drug Court. So we'll take out without council
approval.
Mr. Castillo: Than that's a restriction you're putting on.
Ms.Yukimura: Right and is the restriction itself not legal?
Mr. Castillo: Yes the restriction wouldn't be legal.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay thank you.
Mr. Bynum: Sorry than the restriction would not be legal?
Mr. Castillo: Well you're saying that your approving monies from
certain programs and that would make it clearer.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay alright, alright.
Mr. Furfaro: You said that it would make it that much clearer is
that what I heard?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: So if I may...
Mr. Castillo: Well the way that it's stated...
Ms.Yukimura: Okay so what if we say funding shall be used only for
Teen Court and Drug Court?
Mr. Castillo: You know I would appreciate prior discussion as far
as what you intend to do and how you intend to do this.
it
viimmingemak
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.19
Ms.Yukimura: We are intending to have this used only for Drug
Court and Teen Court that's it. How can it be any clearer?
Mr. Castillo: Well that's what you're funding it for.
Ms.Yukimura: Right but we're saying it cannot be used for something
like the POHAKU Project.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: That's fine right?
Mr. Castillo: It would be cleaner if you just said this money is for
the Teen Court Program and monies used for any other purpose will not be appropriate.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay thank you Al I'm going to recognize
Councilmember Rapozo now.
Mr. Rapozo: I was going to ask you a real quick question a simple
question, legal question. Does this language you (inaudible) the authority of the power of the
department head?
Mr. Castillo: Yes because you are able to move monies around and
so I don't know... yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Question?You're basically saying...
Mr. Furfaro: I will give you the floor again go right ahead.
Ms.Yukimura: You're basically saying we can't do a budget because
we can't specify use of monies for certain purpose?Are you kidding... that's what budget is all about.
Mr. Castillo: No but what's happening the way that the question
is... I think we should take a recess and I want to understand where you're coming from before I go
back and forth with this dialog.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Al I'm going to call for a recess to do this for 10
minutes at that time I want to talk to the clerk if I can orchestrate the timing of the breaks for the
staff. We're on recess.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:57 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 11:08 a.m. and proceeded as follows.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I want to make sure we understand we have a
time schedule today. Go ahead Al you can start, we're back from recess. Mr. Bynum I would
appreciate it if you can come to the table if you're in the chambers. Go ahead Al.
Mr. Castillo: Okay under normal circumstances if you have a
budgeted item and you don't use all of those monies for that particular budgeted item nothing
prevents the department head to move funds within his or her budget. To words of restriction
without doing extensive legal research on this to me is a question of separation of powers because
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.20
you're trying to dictate to the department head as far as what to do within that particular persons
department. Now another way of addressing this issue would be to say I see how you have 20
thousand here but you could come in a fund if you're worried that funds are going to be used for any
other program than one of the things you could do is cut that fund as far as 10 thousand and if more
funds are needed to support the Teen Court Program then more funds could be requested from the
council. I'm just throwing things out there and I don't want to tell you how to complete your
legislation but it is a separation of powers issue that we're asserting.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I'm going to have 2 or 3 questions relating to this. The
first is so a department head if we have a line item for community prosecution, they can move that
anywhere they want into salaries and travel and?
Mr. Castillo: Yeah well normally and what we normally do is have
the authorization with our Finance Director.Yes you can move monies within your department.
Mr. Bynum: And if there was a similar item in the last budget for
10 thousand is the council entitled to know how those funds were actually expanded?
Mr. Castillo: Entitled?
Mr. Bynum: Yeah.
Mr. Castillo: Right now I don't know whether or not there is a
requirement that requires the department head to notify the council of any movement but I know
there is a requirement here that calls for a monthly report so...
q Y re p
Mr. Bynum: Al I want to make sure you understand my question.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: If there is a budget line item that we approved last
year, is the council entitled is the public entitled to know how those funds were actually spent?
Mr. Castillo: I cannot answer that question I don't know about
entitled.
Mr. Bynum: Unbelievable isn't it public knowledge if the county
money gets spent?Isn't that public record?
Mr. Castillo: Well you said entitled and I'm only dealing with
where in the Charter,does it say that the department head has to report to the council but I can look
that up.
Mr. Bynum: One of the questions I wanted to ask was how these
funds were expanded?What did you use them for already not what you intend to use them for.
Mr. Castillo: Than I think that is fair gain for the department head
for you to ask those questions.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.21
Mr. Bynum: Well I wasn't allowed that opportunity but I want to
ask you this legal question. Isn't it public record and available to any member of the public to know
how county funds are actually expanded?
Mr. Castillo: Yes it's public record but you're talking about entitled
and I'm talking about what is the requirement of the department head to this body.
Mr. Bynum: I wanted to know how positions moved around I had
to get that information from personnel but its public record.
Mr. Castillo: I'm sorry I don't know what the reporting
requirements are at this point and time.
Mr. Furfaro: Will you yield the floor to councilmember Yukimura?
Mr. Bynum: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Yukimura you have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: So when we had solid waste programs once it was in a
CIP Budget we've listed some of the kinds of things and I think the administration did but the
council put in a restriction that it could not be used for waste to energy. I believe that was a totally
legitimate part and it's a definition of what monies can be spent for and that's what a budget is a
definition of what money can be spent for. It also tells the administration you may not spend it for
this or this. Whenever there's a general topic of programs and you want to give leeway but you want
to make sure it's not spend for a particular item you say it shall not be spent for this. I hope you will
say that is a legitimate budgetary line description.
Mr. Castillo: Well councilmember Yukimura I'm not prevue to the
set of circumstances that you're talking about and I don't want to speculate as to what happened.
Ms.Yukimura: I'm talking about past budget practice.
Mr. Castillo: That's the thing when you talk about past budget
practice and what happens in the past, I would prefer getting a set of circumstances where I could do
the research and come out with an answer. I don't want to speculate as to what...
Ms. Yukimura: Well you have the circumstances right in front of you
right now which you're saying except for diversion... any oh how does it go sorry. Shall not be
expanded for any diversion program except teen court and drug court and that is not legal?
Mr. Castillo: what I answered before is that the way that I can
answer that is if the council now would authorize a 20 thousand dollar budget for teen court and or
drug court in the event that not all of those monies are spent and there are extra monies, those extra
monies could be used for something else pursuing to the discretion of the department head.
Ms.Yukimura: Excuse me?
Mr. Castillo: Putting a restriction on extra monies that the
department head could use is not within your powers. That would be crossing the line on the
separation of powers.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.22
Ms.Yukimura: What! I am sorry the budget is what tells the
department heads what they can spend it on.
Mr. Castillo: Yes and...
Ms.Yukimura: So another way of telling people what they can spend
it on is telling them what they cannot spend it on.
Mr. Castillo: Instead of calling me here and showing me this paper
I would really prefer that I know what you're questions are now and let me go do the research and
because I told you what my position is and I'm not going to move on that position. I'm saying that it
would be cleaner because if you say that you're going to give 20 thousand dollars to teen court and or
drug court than that's what it is.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay so shall be used only for teen court or drug court
is fine according to you?
Mr. Castillo: Well if there's a challenge to that I can't say what the
answer will be at that point in time.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay but is it okay for us to go ahead there is no
challenge right now?
Mr. Furfaro: Al would you be prepared to have that discussion with
us on the 23?
Mr. Castillo: Yes I will I would like some time too because this is a
touchy situation regarding the diversion programs of the Prosecutor's Office.
Mr. Furfaro: And let me also say that I will share with you the
format that I use when I transfer funds within the council budget from account to various accounts
with an explanation signed off so if there's a deviation from the budget there's at least an audit trail.
I would hope that is the practice throughout the county that for the finance department when funds
are transferred from various accounts there would be an audit trail.
Mr. Castillo: That's my understanding to, Council Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: I want to make sure we're all understand that a
budget is a forecast, a budget is a forecast about revenues and expenses that are supported by a plan
and in this case the plan is the various department heads who come up and explain those expenses.
Would you be prepared to answer some of these questions on the 23?
Mr. Castillo: Yes I would.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum you have the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I understand you need time to do this and I was
actually waiting for you to say that but what you're saying is no matter what we approve in the
budget department heads can move it any way they want. In addition to that you wouldn't answer
my question as to what they actually spend... are we entitled to know that? Right because I don't
know that, I don't know how these funds were used last year right. So I would ask you to research
the second question, isn't anybody entitled to know how county funds are actually expanded?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.23
Mr. Castillo: Okay, I hear your question on whether or not you're
entitled and what the law requires and we'll get back to you on that.
Mr. Bynum: I don't think departments can keep secrets on how
they spent their money.
Mr. Castillo: And I'm not saying that anyone is suggesting that
anything is kept secret from councilmember's or anything is kept secret from the general public
you're putting me in a position where you're telling me am I not entitled to this and I'm coming from
the view point of the county attorney to give you an answer.
Mr. Bynum: I will await your written response.
Mr. Furfaro: He's going to wait for that response and we'll have
that discussion on the 23. Folks I want to get back to the business at hand here, business at hand
during budget decision making there is a proposal about handling some changes to the supplemental
budget as it relates to programs for teen court and drug court.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes let's stay on that subject public you're putting me
in a position where you're telling me am I not entitled to this and I'm coming from the view point of
the county attorney to give you an answer.
Mr. Bynum: I will await your written response.
Mr. Furfaro: He's going to wait for that response and we'll have
that discussion on the 23. Folks I want to get back to the business at hand here, business at hand
during budget decision making there is a proposal about handling some changes to the supplemental
budget as it relates to programs for teen court and drug court.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes let's stay on that subject.
Mr. Rapozo: I would like to call for the question.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we have call for the question.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: One moment please before we go to the call of the
question Council member Nakamura asked me if she could have Wally available to her and be ore
you go I'm going to give Al the action plan at the council when we transfer funds so that you can use
this for researching. It's very simple moving funds from account to account with the approval of the
administrator who is the council chair.
Mr. Rezentes: That's not necessary we have that already exactly the
same process.
Mr. Furfaro: I just want to reassure the audience because some
statements have been made that we do have controls and Al acknowledged by a shake of the head,
Ernie did that we have it so I'm offering this to him and I will still offer it to him because he's
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.24
required to do some research for us and you can start with this formality please. Okay Wally you
were asked up by councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes Wally based on some of the concerns raised about
the POHAKU Program I just want you to answer one question. Is that program operating today?
WALLY REZENTES JR., DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: I'm sorry Wally Rezentes Jr., Director
of Finance. I have been notified by e-mail from the prosecutor's office that that program has ceased.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Ms.Yukimura: What was that I'm sorry?
Mr. Rapozo: They ceased it's not going.
Mr. Furfaro: Pau and that's P.A.U. for the writer not pow and I will
send you a list of local terms but that program is pau. Okay thank you for the question Vice Chair
Yukimura.
Mr. Rezentes: Okay I'm sorry maybe the more appropriate term is
suspended.
Mr. Furfaro: Suspended thank you and there's no confusion on the
spelling on suspended so.
Ms.Yukimura: Who can un-suspend it? How is it suspended what do
you mean by suspended?
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to caution all of you we're going to get a
report in executive committee on the 23 of May and the way you're going at this and you should
speak up AL that we could be compromising some of the process for the 23.Am I correct?
Mr. Castillo: Council Chair yes and I wasn't going to interrupt.
Mr. Furfaro Well I said it for the third time, it is an agenda item
for the 23 of May,Vice Chair we have an inquiry to call for the question?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes Chair so I just want to understand so the
POHAKU Project was part of the budget proposal right so there are monies in here for it so that
means we can take it out if it's pau or suspended not unless there's a possibility that its
un- suspended and it will be proceed because its authorized here. Right that's what I'm trying to
make sure that...
Mr. Furfaro: I think we understand what your point is but we can't
deal with all the facts until the 23. We were promised this an agenda item on the 23.
Ms.Yukimura: Well then I think we should remove any funding that
might be used for the POHAKU Project in this budget and if for some reason it's going to be
re-authorized it should be a formal process of re-authorizing that would bring accountability because
there would be clarity about what's going to happen and how it's going to happen.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.25
Mr. Rapozo: Okay the motion on the floor is this and I'm calling for
the question.
Mr. Furfaro: The question has been called for and I have a second.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Lets close the other one and if we arrive here at 2:30
and we don't actually vote on the budget I want to say that we're going through all these motions for
20 thousand dollars when we have 161 million dollar that we have to approve. You all knew that I've
said it earlier about the 23 we're having this discussion but I want to make sure we understand
where we're at.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair I just want to move ahead by...
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so did you withdraw your earlier amendment?
Ms. Yukimura withdrew the motion of the proviso in Other Services and Community
Prosecution that there be no funding for Diversion Programs accept for Teen Court or Drug
Court without Council approval, based on the advice from the attorney, Mr. Chang withdrew
the seconded.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so I think the no funding for any diversion
program except teen court or drug court... anyway we'll just go with that and vote it down if you
don't agree.
Ms. Yukimura moved to remove ten thousand dollars from line item and removing totally the
Community Prosecution line item of ten thousand dollars, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I have a motion and a second and I'm callin g for
the vote. We've had discussion on this...
Mr. Bynum: I am sorry, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: I am sorry too.
Mr. Bynum: I would like to have discussion like we've done in
every single thing.
Mr. Furfaro: I am sorry to I am calling for the vote.
Mr. Bynum: I object.
Mr. Furfaro: So noted.
Mr. Bynum: Point of order.
Mr. Furfaro: So noted.
Mr. Bynum: Point of order.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.26
Mr. Furfaro: State the rules.
Mr. Bynum: My constitutional rights are being violated right now.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, call the rule you want interpreted.
Mr. Bynum: I want to have discussion on this item like we have
every other single item.
Ms.Yukimura: I believe Roberts Rules of order allows discussion.
Mr. Furfaro: We will go to our rules. You have just pointed me as
someone who does not follow the... I just want to get to the end of our budget package. We are in
decision making process during the time that Vice Chair introduced the first one that was
withdrawn we discussed this item okay so let's not go where we don't need to go on tons of new
discussion and you have the floor Mr. Bynum and you have the floor Mr. Bynum.
Ms.Yukimura: Go ahead.
Mr. Furfaro: You have the floor Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: This is the motion I was going to make to remove
some of this funding that's being used for diversion programs. We were not allowed to ask the
questions when we put the questions in writing the Prosecutor responded in writing... I'm not going
to answer these questions until I have an attorney aside. It is unprecedented to need an attorney to
answer budget questions. We had this similar item in last year's budget, I wanted to know how it
was spent but I can assume based on my own observations that a significant amount of this money
was spent making program materials for the POHAKU Program that was colored orange that had
bags and brochures with the Prosecutors picture on it that were distributed at the Farm Fair that
most people assumed was a booth for the campaign of the Prosecutor.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay that is... We're on recess.
Mr. Rapozo: Point of order.
Mr. Bynum: So, I'm not allowed to speak my mind.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 11:29 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 11:36 a.m. and proceeded as follows.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we are back in session here and going forward I
want to make sure as I read half an hour ago if you feel a rule has been violated you need to state the
rule. I would also like to make sure I am extremely concerned with my earlier statement as we have
procedures going on that will be reviewed on May 23. I also do not believe that I violated someone's
Civil Rights because right here at the table is your rights as a member as a body so I would like to
take Vice Chair Yukimura who had something new to offer. I will recognize her on the floor.
Mr. Bynum: Didn't I have the floor? When we broke did I have the
floor?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.27
Mr. Furfaro: Yes you did Mr. Bynum, Vice Chair Yukimura asked
me for the floor when we came back okay. So Vice Chair I will not recognize you Mr. Bynum has the
floor again. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Now did someone raise the point of order as to why I
am not allowed to speak my opinion or my views?
Mr. Furfaro: Can you quote the rules?
Mr. Bynum: Can you quote the rules that say I'm violating it by
speaking what I choose to speak.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Bynum, you have the floor for an additional
3 minutes.
Mr. Bynum: How can we in good conscience for funds that we
know may be misused when we've been given no accountability when the prosecutor has come here
and basically pled the 5th amendment and said and said I can't answer your question until I'm
represented by an attorneys. I think it would be uncontainable to leave these line items at the same
amount so I'm supporting this resolution and I object strenuously to be repeatedly cut off and I
believe at least my rights as a member of this body are being violated.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so noted if you would like to file a complaint
against the Chair you are so allowed.Vice Chair you wanted the floor?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, this has been a moving target so I'm going to
withdraw my last memo and I promise you this is the last version of this motion and if it can be
passed out. I'm going to withdraw it and ask for the second to withdraw the second. Given the fact
that we've been told that the POHAKU Project has ceased, I'm just being really clear in my motion
that monies shall not be used for the POHAKU Project. It was part of the budget and I'm removing
10 thousand from it in the line item of other services which is a Teen Court-Drug Court service and
so it can be used for Teen Court and Drug Court but not for POHAKU. I'm also proposing to remove
the community prosecution line of 10 thousand dollars which I think is approximately what the
POHAKU Project probably was going to take but since we couldn't talk to the prosecuting attorney
we have to work with estimates or approximations and if somehow we're wrong and she's willing to
talk to us then we can always alter it. My motion, that's my motion and I need a second?
Mr. Chang: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: Second by Mr. Chang now Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, maybe I miss understood what the County
Attorney said earlier and I'm not going to be supporting the motion. I do believe that and now when I
rehash this debate I'm just going to say that I'm not supporting the motion. Department heads as
our department head this department ourselves have the flexibility to move funds, spend funds as
far as how they want to and I think to specifically restrict is not number one I don't think it's legal
but I'm not going to get into the legal debate I'm going to vote no thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember Nakamura did you want the floor?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, you know the timing of this is not perfect because
we really have not gotten our full briefing from the county attorney which I understand now from
Council Chair that's is scheduled for My 23. We have heard from the Finance Department that the
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.28
POHAKU Program is suspended and I would like to understand the results of the inquiry and
review of that program.A lot of allegations have been tossed around and really for myself need to get
to the bottom of it and I think the briefing on May 23 will enlighten us so I think the part that you
said Tim is which is we know their maybe funds that have been misused and that's right from what
you said, there may be funds that have been misused. I think it's important that we have that
briefing and I reserve my right to review this following that review.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay any other commentary?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes, I just want to say that the County Attorney
according to him and councilmember Rapozo was the one who asked or declared that we shouldn't
ask questions because the prosecuting attorney has asked for a special council and she could have
raised her rights so it was really under her control...
Mr. Rapozo: Excuse me and I want to raise a point I want to raise
a point.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, you made a point so refer to a rule
number 13.
Mr. Rapozo: Excuse me, Rule number 13-C which is where the
members are required to stay on point. The motion is to remove funds and we've heard this
discussion for a long time Mr. Chair this was suppose to have taken 45 minutes and we're now
almost at noon and we're not going to have a lunch break and I don't want to hear about that
already. The motion she can justify her motion to remove the funds and we've heard it for a long time
so I want the discussion to be on the money. If you don't feel comfortable that the money was spent
properly than vote no or vote yes in this case but to have to go through this again Mr. Chair I think
it's unnecessary and I my biggest issue is Mr. Kualii will be leaving on a jet plane and we're going to
lose a vote.
Ms.Yukimura: That's not related to the point.
Mr. Rapozo: Well it is because I want to move this along.
Ms.Yukimura: I know but Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rapozo: My point is that we're off the motion, thank you.
Mr.Yukimura: Excuse me, Mr. Chair I was responding to a point that
Councilmember Rapozo made in this discussion and I feel it's part of the discussion. May I continue?
Mr. Furfaro: You may continue.
