Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Deliberations & Preliminary Decision-Making for FY2013-14, 5/9/2013-5/13/2013 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECISION-MAKING FY 2013-2014 ANNUAL BUDGET MAY 9, 2013 A Decision-Making Meeting on the FY 2013-2014 Annual Budget of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by Jay Furfaro, Chair, Committee of the Whole, on Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 9:29 a.m. at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Room 201 Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A.Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro The meeting proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Good morning everyone. I would like to start what is one (1) of four (4) days of Deliberations with some of the particular housekeeping that I am going to lay on the table first. These next four (4) days as posted are the Deliberations on the budget. I will allow public testimony in the morning for those that are in the audience that want to speak each day on the subject matter. Once we go into Deliberations, I want to make sure that we all understand we go into Deliberations. For the members, you have two things in front of you. You have your detailed message from the Mayor that has been distributed yesterday and then also a new item that you have from me as Chair, you had private time with the Staff to identify and list items that you want to make either a plus or minus suggestion on. This is something that I hope to expedite our process. I also want to say that I will be calling forth after the Mayor has given time today an agreement from the members that the submittal by the Mayor, we will vote on to work off of so that we work off of one document. That will be firmed. Do not mistake my willingness to kokua everybody to have time with the Staff to get notes in front of you with the fact that we are going to approach this in a systemized method. We will go through the changes, if I can get everybody to agree, to vote to work off of the May 8. You will see the attachments that you got from the May 8th shows the Administration's plus and minuses. We will vote on that after the Mayor. Let me finish my little overview, JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: The other particular piece that I want to make sure that we understand is we are going through the expense cycle first and if you identify as I said in my original March 15 note, something that you are willing to delete, you may lead us to understand what you want to add but we will have that discussion at the second part of the plus and minuses. For the public, I want to let you know that I will set aside and it is unfortunate because I have been hit with an OIP complaint that people could not speak. It is unfortunate that I got to take the time out to respond to that — your time is posted at the beginning of the meeting and that has been the situation through the entire budget process. We have by the calendar and Charter, we have "X" amount of days to send back the message to the Administration in the afternoon of the 14th. We have a structured schedule. An extra week is given in there in the event any activities leading up to the budget wants to be reconsidered by members. You have to go and ask for a particular posting and follow the rules. In following the rules today and reviewing it with our Attorney's, it cannot be a Special Meeting on a reconsideration, it has to be in a regular DECISION-MAKING 2 MAY 9, 2013 Council Meeting, so that means any reconsideration requested need to be by the May 22nd deadline and you need to get it in writing and your justification for asking the reconsideration. Remember, any reconsideration on any bill or item that came up through this period of time, you have to be in the prevailing voting number. You cannot be a descending vote and get reconsideration; you have to be in the prevailing vote. I will get into more of those details a little later but ultimately we want to have our conclusion made so we can submit it back to the Mayor. On agreement on the May 8 submittal by the Mayor, I will actually be calling a vote later after the Mayor speaks but we cannot be going back and forth from March 15th submittal to the supplemental response from May 8, we have to agree on one. JoAnn, did you have a question? Ms. Yukimura: I believe both verbally and in writing we were told that we were going to be working off of the March 15th budget, so that is changing or are you saying that we are going to move to amend? Chair Furfaro: No, this is what I am saying... I am going to ask for a vote later today to get all of us in agreement to work off of May 8th. In the past, we were confusing people to going back to the March on certain things and going back to the re-submittal... it will be a vote, JoAnn. I will make that motion to get an agreement on May 8th. Ms. Yukimura: I think formally we probably need to amend the bill before us but before than... Chair Furfaro: I do not want to get into that discussion now, we can have it when we call for the vote and I know what I am going to do on an amendment. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so I am thinking that we got the May 8th budget yesterday that there needs to be a briefing by the staff... oh, we are going to get the briefing from the Mayor and his staff so that we know what is in the May 8th submittal? Chair Furfaro: Yes, and you have your comparisons from our staff. Ms. Yukimura: I do? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Okay and then procedurally Chair, on another matter that you mentioned, I agree with you that we should look at the cuts first but I am thinking that those of us who voted against revenue proposals by the Mayor need to talk about how we are going to balance the budget before we go into small item deletions. Chair Furfaro: I have said since March 15th the fact that if you vote "no" on a revenue item, makes sure you show us a recourse either through expenses or other found revenue to put into the budget. Ms. Yukimura: I am thinking that should be the first item of discussion in terms of the cuts. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: That will be the first item of discussion. Also, for housekeeping notes, we are breaking at least the Vice Chair and I are breaking to join the Mayor at 11:00 today to greet visiting guest that are Eastbound to us right now on a flight. Also, we will not return as a body because others will be going to the recognition awards from 11:00 and back here at 1:30. We will not go and this will be my parting comment, we will not go past 4:30 today for good reason. This building is 100 years old this morning as we are sitting down. I want to personally thank the Administration and the Mayor the teamwork that has gotten us to this point. The Museum is having a business after hours DECISION-MAKING 3 MAY 9, 2013 and I will be making myself available and if any of you would like to join us from 5:00 — 7:00 to give tours of our building on its 100 year of operation. So, Happy Birthday building! We are delighted to be here and Mayor, to your team, thank you, for a great job in restoring this facility. With seven (7) members present at today's start of deliberations, is there anyone in the public that would like to speak now on the budget items? It is my plan to let the Mayor speak last and address the Council. Ken, come right up. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. KEN TAYLOR: I was not planning on being here this morning but when I read the paper this morning and saw that there was an additional 350,000,000,000 added to the proposed budget, that was a little concerning to me. If that is an accurate article or if I interpreted that correctly, I am very concerned about that. We have a National economy that has been getting back on its feet built on quicksand. We have the airlines talking about reducing the number of passengers seats coming to Hawai`i. We have a community that is still hurting from the activities that took place in 2008 and I think it is important and all due respect to the Mayor and his staff that we do not add any additional funds to the current budget. I know there is a lot that needs to be done but right now is the time to tighten up our belts and do the right thing for the community as far as not putting more economic burden on them by spending more money at the County level. I think it is really important for you folks that when you move through the deliberations and I will take a moment to just say that I have not had the opportunity to read all the paperwork that you have in front of you. So, basing the comments primarily on the article that was in the paper this morning. I just think that it is really, really important for you folks that as you move through forward with the budget deliberations to take into considerations the activities that are out there, as I say, the Nationally economy is built on quicksand, the airlines talking about eliminating passenger seats to Hawai`i, these are going to have major affects on the economy later this year and as we move into next year. So, please be very, very cautious as to how you move forward with the current proposal. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Questions for Ken? Mr. Bynum: Are you aware Ken the HGEA and UPW are completed, not quite all but most of the collective bargaining and so that the increase of the budget is to pay our employees their collective bargaining — what has been negotiated and they have gone without raises and staff increases most of them for a number of years. Are you aware that the increase is because of that? Mr. Taylor: I am not. As I said, I only aware of the increase because of the article in the paper today and I have been able to read any of the paperwork that you folks have in front of you. Mr. Bynum: Are you aware that the State Legislature has capped the TAT that will cost the County $9.7 million in this next Fiscal Year of reduced revenue of what we would have received under the formula that lasted for years? Mr. Taylor: I am not aware of that but let me say something that took place in California back in the 70s when... Mr. Bynum: I just asked the question if you were aware of these issues. Mr. Taylor: No I am not but it is important to understand that when cuts take place, you have to tighten your belt. You do not ignore it and this is what I was trying to relate to what happened in California when Section 13 was put in DECISION-MAKING 4 MAY 9, 2013 place, at that time the State had a five billion dollar budget and instead of tightening up the activities, if the State, County and City levels, they elected to take that five billion dollars and dish it out until it was all gone. Then they all cried wolf because there was no more money. They had a period of time where they could adjust to tightening the budget in their belt... Mr. Bynum: Ken, I did not want to debate California with you. I just wanted to ask that question. Mr. Taylor: I understand. Mr. Bynum: Are you aware of these realities that this Council has to deal with and this Mayor has to deal with? Mr. Taylor: I have answered your question, no, I was not aware of it. Mr. Bynum: So, enough. Chair Furfaro: Okay, that is it. He answered the question. Mr. Kagawa: Ken, I have a lot of people who I know, like you, who are frustrated and it is because we have overspent in the past years. Do you feel that our overspending is why we are here now, in trouble? Mr. Taylor: I believe that is the case and I think it is time that you tighten the belt. Mr. Kagawa: We should have tightened it up years ago instead of pointing out all of these facts today and try to criticize you. So, thank you. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Ken, I want to share a couple things with you, first of all, on the overspent item, there were four (4) Charter amendments in the last six (6) years that added costs. That was the people choice and if we are guilty of anything, perhaps we did not portray to them that adding or putting on the ballet an Office of Boards and Commissions would have added nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) a year in the budget because that was not there before. We had four (4) Charter amendments, one of them was the Audit Department, they voted for that and it added one point three million dollars ($1,300,000) to the budget. There are a whole series of Charter amendments that these ideas come up, we are portraying to the community, the community votes on them, and they get added. Off-line, I will be glad to have some discussion with you but I do not want you to leave today without some answers to your questions. That will be number one of the three million that you read about in the Garden Island, and I have not read the Garden Island today. Our CIP investment went from forty-nine million one ($49,100,000) to fifty point five million ($5,500,000), so right there, is a million for that... and I am going to give you the details, so you can digest it. I will make off-line time for you. I think Mr. Bynum talks about the other piece that dealt with the cost of wages, salaries, and benefits that are in negotiation now. That, I can share with you but I would like to leave it at that right now and I will make time for you as I have in the past to you and Mr. Mickens and go through that. I will be glad to do that. Mr. Taylor: Can I just make one comment? Chair Furfaro: If you make it very short. DECISION-MAKING 5 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Taylor: You mentioned a million, I believe a million two for the Auditor's Office, I think the recommendations in his reports to date would probably more than offset — if they were followed, would more than offset the cost of that Office. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure you understand that is your opinion. Mr. Taylor: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Scott, will you give this to Mr. Taylor. Is there anyone else that would like to talk this morning? If not, I am closing today's portion at 9:30 for public testimony but before I do, Mayor, our rules are suspended and you have the floor. Good morning, Mayor. BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR., MAYOR: Good morning. This is the first time that I will be becoming before you to address you again after we delivered our budget in March. It may not be my last but I feel strongly that I wanted to be here this morning just to share with you again on some of the key areas and some of the critical areas that we need to be very mindful of as we continue through this process. I hope that my presence today communicates the importance, like I said, and not just this year but for years to come. I am not going over the entire budget in details because we have a very qualified Department Heads — all of them, qualified to support the bigger picture and provide all the details necessary to give you the information that you need so we collectively can make the decisions that we need to make. First, some thoughts on revenues, in March, we provided you with a budget that built upon various assumptions regarding revenue. As we explained, as Council Chair reiterated during his opening budget remarks and as several of you, members, have articulated through our budget discussions, the time has come to address overdue revenue adjustments. Since 2009, we have implemented minimum tax and fee adjustments because we are experiencing some difficult, economic conditions. Many of our fees have not been adjusted for a decade or more and the simple fact that they have not kept pace with increases in our fix costs, or fee structures in other Counties. So, the cost of doing business has gone up significantly, we have not made the necessary adjustments to our revenues. In addition to fix costs rising, we had three (3) Charter amendments in the past decade that have created three (3) new Departments, like our Chair just mentioned — the Parks and Recreation Department — brand new Department trying to manage and bring Department of Parks and Recreation to a place where we can move forward. The Office of Boards and Commissions and of course the Office of the County Auditor. We have been forced to address very costly legal issues such as Endangered Seabird Protection and the Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance —very costly. We have expanded the Kaua`i Bus, built a new fire station to serve our largest district, and we are automating - automating our trash collection island wide. These services are very expensive to provide and yet we have not adjusted our revenues to pay for them. We believe very strongly that it is time to address revenues and to bring our tax and fee structures back into line with current expenses while also keeping them in line with p p g State averages and in the case with Property Taxes, what we are proposing was simply to return us to a tax rate that were in place in Kauai a decade ago. Let me touch upon expenses. This proposal is based on actual operating expenses for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012. We did a cross section analysis, we looked at trends, and we looked at how we can really look at a better manager our fiscal operations. The proposals are based upon actuals. The budget that we are presenting is a 3.5% decrease from the current fiscal year. The budget that we are presenting contains no new positions in administrative departments and proposes to dollar fund and short fund some positions to save costs. The budget that we are presenting ushers in anew era in a vehicle replacement program, getting every last mile possible out of every vehicle before purchasing a new one. However, just because we are asking for less does not mean that we will be delivering less. I want to make that clear. In fact, I believe that the opposite is true for the past five years, DECISION-MAKING 6 MAY 9, 2013 we have invested a lot of time into reengineering, refocusing much of what we do. The operations that we today are more efficient, better managed than they were five years ago and we continue to address areas of our operation that suffer from lack of technology, coordination, and planning. Since taking office in 2008, I can point to numerous examples of positive adjustments that we have made — they saved us money and result in better service to the public. Number one, our Capital Improvement Program, several years ago we re-described an Executive Assistant position and appointed a CIP Program Coordinator. This move have allowed us to completely revamp the management of the CIP program before the CIP program worked, it was spread out in many departments. It was fragmented and it was not coordinated, projects stalled or were not properly named. I said, every single project in this County will have a story to tell, so we can explain to you the Councilmembers so that you can make the right decisions, we can make the right decisions. Now, we have strong coordination, communication between Departments, very important, and access to volumes of information that we did not have before. Number two, our Budget Team—upon the retirement of our long time Budget Manager Alvin Honda, God bless him. He reorganized the budgeting function, we used existing positions and created a three-person budget team that manages not only the development of the annual budget proposal but oversees implementation of the budgets throughout the year. First time we started, right out of the gates, right in July, August, and September we started. We have all seen the results of this amazing team which by the way has met with all you at your beck and call so we can at least keep you engaged out of the gates. That team provided an analysis, research, and previously was not possible. It was not possible. But we were able to do some really good analysis, and looking at the information, and coming up with good solid numbers. Number three, going paperless — in 2011 we implemented the system for managing job applications which is an online paperless process, this was the first of several projects that we have completed replacing manual systems with much more efficient and convenient technologies based systems. Number four, as outlined in the March 15th budget, in our message, in just the past year we have undertaken numerous organizational initiatives that have improved services and made us more efficient. I will not go into detail but again they include consolidating a Human Resources function under the Department of Personnel Services implementing online procurement and e-Plan Review System which take a lot of coordination in making sure that all the team members within this County are coordinated to assure that this e-Plan System moves forward and as close as we can to our paperless operation. Creating a small engine repair team in Transportation, looking at. managing better and how we can be more efficient, we have created a Small Engine Equipment Team in Transportation. Now, our small engine repair, our weed-eaters, and blowers, etc., have more attention that they need — management to make sure that we address it. Reorganizing various structures within the Department of Public Works to reduce overtime, very important, a move we expect to save up to four hundred dollars in its first years. Appointing and empowering the staff level Green Team that is implementing measures, I can go over all of that with you again, our entire energy efficient program, in service programs, to be efficient and better management in how we do our work. To save resources and dollars. This type if change is not easy nevertheless, our commitment to finding better ways to operate is well demonstrated and will continue. Our focus next year is to implement management changes that will result in positive movement in both the Wailua Golf Course and in our Solid Waste Division, >particularly in the Puhi Metal Recycling Center and continued progress towards opening a Materials Recovery Facility. I would like to add that we also focus on creating on a more effective way to deal with Transient Vacation Rental enforcement. As was discussed on the Council floor yesterday, and before I go on into my overview on that particular subject matter, I would ask you, Chair Furfaro, between you and I, as Mayor, I employ... I meet with my Department Heads every day and I always tell them, when you come over to this side of the fence, to this arena, you come here with respect. You come to this table prepared and you answer the questions with respect, you make sure that when you are here, that is delivered to you Councilmembers in a very respectful way. I would hope Council Chair between you and I that the Councilmembers on this floor do the same when our management people are here. I just ask that. There is no need to disrespect our Department Heads who are DECISION-MAKING 7 MAY 9, 2013 professionals and who work hard every day and do good work. Our Planning Director Mike Dahilig is very capable and very qualified, like many of our Department Heads are — all of them. So, I just wanted to share that with you that I would hope that Councilmembers would really be respectful as we have been always to share information that is all I am asking, please. That we do that. Chair Furfaro: I do understand your concern. I think it is extremely important that we be mutually respectful of each other. It is the principle of aloha. Yesterday's episode and I hope to have a private conversation with you because we did our best to accommodate Mike and in return if he had to leave for another engagement, his Deputy was not available to us, his Long Term Range Planner was not around, and if there is a single most important item and I know you see this the same as I do, it should have gotten high priority yesterday. If he had to leave, after I did the best I could to accommodate his schedule, I would have appreciated that he had his Deputies here. Mayor Carvalho: Let me respond to that — immediately when I found out about that — I said "Mr. Dahilig and all of our Councilmembers on Wednesday's, you are present there are trips period."t e e a e no t s eriod. So, I apologize for that but at the same time, p p p , there is a respect that happens on the floor, he did ask for permission but it will never happen again, thank you. I would like to add that we will focus on creating a more effective way to deal with transient vacation rental and enforcement as it was discussed on the Council floor yesterday. You can be assured that we do have the political will to deal with this issue —I have no problem with that. I support Councilmembers efforts. Before we rush ahead Councilmembers, please understand this, perhaps all we need to do is to step back and look at the bigger picture. As many of the issues and concerns come from this Council that ask us to do studies and take your time and really analyze, maybe it is way overdue, I admit it but we are working on it. I want to discard the notion that there is no enforcement on TVRs — that is simply not true. We are enforcing in many instances but enforcement actions are cumbersome and expensive based on the law that we currently have on the books. There lots of issues on it... the law part of it and so we are going to do it. I am committed. One of our Attorney's remarked after yesterday's session that it might be helpful to come back to you in Executive Session, again, to reveal all aspects of TVR enforcements and why we need to proceed cautiously and legally defensible manner — I agree with that. We should. Maybe it is long overdue but me, I am looking forward. I am not pointing fingers at nobody. I can point at Councilmember Yukimura, she was Mayor before but why should I point at her? It is not her, it is me. I take the responsibility with our team and we are moving forward. So, you can be assured that we do have all the political will to continue. Bottom line as we continue to work very closely in finding solutions we are dealing with and we continue to look for more effective ways to deal with it but always within confines of the law—disregarding the TVRs. Finally, I want to touch upon something that I mentioned in my Budget delivery at the state of the County. I call it raising the bar and it refers to something we have discussed at length year and something I hear about on the daily basis from the public — our public watching us today. We absolutely much do a better job in maintaining our parks, and public facilities — we said that. We can do a better job and we will do the better job. Two months ago, I have been meeting regularly with my Department Heads in Public Works and Parks along with our CIP Manager, Purchasing Director, Budget Team to find a better way to manage our work order system. Low and behold we found the existing technology but we need to