Ms.Yukimura: So it's not like it was a county attorneys ruling it was
the prosecutor that has asked for special council that caused the limitation on the debate and I want
to also say that in the questions and I will just read this and be done. As related to the POHAKU
Program and Strategic Justice Partners, please provide the following information and this is our
request. A copy of the contract between Strategic Justice Partners and the Office of the Prosecuting
Attorney, written documentation confirming Strategic Justice Partners coinsures the county was a
competitive procurement process followed in selecting Strategic Justice Partners. Please provide the
request for proposal or any related documentation. The answer that we get in writing is until special
council is appointed to advise the office of the Prosecuting Attorney we will not be able to provide the
requested information.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.29
Mr. Furfaro: On that note I would like to call for the vote, we have
a motion and a second. I would like to remind everyone as I said we have an opportunity for a better
understanding and considerations on this when we have our briefing on the 23. May I have a roll call
vote please?
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL-2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Mr. Topenio: Two no's, Five ayes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so we would like to move in to other areas and
I'm going to remind everyone that was a 10 thousand dollar decision that took us 2 hours.
Unbelievable we are trying to get the 168 million operating budget so let's move on.
Ms. Yukimura made a motion on the program assistant 9093 is the position that was being
used for POHAKU and so my proposal is to change it back to the original position of the
person which was victim witness counselor at the same salary at 55 thousand. This is just
another way of removing POHAKU from the prosecuting attorneys budget, seconded by
Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to allow people to have one round on
this folks or we're not going to make the deadline here, I have already cancelled half the staffs
lunches to get us to the right point. Did we give Mr. Barreira a copy of this budget decision making,
Ernie could you acknowledge if you have one of these in front of you?
Mr. Barreira: I do not Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay here's a copy. Now we have a motion and a
second so I will recognize Mr. Rapozo first.
Mr. Rapozo: I would ask if we can have the prosecutor since his
here, I just had a question about the Program Assistant position.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Prosecutor if you can come up?
Mr. Rapozo: I have a question?
SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: For the record,
Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Prosecuting Attorney.
Mr. Rapozo: The... and it's the first I have seen of this so I
obviously didn't have an opportunity to check with your office but the motion is to change the title of
the Program Assistant to the Victim Witness Counselor. Can you describe what your program
assistant does?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: We have the job description however I don't have it
present a I was not aware that this was a something that the council was even considering. However
that position is totally separate from a victim witness counselor. The job description is totally
different.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.30
Mr. Rapozo: Is the programs assistance function to run is it the
POHAKU position?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: You know I here all you guys talking about this
POHAKU Program and the issues that have arisen from the POHAKU Program is not that we have
are not able to operate it. There may be some operational issues as far as how it's being handled but
our office can internally run the POHAKU Program which we will continue to do almost
immediately. That is a program like teen court, like the mental health diversion, that is something
that as long as there is not an outside vendor our office is more than free to look into these types of
programs. So I don't know what you guys are talking about what POHAKU Program that you guys
are aware of. We have not had any discussion, we have not had our special council even appointed to
us, and we have not had a single call from the county attorney's office despite the fact that you guys
have already allowed us a special council. We've been asking, I have sent over letters and we've
wanted to move this thing along and we have not gotten the information from the county attorney's
office. I have asked what are the steps to get the special council once it was approved by the county. I
have asked who are we suppose to contact. I have asked when we are going to get a list of names. I
have been more than accommodating to the county attorney's office to get assistance and we have
not been able to get that assistance from the county attorney's office.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay so are you in concurrence with moving the
program assistance position to the victim witness counselor?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Absolutely not.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Our program assistant does not only handle
POHAKU, we will continue to do POHAKU internally within our office as long as we don't have an
outside vendor we can continue to run with our own employees.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Kualii.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you Mr. Chair I have just one quick question.
So the program assistant as it exists has been in place for how long and is there an incumbent in
that position for how long?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: There is a person in that position, I don't have the
information.
Mr. Kuali`i: You can approximate.
Ms. Iseri0Carvalho: You could text probably from April first I believe.
Mr. Kuali`i: Of this year?
Ms. Iser-Carvalho: No last year.
Mr. Kuali`i: So over a year?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Yes.
I3
1=
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.31
Mr. Kuali`i: And would that person even be qualified to be a victim
witness counselor if we just changed his or her position on her?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Would she be qualified? She would be qualified to do
the victim witness counselor position but that position would have to go out for bidding all over
again.
Mr. Kuali`i: So basically this would be...
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: It's a position that needs to go through personnel and
you need to get a list and that list would have to go through the hiring process.
Mr. Kuali`i: So this move as proposed would be laying off that
person?
Mr. Iseri-Carvalho: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: I want to make sure everybody answers and I'm going
one time to recognize you okay.Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: So who is in that program assistant position right
now?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Why does it matter who the person is?
Ms.Yukimura: Because we need to know who you're talking about.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: You make your decisions based on the person and not
something objective?
Ms.Yukimura: Are you refusing to answer the question?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: You can get it from Personnel.
Ms Yukimura: Okay, its Lianne Parongao, thank you but wasn't she
hired as a victim witness person when she was first hired?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: She initially was hired as a victim witness person,
that's correct.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay so she's qualified and this is not a civil service
position so you would be able to move her back very easily.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: That is not true.
Ms.Yukimura: Why not?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: We would have to open it up for applications.
Ms.Yukimura: It's not a civil service position.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.32
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Even if it's not a civil service position we opened it up
and we hired from the list that was provided from Personnel.
Ms.Yukimura: And you would choose from the list right and she
would be qualified from the list thank you very much.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: No, I would hire from someplace else. If you have a
list then that's where you have to choose from you know that you've worked for the county before.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Bynum: When this person moved from being a victim witness
counselor to this new position, did this position exist in you previous budget?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: This position did not exist in our previous budget.
Mr. Bynum: So you created this position.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: It was a position created to handle all of the
diversionary programs.
Mr. Bynum: Did you put a list out to hire for that position?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: The program assistant was one that was classified by
personnel as exempt. It was a position description that was provided to personnel and personnel
evaluated the position, evaluated the job duties and provided us with the status of that position.
Mr. Bynum: So you didn't have to get a list to move this...
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: According to Personnel, they informed me that we did
not have to provide a list for this position because there were non-other I believe may have been
unique job descriptions or something like that.
Mr. Bynum: So to create this position you had to morph another
position?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: To create this position we went to personnel to say
this is the needs for our office and this is what personnel came up with. They looked at our job
description and that was approved by personnel and that the SR number or an exempt status but
whatever the status was that was something that was approved and created by personnel.
Mr. Bynum: But you had to change some existing positions to
create a new one right?
• Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: I don't know if it was a dollar funded position I would
have to check which position was changed to create this program assistant position.
Mr. Bynum: So is there a way for us to determine how much funds
were spent on POHAKU last year?
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: We have not spent any funds on the operations of
POHAKU.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.33
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Hi Shaylene.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Hi.
Ms. Nakamura: Just a question. The program assistant does she look
at all diversionary programs and monitor the programs?
Ms. Iseri Carvalho: Yes, well what she does is we have different and our
diversionary programs are in different types of court. We have mental health diversion that's in
District Court. We have drug Court which is an off-shoot of Circuit Court. We have teen court which
is an off-shoot of juvenile court and the POHAKU Program is an off-shoot of adult misdemeanor
court. So she would review all the applications or people that want to participate in those
diversionary programs.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Shay, I'm going to ask you to step down because I
want to speak to the County Attorney.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Sure.
Mr. Castillo: Council Chair, County Attorney, Al Castillo and
Councilmembers.
Mr. Furfaro: Al, I'm going to bring up a piece of weekly
correspondence that I sent over to the Mayor on the actions taken by the council in the next day I
pretty much sent correspondence over. In that one I acknowledged on May 9 that we had approved
the special funding for the prosecutor. What is the normal other then I send it to the administration,
what is the normal interaction on something like informing different department of action that
you've taken by the council especially a matter like this?
Mr. Castillo: I'm sorry what is the...
Mr. Furfaro: I give a weekly report to the administration saying
what action we took. What is the typical way to communicate that I just want to know. Is it a week
lag time, is it by phone, or by correspondence, how does that happen?
Mr. Castillo: Council Chair, I'm not prevue to what you send over
to the Mayor and I don't know and I know that the Mayor has his weekly department head meetings
on Monday, some of which are mentioned so I don't know.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay for this intent and purposes I want to let you
know I will send you a separate correspondence other then what I sent to the administration on the
actions that the council took.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: And I will get that out to you today, but there is a
regular piece of correspondence that goes over to the administration and my assumption is that it is
handled with the Mayor and his Department Heads.
•
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.34
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: I will get you a separate piece of correspondence. Will
the staff so note please that going forward please see that my letters go to the county attorney's office
each week.
Mr. Castillo: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to call the meeting back to order. We
have a motion and a second and I would like to call for a roll call vote.
The motion to change the program assistant 9093 back to the original position of the person
which was Victim Witness Counselor at the same salary at $55,000.00, was then put and
carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum,Yukimura, TOTAL-2,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Chang, Kualii, Nakamura Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL-5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Mr. Furfaro: Is that a 2-5?
Mr. Topenio: Yes, 2-5 sir.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let's be moving on here and I want to see that Al
gets a copy of this. Al we're going to make you a copy but my correspondence will be coming
afterwards. Okay are we finished with the prosecutor's office? Okay now as promised we're going to
go back to Real Property Tax Assessment Division and we're going to start and I have to excuse
myself to go to the little boys room so If I can take a five minute recess and Ernie will start by
Mr. Bynum time for his presentation. We are in recess for 5 minutes members.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 11:53 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 12:11 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we are back in session and are you ready
Mr. Bynum?I postponed this for 3 days.
Mr. Bynum: I know and I can get started.
Mr. Furfaro: We're going to do provisos and you can be excused
while we do provisos how's that?
Mr. Bynum: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: You're excused.
Mr. Bynum: Let me just say this on the record because as we have
discussed here a number of times the statistics that have been provided us regarding who pays what
taxes are not accurate and I want to make sure that what I present is accurate. The numbers I got
this morning from Real Property I'm not clear that they're accurate so I'm asking for Mr. Hunt to
come and...
1
.E
ku
k?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.35
Mr. Furfaro: Oh I already sent for him, I had him paged.
Mr. Bynum: So I am ready to make a presentation, I have a
proposal but I want to make sure that I give accurate numbers about the impact.
Mr. Furfaro: Well of he comes over why don't you visit with him a
little bit we're going to start on provisos.
Mr. Bynum: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're rolling right? Okay Mr. Kipukai you have
the floor and Mr. Rapozo will be here shortly.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you Mr. Chair and since we are going a little
out of order I'm not sure if the staff is here we're kind of scrambling right now to pass around. I will
start will a simple one.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we'll start with simple I like simple.
Mr. Kuali`i: This is for section 25, so if you look in your provisos as
they are currently written section 25 is about county vehicle use. Because some people from the
community expressed some concerns to me I thought it was appropriate to add a little bit and make
this proviso even clearer. Right now the proviso says no personnel shall use county vehicles for
personal business or personal transportation. My proposal was to add that no individuals from the
public and in parentheses (County Employees, Interns and Contractors of the County) are excluded
should be transported in any county vehicle other than for Police or Fire transport. I think it's fairly
simple and straight forward and they may already be other rules in the county someplace but be
because I saw this proviso here I thought it would be fairly simple to add this to the existing proviso.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add (County Employees, Interns and Contractors of the County) are
â–
excluded should be transported in any county vehicle other than for Police or Fire transport,
seconded by Ms. Yukimura.
Mr. Bynum: I hear may be a number of instances where it's
appropriate that members from the public ride in a county vehicle. Well such as I very rarely use
county vehicles but once I did to with a group of people to look at a route for the Kauai Marathon
and whether there was maintenance needs or not I can't remember all who was present in that
vehicle but it may have been members of the public that were involved in that project. I hadn't
thought or knew about this proviso but I don't know that there aren't instances where it would be
appropriate for members of the public to ride in a county vehicle if it was been driven by a county
employee.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let me see if the county attorney has anything to
comment on it at this point.
AMY ESAKI, FIRST DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY: Currently we have a task force
that working on county vehicles but looking at this proviso I would recommend we amend the second
sentence as a underline and instead we can probably say no individual other than county employees
interns and contractors of the county shall be transported in any county vehicle other than for Police
or Fire transport. That would pretty much say what I think was intended for that. Oh Amy Esaki,
First Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Furfaro: Go ahead Mr. Bynum.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.36
Mr. Bynum: Well I've never done this but I will use myself as an
example. The County Council has like a van and if I were working on some public issue like litter on
the roadside and there were citizens who did litter pick up and I wanted to go with them to look at
certain sites and I'm the county employee and I'm driving the vehicle but I have members of the
public that's working on a parks project or a litter project, would that be a problem? I don't
understand how that would be a problem.
Ms. Esaki: I guess your intending to provide transportation for
volunteers, is that what you're looking at?
Mr. Bynum: Okay I will go back to the real world. I think I'm only
driven a county vehicle one time in the entire time I've been in the county. It was to look at the route
for the Kaua`i Marathon and there were members of public works present and trying to remember
who was present but it might had been one of the organizers of the event who would not be a county
employee. That's just an example and I could think there might be other instances that we transport
members of the public when they're involved with private/public partnership kind of activities. I
would be really surprised if I had a member of the public who was engaged in this effort present with
other county employees, I would be wise enough to know the member of the public can't drive that
vehicle. If it's a county employee than and I just don't want to restrict us from engaging in these
public/private partnerships. We have members of the public involved in managing and servicing
parks and doing maintenance and all kinds of things.
Ms. Esaki: Well again Councilmember Bynum there is a task
force that's looking at take home vehicles as well as county vehicles and I think the goal is to come
up with a policy as far as the usage of county vehicles and tie it in to that. We have a Risk Manger
who's working on it and tying it into the insurance requirements of the county as well.
Mr. Furfaro: Amy can you tell me who's on that policy committee or
a loss prevention manager, who's on that committee?
Ms. Esaki: Currently we have Janine Rapozo who spear heads
the committee, Gerald Estenzo, Kenneth Villabrille and myself.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay very good so there is an attorney on that
committee?
1
j Ms. Esaki: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I can think of another example because I was thinking
about our housing advisory committee taking a tour of housing projects and some might travel
individually but there's a potential of taking these people in a van. I understand there is a car use
policy that's pretty old but there is one in existence.
Ms. Esaki: As far as a take home policy yes there is an old one
and as far as the use of a county vehicle I think there may have been an old one but very very...
Ms.Yukimura: Is it in effect or not?
Ms. Esaki: I believe it's an old one that's probably in effect. I
know we have one that's for a take home vehicle that is in effect.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.37
Ms.Yukimura: Okay because I think these are covered and what's
covered here is covered in the use policy but if it's being updated it probably should be. It takes into
account these different times of travel.
Ms. Esaki: If that's a pleasure than delete the second sentence
and leave it up to the task force that's coming up with the policies.
Ms.Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let me give some clarity to everybody. We had
jumped to this one because it was not very complicated but I want to make sure does everyone have
this list?
Ms.Yukimura: What is it?
Mr. Furfaro It's of all the provisos. Can we get copies of this and I
want to make sure that the first four should draw the most dialogs because they are in fact new. One
to seven is actually revisions of the provisos that exist. So when we finish this one I want to go to the
new ones and we'll get that now that the staff has pushed out the various...
Mr. Kualii: Mr. Chair I wanted to ask a process question as far as
the votes and how it applies to a new proviso or amending a proviso.
Mr. Furfaro: We probably should get 5 votes either way.
Mr. Kualii: Five votes okay and considering all the discussion and
the controversy over this very simple matter and considering that the attorneys are saying that
they're working on it, I'm happy to pull this.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kualii: So next.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay but Amy would you make note that we would
like a presentation when the committee is finished with their business. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Just a quick question also does this include the buses
you know our buses also?
Ms. Esaki: No I don't believe that's for the buses.
Mr. Chang: Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so if it is passed out if I could have an
acknowledgement the first new proviso is dealing with Mr. Kipukai relating to vacant positions. I'm
going to recognize Mr. KipuKai then I'm going to ask for a second before we have discussion.
Mr. Kualii: I would just say that last year I submitted and we
passed a proviso and it was included in the final approved budget by this council but in our
submittal this year from the Mayor both the March and the May was removed and that was number
30 so this has to be submitted new again and I actually did two in relations to that item. One was
with regards to vacant positions and the other was in regards to dollar funded positions. The one
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.38
with vacant funded positions is simply appropriations or authorizations for positions in this
ordinance shall constitute establishments of such positions. Departments that wish to amend a
vacant positions title unless involving class action classification amendments or salaries must first
notify the council of such action prior to hiring. So this council had talked about approval and we've
been advised last year by the attorney and also by our staff about how it's going to far by requiring
the approval. However this must first notify has to be stressed that the administration is obligated
in best serving the public and this council to notify us in advance of hiring. They can have the leeway
based on operational needs to alter the position and change the duties and hire who they need with
the different set of skills for the different requirements but they should notify prior to hiring. It's to
ensure that we're not put in the position than because that would be our ability to disagree with
what they've done by removing the funding for such positions that was created if this council as a
body disagrees with that. It would be unfortunate for this council to be put in that position when an
incumbent is already put in place by the administration.
Ms. Nakamura: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: And there's a second by Councilmember Nakamura.
Before we go any further staff I'm very disappointed for the first time in years on the council you
didn't number these. Let's make sure that we reference something on the page or the section before
we have dialog. Go right ahead.
Ms. Nakamura: This is a question for Councilmember Kuali`i, thank
you for introducing this. Do you want to use the word"must" or"shall."
Mr. Kuali`i: Shall.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: As amended.
Mr. Furfaro: Are you going to introduce an amendment to this...
Mr. Kualii: Let me ask the attorney a question. Do you think it
would be clearer that it was mandatory?To use "shall versus "must."
Ms. Esaki: Well actually I would like to point out to section 7.05C
of the Kaua`i Charter. In that section it does say that the Mayor has the authority to create positions
authorized by the council but a monthly report of such action shall be made to the council. So there is
no requirement that he must inform prior to it's just that he has to make a report to the council.
Therefore I was going to recommend an amendment to that section and I was thinking of wording it
as such as the dollar funded positions in this ordinance maybe failed by the department with the
dollar funded positions and that have sufficient funds. Departments that wish to amend the specified
dollar funded positions titled classification salaries shall inform the council and of course with
section...
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair. I think you
answered my question, I'm going to stick with my original proposal and I'm going to actually stick
with "must" as well and we'll have the next one to deal with the dollar funded positions. This to be
clear is talking about amending of each individual vacant position as they happen so departments
that wish to amend the vacant positions title or salary must first notify the council of such action
prior to hiring. So notification for each indication and not that it should show up in a monthly report
but it should be notified as they happen because it would make sense for us to know before they hire.
Thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.39
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we have some discussion here. Mr. Bynum than
Councilmember Yukimura.
Mr. Bynum: I have a question for Councilmember Kualii and then
a quick one for you. This would apply to all departments in the county?
Mr. Kuali`i: That's correct.
Mr. Bynum: Including those that have commissions?
Mr. Kuali`i: I would say that there is another proviso in here that
t5alks about the police and I think they have some special powers for their recruitment proviso or
section 24.
Mr. Bynum: But it would apply to Planning, Police Fire the
Prosecutors Office?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you and Amy if we approved a position and
changes were made that we are uncomfortable with mid-year can the council remove funding?
Ms. Esaki: Yes I believe so through an ordinance.
Mr. Bynum: Okay I'm in support of this proviso as written.
Ms. Esaki: Within the proviso that mentions 7.05 CB of the
Charter. Section 7.05 C of the Charter says that the Mayor may create positions authorized by the
council but the monthly report of such actions shall be mad to the council so it's a monthly report.
Mr. Bynum: Right so that would be in addition to this proviso.
Ms. Esaki: In accordance and the proviso will say in accordance
with section 7.05 C the Kauai County Charter.
Mr. Bynum: I think what Councilmember is saying is he wants
that not recorded after the fact but acknowledged and recorded before the fact.