tweak things here and there to look at how to better manage the work order system with all the team members. It is not just Parks because Parks depends on Public Works, Public Works depends on Planning, Planning depends... everybody works hand in hand... it is not fix the leaky faucet, you cannot just fix it — we all got to work together. Now, if you look at when we formed the Department of Parks and Recreation, I mean, there is a green box there that was set aside... I might be going off too much but let me just say this... sorry about that. DECISION-MAKING 8 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: I will suggest that we give you just a second, take a deep breath, no need to pound on our desk... Mayor Carvalho: No, no... I am not pounding because I am upset. Chair Furfaro: But it is coming through on your mic. Mayor Carvalho: I am pounding because I am excited about working together. Chair Furfaro: Your passion comes through but do not pound on the desk. Mayor Carvalho: Bottom line is... I am not going to read this anymore... I am done. Let us just say, can we just agree to disagree on things and work collectively. I am totally there to find solutions. You can throw everything my way to blame me, whatever you want to do, okay... but let us just figure out how we will make it work. We have an awesome team willing to come to you guys, Councilmember Hooser, Councilmember Rapozo... all you guys, let us talk. Why do we have to fight or argue? We can come to solutions, I am telling you guys, with the team that we have here. Thank you for the time and I am hoping that we can move forward with some comfortable dialogue and mahalo for all you folks do. Chair, you and I know we are in the canoe together and we are side by side and we are moving. Mahalo, thank you so much. Chair Furfaro: Mayor first of all, thank you for being here this morning. I want to make sure that we all understand that aloha is a principle in our County and in our community and our State. Your point about maintaining effective relationships is one of the principles in aloha, so, I will accept your message. I also would like to on the flipside also say that please be sensitive about the Attorneys. They are not your Attorneys, they are my Attorney's as well. Mayor Carvalho: Fair. Chair Furfaro: And they have not come to speak to me about an Executive Session. Mayor Carvalho: Right. Chair Furfaro: And I am a client as is all the other members of this body. We are their client as well. Your message is well taken and I will call Al and see if we can set something up. Mayor Carvalho: Al... Chair Furfaro: To set up that Executive Session. When we change long standing habits, there is going to be fallout and I want to you recognize that as well. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mayor for all your work to the budget. This is my first budget session. First time really working with all of your Department Heads and I think I am been impressed with all of your Department Heads — their attitudes and willingness to try to getting better, communicate, and meet with me. I met with almost all of them individually on requests and I just wanted to say that your Department Heads and workers are a reflection of you. They have a lot of... they show a lot of class and respect and it is I think some of which may come off during the budget as tough DECISION-MAKING 9 MAY 9, 2013 questions and it is only because I have the fortunate position of coming into this term and we are raising taxes and stuff for the first time in years. It is not a normal budget like the past previous four (4) years or so where all we decide is what do we want the most and this year it is if we want to add something, we have to cut something. It has been tough. We just approved the gas tax rate last night — that will bump it up another two cents ($0.02) and I just heard from staff that went to fill today and it was $4.17 at Costco. Those are the realities. People are not going to be happy about it but what is done is done, I guess. We will just move forward, like you said — work together and try to get this County back on track. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Mayor, thank you very much for coming this morning. The fact that you are here speaks a lot about your leadership and your willingness to stay in communication with us. I think what you have said is true in terms of what you had tried to do to bring change to bring more efficiency and more professionalism to County government and you have done many positive things and I think I have expressed that throughout the budget hearings in terms of the very fine report that came from the Roads Division this year even though they are not complete with their analysis, I can see they are on the right track. The Human Resources development which I have supported all the way is something that is bringing wonderful improvements to the County beginning with how more quickly our entry level police positions are filled but in many other respects as well. Of course, I was delighted that the MRF is on the budget and you know the list is long and I think that has come procedurally from the fact that you have created a team and you are creating cross department teams that as you pointed out are necessary to getting the job done. That speaks really highly of your leadership. The other part which I see you also doing is really bringing aboard great managers from your Budget team to your CIP Coordinator to your Public Works Engineer and in other situations. A lot of these changes that you have talked about this morning have come about because you have really good people in place to do the work. Those are huge changes and I really commend and acknowledge you for it. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: I guess the place that I have been really concerned about has been Solid Waste and the fact that there have... while there have been some good things, there have been also some real problems. We are scrounging for two million dollars ($2,000,000) this year and that Puhi Metals thing is only one example of the kinds of issues. To me, the poor way of which the EIS was structured for the new landfill and the use of consultants has also been pretty wasteful so I guess I am looking for some assurance from your Administration that as you addressed the other issues in the past, that you will be addressing this issue. Mayor Carvalho: Right. Ms. Yukimura: And the Golf Course is the other area. When you come forward with ways to change this, you can count on my support. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. Our team members are always open to communicating. Mr. Hooser: Thank you very much, Mayor. I think agree with much of what Councilmember Yukimura has said. I think it is testament to you being here today talking to us, I know it is your job, but to come and share with us. It is no secret that I have been critical of some of the management of the County and your Administration and it is only fair that I direct my concerns to you rather than not speak and then speak when DECISION-MAKING 10 MAY 9, 2013 you are not here. So, I think it is appropriate and fair for me to express that to you and I have no doubt whatsoever in your heart, your aloha, and commitment to the County of Kauai, I want to be clear on that. Your Directors that have come especially these last couple of weeks, the Director of Finance had tremendous confidence in great respect with the work that they are doing. I applaud you for that and I want to continue to support that. It is public that I voted against a lot of the tax increases or all of them so far—fee increases. I share Councilmember Kagawa's concerns about just coming in and getting hit with every single fee and increase as possible. In looking at the history, and this is your 5th year, right as Mayor? Mayor Carvalho: Yes. Mr. Hooser: And looking at the past 5 years and seeing that essentially every year the County spent more and more money going out than it had coming in — in terms of revenue and living on the surplus and seeing the expansion of government in the time when rest of the world was trying to cut cost. I understand that there is Charter amendments and I understand the Boards and Commissions but I do not believe that it takes nine hundred thousand dollars. We can do some of these things, I think, smaller especially looking at the income and I guess that is my concern is that, looking back I am being asked to raise peoples taxes, I have to say why? Why do we have to do this? And we should look back and hopefully learn from the past and looking back as seeing the growth of government for new employees, I am troubled by that and the fact that maybe small increases were not taking along the way. Maybe we did not slow growth a little bit or anticipation of running out of our surplus, so there is that management aspect of it. There is a very real fact that people today have less earning power