Mr. Furfaro: Let me just tell you someone has to sharpen the pencil
here. The last time we got a report was 59 days later okay and there's an obligation that needs to be
sharpen and we hope can be done in the new H.R. Department and in the meantime let me ask a
couple other questions. I didn't want you to be blindsided we're not getting it on a timely basis.
Ms. Esaki: We will communicate that.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Rapozo than Vice Chair Yukimura.
Mr. Rapozo: Amy I think you cite 7.05 C but 7.05...
Mr. Furfaro: Amy this question is directed at you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.40
Mr. Rapozo: Amy, you cited 7.05 C but 7.05 C talks about the
Mayor's authority to create positions that are authorized by the council and for which appropriations
have been made. The proviso that's basically the first part of his proviso but the proviso says that
when the department wants to amend a vacant positions title which is no longer the approved
position. 7.05 C talks about positions that have already been approved and this proviso says if one of
our approved positions wants to be amended that the notification must come to council prior to hire.
So 7.05 C I don't believe represents what Mr. Kualii is trying to cover this is on amended positions
because that happens a lot.You take a position number reclassify it and when it becomes reclassified
it's no longer the position that this body approved. So 7.05 C is not relevant to this proviso, this is
really to strengthen the notification process for this body that if they want to amend one they need to
come back here and let us know before they are hired.
Ms. Esaki: Again it will be just for notification purposes right.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: So noted, Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: So you've cited section 7.05 C a couple of times so are
you concerned that this proviso might violate the Charter?
Ms. Esaki: Yes I think that's a concern.
Ms.Yukimura: And the reasoning is that the Charter already has a
requirement of monthly recording and this... What is your concern I'm sorry?
Ms. Esaki: Yeah the concern is that there is a requirement that
there would be a monthly reporting by the Mayor regarding positions. I guess this is requiring him to
do a little more than that.
Mr. Furfaro: And the personnel department is required to give us a
report in 10 days after the ending of the month.
Ms. Esaki: And again we will relay that message to personnel.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you.
Ms.Yukimura: Is there any concern that appropriations or
authorizations shall constitute establishments of positions when in fact it's only the Mayor who can
create them too?
Ms. Esaki: The positions probably would be in the budget like the
vacant positions either dollar funded or just vacant.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay so that's not the line that troubles you?
Ms. Esaki: No.
I Ms.Yukimura: Because in fact that is what is being created whenever
there's...
Ms. Esaki: Right it's the timing of the reporting.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.41
Ms.Yukimura: The timing of the reporting. And what was the
suggested amendment?How do you think it could be reconciled?
Ms. Esaki: I would just say that in accordance with
Section 7.05 C of the Kaua`i County Charter.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh I see okay. And as the Chair pointed out the
administration has not been real successful in following the Charter?
Ms. Esaki: I will have to check on that and if so we'll report that
and have the report.
Ms.Yukimura: So I'm just wondering may I ask the maker of the
motion.
Mr. Furfaro: Sur Mr. Kualii the Vice Chair wishes to address a
question to you.
Ms.Yukimura: So if the county can do their reporting in a timely way
every month that does not satisfy your needs or does it?
Mr. Kualii: No, we're talking about vacant positions specific so if
we and believe me this is an effort to work with the administration so that it doesn't force the hand
of the council. The only way we can take action on a change position and filled position that we
disagree with that is different from what we approved on while doing the budget than the only way
we can take action is to remove funding from a position that you hired someone in which is not what
anyone wants to do. So we're just saying timely means when that happens and I hope that it's not
happening so much that you can't handle reporting it and you can only handle reporting it monthly.
This is rare instances changing the direction of what this council does during the budget process
with regards to positions. Right now we are only talking about vacant positions but the same
argument would apply for dollar funded positions. The whole idea is it's there to allow the flexibility
but the council has a responsibility and if you only notify us first, we removed the concern you had
last year about approval. You said that would be crossing the powers and that we couldn't do that so
we removed that and we're just saying first notify. In fact that's what was in place last year but we
were not firstly notified. In fact if we weren't paying attention things happen without us knowing
and we would have to come after the facts and sometimes months later and if we wanted to take
action and the only action we could take is to remove the funding when there was an incumbent
already in place_
All we're saying is first notify, we've removed the earlier request from last year of approval
and this is an effort to get the administration to work with the council. None of us are in the position
so that when we disagree with how the tax payer's money is misused if a majority of us feels that
then we don't have to be forced to vote on removing funding from and incumbent. The timeliness is
important and we addressed your approval versus informed before but it's not going to be useful to
us if we're not being informed, in advance, when it happens, when the changed amendments are
made, so we can voice our objections if that would be firstly before. The Mayor can disregard our
objectives and go ahead and hire it but again that would be on the administration however this is an
attempt to work together.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Amy I would like to say if there's amendments
that pass here and you folks alimentally disagree, then you need to write us okay?
Ms. Esaki: Okay.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.42
Mr. Furfaro: We need to hear the legal rationale why we couldn't
do something okay?
Ms. Esaki: Sure.
Mr. Furfaro: We got 22 minutes on this one discussion and we have
10 more of these and we will run out of time. We need to get to a point when we vote on it "yay"
"naye" it passes it will go in for narrative on the budget and if there's a legal challenge to us then
write us.
Ms. Esaki: Got it.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so we're on the second proviso dealing with
vacant positions, we have a motion and a second and I would like to ask for a roll call vote.
The motion to approve proviso number 2 dealing with vacant positions, was then put and
carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL-6,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Mr. Topenio: Six ayes.
Mr. Furfaro: The next item is a dollar funded position and that's
you again, Mr. Kuali`i?
Mr. Kuali`i moved that the first line is appropriations or authorizations for position in this
ordinance shall constitute the establishments of such positions. Departments having
sufficient funds may hire dollar funded positions established by the Council. Departments
that wish to amend the specified dollar positions title, classifications or salary must first
notify the council of such action prior to hiring, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Before I go any further on this one, I do
want to note with Federal and State regulations there are some dollar funded positions that we
cannot override. I don't know what they are right now but it's important that we have some kind of
notation here. Like for HUD funding and so forth there are certain positions in Housing that have to
happen.
Mr. Kuali`i: I assume that it was understood that this was County
funded dollar funded positions. We do have dollar funded positions only. We do have dollar funded
positions by grants and that's not what we're talking about here.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay do you think we need to put that in the verbiage
here "County Funded Position" Okay could someone make...
Mr. Kuali`i: The staff also mentioned that they could put it in the
message.
i3
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.43
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and to the Prosecutor's Office, she can use that
third seat right there. We want some gravity here because we have a lot to cover but we can
recognize you.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: I just wanted to clarify that some of that dollar funded
positions also maybe matched so we would be required to fund those dollar funded positions.
Mr. Kuali`i: Fully funded?
M. Iseri-Carvalho: Yes, so maybe if you said fully funded because we
gave certain grants that rely on the county to provide a 10 percent match or a 20 percent match that
may have a dollar funded line item.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Kuali`i was someone working on that
piece?
Mr. Kuali`i: Yeah, okay we'll add fully County funded.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kuali`i: Or whatever the appropriate way to say that.
Ms. Iseri-Carvalho: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: So on that note that's what we're going to vote on.
Can I have a roll call vote please?
The motion for approval that the first line is appropriations or authorizations for position in
this ordinance shall constitute the establishments of such positions. Departments having
sufficient funds may hire dollar funded positions established by the Council. Departments
that wish to amend the specified dollar positions title, classifications or salary must first
notify the council of such action prior to hiring, was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL-1.
Mr. Topenio: Six ayes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay the next one is again Mr. Kuali`i and the one
after that is Vice Chair Yukimura.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add a new section number that is still to be determined and the
language goes: The Director of Finance shall provide to the council on an annual basis on
overall written asset inventory report on or before October 1 for all county property as
follows. Vehicles, large equipment valued at 15 hundred dollars or more, small equipment
valued at less than 15 hundred dollars, large furniture valued at 15 hundred dollars, large
furniture valued at 15 hundred dollars or more and small furniture valued at less than 15
hundred dollars. The report shall provide the department division asset number, year and
make, value of each asset in dollars and any additional criteria status update or comments
deemed appropriate, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.44
Mr. Kuali`i: This is just for us to get more information and its
asking for it in October and I think than we have a complete detailed report that we can utilize come
budget time.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, I do want to speak on this one. In fairness to
the accounting department we do this 13 month billing piece and honor before October 1 and pretty
much the first month of July is kind of shot to reconcile the closing year. I may not support this
Mr. Kualii but I wanted to give you my rationale on that before we call for a vote, Mr. Rapozo than
Councilmember Nakamura.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair is your concern the date?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes the date.
Mr. Rapozo: So if we move the date.
Mr. Furfaro: To November 1.
Mr. Rapozo: November or even December whatever...
Mr. Furfaro: Than I'm fine with that.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, can I make the motion to amend the October 1
date to November 1?
Mr. Furfaro: At this point yes than we have the County Attorney
speaking to us on something.
Ms. Esaki: I would like to have an opportunity to check a
particular section in the statue which may already have the requirement in there and I believe it's
HRS 103D/1208, so we would just like to confirm whether that requirement is already required by
state statue.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Ricky could we ask Peter or Christiane to look
at that right now?
Mr. Watanabe: We're pulling that up.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh you're pulling it up okay. So right now it's been
I'm going to just vote on the amendment and see where we go okay?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Councilmember, go ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: I would like to re state my motion if I may. I withdraw
my old motion.
Mr. Kuali`i: Second.
Mr. Rapozo moved to amend the October date to December 1, seconded by Mr. Chang.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.45
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you, Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I would also like to add art work because we have
donated art work according to the managing director we have no accounting for. I believe it's an
asset that we should know where...
Mr. Kualii: So (inaudible)would be art work, second.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay then it becomes how do you define that... It
should reference (inaudible) da art, anything of value, vases, paintings and that is the appropriate
terminology for going that way. Okay so we have a date an amendment and we would also like to
include assets that touch on the various (inaudible) da art.Yes Wally?
Mr. Rezentes: I just wanted to let you know that your staff had
pulled up 103D/1208.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh okay staff can you tell us what is says.
Mr. Kuali`i: I have a matter of process. You had mentioned earlier
about the attorney and that if we're open to them participating in the process and making
recommendation like it would better if you do this and that, that's not the same as can we do this or
not. I think you've already said we want the legal rationale?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: But if we can do something we're going to do it if we
have the votes and later if there's a problem legally they can tell us.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kuali`i: I don't think somebody should mention that oh but
the HRS already does this because that doesn't mean we can't do it.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're going to move forward Amy and we're not
going to sit here and spend half an hour to get an interpretation. That's your and we want your
Kokua on that.
Ms. Esaki: It does say each year within 45 days following the
close of the county's fiscal year shall prepare and file with the council.
Mr. Furfaro: Got it, okay but I spoke in favor of giving them more
time because they're not going to make the 45 day deadline when they have the 13 month in closing
the county's books. So we have an amendment that references by December 1. Okay can I get the
light back on okay referencing December 1 and I would like to call for a vote on the amendment just
a voice vote.All those in favor signify by saying"aye."
The motion to amend the date from October 1 to December 1 was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, now to the main motion as it is by
Councilmember KipuKai. Can I have a roll call vote please?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.46
The motion to add a new section number that is still to be determined and the language goes:
The Director of Finance shall provide to the council on an annual basis on overall written
asset inventory report on or before October 1 for all county property as follows. Vehicles,
large equipment valued at 15 hundred dollars or more, small equipment valued at less than
15 hundred dollars, large furniture valued at 15 hundred dollars, large furniture valued at
15 hundred dollars or more and small furniture valued at less than 15 hundred dollars. The
report shall provide the department division asset number, year and make, value of each
asset in dollars and any additional criteria status update or comments deemed appropriate,
as amended to December 1 was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kualii, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT: Bynum TOTAL-1.
Mr. Topenio: Seven ayes Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: So is that six and one silent which goes with the
majority.You have the floor next.
Ms.Yukimura: Oh is my amendment next?
Mr. Furfaro: Your amendment is up.
Ms.Yukimura: Ok well I want to withdraw that I'm not going to put
it forward.Also I have to step out for 20 minutes, it's a photo.
Mr. Furfaro: Do you want me to set the timer but I believe you 20
Y Y
minutes. Okay the next one is introduced from Councilmember Nakamura and can you take a
moment to explain your piece please?
Ms. Nakamura moved to add to the existing proviso that puts in some language here that
gives the departments the ability to do 89 day contracts to help to train and do succession
planning within the departments. So before that valued employee leaves the county we have
someone in training and it gives them (2) 89 day consecutive contracts and that would be up
to management to decide whether they just need one which you could do within 89 days or 2
consecutive, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we have a second now discussion. Mr. Rezentes
did you come up because you want to comment on that?
Mr. Rezentes: Yeah the only concern with that is if you hire an 89
day contractor that 89 day contract employee wouldn't be able to be hired on a full time basis and
therefore you would be training someone that may not get ultimately the civil service job. So I don't
think that adding 89 day contractors will help with the intent. You would have to basically be
allowed to have an overlap of a civil service hire with the person that will be vacating as well as the
new person coming in so you would have to be able to recruit in advance on the civil service basis to
have that overlap.
Mr. Rapozo: So a person on an 89 day contract cannot be hired for
that position?
t
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.47
Mr. Rezentes: Well what is the likely hood of someone wanting to
leave their current position that has benefits and you hire them on a contract 89 day than what is
the likely hood of that person succeeding there on. I think you would have a difficult time recruiting
someone to take over a fulltime position if you only can commit to them 89 days.
Mr. Rapozo: Well I've seen that done quite a few times in the
county.You see the contract worker than all of a sudden hoop, boop their fulltime.
Mr. Rezentes: On a Civil Service type of position?
Mr. Rapozo: Well maybe not Civil Service.
Mr. Rezentes: Yeah because I think most of these are civil service
type positions that we're trying address.
Ms. Nakamura: So Wally you're saying that rather than an 89 you
need to have 2 civil service overlap positions?
Mr. Rezentes: You need to be able to recruit on a civil service basis
with sufficient time to overlap with an incumbent so to speak. So you almost have to have you know
if a department has the availability of funds they would have to have the ability to at least
temporarily create a new position that will end up being the position that will take over a position
fashion when the veteran employee so to speak is still around.
Ms. Nakamura: So they almost have to have two side by side positions
that overlap at the same time?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe if that is your intent is to bridge that gap and
have a better transition.
Mr. Barreira: So Councilmember Nakamura excuse me that would
be money as well as the actual position count that's where the challenge would be.
Ms. Nakamura: I see.
Mr. Rapozo: So Wally, are we not allowed though to... that's the
second time that happened already.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Clerk, we're trying to talk to Wally the body is.
Mr. Rapozo: Are we not allowed Wally to recruit for an anticipated
vacant position.
Mr. Rezentes: You're allowed in Section 3 but I think the current
provision only allows you to hire a temporary hire.
Mr. Rapozo: But we can recruit, we can go out and start our
recruiting 6 months in advance of the anticipated retirement?
Mr. Rezentes: But you only could hire them temporarily yeah.
Mr. Rapozo: No I'm not saying hire them, I'm saying recruit them
start the recruiting process the interviews and so forth because it takes so long over here to hire
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.48
someone. So you start the process 6 months in advance, do you need a vacant position to recruit and
to start doing interviews and so forth?
Mr. Rezentes: You can recruit in anticipation of a vacancy if you
know that that far in advance.
Mr. Rapozo: Right, right.
Mr. Rezentes: Ultimately when you hire you need a position number
to hire that person into.
Mr. Rapozo: Right but you can do all the screening in advance. I
mean obviously your announcement is going to say we're accepting applications for the position of
whatever, start date February 2013 so they know going in that okay I'm going through a process but
the position isn't open yet. Is it legal to do that?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes I believe so but again the current section...
Mr. Rapozo: I'm not talking about this thing here but not this
proviso but just as a general rule we're allowed to do that?
Mr. Rezentes: You're allowed to recruit in advance of an anticipated
vacancy yes that is true.You can go through certain...
Mr. Rapozo: Do we do that?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe on some instances we do yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay so that seems to work I would guess.
Ms. Nakamura: Chair I think what I'll do is Ill pull this and work with
the administration to see if we can come up with some better language.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay if that's your choice we will not go any further
on that proviso discussion but it was a meaningful one and one that probably needs some discussion.
Okay our next one I think we are back to Mr. KipuKai.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add the proviso by adding/amending Chapter 17 which talks about
expenditures for equipment furniture and vehicles. It adds reporting on the very last bottom
it states: The Director of Finance will also provide to the Council a written county wide
equipment replacement schedule and equipment replacement report on an annual; basis on
or before August 1 and November 1 respectively. So August 1 for the equipment replacement
schedule and November 1 for the equipment replacement report. The schedule and report
shall include but not be limited to department, division, equipment number, year make,
mileage, original purchase price, total replacement cost and any additional criteria status
update or comments deemed appropriate. already ro riate. Now we do alread get some of this information
but I would like to see it all in one place and for the entire county which is what we're asking
for, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you can we have discussion now.
Mr. Rapozo:
I think your same concern may apply in this specific
with the dates and I'm not sure but correct me if I'm wrong Councilmember but the idea is to get all
Ii
I��
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.49
this relevant data before we enter the budget process so we can actually have better data. So our
process we get the first submittal in March so November and February or just December 1? Why
don't we just amend that, I will make a motion to amend the dates remove August 1 and November 1
and replace that with December 1.
Mr. Rapozo move to amend the dates remove August 1 and November 1 and replace that
with December 1, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Wally you have the floor.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, I believe Councilmember Kuali`i has 2
amendments that he's proposing, one for Section 17 and another one that's somewhat similar on
Section 23. I guess you can look at equipment and vehicles and you can look at heavy equipment and
vehicles and other equipment under 2 different lights and one of the things we would want to
suggest is in Section 17 make the statement that "Except for vehicles and heavy equipment the
Director of Finance shall also provide the council" and keep on going with that. I when it comes time
for Section 23 I have a suggestion there because the management of heavy equipment and vehicles
are really under the Department of Public Works Automotive, change the Director of Finance to the
County Engineer. They are the ones that provide to the council the vehicle replacement schedule and
they manage that process.
Mr. Furfaro: To me that sounds reasonable.
Mr. Kuali`i: It does and I was just assuming that the
representative of the administration when it comes to financial reports is the Director of Finance so
if he needed to get it from Public Works or whoever I assume he would get it. But if he's saying and
more appropriately comes directly from any other department director I'm okay with that. I just
figured it would come through finance.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and that was for number 23 Section 23 right?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes and the one for 17 was to separate out the
vehicles and heavy equipment and just accept for vehicles and heavy equipment add that in front of
the director of finance. So you're taking care of heavy equipment and vehicles on Section 23 and
you're taking care of all the other equipment in Section 17.
Mr. Kuali`i: Do you have a term for all the other equipment or just
other than heavy equipment?
Mr. Rezentes: Just except for vehicles and heavy equipment so that's
it.
Mr. Kuali`i: So the amendment would have in addition to the
change of date to December 1 and the second line where it says and equipment replacement report, it
would say and equipment excluding heavy equipment in parenthesis maybe?
Mr. Rezentes: Yeah.
Mr. Kuali`i: Replacement report.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're going to need a second for that
amendment?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.50
Mr. Kuali`i: Oh in both places we would need to say excluding
heavy equipment.
Mr. Furfaro: That's correct.
Ms. Nakamura: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay any further discussion?If not I would like to call
a roll call vote. Let's do on the amendment first just a voice vote.All those in favor of the amendment
as applied signify by saying"aye."
The motion to amend was then put, and unanimously carried.
The motion that Mr. Kuali`i stated as amended was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Bynum,Yukimura TOTAL—2.
Mr. Topenio: Five ayes, Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: Five ayes okay. I think where we're at now?
Mr. Kuali`i: Mr. Chair I think it makes sense to jump right to the
one about Section 23 where the Director of Finance was referring too.
Mr. Furfaro: Vehicle replacement?
Mr. Kuali`i made a motion to the proviso that says the Director of Finance shall on an annual
basis provide a written county wide vehicle replacement schedule and vehicle replacement
report for to the council on or before August 1 and November 1, respectively the schedule and
report shall include but not be limited to department, division, vehicle number, year, make,
mileage, original purchase price, total replacement cost and any additional criteria status
update or comments deemed appropriate, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Kuali`i: Than the 2 similar amendments would be changing
August 1 and November 1 to December 1 and adding after between the words vehicle replacement.
In both instances where it talks about the written schedule in the report would be vehicle and heavy
equipment replacement schedule and vehicle and heavy equipment replacement report. Yes can I
have it propose/moved?
Ms. Nakamura: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: We have it okay, any further discussion? If not I
would like to vote on the amendment.All those in favor signify by saying"aye."
The motion to amend the dates August 1 and November 1 to December 1 and adding after
between the words vehicle replacement, was then put, and unanimously carried.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay now going to the main proviso as amended. Can
I have a roll call vote please?
9
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.51
The motion to the proviso that says the Director of Finance shall on an annual basis provide
a written county wide vehicle replacement schedule and vehicle replacement report for to the
council on or before August 1 and November 1, respectively the schedule and report shall
include but not be limited to department, division, vehicle number, year, make, mileage,
original purchase price, total replacement cost and any additional criteria status update or
comments deemed appropriate, as amended the dates August 1 and November 1 to December
1 and adding after between the words vehicle replacement was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kualii, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum, Yukimura TOTAL—2.
Mr. Topenio: Five ayes, Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and is the next one withdrawn?
Mr. Kuali`i: No.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kual`i: Nice try.
Mr. Furfaro: You are on a roll, this is the last one.
Mr. Kuali`i: Is this Section 19 next?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: This one has to do with the quarterly reports
regarding vacant...
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, Mr. Kuali`i can I have a member of the
staff find Mr. Bynum because it is five after one and I hope he's ready with his tax piece. Go ahead
Mr. Kuali`i and thank you for the moment of personal privilege.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add at the bottom to Section 19 that the Director of Personnel Services
shall provide written quarterly reports in the same date period September 30- December 31-
March 31 and June 30 in the next fiscal year. To the Mayor that include all county positions
and this report shall include and it has a detail listing of position numbers, position titles,
position creation date, salary range, current salaries, departments and so forth. Also a
vacancy report which is what we had before and a report on the transition of positions and
this report will include positions that are within transition within the 12 month period and
they would include what we also had before. New hires, transfers, reclassifications,
reallocations and approved promotions and the report should be I think we might have
increased it from 10 days to 15 days and besides a hard copy that it be an electronic soft copy
format, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Discussion?Hearing none roll call.
The motion for the add was then put, and carried by the following vote:
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.52
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1.
Mr. Topenio: Five ayes, Sir and one silent.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we are done with provisos.
Mr. Kuali`i: No.
Mr. Furfaro: No?
Mr. Kuali`i: It will be quick though.
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah, okay I see the copies now.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add that these reports include but not be limited to separate summary
reports with departmental subtotals and county wide grand totals for each of the specific line
items as follows: It lists salaries, overtime, social security contribution, health fund
contribution, other employee benefits, opeb, consultant services, electricity equipment,
automobiles, vehicle leases, equipment purchases, equipment leases and special projects.
And that these should be supported and written quarterly updated reports as identified in
this section and that it be provided electronically as well. So the point here was just to have
besides the general ledger hit the print button and we get 248 pages or 3 thousand pages or
whatever, you get some summary and some of the things that matter like salaries are the
biggest items that we are responsible for to have summary reports, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Wally comments?
Mr. Rezentes: I want 25 positions please. Well one thing that I know
we can't comply with is the 20 days and I think we've been a lot quicker on the monthly reporting
than ever before but we historically don't close our books within 20 days after the quarter. I think
the reporting requirements that exist the timeline on that I forget whether its 30 or 45 days is more
appropriate for us but 20 days I can tell you we won't be able to make that.
Mr. Furfaro: Can you do 31?
Mr. Rezentes: What is our current reporting requirement schedule
and I think that date that council has already established is doable for all but one quarter and that
quarter is the closing for the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah the closing.
Mr. Rezentes: So I would need to go look at what that language is off
the top of my head I don't have it now.
Mr. Furfaro: If we would put 30 days in this it's fair and reasonable
for us to have an expectation and maybe set the bar a little high but there's got to be reach in it and I
would like to think if 30 days is acceptable by the introducer than...
Mr. Chang: Second.
r w:.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.53
Mr. Furfaro: Okay may I have someone to amend that.
Mr. Chang: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay discussion councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you I think this would be a very good tool for
the council to have quarterly because when we get a stack of information this high it's unwieldy and
just not beneficial from a corporate point of view. I think 2 line items that are also important are
travel and training.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay you want a new amendment to add travel and
training?
Mr. Kuali`i: Okay so to the list you got OMP travel and training.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Chang: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay there's a second on that. Voice vote all those in
favor signify by saying aye?
The motion to amend the main motion was then put, and unanimously carried.
The motion to add that these reports include but not be limited to separate summary reports
with departmental subtotals and county wide grand totals for each of the specific line items
as follows: It lists salaries, overtime, social security contribution, health fund contribution,
other employee benefits, opeb, consultant services, electricity equipment, automobiles,
vehicle leases, equipment purchases, equipment leases and special projects. And that these
should be supported and written quarterly updated reports as identified in this section and
that it be provided electronically as well. So the point here was just to have besides the
general ledger hit the print button and we get 248 pages or 3 thousand pages or whatever,
you get some summary and some of the things that matter like salaries are the biggest items
that we are responsible for to have summary reports, as amended to 30 days was then put,
and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1.
Mr. Topenio: Five ayes, one silent, Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kuali`i, you still have the floor this is the last one
than we will go in to the tax piece.
Mr. Kuali`i moved to add to Section 21 and it's the combined statements of cash receipts and
disbursements and all this is doing is adding the summary balance reports with the vision
subtotals, department subtotals and county wide grand totals. When that again that the
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.54
information be submitted additionally in an electronic soft copy format, seconded by Mr.
Rapozo, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chang, Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Furfaro TOTAL—5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1.
Mr. Topenio: Five ayes, Sir, one silent.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay members we are into the completion of the
provisos and the last piece in this section is Real Property Assessment Division and I'm going to
immediately ask the staff if you have the material that Mr. Bynum wants to present? Okay and
Mr. Bynum will have he's acknowledged a 14 minute set for his clock and we're going to do a five
minute recess, five minutes members.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 1:12 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 1:22 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay for our discussion on the Real Property
Assessment and Steve I'm going to ask you to move because Mr. Bynum is going to have the floor for
a presentation.
Mr. Bynum: So I have a power point. So what we've learned in the
last several weeks at Council and discussed was that the data that's been provided to us since 2004
is not accurate. Certain categories are overstated and other categories are understated but the data
shows us the trends or how these taxes moved up and down. The first chart is tax collections and
dollars by class over the last since 2002 and the ones that are doing the standard normal curve at
the top are our single family residential agriculture apartment and... It's kind of hard to see on this
chart but the homestead class is the green line in the middle of the page and it starts out and then
you see that the dollar amount goes down in 2004 and then goes up every year basically since then.
Again these numbers the amount paid by the homestead class is understated in this data it actually
paid more and the amounts paid in single family residential and Ag are overstated, they actually
paid less but it does give you an accurate picture of the trends. The next slide... yes question?
Ms. Nakamura: So this slide shows that single family residential paid
the most in 2012 in just total taxes?
Mr. Bynum: Yes because there are a large number of parcels.
Ms. Nakamura: And followed by Hotel and Resort, followed by
Apartments and Agriculture, so those four paid overall higher taxes than homestead?
Mr. Bynum: In dollars.
Ms. Nakamura: In dollars yes just in pure dollar terms.
Mr. Bynum: In pure dollars terms absolutely.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.55
Mr. Bynum: So the next slide and I don't have the clicker. These
are the percentages of the total tax version paid by each class and again the percentages for those
four classes single family residential, apartment are overstated they actually paid less. But again the
trends are accurate using because they are consistently inaccurate but basically the homestead
classes again this light green line in this chart that in 2003 was paying about 12% and during the
years the cap was in play and the economy was booming it effectively lowered the percentage paid by
the homestead class which is the majority of resident homeowners. Everyone in the homestead class
is a resident homeowner and when the economy started being more difficult the percentage has
climbed each year. Now again these percentages are understated and the actual percentage is higher
but this u shaped curve is accurate. The next slide is these are accurate numbers of the total
property tax revenue collected from all classes over a ten year period and it again follows that sort of
bell shape curve. In the increasing economy our revenues went up pretty dramatically and in a
decreasing economy they have been coming down. This next is a blow up of just the homestead class
showing the u-shape curve that came down and resident homeowners were paying at the low of 7.38
percent of the tax burden and now it's up into the eleven and a half percent range again and that's
part of my concern. In my time in the county we all agreed that resident homeowners in my view
should pay less of the tax burden as a percentage and it came down, but when it started going up the
proposals in 2008 that would have kept that trend from going up did not pass and so we ended up
with this result. Now this is taxes by class since 2008 or since the peak of the market but it doesn't
have all of them but it has the ones that have residents in them. You can see single family
residential on the top and remember that single family residential are primarily homes that are
revenue generated, that they're rental units, their TVR's, their second homes and although in this
class there are a number of single family residential people and that's why that hasn't been factored
in and that's why these numbers are not accurate but we're getting there.
So single family residential you can see the decrease and the year over year decrease so this
class this year if there's no changes will pay 3.7 million less this year than they did in 2008. This
class is the hotel resort and they have had a decrease over the last four years and if we don't make
any changes if in the March proposal that the Mayor gave us they will pay 2.7 million less than they
did in 2009 or in 2008 even though it went up a little bit in 2009. The next class is the green one is
I'm sorry this top green one is apartment and the apartment class this year without any changes in
tax rates will pay 3.3 million dollars less than they did in 2008. So you can see their tax burden has
reduced. The agricultural class will pay 3.4 million less this year than they did in 2008 and this
bottom chart is the homestead class which is made up entirely of residential homeowners and they
will pay 1.5 million dollar increase if we make no changes in rates, more than they were paying this
year they will pay 1.5 million more than they did in 2008. That's the point I've been trying to make
for a couple of years now that I'm fine with these classes having tax reductions because we were
collecting 2 at the peak too much from all tax payers. During the down turn I'm glad that these
classes are paying less tax but during the down turn homeowners have paid more, resident
homeowners and that's my concern. I have showed this chart many times but if you say if the rates
would have stayed the same in 2008, how much more have these classes paid over a 3 year period
between 2008 and 2011.When you combine the reductions from each year the single family
residential had a 6.6 million dollar less taxes, apartments 4.1, agricultural 8.3 million, conservation
and so on, hotels and resorts 3.6 million reduction over a 3 year period while the homestead class
had a 3.1 million dollar increase. So that's the increase they paid over a 3 year period compared to if
the rates or if their tax bill would have stayed the same in 2008. So I have this chart that we made
during the break because I wanted to make sure that the numbers were accurate and that's the one I
would like to put up now which isn't part of this power point. This goes to what is being proposed
and the first thing I have to say is that May thank you very much is the March. In the March
submittal now these are actual numbers real numbers because when I finally got the data that I
was asking for, for a long time we are now able to calculate the actual for those 2 for the current year
and what is being proposed. Is everyone following this because these are real numbers?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.56
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum your 14 minutes have expired but go
ahead.
Mr. Bynum: Really I have been up here for 14 minutes.
Mr. Topenio: He has 5 more minutes Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh I thought I heard it go off.
Mr. Topenio: No, no.
Mr. Furfaro: Clarification you have 5 more minutes but since I
interrupted you set it for 6 minutes right now.
Mr. Bynum: Okay so in the March proposal if I went back the
number we were working off for the homestead class, I mean for single family residential was 18,250
and I said that those numbers are understated and the actual figure is 17.8 so it's less. In the
homestead class the data we were provided said that the homestead class was paying 9 million
fifteen thousand but in reality it's 9 million nine hundred and twenty six. So when you look at these
real numbers in the March submittal the homestead class would pay 9.9 million. Under the proposal
I'm offering today to set the tax rate at 305, three dollars and five cents would reduce that roughly
by 1 million dollars. So resident homeowners are paying 1.5 million this year than they did in 2008
more and under this proposal they would pay 500 thousand more. They are still paying more but it's
like let's not have another year where residents pay increases. So I started this year saying that I
thought residents deserved a 5 million dollar reduction in order to bring them down back to the 7 or
8 percent of tax burden that they were in that I think we all intended. That didn't fly so I suggested
a proposal for 2.7 million and that didn't fly which would have brought homeowners back to where I
personally think they should be in terms of paying a tax burden. Now I'm giving the most modest
proposal of all that we set the rates to realize to realize a 1 million dollar reduction for the
homestead class and that's on the bottom line here homestead. So if we do nothing the residents will
pay 9.9 million of the tax burden, if we accept a 305 tax rate it will be 8.9 million. The 2 numbers
above the Mayor said single family residential should pay 17.8 million in March but his re-submittal
increase the land rate and would generate 20 million. So when we looked at this budget and said this
is the Mayor's proposal, the Mayor's proposal at hotel and resort which he has stated and is accurate
is roughly revenue neutral.
The Hotels and Resorts paid 14.4 million last year under the Mayor's proposal its 14.9 so
roughly in round numbers the same amount, and again to put that in perspective if we can go back
to the power point. I can't see these numbers but before we got accurate data well so the Mayor's
proposal you've seen this reduction in the single family residential and under the mayor's proposal
he's saying in essence you're going to pay if his proposal succeeds, more than you did last year but
about the same as what you paid 2 years ago. So that increase doesn't take that single family
residential and in that single family residential are primarily homes that are transient vacation
rentals, second homes that are owned by people who live elsewhere but have a second home here or
they are also rental properties and there are about 15 hundred single family residents that have
exemptions. They will be protected by the cap and their maximum increase will be 3.7 percent. The
bottom line of all of this is I'm proposing a 1 million dollar rate reduction, a reduction in resident
home owner's taxes rather than allowing them to pay 1.5 million more than they did in 2008 while
other people are paying these reductions. I think it's fair and reasonable and I would hope that the
Council will support it. The other advantage it says land and building are both 305, so it moves us to
where we have to be next year with tax rates for land and building the same. Any questions? Yes
Councilmember Yukimura.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.57
Ms.Yukimura: Oh yes that's the sheet I want. Actually if you could
create those numbers under proposals are a mix of the Mayor's proposals and your proposals.
Mr. Bynum: That's correct.
Ms.Yukimura: It would be much easier to see March. May and than
what you are proposing.
Mr. Bynum: Well for single family residential the Mayor proposed
this in March and he has proposed no changes in tax rates.
Ms.Yukimura: I know but your proposal is not to increase the taxes
in the single family residential.
Mr. Bynum: No, that's the Mayor's proposal.
Ms.Yukimura: That what I mean so if you would just to be clear
show March/May as the second column and than your proposal I think it would be clearer.
Mr. Bynum: Well if you change the proposal to May than that
would be accurate. This is what the Mayor proposed in March and this is what he proposed in May.
Ms.Yukimura: But you would have to show the homestead at 926
right in May?
Mr. Bynum: I understand your point, if you put this number
Ashley in this box and my proposal in this box.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes than it would be clearer I think. Because you're
not proposing any increases in any other class your just proposing a decrease in the homestead class
right?
Mr. Bynum: That's correct.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay and where are you proposing to take the, what
did you say 1 million from?
Mr. Bynum: I'm sorry... well we're going to determine that in
budget right we've already done a million dollars worth of increase overall in our 3 day process here
right? We've eliminated some spending, we've increased some and we had that chart up there just
before we went to this break of a million dollars difference. This would reduce revenues by a million
dollars and so that brings me back and thanks JoAnn for this input and I hope that makes it clearer.
This is the March submittal, this is the May submittal and this is the change that I'm suggesting for
the homestead class. If you can go back to the power point one more time thank you. These are
actual numbers from the CAFR and I have made this point repeatedly. Our actual reserve at the
beginning of this fiscal year was 51 million dollars and we will know when we get the next CAFR if
that got reduced or increased. We can already project based on the projections that it's likely to be
reduced a little but not much and that's my own view of it right now. So where does that million
dollars come from? It comes from either cuts we make or from this reserve which we have at the
beginning of this fiscal year of 51 million dollars and these charts say what it is. These are not
budget numbers but these are actual numbers and the chart reflects the general fund balance, end of
the fiscal year minus committee and restricted funds. The sources, the CAFR and the percentages
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.58
here are the percentage of the fiscal years general fund expenditures plus transfers out, it's based on
that number which we agreed is the number we're going to use.
Mr. Furfaro: So, Mr. Bynum, you're time on the Real Property tax
piece you have made your presentation.
Mr. Bynum: Yes and I am just answering questions.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes well you can come back to the table for that. Do I
have all the members here?
Ms.Yukimura: Councilmember Rapozo.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo where's Mr. Rapozo? Okay this is a
critical part of our budget piece. Is there testimony from people in the audience?Mike come right up.
MIKE DYER: Thank you Mr. Chair my name is Mike Dyer thank
you for the time I know you're time is really tight today and I appreciate it. Just a couple of things
these graphs are very ,very interesting to me it's obvious that the system that we have in property
taxes right now is kind of a live by the sword and die by the sword kind of a thing. If you're living by
market value and things are going up like crazy and the money comes flowing in taxes go up for your
resident voters and you have to do something to keep them from getting increased taxes so you put a
cap on so the residents go off the market value system. So for a good deal of our property tax system
right now the market value no longer applies. With respect to the single family resident class I think
one of the things that's important to add into the single family resident class is there are a lot of
properties in there that are vacant lots. We are a low growth island and since I've been here for 4
years we've been a low growth island yet marker value driven taxation like this is called highest and
best used.You try to force out the guy that doesn't build on his lot and you do it by making the prices
go up and you want the guy that's going to actually go in and build a house on those lots. That maybe
a good thing or maybe a bad thing but I think you need to work that into your equation when you
talk about as the Mayor is raising the rate on land which is the market driven side of the equation.
The building stays pretty consistent as Steve Hunt and his group keeps the buildings pretty steady
they don't change too much with market value but the land is what takes off.A lot of the stuff that's
included in your single family category that the Mayor's proposing is to increase the millage rate by
about 22/23 percent. In this particular bite it's going to be more of the same market value drive
people out and try to get houses built on vacant lots and so I think that's a good thing but remember
those are vacant lots that don't really get any services so a lot of that money you're getting is from
land that Police don't have to do anything for, Fire Department don't have to do anything for, so
great graphs great information but we still need property tax reform on this island, thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mike, were you part of the original taskforce?
Mr. Dyer: Yes, I was.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum has a question for you.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you, for being here and making that point. I
agree there are many ways that I as a councilmember who sets these rates want to be able to
analyze exactly what the implications are for all these circumstances and you've mentioned one of
them. But until recently I couldn't tell which of those properties in that class was land only and
building only. I can only tell you that for this year and it it's not in a format that I can analyze as of
yet and that's something we talked about at length and the administration and the Council is going
to rectify that before we're here next year so we can work with Real numbers, thank you. And I do
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.59
have a question? I think you just saw that people in the homestead class is paying 1.5 million more
this year than they did when all these other classes were paying less. I'm suggesting a million
dollars of rate change. Is that a proposal that would make sense to you?