and are worse off than they were 5 years ago, in general in the United States. People just do not have the money. I see it firsthand with all of us here, I have my own budget to work with and so adding another five dollars or twenty dollars, or thousands of dollars for some people given the situation where I do not believe that the income and expenses were managed as well as they should have been. Again, I recognize — I am not in your chair, I recognize that I am not the one making those decisions and so and I will be upfront with it, I was not there. I recognize that but at the same time you couple that with the Puhi Metals Recycling Facility — millions of dollars and we are not over that yet, you add it to the Golf Course, a million dollars a year, you look at the TVR issue, thousand maybe millions dollars there that we are not getting on fines. When the questions are asked, I am not confident that the answers are correct. It is not all about fixing, I appreciate your commitment to fixing it but it has taken years to get there. The Kapa'a Pool did not turn into that condition overnight, the Golf Course did not turn into that condition overnight, the TVR — somebody issued those permits. Why were those permits issued in the first place on some of those issues? And so I am troubled by those particular departments and actions and I just have a really difficult time taxing people more money in light of those situations. I am asking you and you have already expressed some thoughts today but I need confidence that the management of those issues... that somebody that knows how to manage a business is managing the Golf Course. Somebody that knows how to manage contracts is looking at things like the Puhi Metals Recycling and that it is handled. You talk about respect and I have great respect for you, Mayor and all County employees but I cannot sit here and have someone talk and avoid answers. I am not talking about any particular person but it happens where we do not get direct answers. We do not get satisfaction that the problem is being address and I cannot just smile and act like it is all okay when it is not okay. Sometimes it is challenging when we do not get the answers. Respect goes two ways. I have been waiting on information from your Parks Director since January. I was told that the reason it was delayed because I did not send the letter to the right person. Then I was told that the information was there weeks ago and I still have not gotten that information. It is a two way street. I want to thank you and I just hope you understand for me and a few others on this Council are coming from in regards to our hesitancy to continue to fund and raise taxes in some of these areas. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. DECISION-MAKING 11 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Bynum: Mayor, thank you for being here today. You and I have met regularly for... ever since I have worked for the County. At one point, we were both working for Mayor Baptiste on the same team. I think I have grown as a Councilmember and I think you have grown as a Mayor. As I say to you when we meet, it is the nature of our relationship that we are going to spend a lot of our time discussing issues that we have great concern about. I think it is the time to acknowledge today, many positive changes that I have seen in the Administration over the last couple of years. I will not list them all, I think JoAnn hit some of the highlights but just the budget process has improved dramatically. All of your Department Heads issued their written responses in advance of their presentations here. It was not like where it has been in the past, oh, we are here to present and here is 40 pages while we are supposed to be read while they were presenting, this did not happen this year. It is a huge improvement. The written responses came quickly and timely and we had a very rich dialogue on those things. It is no secret, you and I had a difficultly time in past budgets and for all of the last few years our main issue has been managing our finances and trying to keep these dramatic changes that we see in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) huge increases in the single year of the surplus and then huge decreases in a single year, asking to look at the big picture and long run, to do a budget that gets us into a sustainable position. I have been critical that we collectively have not done that during this downturns however this year with new leadership that your Budget Department fresh eyes from Ken, Ann, and Ernie and in particularly Steven—this is the most difficult budget that you have been involved in but we are not the only County that is trying to address these issues. The same things are happening to the other Counties and a big portion of our huge problem this year is $9.7 million reductions in TAT that the Legislature imposed on us. Most of the money we are chasing is related to that. If we had the same TAT that we had for many years with the same formula, we would be in a lot better position. That is reflected and I am going to talk about this later during budget, it is reflected in how the other Counties are dealing with their tax rates and their fees because we have to present a balanced budget. Yesterday two (2) of your fee proposals were defeated at this Council that I voted for because it puts our budget process $2,000,000 out of whack. We are in a dilemma with this because those fees happen there in money bills but yet the budget process is happening now We got our work cut out for us because we just rejected $2,000,000 of your fees —proposals. We got to find out where that is going to come from. I do not think that is going to be an easy task. Maybe I am wrong, I am going to keep my mind open to how Councilmembers intend to do that but overall I want to take this time to say I very much appreciate. The hires that you have done recently, Kamuela, Keith, and I think Mr. Dahilig even though there are huge challenges at Planning, he inherited a lot of those huge challenges and I appreciated yesterday that he owned up to that. I just wanted to take this time to say that I have seen your growth and your leadership and most important that we start looking as your new Budget Director is doing, getting us into a sustainable County budget where we do not see dramatic shifts either up or down. Mayor Carvalho: Right. Mr. Bynum: That is a critical thing for us to do and as painful as it is, I know that you and Steve are looking a couple years down the line instead of just this Y budget year. g Mayor Carvalho:. Right. Mr. Bynum: That is what has been missing in my opinion, for all of us, so thank you for being here today. Mayor Carvalho: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo? DECISION-MAKING 12 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Rapozo: I would like to start because it is 10:00 and we break at 11:00. There will be opportunities to come and... Chair Furfaro: I understand your point but since the rules were suspended... Mr. Rapozo: I appreciate the offer. I appreciate the Mayor being here. Mayor, I hope you will be around because I think there will be opportunities to ask questions or comments throughout the process. Mayor Carvalho: Definitely. Mr. Rapozo: I appreciate you being here. Chair Furfaro: Me as well Mayor, I want to say that I think you know you can deal with me on the merit and the kokua for Kauai. I also want to say, this is good. Fact of the matter is that we have to negotiate with each other skillfully and we have to be able to talk about what we agree to disagree on in a very beneficial way for the community. Mayor Carvalho: In closing, I want to address Councilmember Hooser. I heard what you said, but maybe the best thing for us is we should sit down and talk — come in and talk story. Let me know what you are thinking because everybody does that. So, I just share that with you and then with Council Chair, remember 2005, Leadership Kauai, you was the leader, I was in that class. We are working and moving forward. That 2005 really set the for ea et t e ace or a lot of the things that is happening now. I look Y pace g pp g w. 00 forward to healthy discussions, aloha and thank you. Chair Furfaro: Members, before we go into the next particular piece, I was hoping that Steve could be here along with Gary Heu. I want to give them a few minutes to tell us about the May 8 submittal because as you heard earlier I want to get the body to agree that we will work off the May 8 submittal. I have a few questions. Is Steve in the audience somewhere? I have a few questions because I am going to ask the members to agree to work off of the May 8. GARY K. HEU, Managing Director: Okay. Chair Furfaro: Since the point was made by JoAnn, which was a good one, that the May 8th was submitted yesterday, I want to reflect on some of those particulars and some of the accounting practices as well. A lot of people do