Mr. Dyer: Yeah that's fine Mr. Bynum I'm a homesteader of five
so save me some money and I'm happy because I'm paying a lot on other types of properties. I don't
have a problem with that and it seems pretty minor in the big picture but particularly it looks
offensive when you chop it off in the last 3 years and you go back to the original picture and you look
how much I saved as a homesteader or property owner. Its fine you can give me back my little piece
of change but I saved a lot of money by the cap during the 7 or 8 years previous.
Mr. Bynum: Thanks and that's why I showed both charts.
Mr. Dyer: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Do you know how much was saved on the cap for that
period Mike?
Mr. Dyer: By me personally?
Mr. Furfaro: No by the cap guard?
Mr. Dyer: No, I don't.
Mr. Furfaro: It was 70 million dollars.
Mr. Dyer: That's a big number.
Mr. Furfaro: Seventy million dollars of relief.
Mr. Dyer: Yeah and I appreciated that thanks.
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to ask the Finance Department to come up
now for questions. Thank you Mike, thank you very much. Steve did you bring by chance a category
of rates that if it went up on the screen we could see it?
STEVE HUNT, REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT: A category shown...
Mr. Furfaro: A category of rates being proposed by the...
Mr. Hunt: Being proposed yes.
Mr. Furfaro: And we can see it?
Mr. Hunt: I believe I gave Scott some handouts as well.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm asking for a screen so the public will be able
to view it.
Mr. Hunt: Sure and I brought 2 sets one was the May 8
submittal the proposed budget by the Mayor and one was the hybrid including the mayor's proposal
and the decrease rates that councilmember Bynum had asked for comparison purposes.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.60
Mr. Furfaro: Okay can you tell us a little about it?
Mr. Hunt: Well again the premise for having the higher single
family land rate was really sort of a make-up for something that happened in fiscal 2006 when the
rate was dropped a dollar fourteen and came in to line with the homestead rate being the same rate
as the homestead. Two years after that that rate was even dropped lower to 395 which was five cents
lower than the homestead. The Hotel and Resort class these 2 rates were again raised from 690 on
the land to 714 and from 790 to 820 on the building to get us to a revenue mutual position with fiscal
2012. Because the land rate was so different for income properties and all other categories except for
the single family we felt that restoring that historical difference between those classes the
homestead and the single family and still being far below any other class made sense. With respect
to the properties that are in this class Mr. (inaudible) is correct there are vacant lands in this
category but there is also vacant land in all other classes. In relative to 485 being proposed relative
to the next closes rates of 690, there is still quite a bit if difference between those rates.
Mr. Furfaro: If I look at your sheet the PHU eligible there are 12
hundred and 12 thousand two hundred ninety two people that basically will not experience more
than a 3.7 percent increase?
Mr. Hunt: That is correct.
Mr. Furfaro: regardless of what category they lived in because they
are scattered between residential, homestead, apartments and so forth? Twelve thousand which
makes up about a third of our totals?
Mr. Hunt: Yeah I believe there are about 34 thousand taxable's
so that's about right.
Mr. Furfaro: So a little more than 33, about 37 percent will have
the cap?
Mr. Hunt: On a parcel cap that's correct.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay questions for... Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Thank you Mr. Steve Hunt. Hey help me out please so
as far as the homesteaders are concerned, how many homesteaders' families will benefit if there was
some sort of refund?About how many do you know?
Mr. Hunt: No I don't have that number I know how many are
eligible for benefits but I don't know how many would actually benefit. There are some issues with
our software determining how many are capped and by category. We can look at it from a bulk basis
and I believe there are about 88 hundred through all the categories that were benefiting, I believe
that number comes down a couple hundred with the proposed rate change by Councilmember
Bynum. The total impact in terms of credits to that homestead category I believe is about a million
twenty one thousand. Mostly it's going to be benefited by the people that are paying market taxes
now that are not under the cap or those that are marginal benefits when that rate comes down they
may actual get off the cap and have the cap reset.
Mr. Chang: So there is no way to average out about how many we
have ballpark or what the average redemption?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.61
Mr. Hunt: No and even that you're talking about some people
that's going to pay 3.73 percent more even with this rate reduction.
Mr. Chang: I understand.
Mr. Hunt: And probably I wouldn't say that vase majority but
probably more than half majority would pay 3.73 percent more but some would fall off and they're
particular benefit especially at the higher end would receive more.
Mr. Chang: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo:
Mr. Rapozo: Thanks Steve, I had a question regarding the single
family homestead and do we have a number of lots?
Mr. Hunt: Vacant lots? Not off the top of my head.
Mr. Rapozo: Is it substantial, is it significant, is it?
Mr. Hunt: I really don't know off the top of my head I would have
to run a job within that class to get a count of improved versus vacant.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Kualii.
Mr. Kualii: Thank you Mr. Chair. I had a question about the
charts and how they show the property tax increasing or decreasing. Because the rates have stayed
the same it's primarily due to the assess values. So in a downturn economy for the last 5 or more
years, the fact that that line kept increasing, the rates stayed the same because the values either
held value or increased in value?
Mr. Hunt: Well depends on what category?
Mr. Kualii: Homestead.
Mr. Hunt: within the homestead okay. Within the homestead
what you saw was a run up in value but a very straight line capping it became very predictable
because of the2 percent. The only variance to that line was resets when someone who had a property
that had or they were paying maybe 500 dollars in taxes and their market taxes were 15 hundred
dollars and they sold that property, the new owner would than pay 15 hundred and if they came in
as a homeowner they are starting at a 15 hundred bench mark. All of a sudden that thousand dollars
additional tax gets added to the homesteads and it was appreciating faster than the 2 percent line
but individually all those who held their properties have not appreciated faster than that.
Mr. Kualii: So like the China man who testified earlier he said by
having the cap in place in essence removing that one class out of the market value system because
now this line doesn't really... there's at least 3 different factors that doesn't give us a good
representation because the cap is applying to some and there's the new buyers that when it resets...
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.62
Mr. Kualii: And so those different values some people are paying
more some people are paying less but as a group they are paying more but do we know if as a group
the values have held or... because if they were as a group the value plays a big role right?
Mr. Hunt: Sure.
Mr. Kualii: So if it was going down like in other categories and
the reason other categories are paying less and not because we lowered their rates but it's because of
the economy.
Mr. Hunt: Right and that's also what you saw when you started
seeing the percentage taxes being shifted to other classes as you saw a very stable tax coming out of
the homestead class where you saw a huge increase in run-ups by other classes. On the tail end as
we've come down for the last 4 years you have seen the opposite effect as the values are declining
and people that are paying directly as taxes are associated with the value coming down, now the
proportion that homestead is paying is increasing not that they're contributing a whole lot more
taxes it's just they're paying a more stable tax and the other classes are now paying less of the total
pie so their proportion is now expanding.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum:
Mr. Bynum: There are two things the increase over the last four
years in that class has two factors. Those that still have the cap going up 2 percent a year and this
year 3.7 and probably a larger factor the reset, any home that changed ownership and I've showed
these graphs over and over again that could go from 300 to 900. So those combinations of those
resets plus the increases that all the cap folks are paying correct?
Mr. Hunt: Right and we're also not talking about necessarily the
same set of owners so someone who started with a condo that had a value of 150 thousand when they
started the cap and now they migrated and they were homestead in the condo have now migrated in
to a single family home. Now that home is a five hundred thousand dollar home and it ran up higher
and so now you have all these dynamics as to the differences in homeowners and what properties are
actually in that homestead class.
Mr. Bynum: Right and the other point you made earlier was we
didn't change the exemptions, we didn't go big with a big reduction for the class and so this 1 million
dollar reduction primarily will go to the people who are paying the highest differentials the ones who
are not in the cap. So the people in my opinion are paying the highest most unfair taxes will get this
relief and it will narrow that gap so it moves us in the right direction to equitable. Most of the people
have the cap in the homestead class will pay a 3.7 percent increase. This million dollars will go to the
people that's paying the highest tax bill and in my opinion the most unfair and I feel good about that.
Hopefully my colleagues agree to what Mr. Dyer said that in the bigger picture these million dollars
is not that big a deal and it moves us in the right direction.
Mr. Furfaro: Steve I have to ask you Mr. Bynum is talking about
the million as the relief and the sheets you gave us when I go to a particular category called
homestead its going from 13 million 10 to 10 million 5 and its actually a change of 2.5 million. Are
you saying because we can't work out the particulars on a cap?
Mr. Hunt: No if you look at the sheet to the very far right column
you will actually see the actual taxes now. So if you're looking at 13.1 as the potential taxes and after
-
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.63
application of this 3.16 in credits they're actually paying about 9.948 in taxes and under the proposal
mad e by Councilmember Bynum at the 305 rate even though that 13.1 drops to 10.5 the credits are
now reduced from 3.1 to 1.65.
Mr. Furfaro: And that's how you get to the 8.9?
Mr. Hunt: That's correct so that's the million 21 differences what
they would pay with the caps at 9.9 versus 8.9.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so the line item sheet to sheet I shouldn't
compare?I should stay one line on the proposed 3.05?
Mr. Hunt: Well you could look sheet to sheet to sheet as long as
you're looking at the second well there's 2 columns at the very end of the percentages but right before
that it says amount raised by taxation. If you compare the two sheets line by line you can see what
their actually paying after the application with credits and that is a fair comparison.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Kuali`i:
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you Mr. Chair. So again that chart that was
showing the increases in fact it's showing the increase by the class but you could separate out
between the class for people who have stayed in their houses and the cap applying to them year after
year and the houses that were sold and was reset. So the huge increases if it made that line go up
was coming from just that group of houses, I mean the ones that sold and reset because it can reset
higher than the cap to market?
Mr. Hunt: Right and it does rest at market.
Mr. Kuali`i: Like 10, 15, 20 percent?
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Kuali`i: Much higher you said?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: So, to look at it as a group and to not sort of like
accept or respect the fact that when the cap was created it allowed for that or it wanted that. It
wanted it to reset when the property sold otherwise it they would have said no it will just tie in to
the property no matter what happens to it. If someone sells and a new one comes in it to will just
cap, cap, cap and continue capping and not reset. And if that was the case than obviously the
increase would go in a more gradual paste, but it's because it sold and it reset?
Mr. Hunt: Right and I think that was the intent that was the
ability of new buyers they may have more resources that there would be a reset at the market value
at that time.
Mr. Kualii: So now we have a disagreement with that and that's
what we should change to correct it if you think it needs correcting. My other question had to do with
you talked about 12, 292 in your sheet it says PHU eligible parcels with a similar figure from before,
do you know how many people actually invoke it or utilize it or need it? Because based on the rates
maybe a lot of people taxes and the value are not even going up higher than 3 percent so they don't
get to invoke the cap because they are lower than that.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.64
Mr. Hunt: Right and what you're saying is that downward trend
is exactly that, that people are actually coming off the cap because the values have declined.
Mr. Kuali`i: Right.
Mr. Hunt: People who started the cap in 2006, 07 and 08 have
now seen actual declines and basically every year they set a new cap so they start at a new tax base
and if your market calculations of taxes because of lower value are lower than their cap tax. In other
words if it decreased more than 2 percent, than their having an actual drop in taxes and that
actually sets a ceiling for the next year. So if there is a turnaround and value starts to rise they will
immediately get hit by that ceiling. Right now they are in a fall and a reset fall and a reset fall and a
reset for the last 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I want to say that we have a couple other pieces
of business to finish up of which I will want you to come back because I think it will have an impact
on some of the discussion about the tax piece and so can you stay close.
Mr. Hunt: Okay I do have a commitment after 3:30.
Mr. Furfaro: We might need to get some other business cleaned up
okay. Okay members I'm going to ask if we can shift our gears here for a second and Mr. Bynum I
want to clear up some other business so that people can have an opportunity to...
Mr. Bynum: Well I can't make a motion and vote on this proposal?
Mr. Furfaro: If you want to end the discussion yes but I want to go
back on some other items so that it might... well fine we'll do it that way than.
Mr. Bynum: I'm just asking your guidance.
Mr. Furfaro: Well follow my lead if you follow my guidance.
Ms.Yukimura: Can we just make a motion and...
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to tell you it might help some people with
their decisions and that's why I'm going to go where I'm going okay, is everybody okay with that.
Mr. Bynum: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: This will take less than a minute there's just one more
thing I would like to display. I have one more thing I would like to display it should take less than a
minute.
Mr. Furfaro: I will give you that minute when I finish what I
wanted to handle.
Mr. Bynum: Okay.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.65
Mr. Furfaro: Folks when we were dealing with the CIP piece we
took a 300 thousand dollar item which was intended for Drug treatment Facility okay and we only
moved 150 thousand and because it's general fund money and not bond money I want to see if I can
get a motion to move that balance to the operating account. It will help us reduce the 1 million 48
thousand that we had to add and it will bring that line down to just around 900 thousand.
Ms. Yukimura moved to take three hundred thousand dollars which was intended for Drug
Treatment Facility, and moved one hundred fifty thousand dollars from the General Fund
money to move that balance to the Operating account, to reduce the one million forty-eight
thousand that was added and it will bring that line down to just around nine hundred
thousand, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Any discussion on that item?
Ms. Nakamura: Council Chair, when we added the Wailua Golf
Course piece to the CIP Budget we also had to come up with 38 thousand five hundred.
Mr. Furfaro: Right.
Ms. Nakamura: So would it be possible to do less that amount?
Mr. Furfaro: I think we already put the 38 thousand in there.
Ms. Nakamura: Oh, did you already find it?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes, I think we did that already.
Ms. Nakamura: Oh, okay, to me it was a missing piece.
Mr. Furfaro: Am I correct, Tim? The 38 thousand, Scott was on the
list as part of the million 48, am I correct?
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay so I want to look at the 150 thousand that was
left on the other general fund item and I have a motion by Vice Chair Yukimura and a second
by Mr.Chang, any further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye?
The motion to the one hundred fifty thousand dollars that was left on the other General
Fund item was then put, and unanimously carried.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, and Scott do you know the number that that is
reduced by and what our new number is? This will just take a moment, Mr. Bynum why don't you go
up and make your presentation while we're waiting for this number.
Mr. Bynum: I just want to...
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, let me just get a all those in favor signify
by saying aye?
Councilmembers: Aye.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.66
Mr. Furfaro: We did I'm sorry I was just following the numbers.
Okay Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I passed out these charts to councilmember's before,
the yellow one at the top and because I say we now have accurate data right for the last 2 years and
that's the accurate data the yellow at the top. The 2 at the bottom is what was reported to us and so
we thought last year that the homestead class paid 8.9 million in the taxes and 11.29 percent, but it
actually was 9.9 million and the percentage was 12.7. We thought that this year's calculations was
initially was shown to us at 9 million but it's actually 9.9. If you look at the top at single family
residential paid 18.3 last year but they actually paid 17.8. So that's why I'm saying that those ones
at the top of the graph were overstated what they actually paid so I just wanted to show that. So the
proposals that the Mayor put forward and that I put forward are based on actual real data. I want to
thank Scott our analyst who originally was able to take the data I got and calculate these.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Steve could I ask you to come up again. Steve
I'm going to number these two schedules that you gave us the schedule as originally submitted by
the homestead class shows the homestead rate at $3.77?
Mr. Hunt: The $377.8 and that actually is a unified rate if you
were to consider doing one rate this year you could put that as an alternative.
Mr. Furfaro: Got it but I'm going to call this schedule A.
Mr. Hunt: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Members could you show your piece as schedule A.
Than Steve the piece that references the 305 as a blended rate I'm going to call that schedule B.
Therefore as we start to get in to motions and so forth here there is no confusion okay and we just
roughly readjusted our overage in rough numbers right now at 898 thousand so this would change
and I want to reconfirm the schedule B would take the amounts raised by taxation at that rate for
the homestead class to 89.264.48 correct?
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay members anymore questions for Steve?
Ms.Yukimura: I'm sorry what exactly is the significance of
schedule A?
Mr. Furfaro: Did you hear the question?
Mr. Hunt: Yes the significance?
Ms.Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Hunt: The significance is this is actually what was
submitted as the Mayor's...
Ms.Yukimura: Oh this is the May's submittal.
Mr. Hunt: Yeah the May 18th submittal.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay right.
4
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.67
Mr. Furfaro: And the second sheet which is now schedule B is the
one that reflects Mr. Bynum's counts.
Mr. Hunt: And I would call the BA hybrid as it includes the
Mayor's May 8 proposal with the one exception being the change to the homestead rate.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay well I think for the vote we can just do it with
schedule B.
Mr. Hunt: Yeah schedule B.
Mr. Furfaro: Questions for Steve if not I have to tell you that we
have 5 minutes to take a tape change and then we're going to move to see if we can get a vote on
these revenues. Five minutes, if you're not here you miss out on the vote.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 2:13 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 2:21 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, before we go out to establish the tax rates I
want to make sure I share with you folks what I think our options are here. Regardless if we vote for
schedule A, which is the original piece that will come over with the May 8 budget or we go with
schedule B that I labored to get us just to call it schedule B. We need to have an understanding
because we only did it quickly that any money we move in the general fund CIP because we're going
to balance out these pieces will end up in the general fund operating. The example I gave was 150
thousand and I just want to make sure we can vote on that today. With the 948 and the million one if
we move or we adjust, if we adjust the un-appropriated surplus around 2 million dollars that will
leave us about 15.2 in our reserve and it will still keep our reserve pretty much intact. I can see the
Finance Director shaking his head but what I'm worried about is that it's consistent with our policy
especially before we go up for the bond refinancing and that's the issue. So with that number right
now in the upper left hand corner of our sheets says we're about 12 million 9 starting our budget but
to get this thing balanced if we do the following pieces we're going to have to move about 2 million to
give this tax release relief. Ernie do you have that number up in the corner that I was referring to?
Mr. Barreira: Chair, are you talking about the fund balance?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes the fund balance.
Mr. Barreira: Yeah for fiscal year 13 that's 12 million five hundred
fifty three thousand, two hundred seventy two dollars.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, so we're going to have to boost that up to
fourteen and ask the Finance Department to adjust that appropriately that's just an overall blanket
coverage of what I'm saying. Now if you recall in my presentation and I didn't quite agree with all of
Mr. Bynum's numbers and maybe presently I still think we have the opportunity to see about
another million five carried over from the balance of this year in salaries and I think you folks
remember my presentation here. I just want to make sure that I get those pieces understood by all
you folks so before we go to the real property tax piece may I ask to get a motion from one of you for
whatever the final adjustments are from the CIP General Fund that we're in agreement that we will
move whatever is the variance. We will move it to the general fund operating.
Ms.Yukimura: So second.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.68
Mr. Furfaro: May I have a vote on that and just a voice vote would
be good.
Ms.Yukimura: So Chair our previous motion about...
Mr. Furfaro: The previous motion was only on that one account but
I think we have a few more here 20 thousand here 15 thousand here.
Ms.Yukimura: So we're just dealing with whatever balance...
Mr. Furfaro: That's what I said the CIP General Fund balance.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: All those in favor for that please signify by saying
aye?
Councilmembers: Aye.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay the other thing I want to share with you is what
we might have to do to adjust the un-appropriated surplus if we go with this 2 million it will maybe
have some impact on whatever appropriations we might have as we end the year but also could have
some effect on our bond deal on the Mainland. They may look at us using money from that account
even lowering it as an indication that we might use more funds in the future and I'm just saying I
wanted to make you aware of it. Now we will talk about establishing a real property tax rate and
we'll use what is called schedule A or schedule B.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: I just would like to entertain the possibility of a
schedule C as well and the schedule C for the purpose of discussion would be the March 15 tax rates
what was submitted on March 15.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: That would be schedule C.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Kualii: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay now I will recognize Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I would like to move that we adopt schedule B first.
Ms.Yukimura: Second.
Mr. Furfaro: There's a second. Discussion or I'm going to go ahead
and do a roll call vote on schedule B and if we do schedule B we will confirm with 5 votes or we can
accept four? Okay because we're reducing that amount it will be a vote of four affirmative okay. We
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.69
have discussion now. Mr. Clerk, can you come up to a mic in case there's procedural questions? Okay
Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I just would say that I think this is a modest and
appropriate proposal, I think a small reduction in our budgeted reserve is not going to impact our
bonding that's in the bigger scheme of things minor compared to all the other issues we have for
bond. Like our very low debt amount compared to most municipalities but if we don't adopt some
relief for the homestead class we're in essence saying you're going to pay 1.5 million more this year
than you did in 2008 and every other tax class is going to pay substantially less. If we adopt
schedule B we're saying you're paying 5 hundred thousand more than you did in 2008 and virtually
everyone else is paying less. I think it's very modest and it moves us in the right direction and I
would ask for the support for our residents.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Clerk can I see you and Jade in the back and on
the same side I want to make sure I wasn't saying what was manini or what was maximum I just
want to disclose it to you folks okay. I have been to the bond hearings and I know what's manini and
what is not but I didn't say that I just wanted to make you aware of that. I will share this with all
the members at the same time, in consulting with the County Attorney as well as our staff... Eddie
why are we passing this out right now? We don't need this, this is... thank you Eddie. So the
interpretation is that the May 8th proposal that came up over from the Mayor is only handled as a
communication. The difference in the amounts regardless of what was proposed to us because the
final authority is with us and the 83 million in point 3 in general funds on schedule B which is the
Council's amendment is actually an increase over what was submitted March 15 and therefore our
vote will require 5 votes. I'm sorry I had thought the difference was on the May 8 piece and I stand
corrected. So Mr. Bynum had the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: I just wanted to clarify...
Mr. Bynum: Than maybe we should take these votes separate
because for the Mayor it's an increase to take five right? And for my proposal it's a decrease and it
takes four.
Mr. Furfaro: No because the May 8 proposal is handled as a
communication I was just informed we have to deal with the March 15 and the March 15 both
proposals are increases and they require 5 votes. That's the interpretation I just got.
Mr. Bynum: The homestead rate would increase?
Mr. Furfaro: Any increase for the total piece.
Ms.Yukimura: We need the tax rate resolution.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Clerk.
RICKY WATANABE, COUNTY CLERK: Okay given the different scenarios here the
only bill pending before this Council is the bill that was submitted by the Mayor on March 15. The
May 8 submittal is a supplemental communication so we have to amend the March 15 bill. Because
of that in the March 15 the Mayor's real property tax revenue was at 77.3 million and...
Mr. Furfaro: Eighty point three that's what I just shared.
Mr. Watanabe. That's right so that an increase of the budget and it
requires five votes to increase the budget.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.70
Ms.Yukimura: Chair I have a question.
Mr. Furfaro: Go ahead Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: Shouldn't we just being doing this on a tax rate
resolution?
Mr. Watanabe: The tax rate is part of the budget in fact it's the major
part of the budget and it determines the amount of your budget.
Ms.Yukimura: I know but shouldn't we increase the rates via the
resolution?
Mr. Watanabe: The rates will be infatuated by the resolution however
the revenues are part of the budget ordinance.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I have real concerns about whether this is an accurate
interpretation and I can't do anything about it right now but...
Mr. Furfaro: I want you to know that the County Attorney was
present when I raised that question.
Mr. Bynum: Well when we set tax rates I have always thought
that was a majority vote and in essence that's what we're doing here is setting tax rates.
Mr. Watanabe: As I said the rates are part of the revenues of the bill
and the Charter requires us if you're going to increase the budget that the Mayor submitted you
need five votes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Al will you come up Al?
Mr. Bynum: Can I ask Rick?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes Rick I'm not relieving you he can join you.
Mr. Bynum: Rick the Mayor's rate changes and increases revenues
right?But the proposal I'm putting decreases revenues so why aren't they treated separately?
Mr. Watanabe: Because the mayor's May 8 is not a bill it's a
supplemental communication per the Charter.
Mr. Bynum: Right but the proposal I have reduces it from the
March.
Mr. Watanabe: No it increases it.
Mr. Bynum: While in the homestead class?
Mr. Watanabe: No you're looking at tax revenue.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.71
Mr. Bynum: Right and so we have the Mayor's proposal and we
have my proposal. The Mayor's proposal raises revenue from March 8 and my proposal reduces
revenue as compared to March 8.
Mr. Watanabe: No it doesn't.
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Furfaro: Let me just clarify this. The May 8 with the
amendments made and what the mayor sent back to us in a communication was I will anoint Steve
Hunt's communication. It's a hybrid but the bill that came over to us we're comparing it against the
march 15 and we will need five votes on this item right?
Ms.Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Yes I heard you, I can't stop and recognize you and
not finish my statement but you have the floor.
Ms.Yukimura: True I just wanted to make a suggestion that maybe
we vote on the Mayor's budget we amend it according to how we do it than we take the proposal from
Mr. Bynum as well as the additional that we need to... well we should put the additional and the
changes to the un-appropriate or what do you call it the fund balance? All in one vote and
Mr. Bynum's in a separate vote so that it's clean and we can find out later because Mr. Bynum might
get five votes and it will be settled and if he doesn't than he doesn't. It's probably affordable thing on
his reduction but the rest is a five vote.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I haven't heard from some councilmember's and
I'm wondering if I shouldn't ask if I could have some commentary on schedule B?Mr. Kipukai.
Mr. Kualii: Mr. Chair I just want to say as with our discussions
on other very similar matters I would support targeted tax relief but a blanket relief across the
category I cannot support that at this time. Not to give this cuts to some while we're giving increases
to others or while we're dipping into the reserve.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I was hoping we could get through the vote before
Mr. Kualii had to leave because his vote may be important but I know he's got about 4 minutes left
here.As I said I wanted to introduce what do Y ou call this schedule A or?
Mr. Furfaro: Schedule C which is what came over on the march...
Mr. Rapozo: Exactly and I think for various reasons but I think
Mr. Dyer hit it right on the head earlier and I appreciate Mr. Dyer you coming today and testifying
and I really appreciate your honesty about the cap. We haven't heard that where Mr. Furfaro did
mention the 70 million dollars in relief and if you go back in the program and I appreciate your
honesty in saying thanks that helps but really what we're really looking for is some major, major tax
reform something that you participated in years ago. Again I appreciate your service and something
that I'm hoping the tax office and this body understands that what we really need. We need
comprehensive tax reform, not the band aid approach and what's being done here. I'm going to stick
with the March 15 tax rates and I'm not going to support any tax increases or any tax decreases. I
think as we move forward with some new tax methods next year with the single rate system we can
better understand how the allocation of taxes are made throughout the tax payers, but for this year
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.72
and I agree with Councilmember Kualii that it needs to be a lot more and I think the Mayor's Office
by the way not the Mayor's Office but the Finance Department Tax Office is working on targeted tax
relief that seems to be working quite well from the last numbers I saw. I want to give them that
opportunity to move forward with that and expand that. I cannot support tax increases on the single
family residential because of the people that own lands. I've gotten calls from people that own just
empty lots like you mentioned that's going to get hammered and I don't think that's fair either.
When the tax rate increase was applied to the land which is really the more aggressive
market changing rates, so I'm not going to support A or B I'm going to support C, I don't believe
schedule C requires any action because it is what's on the table the March 15 tax rates are what's on
the table and I don't believe that requires any action form this body thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Not other than an understand ding that we're going to
have to dip into the reserve deeper because it's only 77 million there.
Mr. Rapozo: But Mr. Chair before we start talking about the
dipping into the reserve or expanding the surplus I do want to have an opportunity to and maybe
give us sometime whether it's 15 minutes or 20 minutes to review some further cuts in the budget
whether or not we can make that happen.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay this is my point we have spent 2 hours talking
about 10 thousand dollars today and now we're trying to pass a hundred and sixty eight million
dollar budget inside of a time that the sand hour glass is running out on us. Okay Mr. Kualii than
Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Kualii: Okay just process wise I would like to see us vote on
this matter before us as quickly as possible as I'm stretching my schedule another ten minutes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and the matter in front of us is schedule B?
Mr. Kualii: Schedule B and than schedule A and then schedule C.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I want you folks to know that I do plan to
support schedule B so I will let the votes fall where they may okay. I'm going to call a... you want to
speak?
Ms. Nakamura: I just think in the interest of time I would like to go
along with it but I would like some time later to explain.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I will give you time later to explain your vote. I
would hope I would have the same time to since I just indicated where I'm going at this and I will be
supporting schedule B. Okay roll call vote please? The roll call vote is based on the motion about
approving schedule B. Schedule B is a hybrid between the mayor and Mr. Bynum's presentation and
a lot of the other dialog we've had in the last 6 months, Roll call.
The motion for schedule B was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-4,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL-3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0.
Mr. Topenio: Four ayes, Sir.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.73
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, so the motion fails.
Mr. Kuali`i: Can we vote on schedule A?
Mr. Furfaro: We can vote on schedule A. Let's get a motion for
schedule A. Let's get a motion for schedule A.
Mr. Chang: Second.
Mr. Rapozo: There's no motion, if there's no motion it doesn't go to
schedule C.
Mr. Bynum: Second.
Mr. Kuali`i: There's no motion.
Mr. Bynum: No, he said we're going to vote on schedule A.
Mr. Furfaro: Hold on, I heard can I get a motion for schedule A,
than Mr. Chang second it but we didn't have a first motion.
Mr. Bynum moved to approve schedule A, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and further discussion, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I'm going to support schedule A. It's the Mayor's
proposal, and it is revenue neutral for the Hotel and Resort class. It raises the land rate and single
family residential but those tax payers as a class will still be paying less taxes than they did 2 years
ago. Ninety cents and we've talked about people with land, if you have a piece of land valued at a
hundred thousand dollars, a ninety cents increase is ninety dollars okay so we're not talking about
getting hammered. I agree that that's a concern but not enough to put us in a situation where we
don't have enough revenue to balance our budget.
Mr. Furfaro: So I would like to call for the vote. Okay call for the
vote please on schedule A.
The motion to approve schedule A was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Mr. Topenio: Four ayes, Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: So, that fails as well.
Mr. Kuali`i: Upon a personal privilege, I do have to leave. I Am
going to do Council business and I'm sorry I couldn't be here longer. I appreciate all the hard work
that everyone is doing especially the staff and the administration thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.74
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I've been advised that we still need to vote
on schedule C?
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah, I've been saying that for a long time.
Mr. Rapozo moved to approve schedule C, seconded by Mr. Kuali`i.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, do we have a discussion,Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: I need to understand the implications because I think
we have a huge deficit with schedule C.
Mr. Furfaro: Or we take out more money from the surplus or we
start taking out items from the budget that were put in.
Ms.Yukimura: And how much money are we taking out of the
surplus?
Mr. Furfaro: About 3.8 million it looks like. Go ahead oh I'm sorry I
have recognized Mr. Bynum than I will recognize you, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Mr. Rapozo said a few minutes ago that he's not going
to vote for any tax increases or decreases and voting for schedule C means that resident homeowners
will pay increase for sure and single family residential and hotel and resort will have a reduction for
sure. I mean let's deal with reality; reality is reductions are built in if we keep the rates the same for
every class except the homestead class which will pay increases so I will not support schedule C.
Mr. Furfaro: One moment staff, based on the numbers that came
into the budget for operating cost in this discussion I would like you to subtract that number and
unfortunately I used some rounded numbers okay, Councilwomen Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Chair. By not instituting the proposed tax
increases and reductions, we will need to come up with 2 million 8 hundred eighty nine thousand,
two hundred and one dollars.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Mr. Bynum could you be here at the table
please.
Ms. Nakamura: In addition the Council has added approximately
eight hundred ninety eight thousand dollars. So the total is about 3.8 million dollars that we would
need to find in this budget so that we will not raise the tax rates this year or make any reductions.
So my proposal was to do a combination of looking at the fund balance, increasing the fund balance
by 3 million dollars and at the same time adjusting the reserve fund downwards by approximately
1.8 million dollars. Those two actions would prevent us from having to institute a tax increase this
year.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay further discussion?
Mr. Kuali`i: Well I think it's important that we support this
proposal and I think not giving tax increases or tax decreases to anyone at this time. Waiting a year
to see all the programs, new programs that are put in place to see what that brings and to see
further and make a real comprehensive tax reform and review the rates next year thank you.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.75
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: I would like to see Mr. Hunt up here please? Steve
thanks, if we leave the tax rates at the March submittal that would mean a reduction for single
family right?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And it will mean a reduction for hotel and resort
right?
Mr. Hunt: Reduction between fiscal 12 and fiscal 13 projected
revenue from that class.
Mr. Bynum: Right a decrease.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: And for conservation and apartment and commercial.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Bynum: They will all have reductions in tax bills correct?
Mr. Hunt: I believe there might have been one or two classes
that were close to neutral it might even have a slight ag and industrial maybe.
Mr. Bynum: And the majority of resident homeowners will pay
increases if we change nothing?
Mr. Hunt: I would say that's an accurate statement.
Mr. Bynum: Okay so people are saying they don't want to lower or
raise taxes but that's what we're doing. We're lowering taxes for virtually every tax payer except
resident homeowners who will pay an increase.
Mr. Hunt: The only concern I have and we don't have a quote
unquote schedule C present, but that number was a projection that was a 773 based on appeals...
Mr. Furfaro: No, no, no, let's make sure I don't want too... it was 77
that you passed over and when you certified it was 78.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: So Councilwomen Nakamura's number was off by
about a million dollars.
Mr. Hunt: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: But still we had to tap the other reserves.
Mr. Hunt: Right.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.76
Mr. Furfaro: Depending on which number she used in her math.
Okay any questions further for Mr. Hunt?
Ms.Yukimura: Well I need to know what the accurate numbers are.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay let me have this shared with you folks. When we
got the first March 15 number Steve, it was seventy seven three hundred thousand in round
numbers.
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: After the certified tax role came in it was 78,338,499 a
difference of a million thirty eight thousand, four nine, nine, right?
Mr. Hunt: Right.
Mr. Furfaro:
So regardless of going back to the March 15 submittal
the actual cash income from the property tax role was a million higher than March 15 right?
Mr. Hunt: Correct.
Mr. Furfaro: We are at a million twenty three thousand for ads
right?We're going to take a recess and I'm sorry Mr. Kualii will probably not be here e for the vote but
we have to put the right numbers up on the board. Make something quickly here, Mr. Kualii do you
have any more questions?
Mr. Kuali`i: What numbers do we need?
Mr. Furfaro: We're going to need about ugh Scott what's the
number right now for total operating expenses?
Scott Sato: Annual 1.023.
Mr. Furfaro: To what number? Added to what number? That's the
number I think we're looking for. Any answer yet? Mr. Chang if I can have you at the table,
Councilwomen Nakamura we wanted to have some discussion with one of the members to answer a
question. Go ahead.
Ms. Nakamura: In terms of the impacts to the reserve fund which was
your questions too was that and I asked Jade to do a quick calculation...
Ms.Yukimura: We're on record?
Mr. Furfaro: We're on record.
Ms. Nakamura: So I asked Jade to do a quick calculation to see that if
we took 2 million from the reserve based on the increase in the supplemental budget than how would
that impact the percentage set aside for the reserve. She came back with a number of 15.2 percent.
Mr. Furfaro: That was the number for schedule A and that's what I
was concerned with because the bond company is going to look at what our amount is against our
operating expenses.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.77
Ms. Nakamura: This number was also the number that she gave me
based on schedule C.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay it's the same number that I had and you know
once we go below 15 it could have some effect on our bond rating with our ability to borrow future
money.
Ms. Nakamura: So this one is 15.2 percent?
Ms.Yukimura: But we are raising taxes and we aren't raising rates
but we are going to be raising taxes by the tax rates schedule that we're developing.
Mr. Furfaro: Yeah and I think what everyone forgets is when you
compare stuff 3 years ago to now in certain classifications, hotel, apartments, industrial, they didn't
grow. The category that grew was residential and homesteads so I couldn't tell you how they're going
to view that in those last 3 years. That's where most of our construction has been. Do we have a
number yet?Mr. KipuKai I don't have a number for you and...
Ms.Yukimura: Oh there it is now.
Mr. Furfaro: Oh okay well you can all see it I can't so. Would you
go to the mic Jade? Okay so Jade, using the submission of March 15 from the Mayor and then you've
added in the other revenues caught with the certification and based on where we have added to the
operating expenses, the short fall will be what?
JADE FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK: Jade Tanigawa for the
record, its three million, nine hundred twelve thousand, 201.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay and that's what will come out of the reserve if
not the other option is to begin attacking operating expenses.
Ms. Tanigawa: Yeah I mean in essence that's what the council needs
to find.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay Jade stay right there so everybody understands
what the impact is of going to schedule C.
Ms. Nakamura: Jade we could also just take a portion of it from the
reserve and than a portion on the fund balance.
Ms. Tanigawa: The un-appropriated surplus?
Ms. Nakamura: That's the proposal I was looking at when moving
forward.
Mr. Furfaro: I think we already had that piece on their on the first
schedule B, some would come from the fund balance and some would come from the surplus, so it's
the same thing.
Ms. Nakamura: Same concept.
Mr. Furfaro: Same thing. Council Vice Chair.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.78
Ms.Yukimura: What is the proportion being proposed?
Ms. Nakamura: So 2 million from the fund balance and the remaining
from the reserve fund.
Ms.Yukimura: Which is how much?
Ms. Nakamura: One point nine.
Ms.Yukimura: Which leaves what percentage?
Ms. Tanigawa: About 15.2 percent.
Mr. Furfaro: It's the same as the first proposal.
Ms.Yukimura: It is 15.2?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes 15.2.
Ms.Yukimura: Two point nine and oh wait...
Ms. Tanigawa: Two million.
Ms.Yukimura: Two million and 1.9, okay.
Mr. Kualii: Can I call for the question please?
Mr. Furfaro: Being called for the question.
Ms.Yukimura: And we're going to be able to discuss it afterwards?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes, okay. So it is as summarized using some bond
money and some monies from other surplus accounts and if that's the right terminology at this point.
Call for the vote.
The motion to approve schedule C was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kuali`i, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL-3,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum,Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL-3,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: None TOTAL-0,
SILENT: Chang TOTAL-1.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, so we're at a point where the Mayor might
actually write his own budget. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: We're in Alice in Wonderland territory here. We're
talking about taking 2 million dollars from this reserve account or that reserve account. The fact is
we started this year with a general fund reserve of 51 million dollars, it's not 22, its not 12, it's not 6.
The bonding agents are going to look at what we do with taxes and they're going to look at that
general fund and reserve and say that's the biggest one I've ever seen. I just can't believe that we...
II; the Mayor's proposal A was a reasonable proposal adding some relief for resident homeowners was a
reasonable proposal. All of this expression concerned about dipping in to the reserve and some
members want to have the biggest dip of all. More than the Mayor's proposed and at first in this
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.79
process people were saying oh the Mayor reduced the dipping into the reserve by 6 million good for
him. We need to deal with reality, these are budget numbers their not real and we have real
numbers and we're ignoring them. Thank you.
Ms.Yukimura: Yeah I mean we're at an impasse but I would like to
suggest that we take a recess and have some time to think about some other combinations that
might be acceptable. It will certainly take some creativity and focus but there are still a lot more
combinations that we could look at so I think we should take the time to do that. We were scheduled
to adjourn at 4:30 and we still have an hour and a half.
Mr. Rapozo: I don't know what the process is but if I understand
the process as I believe it is and we don't agree on any of the amendments than the March 15 budget
as it was submitted would stand, which would basically be you schedule C. That's how I understand
it so it's not an impasse I mean we're an impasse between the A&B but the schedule C as the Mayor
has provided in the ordinance which is the March 15 submittal is the rates that would stand.