not realize that a budget is in fact a forecast and an accountin g p rocess really y deals with the details of numbers. On the submission you have gotten and I heard you refer to the fact that you did some of the recommendations for the fund balances based on what came from the Auditors but in my opinion you are sharing with us that $11.6 million is what you anticipate is the surplus being and on the conservative side, I said to you, my number based on the trends and based on the right message that has gone to your Department Head's about no further spending in the rest of this year — I have a $2,000,000 difference in my forecast. It seems in using the Auditors response you comply with some of their suggestions and I want to make it clear — their suggestions, by pretty much not showing a fund balance from the previous year in the General Fund. I think if the trend continues the way it is there should be a number there that is about two million higher than what you folks are telling us that you are anticipating using for the next year. I am just sharing with you. You do not need to explain to me but I want to say to you if you are going to follow accounting practices then you got to follow accounting practices across the board because despite what they recommended, you did the old system on the other Fund Balances. For example, carryovers in Highway Fund, Liquor Fund, Beautification Fund but yet on the first line under the DECISION-MAKING 13 MAY 9, 2013 General Fund, you got a blank. I do not need an answer, I just need to tell you that I am aware of it, please give it some thought, and go visit with your Department Heads. If you are telling me that you told them "no new spending" and some of them have continued to spend then that number is going to be different but if there is a chance for any surplus, okay, not part of the reserve because you have done... then, something should be showing there. That is my opinion. I do not want to negotiate with my opinion, I just want to find out more facts. STEVEN A. HUNT, Director of Finance: I am not going to challenge the opinion but the Fund Balance from previous year is truly Fund Balance from the CAFR. It is not an estimate of what the Fund Balance will be for Fiscal Year 2013, it is actually Fund Balance from 2 years ago. Chair Furfaro: I understand your explanation. I do not agree with it. Mr. Hunt: Okay. Chair Furfaro: That is what you need to know from me. We just had this meeting with the Mayor and I told you that we have to agree to disagree. I disagree that the Fund Balance separate from the Reserve is showing no money. In my estimates there is between one point seven ($1,700,000) to two point two million ($2,200,000) that will be available to us by year end. End of statement. Number two, is it public knowledge that the Executive in Civil Defense is planning to leave us? Mr. Heu: Yes. Typically when a Department Head departs, we do not put out a press release. Chair Furfaro: I am not asking for the press release. I am just saying that the word out on the street is that Mr. Daligdig has indicated that he would be departing his position at the end of June 30th Mr. Heu: Yes. This past week he sent out an internal E-mail via E-mail to all the Department Heads expressing his appreciation for the time served with them and indicating his desire to reenter retirement for his own personal reasons. So, that was circulated to all Department Heads, I am sure that E-mail Memo has made its way throughout the County. Chair Furfaro: Obviously and that is why I am asking you. In your May 8th submittal may I ask you, have you considered his payroll, taxes, and benefits Y Y Y Y. Y p Y , not being in the May 8th or is it still in the May 8th? Mr. Heu: It is still in the May 8th submittal primarily because we feel that that position is so important that it really needs to be filled. It is one of our key public health and safety positions. It is our intent to move forward with that. Chair Furfaro: But for all intents and purposes right now it is still reflected in the May 8th submittal? Mr. Heu: Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: Where are we at on the HR Manager starting three quarters of the year? Is the $39,000 plus payroll taxes and benefits, is it reflected in the May 8th as a vacancy for three (3) months or is it fully in there? Mr. Heu: Based on our March 15th submittal from which nothing has changed relative to that position, it is still showing a full year funding. DECISION-MAKING 14 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: So that is something that I wanted to ask — that is $39,000 including benefits. So, it does not reflect the October one start date that was presented to us during the budget g e uet narrative?g Mr. Heu: That is correct. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Going down the line, I evaluated Worker Compensations rates as it relates to... we had a lot of catch up on exposure and now we are pretty current according to our insurance people. Is it not feasible that we could see a potential discount or decrease of about 3% on that line item based on we caught up a lot of the old claims. Did you change anything in the May 8th submittal? No. Okay. So, three percent (3%) of our claims premiums there is about $20,000? Okay. Do you agree Steven that we were settling items that were quite overdue? Mr. Hunt: Yes, there were some past items that have been caught up with. Chair Furfaro: The KVB Consumer Promotion Grant, there is a change of $40,000 from the two (2) pieces. I wanted to let you know that my first opinion when I saw the $100,000 for a potential Golf Tournament knowing that our own Golf Department, we are chancing some repair and maintenance items knowing that the Hawai`i Tourism Authority will be giving us $2,700,000 in the remainder of this year less but I am thinking that since that is a tentative promotion, we can maybe save $100,000. When I looked at the numbers you given to us right now, it looks like there is only about a $40,000 savings. So, it seems like we were on some kind of an agreement to not do the Golf piece and we shifted money elsewhere? I just want to know, where did you shift it? I do not want a long narrative on it but I wanted to know where you shifted it, so I understand that if I am going to approve that shift or not? GEORGE K. COSTA, Director of Economic Development: Aloha. Chair Furfaro: George did I make the right observation, the Golf is out? Mr. Costa: It was actually the Golf — the Big Break TV show. There was an opportunity there and that did not materialize. Chair Furfaro: But you understand my point? Mr. Costa: Right. Chair Furfaro: You lost two point seven million ($2,700,000) and we got our own Golf Course to worry about to promote golf. Mr. Costa: Right. So, that was eliminated and in its place a reduction of $100,000 in its place $40,000 for a Jurassic Park promotion, we are coming up on the anniversary of Jurassic Park. Chair Furfaro: You have answered my question because there is $100,000 there with the golf going away but I was hoping that we would get the whole $100,000. Thank you for that. In your projection here, are there any new numbers for the Golf Course as far as revenue opportunities with the golfing itself? Do you have a new pricing plan? Mr. Hunt: No, there no enhancements to the fee structure of the golf rates. DECISION-MAKING 15 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: I will be circulating to the members some comparisons I made with one City and County municipal golf course and two moderate golf courses on our island as a competitive profile but you did not put any revenue enhancements? And then when it came to the concessions, you are not really clear what income you are taking for restaurant, balls, Pro-Shop fees and so forth. It is just a ball of a number. Can I get the breakdown of that to know how much you are putting in there? It is not broken down by concessions, not what I have seen, but I need that and rather urgent. I just share that with you because right off the bat we are chancing $2,100,000 based on what did not pass at the Council in the last week. These are items that I all had very much interest on in my presentation because even $1.50 increase on the rounds, on all categories, Yp $ g it is not going to break us but the fact of the matter is that it will bring $60,000 to the table and when it gets in place, I hope that we have a restaurant concession, I hope we have a Pro-Shop and I hope the balls are with the new Pro-Shop operator but it is unclear in your May 8th submittal. Those are the things that stand out for me and I will circulate the comparison and now I will go to other Councilmembers dealing with questions that you have on the May 8th submittal. Mr. Rapozo: I only have one question and it is for Economic Development. It is an addition for the Host Community Benefit (HCB) Consulting, what is that? I read it in the Mayor's Message and it states