Mr. Furfaro: I actually want to take a recess and I want to see the
Finance Director and I want to see the County Attorney while I'm on that break to get some clarity. I
want to make sure you folks understand, everyone here had a wish list and I introduced 2 items. I
introduced 64 thousand dollars for the CAC in Kekaha and I introduced 90 thousand for the Salt
Beds geological survey.You folks went shopping and that's one of the reasons we are probably at this
impasse right now. I will let Mr. Bynum speak than I will have a consultation with the County
Attorney, the Clerk and the Finance Director and we'll have more dialogs we are scheduled today
until 4:30, go ahead.
Mr. Bynum: The first vote we took here was on B it had 4 votes
and I would like someone during this break to tell me where is it in the Charter that says we need 5
votes to set tax rates?
Mr. Furfaro: That's why I'm meeting with the County Attorney.
Mr. Bynum: Okay and that's why I want to renew my objection to
the way this came down. Its different than any other one I've done and maybe it does say that in the
Charter but I don't recall but I don't think setting tax rates requires 5 votes.
Ms.Yukimura: I share that concern.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay well on that note to the County Attorney to the
Finance Director and to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, may I meet with you and I'm going to meet
with you and I want to make this a 20 minute break, 20 minute break. Some of you may want to go
out and grab a tuna sandwich or something.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:05 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 3:45 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kuali`i excused at 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Furfaro: I just want to reconfirm some things with you Al first
and I would like the County Clerk up here too.
AL CASTILLO, COUNTY ATTORNEY: For the record Al Castillo, County Attorney.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.80
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you Al.
Mr. Castillo: Before Councilmember Chang reminds me.
Mr. Furfaro: Ricky could you introduce yourself.
RICKY WATANABE, COUNTY CLERK: For the record Ricky Watanabe, County Clerk.
Mr. Furfaro: First of all there is there any change in the
interpretation that deals with the fact that the technical budget that was submitted to us on
March 15 is the piece that we need to work with?
Mr. Castillo: Yes and there is no change to that.
Mr. Furfaro: No change to that?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to ask a series of questions before I
recognize anybody. The supplemental piece was in fact a communication but how does that measure
up when I had the group agree that we would be working off of the May 8 piece?
Mr. Castillo: I think that's a starting point for your discussions as a
Legislative body. It doesn't necessarily take away from the fact that the numbers that we would be
looking at and considering regarding whether or not it is an increase. I'm not saying just because you
said that's the starting point it doesn't take away from the fact that March 15 is what we actually
work on when we determine whether or not...
Mr. Furfaro: Well I'm just saying there's 3 pieces here to me that
are quite backwards because the way we approach this we always have dealt with the expenditures
first. Than we get a certified tax role and we revisit this process based on the fact knowing that we're
trying to wait for the Legislature to conclude their business so we know plus and minuses, what
effects the State had on us. What I'm saying is I got a vote from members that we we're going to
work off the May 8 piece. I didn't get a vote from the members that we're going to work off the
March 15 piece.
Mr. Castillo: Okay maybe...
Mr. Furfaro: Is there anything you can add there.
Mr. Castillo: Maybe Mr. Watanabe can add.
Mr. Furfaro: Rick?
Mr.Watanabe: If that's how you started the decision making by
getting a vote to accept the May 8 as the starting guide, than in essence I would interpret that as you
have amended the March 15 with the May 8 and you should have got the differences in the variance
column to know what you changed and what changed between the March 15 and May 8 which I
think you guys did. So given that and this is just my interpretation and not a legal opinion that you
need to really go and complete doing what you did for expenditures as far as revenues are concerned.
Meaning if you worked off the May 8 with expenditures than you need to continue with revenues and
be consistent.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.81
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to go through my questions so you
folks can hear them before I recognize...
Mr. Watanabe: And ultimately Chair the County Attorney is right,
March 15 is the only bill on the table, it's the only bill on the table, and May 8 is a communication.
Mr. Furfaro: We need to pass a budget by June 7, is that correct?
Mr. Watanabe: Yes per Charter.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay. If I ask for a reconsideration of these schedules
no matter how many members are here I still need 5 votes?
Mr.Watanabe: Yes given the scenario that the May 8 and perhaps
the Deputy Jake, May 8 the total number for the real property as compared to the different A, B and
C exhibits. How does that compare? Okay so on the May 8 we had 81.2 million on exhibit(B)we have
80.2 so that would be a decrease from the May 8 and I'm missing (C) I don't have (C). And (C) is the
inclusive of the certified role is 78 I think Jade?The March 15 inclusive of the certification.
Ms. Tanigawa: Seventy eight.
Mr. Watanabe: Okay so (A) would be an increase, (B) would be... okay
on the March 15 it was 77.3 per the certified role and it came on March 30, it was 78.338.499 and on
May 8 the submittal was 81.227.700 eighty one million, point two. So what I believe we're working
off of was given the scenario that was stated up front is the 81.2 Million.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to finish my questions now first. So
why do we work off of the re-submittal of May 8 of which I got 7 members confirming but the
numbers and I'm sorry I don't mean to... the numbers that came to us on March 15 quite frankly
were ugly. So we had all this dialog, we pointed out the things that needed to be massaged and so
forth, we got a re-look a re-forecast and I hate to use that term but there was places that things
didn't even tie together on. So than I get a support and a vote to accept May 8 as the starting point
and what we're saying is perhaps I shouldn't have done that. Why do we even do a re-submittal
than?Why do we even do a re-submittal than? Here's how I see it, every time an item came up forget
the 2 hours we wasted in the Prosecutors Office today about 10 grand. When we talked about big
numbers I stated the rules to the members here that if they wanted to make a change I was looking
for 5 votes, I was looking for 5 votes so I could sustain a veto to the Mayor and I made that very clear
and we were working off the May 8 piece. There are parts in our rules that imply to me that was the
correct thing for me to do, constantly remind the members that anything we change on May 8
submittal would require five votes. That's the purpose of the May 8 submittal it gives everybody the
times after the Q &A to evaluate the value of those changes and see it in a new picture based on the
questions we sent over than amend if we see necessary. With five votes on those items not to pass it
but to protect us to override a veto if it existed, so I'm sitting here now saying I need five votes on
passing this budget that every item that was changed I got 5 votes on. I mean something is not right
there, so I guess I want to ask this question before I go any further. Is anyone that voted (NO) on the
(A) schedule or if there is anyone that voted (NO) on the (B) schedule, would like to reconsider their
vote? Members I'm looking for anyone who voted (NO) to make a motion to reconsider their vote
either on the (A) schedule or the (B) schedule?There is no one? Okay my comments are pau now and
we have no one that would ask that so I will recognize Mr. Bynum first, Mr. Rapozo second and
councilwomen Yukimura third. Is that the order that the hands went up?Was that? Okay.
Mr. Bynum: I asked before the break that you show me in the
Charter where it says that it takes five votes to set tax rates.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.82
Mr. Castillo: That's a... well let me answer your question in that
manner in the manner that I'm going too. What you're doing now is you're doing a budgetary
measure which does take into account the tax rate. Yes you are correct that when you do a tax rate
resolution it doesn't take five votes but that's not what we're doing now. Right now what is operable
is Section 19 of the Charter which the subject matter that we're talking about is the tax revenues so
that's why and your question is we are not setting the tax rate because that's not what's on the
agenda right now.
Mr. Bynum: Okay and so that's a bizarre answer so I will just go
on the...
Mr. Castillo: You say that's a bizarre answer but the question that
you asked me was what about schedule (B) and you are contesting that schedule (B) is not an
increase, but rather schedule (B) is an increase and schedule (B) has nothing to do with setting tax
rates.
Ms. Yukimura: That's not true.
Mr. Castillo: Setting the tax rates is done by resolution and we
went through that process right?
Ms.Yukimura: No.
Mr. Bynum: Excuse me if I may continue?
Mr. Castillo: Sure.
Mr. Bynum: So the issue is because schedule (B) was an overall
increase it required five votes, is that your position?
Mr. Castillo: And that's the reason why I am saying that section 19
applies.
Mr. Bynum: And I said before the vote that we should take them
separately because my proposal is a reduction. And I said let's take them separately.
Mr. Castillo: And you did not?
Mr. Bynum: Because I was told I was wrong. So I ask you this
right now, if I made a proposal that wasn't schedule (B) that just said we're going to base this budget
on a 305 tax rate than I need 4 votes because it's a reduction.
Mr. Castillo: And the question that I would have is whether or not
the measure could be done separately, I don't know.
Mr. Bynum: Of course it can be done separately why can't.... This
is... I'm sorry maybe I didn't hear the answer. If I propose the budget be based on a tax rate in the
homestead class of 305 which is a reduction from the March and may submittal, take your pick
because it's exactly the same as related to that tax rate than it requires 4 votes right?
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.83
Mr. Castillo: Well the Council can structure how you want to... the
Chair can structure how you implement the budget and now the way it was done like I said I don't
know what you're trying to do separately.
Mr. Bynum: Okay if I propose that the budget be based on a
homestead tax rate of 305 it requires 4 votes if that is the only question before the Council. Not
wrapped in with the Mayor's proposal.
Mr. Castillo: I'm sorry I don't know the answer.
Mr. Bynum: You don't know the answer.
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, I just want to state something Mr.
Bynum. That's not the only question that's on the table I still want to have an answer too. When I
got a 7-0 vote to accept the May 8 submittal that is still out on the table.
Mr. Castillo: Yes and I can...
Mr. Furfaro: I just wanted to add that Mr. Bynum, you still have
the floor.
Mr. Bynum: I'm waiting for an answer.
Mr. Castillo: Council Chair, I don't have an answer.
Mr. Bynum: The answer is you don't know.
Mr. Castillo: I don't know the answer is I don't know and the
answer to your question Council Chair is I do agree that the Section 19 where it talks about May 8
does concern me and how this Council implements that.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay I'm going to recognize Mr. Rapozo I can come
back to you Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you I have a legal question Al. This is my eight
budget and it's never been this complicated and I just wanted to make sure of one thing and it has
been said I think a couple of times in your earlier discussion or in Ricky's but... March 15 is the bill
that's before us?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Not the modification?
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: The bill that we are addressing today is what was
submitted on March 15?
Mr. Castillo: That's correct.
Mr. Rapozo: The vote that was taken by the Council to have a
starting point was simply that and that's how it was explained. We needed a number to put in the
block to start.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.84
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: I made the motion I said let's just start with the
May 8 number because it was the most current but we did not amend the bill. The bill was never
amended.
Mr. Castillo: Yes and where this Council decided on what the
starting point was or is...
Mr. Rapozo: Is of concern.
Mr. Castillo: Yes or it may be irrelevant to the real number that we
should be looking at which is the March 15 numbers.
Mr. Rapozo: Right but having said that whatever number we
picked to start this decision making and this is also just decision making so we don't even set the tax
rates yet and you're right we do it when we do the resolution and when we pass the budget
ordinance. But this is the period that we use to have the discussions to determine what that will be.
Mr. Castillo: And that was for was for your discussion purposes.
Mr. Rapozo: Exactly so what I'm saying is...
Mr. Furfaro: Why did I take a vote?
Mr. Rapozo: I'm sorry?
Mr. Furfaro: I took a vote.
Mr. Rapozo: Right but the vote was just to have a starting point.
Mr. Castillo: So that all of you could agree to something.
Mr. Rapozo: But we did not amend the bill.
Mr. Castillo: It was an amendment.
Mr. Rapozo: It was not amended, it was not amended and people
can disagree. I'm just saying when you follow a parliamentary procedure until the bill is amended
we're working off of the original bill.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: So when you're comparing numbers for today's
purposes in my opinion and I'm not a Parliamentarian but I have been through enough of these
stinking meetings that we're working off of the March 15 bill.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: We cannot change that until we make a formal motion
to amend and approve the amendment.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.85
Mr. Rapozo: Than you should have told me that when I posed the
question to you and the next time I ask for consideration to take the main piece I will do it to amend,
okay?
Mr. Castillo: Okay but...
Mr. Furfaro: And I'm going to ask the Clerk to get some
clarification from the minutes but you can just as well have told me that answer that I couldn't do
that.
Mr. Castillo: No as the Council Chair to have the Council agree on
where the starting point is that's your prerogative and how that affects the existence or how valid
the March 15 is apples and oranges.
Mr. Furfaro: That's if the March 15 thing was perfect and it was
ugly. Mr. Rapozo you still have the floor.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we shouldn't assume that
having the starting point that we did we could have picked any number really but it's not illegal?
Mr. Castillo: That's right.
Mr. Rapozo: And it was a number that we needed to start with.
Mr. Castillo: It's a starting point for all of you yes.
Mr. Rapozo: So that doesn't affect anything that we do today it's
just and what I'm trying to say is when we get to our and I guess it's what day is that Mr. Chair that
we go back to the May 23 or May 21?
Mr. Furfaro: I'm actually considering having a posting of a
continuation of this meeting on May 23 so I'm having them check that out right now.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Because we're required to give 6 days'notice.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay because that's when whatever is decided here
gets put on the paper and gets put on the paper and gets introduced as the amendments and so
forth.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay so that's really all I have and I just want to
make sure that it was clear that the March 15 budget was never amended and that's what we're
deliberating today. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay you've heard what I have said and I don't want
to cover much more detail on this. I think we need some time to digest things so I will go around the
table one more time, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: If we voted early this session to say we're going to
base all of this budget deliberation on May 15, I mean March 15. Why couldn't that easily be
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.86
interpreted as we adopted that budget in total and then started making changes from that. We voted
on it that's the Chair's point.
Mr. Furfaro: That's my point we voted on it 7-0.
Mr. Bynum: We said this is the budget we're going to adopt and
then we're going to make changes based on this vote and we all agreed okay this is it. You could
easily interpret that as saying now that's the budget we amended the March to the May and now
we're going to see if we want to do further amendments. I think that's the Chair's point and I agree
with him and I still think we've set tax rates and I didn't get an answer to my other question?Maybe
I'm going to end up in court with this one because I've been here for six budgets, five six, five to add
and four to decrease. I believe the vote that we took that went four is a valid vote that we have
already adopted plan B and before me made that vote I said okay if you're going to say any increase
takes five than I want to separate this vote.
Mr. Castillo: And I think I heard the Chair say that this will be
revisited on the 23.
Mr. Furfaro: I want to see when we can quickly re-post but my
point here Al is we posted this and this was posted and it references the Mayor's May 8 re-submittal.
Before we started I got agreement from the group that that was going to be where we start of
modifications of which we made a million forty eight thousand dollars worth of it, so if you're telling
me that I should have made a motion to amend the budget submittal, hey live and learn and such is
life. This is the way I perceived it and I posted it and such.
Mr. Castillo: Council Chair I didn't say how this council proceeded
on May 8 was wrong and I'm basically saying that that's what was discussed and agreed upon by all
of you.
Mr. Furfaro: Well I appreciate that but I did hear you say to
Mr. Rapozo that I should have moved to modify it and forget what I posted I should have moved to
amend I'm sorry. So any way live and learn such is life and I think my position is I want to continue
again in the next 6 days because we only have until June 7. Is there any more discussion here before
I ask to consider not doing anything more than... here am I recessing the Committee to May 26 or
am I re-posting a new committee? It's something I want to get some consideration from... We're
going to make a short recess of ten minutes and I said we would be done with this session by 4:30 so
let's take a 10 minute recess.
There being no objections, the council recessed at 4:10 p.m.
The Council reconvened and 4:28 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Furfaro: Okay we're back in session and as I mentioned if we're
at an impasse today I would find myself asking for a "Special Meeting," bit before I ask for the
special meeting I'm going to ask if and I'm going to give it my last chance if I can ask for a
reconsideration on the tax schedule, schedule B and I would like to look for anyone that voted in the
affirmative to make a...
Ms. Nakamura moved to reconsider schedule B, seconded by Mr. Bynum.
Ms. Yukimura: I think since you voted in the negative it has to be one
of us to make the motion.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.87
Mr. Rapozo: No, it's the prevailing side.
Ms.Yukimura: Well, okay. Sorry, thank you.
Mr. Bynum: Well she made a motion and I second it.
Mr. Furfaro: Who is she now?
Mr. Bynum: Councilmember Nakamura.
Mr. Furfaro: Very good and you second it.
Mr. Rapozo: I have a question real quick.
Mr. Furfaro: Go right ahead.
Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, we're talking about an impasse but are we
voting, we're not voting on the budget at this point.
Mr. Furfaro: We're voting on the reconsideration on the tax rate.
Mr. Rapozo: Right so once the tax rates are set than we go in to
plus and minus and we eventually have a budget that we have to agree on so I just wanted to get
clarification that we're only voting on the tax rates at this point?
Mr. Furfaro: We are voting to reconsider schedule B on this
particular piece than we will vote again after the reconsideration. So we have a motion and a second
so may I have a roll call vote. Oh one moment please Councilmember Nakamura would like to have
time. I will give the floor to Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I thought I was going to have time earlier today to
make my statements but because Councilmember Kualii had to leave I did not have an opportunity
to so I guess this is the time to do it. Councilmember's Bynum's proposal too...
Ms.Yukimura: Excuse me, is this on the motion to reconsider because
we haven't voted on it.
Mr. Furfaro: We haven't voted on it yet so we need to do that first.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay fine.
Mr. Furfaro: Lights please. Okay we have a motion and a second
and Mr. Clerk could we do a roll call.
The motion to reconsider schedule B was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura, Rapozo,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL-6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL-1.
Mr. Topenio: Six ayes, Sir.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.88
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, so we have six yes's on the reconsideration.
Now to the Clerk I want to ask before we go to actually vote on the schedule, would I need a motion
and a second and then give Councilwomen Nakamura the floor as she has requested?
Mr. Watanabe: Yes, Chair.
Mr. Furfaro: Okay, so I'm looking motion and a second to approve
Schedule B.
Mr. Bynum moved to approve schedule B, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Mr. Rapozo: I think we already had the motion she reconsidered so
that motion is on the floor. She did a motion to reconsider so that motion sits on the floor, if she
didn't and I don't know what motion she's reconsidering because we had A, B and C.
Mr. Furfaro: I did say B.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, so B is already on the floor.
Mr. Furfaro So, B is on the floor now.
Mr. Watanabe: Chair, I believe it would be real straight forward if we
did a motion to approve Schedule B.
Mr. Furfaro: That's what I thought okay. May I have a motion to
approve and that's what I thought we did but let's do it again.
Mr. Bynum moved to approval schedule B, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much. Councilwomen Nakamura, you
have the floor.
Ms. Nakamura: So Councilmember's Bynum Proposal to decrease the
homestead class tax rate is based on the premise that the homestead class has paid a
disproportionate high tax over the past 3 years. Councilmember Bynum says that homeowners have
paid 3 million more in real property taxes over the past 3 years and we've seen this diagram many
times over the past several months. However when you look at the past 8 years, can you put up the
exhibit B. Since the inception of the cap the homestead class has paid a very small percentage of real
property taxes and I think this is the message that has not been very clear to the public based on the
information that has been sent out. Although the homestead class accounts for 26 percent of the total
land value on Kaua`i it pays only 13 percent of all real property taxes collected. One of the reasons is
that the cap limited the amount of property tax increase for permanent home uses providing
homeowner tax relief to the tune of about 70 million dollars over the past 8 years so there has been
lot of relief. The second is that there are numerous exemptions available to homeowners including
exemptions based on age and income that one of the exemptions is the low income tax exemption
that we recently passed, that will provide targeted relief to the tune of 6 hundred thousand dollars to
families making less than 80 percent of the Kaua`i median income. To me the real measure that we
should be looking at is the effective tax rate and that's the rate based on gross value less exemptions.
The homestead class rates has the lowest effective tax rate of all categories at 2.17 cents in
2012 so this is why I did not initially support Councilmember Bynum's proposal and I really think
that they're and I do acknowledge the disparity in real property taxes created by the cap. While the
cap has provided stability in taxes in the homestead class it's clear that properties of the same value
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.89
are currently taxed differently. If our shared goal is to have a fair tax system, I would like to ask the
administration to form a working group to address this concern and to come up with some real
recommendations as to how we might resolve this issue this year. The Kaua`i County Council
working closely with the Carvalho administration passed land lord tax refunds in November of last
year. Some of the changes went into effect this fiscal year and other changes will go into effect next
fiscal year. Some of the changes include taxing properties based on actual use, combining land and
building into one tax, creating a new tax classification for Transient Vacation Rentals and putting
long term affordable rentals in homestead classification to encourage rentals for residence. I don't
think anyone in this room really knows what that impact of the tax reforms will be and I think that
was the other reason why I thought making changes this year could wait. I recognize that we have
gone through a lot of good changes to the budget on the expense side and I would like to move this
process forward. I know that a lot of the programs and projects that I felt were worthy are included
in this budget and I would like to see them carried out. I thank you for your support of those projects
so just in the spirit of compromise and to move this process forward I would be re-considering my
vote and approving Schedule B.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much can I have the lights back on
please. The item on the floor is the Schedule B and I want to remind everyone that based on the
narrative that we got from the county attorney this will require 5 votes and I will recognize
Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. I voted for the reconsideration obviously
to get the discussion and I'm not going to change my position. I guess I have a philosophical
difference from my colleagues and I don't know how it's going to be construed but I just got an e-mail
from someone that said if you raise my taxes Mel I'm not going to vote for you and that's fine. This
job is a difficult job and we have difficult decisions to make but just for the public's information, the
administration's budget from March 15- May 8 increased by 6.6 million dollars, 6.6 million dollars
from March 15 to May 8. The Council gets the budget on May 8 and between May 8 and May 15
which is today we added approximately 1.1 million more and we cut 66 thousand six hundred and
ninety six dollars. That's what we cut and that's according to our staffs numbers. I have always had
a problem with the way we budget and we increase the budget so much but we don't cut and now
with this proposal we're going to raise taxes. We're going to give some relief but we're going to raise
taxes in a couple of classes and I haven't seen the attempt from this body or the administration to
really reduce our spending. Six point six million from the administration and we tacked on an extra
one point one so that's 7.7 million dollars in added expenditures in our budget. I tried and Mr. Chair
Talked about it being Christmas and yeah it sure was a lot of people put in a lot of stuff and I put in
2 things Mr. Chair just like you. I put in a 10 thousand dollar request for the Hawai`i Children's
Theatre and I also put in I guess its 30 or 40 thousand dollars for an additional Records Clerk at
KPD. That's what I had requested out of this budget and I requested a few other things that did not
pass but I was successful in getting those 2 little things. But 7.7 million dollars of increase spending
between March 15 and today, I think that's unacceptable and I initially had hope that we could keep
the reserve at 20 percent and I'm not sure what the impact will be to the reserve or the surplus with
this it may not have any impact.
Mr. Furfaro: Well it might be more like 15.2.
Mr. Rapozo: So we're going to tap into the reserve and we're going
to expand the un-appropriated surplus to make these numbers and I'm having a difficult time with
that. I am having a very difficult time with that and I'm not going to be supporting the tax rate and
if this is the budget that gets presented in June I'm not going to be supporting the budget as well. I
believe that this is a time where everyone in the County is struggling and I have e-mails that tell me
that and for this County to increase our spending by that much and raise taxes, I think is not the
right time and not the right thing to do. We all have different philosophies and I'm not going to say
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.90
that I'm right but I'm just going to say it's difficult for me to support a tax increase when I don't
believe and I'm talking both sides administration and this council did not do a good enough job in
reducing spending. Because of that I'm not going to be supporting this measure thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Do you want to speak before I speak? Vice Chair
Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes I think for the most part we are not raising taxes
we are raising rates on a declining assets value. So in many cases what we're talking about revenue
mutual means that people will not be paying more than they did last year or they might be paying a
little bit more in one class and that is the single family class. In that single family class the rate on
land was lower than the rate on land for homeowners. So the single family class is the class of
vacation rental second homes but also rentals and there is a cap on rentals so there is some
protection but the cap is not as good as it will be or the relief is not as good as it will be next year
when those rentals on a long term basis will qualify for some homestead classification. So what we're
trying to do here is to balance, to be fair, and to raise a little bit from one class and remain revenue
neutral on the hotel and resort class and to mitigate the natural increase in the homestead class. As
Mr. Bynum has said without his proposal taxes will be increased for many of the homestead class
which is the owner occupant class. Some of them whose taxes are on the lower side will be protected
by the cap where they have higher values because they bought later or failed to file their
homeowner's assessment later they will get some relief. It's not just about cutting expenses but it is
about doing wise appropriations. I think where we will get better services, where we will prepare
better for the future, where we will get a good return on investments in terms of services to our
people. Protection against increases that kind of thing whether it be for bus services or park service's
those expenditures are good. Where we need to cut is where we're wasting, where we're not getting
the kind of return investment we need, where we are putting money into a dark hole because we
don't have a good plan and we don't know how we're going to do something and still we're spending
money toward it. That's where we should be cutting and this budget process was an effort to do that
kind careful deliberate appropriations. It was also a compromise of 7 people too so in all those ways I
think this budget process has been good and it hasn't been easy but I really want to acknowledge the
Chair for trying to hold the reins on feral cats and...
Mr. Furfaro: I wouldn't go that far.
Ms.Yukimura: What I mean is hold the reins on 6 other independent
thinking passionate Councilmember's with very different opinions. Also trying to make it an open
process which allows dialog and a lot of information, so I think the homestead class has gotten a lot
of relief over the years but since 2007 there has been an increase of taxes in that group and its time
to give some mitigation on those increases. The rate setting is year to year and it's not like an
exemption which is long term and I think this proposal strikes a really good balance amongst all the
interest that we have to consider.
Mr. Bynum: I was really appreciative of the statements other
members have made. Councilmember Yukimura pretty much just said my perspective on these
changes so I won't repeat them. I appreciate the comments made by Councilmember Nakamura as
well because it help ma understand your position better and I don't disagree, I think anything she
said especially the part about let's work together with the Carvalho Administration. Over the course
of this year to get accurate information and come up with reasonable proposals but I also want to
talk about the Mayor's budget. It's no secret I disagreed with the Mayor on Finance issues...
Mr. Furfaro: Excuse me, Mr. Bynun, I want to remind everyone
that we are voting on the tax rates and I'm going to give other members.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.91
Mr. Bynum: I know.
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going to give other members additional time
afterwards because we still have to come to the whole piece.
Mr. Bynum: Well I will be done in a minute.
Mr. Furfaro: I just wanted to share that with you.
Mr. Bynum: Okay so the issues on Finance the Mayor and I have
disagreed but on his budget expenditures proposals over the last 3 years I have largely supported
him for 2 reasons: One is deference, he's running the show and he has to deal with this at a much
greater extent than we do and it's difficult. Part of that difficulty is this activist's council who wants
lots of answers including myself. In his expenditures in his first couple of years he froze hiring, he
dollar funded positions and he gave us reductions for a couple of years straight. In his budget
proposal this year he said okay we've done those measures, we're fiscally sound and it's time to start
hiring some of those positions we've kept abated and its time we get back to an appropriate level of
services. I said from the beginning that overall budget message from the Mayor I supported and so I
really want to say that in context, there are elements of the choices he made that I disagreed with
and I tried to do proposals to change it because that's my job. Some have succeeded and some haven't
but his overall take on expenditures I have supported including this year. I agree that this tax
proposal is a balanced approach to dealing with all of these issues. Part of it came from the Mayor
which I'm willing to support and part of it came from me from modest relief so thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chang again we're talking about the portion on
real property taxes and where we're at in the revenue base so you have the floor.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chairmen. I just wanted to clarify for the
members that are here in the gallery and also the viewing audience. When we think about single
family residential I think a lot of the testimonies or some of the e-mails that have been coming in I
think a lot of people are confused with the homestead class. They immediately think well I'm a single
family resident so they confuse that with living on homestead and I think that's the big, big problem
and I want to make sure that people understand that when you're thinking about homestead you're a
single residential person and that shouldn't be confused. Homestead outside of that vacant land that
we're talking about really means that their vacant and improved with dwelling that is non owner
occupied.
Ms. Yukimura: You just said homestead.
Mr. Chang: Excuse me.
Ms.Yukimura: You just said homestead.
Mr. Chang: I mean single family I beg your pardon and that's why
I get confused with homestead and single family so let me just remind people about that. I hope I can
get clarified down the line but the single family residential outside of the vacant land that we're
talking about really improved their dwelling that is non owner occupied. They improve with 2 or
more dwellings so obviously their getting revenue and there may be one or more occupants living on
the dwelling. Now these properties are typically income producing with the majority of being used
either as long term or vacation rentals which is the people I believe that should be having a rate
increase. It will not affect those and again this is for the homesteaders, it will not affect those that
have permanent home use caps or have long term affordable rental caps as both will remain
protected. So I think that's extremely important and that's number one. Number two I feel very close
u
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.92
as most of us know to the hotel and resort industry, I don't have the 38/39 years experience but I
have over twenty five. What I would like to say is from the testimony that we received from one of
our hoteliers that represents the Hotel Association and of course the General Manger on the Eastern
corridor. One of the things that I hope people can remember is part of our stimulus package with the
Kaua`i Visitors Bureau is we're putting a lot of marketing dollars in to that Eastern Corridor to help
beef up that Eastern Corridor. In speaking with the General Managers that I have spoke to but more
importantly the General Mangers didn't come to talk with me because their good with it. They are
good with it for now realizing that for years I think the old hoteliers that use to live on Kaua`i
remembers how high it was at one point then they look back at where we are right now without
those increases they can live with that. Now for the homesteaders that some of them may qualify to
be able to get some sort of relief and that's good news that they are getting just a little relief itself. I
do want to remind that as Councilmember Bynum will let everyone know started at 5.4 and it got
amended if you will to 2.7 so we're trying our best to at least show an effort moving forward. As
many know within the past 8 years or so with the relief there was 70 million plus that was actually a
lot that people did not know about. I think it is a fair compromise, I think it is something that we
need to do and I'm just fully of support of this plan because we have to do something and to me this
is the fairest across the board. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: I'm going ahead and speak last on this established
real property tax rate that we just talked about. That's what on the piece now and we're going to talk
about the overall budget next. First of all I want to say thank you to the entire group and I want to
also acknowledge Councilmember Nakamura's willingness to reconsider our position and it is most
appreciated. I would like to make sure we have the narrative that was related to that as part of our
budget narrative if you can see that it gets incorporated with the staff so when we write up or
position. This is very interesting I am the introducer of the original tax cap and it's now gone from
2 percent to 3.7 percent. It has given us about 70 million dollars worth of relief in the nine years it's
been in place, 70 million dollars. I just want to compliment everyone for continuing to try to get our
position in place that our tax revenue is able to support the increase of amenities that we've been
able to give to the public. That includes bus, transport, expending the schedules, improving parks,
cac, those are all revenues that we have to consider and eighty percent of our revenues do in fact
come from the tax rate. Before we go to the vote I want to remind members that you will have an
opportunity to speak again on the overall budget. So let's call for the vote on the established tax rate
that is on the floor now.
The motion to approve schedule B was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL-5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL-1.
Mr. Watanabe: Five ayes, Sir.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you, now I want to go back and re-cap a few
things for you folks before we talk about approval on the overall budget. We did point out that we
needed to give the staff some time to reconcile the General Fund CIP and then transfer the monies
that were there into the operating account. We also realize that this action we take may in fact
reduce our surplus to about 15.2 percent of the reserve but we're waiting anxiously and I heard a
promise from Mr. Bynum that the ordinance that will establish the final reserve policy will be
coming forth by July so we've got some very big things on the horizon even though we're at where
we're at. At the same time the Mayor's group is going to bond council about refinancing our debt
which will add some opportunity for us to in fact save even more money of we take advantage of
these new rates. The March 15 supplemental budget came over at 161 million, 214 thousand dollars.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.93
The May 8 budget came over to us at 1 million 65.331 and we added corrected balance at this point of
1 million 7 thousand, four hundred and twelve dollars. So this material will be available to all of you
real soon and part of our discussion once it gets posted for public hearing. The detail is in these
spread sheets for the decision making policy and I want to remind us all that as we added these
things I made it mandatory that we get 5 votes to assure that it goes in. This is to make sure we
protect ourselves if the Mayor wishes to change something in advance I know we have the super
majority of the council that had voted on these additions. I'm going to turn over the floor to those
that want to count on the budget items but more importantly I first need a motion and a second to
approve it.
Mr. Bynum moved to approve the overall budget, seconded by Ms.Yukimura.
Ms.Yukimura: Well just to clarify the motion was to encompass all of
the decisions we've made up until now?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes.
Ms.Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: Would you like me to go to someone else first?
Ms.Yukimura: Sure.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chang:
Mr. Chang: We are like encompassing this whole process?
Mr. Furfaro: Well everything that's on the summary sheet that I
just summarized for you folks.You don't want to go first?Does anybody want to go first?
Mr. Bynum: I'll do it.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Bynum okay.
Mr. Bynum: I mean I made most of the comments I wanted to
make and there was a lot of give and take. One of the things that assure me in being a
councilmember is there is a public record. Everything we do is recorded and all of the votes we've
taken over the last 3 days were recorded, who made the motion, who voted yay, who voted nay. I
know I voted for some cuts that didn't make it some substantial ones, I voted for some additions
some that made it some that didn't. I have supported other members that wanted to add things
particularly if it had to do with economic development and diversifying our economy and some of the
bigger additions we made are in that category. I didn't make those proposals but I supported them
and so this has been different than previous budgets and that is a good thing. I think we will
continue to do better as a council and with the administration working on things that we put into
motion already to make not our budget deliberation so truncated and time sensitive at the end of the
process. I think that the Chair even though he frustrates me sometimes...
Mr. Furfaro: The feeling is mutual.
Mr. Bynum: I'm sure it is. I probably frustrate you more than you
frustrate me but he has really gone in his entire time as Chair and most of the time over the top to
try and give people voice in to strike that balance. I just want to reiterate I know I'm being
redundant but the Mayor did give us budgets with substantial cuts at the beginning of this economic
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.94
crises and it's from that base that we're adding some things. Not that we've gone up and up and up
all the way and I think he doesn't deserve to be cast in that light as much as he may have been. I'm
kind of happy with the outcome here.
Mr. Furfaro: Vice Chair.
Ms.Yukimura: Yes thank you Chair, I'm going to reserve most of my
comments for our formal adoption but I do want to thank my colleagues and the Chair for these last
four days of budget decision making. They haven't been easy but I have appreciated the respect and
the openness and the give and take and the real dedication in getting to know what the programs are
and what we're actually doing when we pass these budgets and programs. It's been a good process
and I want to thank the administration for being with us, Ernie, Wally, Al, Gary and others who
have assisted us. I also want to thank our staff which will still have work to do, they have been
extraordinary and we are so lucky and they still have more work to do. And Chair you were talking
but Chair I wanted to really thank you for your leadership and management of this process has been
really important in terms of how we've done our work.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much we do have some new systems
to review but thank you very much for the compliment. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Likewise I will reserve my comments for the formal
meeting but I do want to thank again our staff. The staff is just fabulous and I can't imagine how
they get all this done and still keep their sanity and of course the administration for being here every
single day and Al, he took a lot of punches today. I appreciate your resilience and of course to my
colleagues and the Chair who I will say this is the most difficult frustrating complicated budget that
I've had in eight years but one that gave us the opportunity to really share our points in a much
more open and flexible setting. I appreciate that Mr. Chair and thank you for giving us the extra
time and again I will reserve my comments as far as the budget for the next meeting thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: Mr. Chang:
Mr. Chang: Thank you Chairmen I'm just going to brush the
surface and save my comments also but first off to yourself Chairmen, Unbelievable job and we want
to thank your leadership, your patience and your guidance of getting us through. To the fellow
councilmember's, I want to thank all of you, sometimes I don't know if obviously we're not thinking
on the same page in so many different times and I think sometimes we don't understand where each
other is coming from but that's probably a the good thing about it. We are all thinking independently
on every fast of the way and the way we think is helpful within this budget. I have learned a lot from
every single one of you and I would tell everyone hands down I'm the weakest link of this budget
because I think everybody is extremely in my opinion very, very brilliant. I want to take this
opportunity because he's not here I wanted to say thank you to Mr. KipuKai as he travels on council
business for us. I also want to thank our staff many of whom have helped me throughout this process
and guided me and answered a lot of different questions that might not seem like much but for me it
was a big help. I want to thank our staff out here also and our administration for coming and being
accessible and speaking with us before/after hours and during hours or what have you to get some
clarity so at least in my case I can feel like I went home with the choice that I could sleep with which
I lost a lot of sleep. We all get up in the middle of the night and start wondering where we are and
what are we going to do. I enjoyed the process and I learned a lot and again thank you to everybody.
Mr. Furfaro: Councilwomen Nakamura:
1
j
r
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.95
Ms. Nakamura: Ditto to everything that has been said but thank you
Ernie and Wally for being here every day and helping us along in the process. To the staff... thank
you very much for all that you guys have done to get our ideas across and in such a condense time
and to all of you, Council Chair thank you very much for guiding us through this process.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you and before we go to the vote on this final
decision making process I do want to say thank you very much to the administration, Ernie job well
done and your first time sitting in the Chair every piece and I know you had the team behind you
and you could call them and so forth but my compliments to you Sir. I also want to say Ernie that my
staff, our staff right here many of them this is their first seat in this budget process and they did an
outstanding job and we look forward for the continuity of working with you folks on answers and
getting us to the right place for the right reasons. Jade and Ricky thank you very much. The
recorders, this team over here and actually today some of them went without lunch to get us through
what we needed to be felt. I thank you very much for all of your efforts Eddie and your team. I also
wanted to give hats off to Councilmember Kualii, he provided 7 of the 11 provisos that we put in the
budget so he got pretty busy before he actually got on the plane. In general I reviewed the plus and
minus sheets for you folks and we're going to give the team an opportunity to review it and it will be
available to you relatively soon. It will be posted on Thursday the 17 and as we get ready to go into
the public meetings on May 23 starting at 9 a.m. To my colleagues at the table I want you to know
that I recognize all the independent thinking and I had nothing to do with the feral cat comment. I
see we have 7 very independent thinkers at the table here and because of that I think the County of
Kaua`i benefits tremendously. We don't always agree but thank you very much for coming together
on this. I'm going to hand in a note and although I've said it before I'm looking for a motion first of
all to finally close this for the 23 but I want to have an actual roll call vote on the adjustments made
li to the un-appropriated surplus. Also adjustments to the reserve fund but with the idea that the vote
doesn't let it fall below 15 percent and then we will vote on the whole budget so could I have these
motions.
Ms. Yukimura move to make adjustments to the un-appropriated surplus and I think it was
in the approximation of 2 million and adjustments to the reserve of about 1.9 million not to
go below 15 percent, seconded by Mr. Bynum, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL-5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali i TOTAL-1.
Mr. Watanabe: Five to one.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much now I'm looking for a motion to
approve the total baggage for the budget.
Mr. Bynum moved to approve the total budget, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Chang, Nakamura,Yukimura,
Furfaro TOTAL-5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Rapozo TOTAL-1,
EXCUSED &NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL-1.
May 15, 2012
Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making p.96
Mr. Watanabe: 5:1.
Mr. Furfaro: Thank you very much and as I said we will be posting
this information on Thursday May 17. Thank you again everyone, thank you staff, thank you
Councilmember's. This meeting is adjourned.
There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,11 a' D
Darrellyne M. Simao
Council Services Assistant II
li