additional funds. We funding a facilitator right now at $60,000 and I did attend a meeting a month or so ago in Kekaha. There were concerns about the project. The project has not been approved and there are a lot of questions. In fact, we are going to have it on my Committee agenda on the 15th for an update because we have not had an update in awhile. It appears that the project has been selected based on the approval from the HCB Fund - $60,000 additional funding. This thing says that it is coming from the HCB Fund, that project and it is a huge project. It is over $700,000 which would basically wipe out the funds. There are some concerns in the community but what would this $60,000 be used for? Mr. Heu: We are going to have Beth Tokioka speak to that. She has been the liaison out of the Mayor's Office interfacing directly with the community from the very beginning. It has been quite a process and so I will let Beth give you a little more detail of the specific use for the $60,000. Mr. Rapozo: I do not need the detail of the project. I just need the detail for the $60,000 and what is that going to be used for? BETH TOKIOKA, Office of the Mayor: Just to briefly explain when that project was approved or recommended by the CAC it is huge chunk of money, as you mentioned $780,000. When it came to the Mayor, we had some concerns that such a large grant needed some additional support. It is basically run by four (4) gentlemen — we call them "the Uncles" volunteers in the community — Pat, Dennis, Garrett, and Buddy. We felt that they really needed to have some administrative support in implementing this properly, so over a serious of a few meetings, we met with them and agreed to provide some additional funding for the coordination to support implementing the project but in return what we would be getting back is a template for a project that could be used in any community. It is an additional investment in that project to make sure that it is handled properly and that the volunteer coordinators have the proper support but in return we would be getting back a work product that will be, as I said, a template for other communities if they would like to attempt a similar type of project. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Like I said, we will go over the details next week in the Committee. We. will send out the notices to you folks as well as the CAC members. The concerns and I will just let it out right now is procurement, obviously. From what I understand this project may require multi-year funding. Ms. Tokioka: At this point the CAC is only committed the $780,000. DECISION-MAKING 16 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Rapozo: I understand what they are committed to but if the County is committing because it is still County money. If the County is committing a project that is going to require multi-year funding, in other words, if we know that that project is going to require funding next year then obviously this Council will have to approve that. Ms. Tokioka: I think we are looking at this as a one time contract for Administration for the $780,000 implementation. So, that is intended to be a one time expense. I understand your concern. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. We will have more discussion and more li detail next week. Chair Furfaro: Before I give to Mr. Bynum the floor, questions focused on your questions as it relates to May 8th. Mr. Bynum: I wanted to follow-up on what is happening with the Kaua`i Visitors Bureau. Last year their funding from the County was $200,000 and this year the proposal in the May 8th is... what? Mr. Costa: It is $110,000. Mr. Bynum: Okay, so a reduction of$90,000. Mr. Costa: Right. Mr. Bynum: Last year we talked about giving them an amount that they can count on because these projects take time and planning but this golf thing that we are talking about, that is in this year's budget, right - the hundred thousand. Mr. Costa: No. It was proposed for next year. Mr. Bynum: I see. I just to be clear on that because I think Kaua`i Visitors Bureau has done an outstanding job with the stimulus money that we gave them right after, with all of the funds that we provided. Our funding have been hit and miss — up and down and I think they much rather deal with a number that they can count on even if it is smaller without these types of fluctuations. It is primarily in all the Counties because of the TAT loss and other Counties are looking at making that up in with property tax increases for hotels and resorts and that is something that we would have to discuss during this meeting but I really wanted to sustain the funding at a predictable level for Kauai Visitor's Bureau because it is a really small amount in terms of promoting Kauai specifically. The things that they have done with Kama aina and military... so, since this term I have been attending all of their Board Meetings and I just think it was another case where we should have these dramatic changes year to year. I did not understand that the hundred thousand was potentially in this year's budget but that is the nature of that beast, you try to grasp opportunities and Sue and her team are good at finding those. We have seen really great success with small amounts of money that really got a lot of National exposure but they need that flexibility and we need to understand that. Things like, they are going to explore something like the Big Break and in a long run, and it is not going to pan out. I have really come to trust their expertise. It is one of the places where I would like to see us sustain funding because I think it turns into real benefits for us. Chair Furfaro: Enough said, this is not a marketing discussion. This is to understand and Mr. Bynum wants to understand what was the reduction from the May 8th piece and now we got the answer. Mr. Bynum: I am confused—do we have a D.C. Lobbyist? DECISION-MAKING 17 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Heu: Right now? Mr. Bynum: Right and there is a dollar funding in your budget, so we are going without a D.C. Lobbyist? Mr. Heu: We have funds that are allocated in the current year. We will be entering into a contract by the end of this Fiscal Year that will cover next Fiscal Year. Mr. Bynum: Where are those funds going to come from if... Mr. Heu: From the current Fiscal Year. We are going to encumber this year's funds. This year's services are being provided from funds that we encumbered at the end of last fiscal year. Mr. Bynum: Gary, you know the history how we have gone... and I will not go through all of that but I would encourage you to work with Councilmember Hooser. I think we all learn that we got to have a much more coordinator response to the Legislature next year and start that dialogue. Mr. Heu: Are you talking about the State Legislature or the D.C.? Mr. Bynum: Both. But we have been up and down with D.C. Lobbyist. And we really collaborated well — the Council and the Administration. Now, I do not even know who the Lobbyist is. I never met him. Mr. Heu: I think we are going to have something on an upcoming agenda. I am not sure if folks out of our office have already coordinated with your staff in terms of a date, I believe in June, to have the D.C. Lobbyist here to provide a presentation to the Council. Chair Furfaro: Okay, that is the answer. Mr. Bynum: There is a substantial to the YWCA from the County overall and I do not know how we are going to... I expected to see some movement in the May 8th but there is not. Mr. Heu: I do not believe we had anything additional after the March 15th. Mr. Bynum: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: There is the increase in $667,000 overall in the General Fund. I noticed that much of it goes to the salaries, social security contributions, and health funds for each of the Departments. Does that reflect the labor union contracts? Mr. Heu: Collective Bargaining. Ms. Nakamura: Okay, so that is just across the board. Mr. Heu: I am not sure if has been stated before but that would only reflect the increases for the units that have ratified. In other words, still outstanding, we got Fire, Police, and Unit 13 for HGEA. Ms. Nakamura: Right. I was under the impression that it was more than $667,000 when you add up the union increases. DECISION-MAKING 18 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Hunt: It is and it includes a broad base adjustment for health fund as well. On the salary side I think to salaries that are probably correct. Ms. Nakamura: I am just think total revenue expenses General Fund which equals to the total revenues that you are showing but the $667,000 is the total increase? Okay. Also, I noticed on the CIP budget there are many, many changes that have been made and I wanted to find out if we could get a summary of why all these changes at this point. Chair Furfaro: Steve, I would recommend that you give us a summary in writing at 1:30. The time is not flexible, it is 1:30. Mr. Hunt: Okay. In a generic sense, the 402 Fund which is the Parks & Recreation Fund by district was used to supplant many of the Bond Fund CIP projects which opened up more bond funds to go to other projects. It is a combination of moving money's out of the Parks Fund — the 402 into the Capital Improvement Project Budget for this current fiscal, open up additional bond funds to be put to other projects. Ms. Nakamura: Okay and was there any concern from our Bond Attorney about the use of some of that Bond Funds? Mr. Hunt: There were a couple issues that got moved to operations. In fact, Diane Zachery projects were not eligible because they did not have a capitol improvement project on the back end of those so that matching portion was required was moved out of the Bond Fund and into Operations within OED. Ms. Nakamura: There were some new projects added as well to the Parks, so I guess that can come later. Chair Furfaro: That needs to come in writing. Mr. Hunt: Correct. I think that is in the Message that came over as well. Ms. Nakamura: Sorry, we got out very late last night. Mr. Hunt: I was here, I understand. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: Just a follow up with the Marketing thing, real quick, on the Hawai`i Visitor's Bureau, we have not gotten a call from Sue or anything. I feel that she might fill that gap because we just were told yesterday by the Lobbyist that out of that three hundred million surplus that the State had, a huge chunk was given to the Hawai`i Tourism Authority and maybe Sue can fill some of her need with that big chunk that was given to them in this fiscal, at least, but I would like to keep their funding consistent. I think the bigger issue for me is trying to keep the property taxes for the hotel as minimal as we can as far as the increases that we will be looking at and I think that affects tourism more than anything. It is trying to keep the rates down—the filthy rich will come no matter what but there are a lot of those inter-island travelers and so on and they are starting to say "coming to Kauai is almost like going to Vegas because of the rooms and everything else being high." When that happens, they will come for tournaments and so we need to be aware of the affects of raising property taxes on hotel industry, that is our top moneymaker. Steve, you have a zero here for Fund Balance from previous year, so you are assuming no surplus at the end of the year and I have said many times on the floor that historically we always have a large surplus at the end, normally larger than we think and it is typically used throughout the year to ask for more projects. We almost always rely on DECISION-MAKING 19 MAY 9, 2013 having a surplus. This year, we are assuming that there is nothing and I feel like there is going to be something, in the neighborhood of ten million, do you have an estimate? Mr. Hunt: Our current estimate is about ten point four million for Fiscal 2013 what the surplus will be. Mr. Kagawa: Okay, so based on that assumption I have solved my gap in my cuts that I made at least, that were passed yesterday but still I think we need to have another cushion for the next Fiscal. Therefore, I probably will be supporting the real property tax rates. So, about ten point four million? Mr. Hunt: The current estimate is about ten point four million. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I feel a lot more comfortable. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure in mine — it is more like thirteen point three. So, there is about two million missing on that line. Mr. Kagawa: I feel even more comfortable. Mr. Hooser: I feel even more comfortable now that I know how comfortable Mr. Kagawa feels, so, thank you. First question is a small item, I notice a $27,000 security for the Mayor's Office, what is that about? Mr. Heu: A few years back there was a security assessment done by the Police Department for the Mayor's Office and it showed that the Mayor's Office given the environment today was pretty exposed and could have used some security enhancements. What that reflects is some upgrades to the locking mechanisms to the various doors, security cameras so that the multiple personnel within the Office could monitor what is happening within that lobby area in front of the Mayor's Office as well as external to the Mayor's Office. I probably should not get into all the details but, in general, that is what it is for. Mr. Hooser: I just noticed that it was on the new submittal and I thought I would ask. The other question is of more substance, the 402 Fund that you talked about a lot, it is the Fund that comes from development fees that are dedicated to certain districts. It looks like you allocated as much transferred, supplanted, or whatever projects into that fee as possible, the current balance after you do all of that movement, the uncommitted balance of the total funds is how much? Mr. Hunt: My understanding it has been sent over formally, I believe a little over two million left. Mr. Hooser: About two million. So, it is two million dollars and park improvement funds targeted for certain districts that are not committee to anything. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Hooser: And... Mr. Hunt: Well, I would not say not committed to anything. It is committed to long term deferred maintenance, as you are building a reserve to replace a roof that is a long term roof, you put aside some funding for that. Not currently committed to the budget though is correct. DECISION-MAKING 20 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Hooser: You can use it for maintenance then? And maintenance means "operations?" For someone that paints a building takes a guy to paint it, not just the paint. Chair Furfaro: I passed out a definition of the General Accounting Practices of repair and maintenance, I hope you are following it — the Administration. Mr. Hooser: The point is, can some of these funds be used to offset General Fund use in the Parks Department to do their maintenance of these parks? Mr. Hunt: I do not believe that it can be used to supplant General Fund. Mr. Hooser: Even if the legitimate use is maintenance. Mr. Hunt: Maintenance would be fine but are you defining salaries are maintenance? Mr. Hooser: I think, generally, if you are going to maintain a park that salary is part of the maintenance, yes. Mr. Heu: Councilmember, I know that when the issue first came up there were a lot of questions similar to the ones that you are asking, so, I think rather than us speculate, why don't you let us get a clear cut definition based on any ordinance that establish the fund and then we will communicate that back to you as soon as we able. Hopefully, sometime this afternoon. Mr. Hooser: Okay, good. I am looking at that ordinance also, because we are all looking for money and to have $2,000,000 sitting in a fund and that $2,000,000 dedicated to maintenance, it just seems like there is a nexus and it is a reasonable question to ask if we could use some of those funds to help alleviate some of our budget needs from the General Fund. Chair Furfaro: Members, we got 12 minutes before we have to leave. Before I recognize Mr. Bynum a second time, JoAnn did you have questions? Ms. Yukimura: I am interested in your other services under OED, what is the YMCA? Mr. Heu: Is that $70,000? Chair Furfaro: That is in the narrative from the Mayor. Ms. Yukimura: I am sorry, I have not read the narrative. Mr. Costa: That $70,000 is to assist the YMCA with their photovoltaic system that they are installing. Ms. Yukimura: How is it to determine to... I mean I think they are a great organization but how are you making judgments among all the non-profits that could use that money? There are a lot of non-profits that could use that money, so how do you... Mr. Heu: That is true and I think we deal with this year over year. I think there are many times when this Council or members on this Council get approached by a non-profit for a specific need and sometimes those needs get met through this budget process. DECISION-MAKING 21 MAY 9, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: But we exercise great restraint on that last year which resulted in the $150,000 for preschool and after school but through an RFP process or a competitive process that would have objective criteria and was not just the Council persons favorite non-profit but a process that would be advertised and people would be able to apply for rather than... because we knew that it was not a good process to give out money. Now, there is certain things like services for Domestic Violence that are about a select service because that is pretty much the only entity that is giving it and it is safety and welfare, so there are some of those. What are your criteria for selecting? Mr. Heu: I think if you look historically, I think, the treatment of some of these requests, it is not unlike the State Legislature, how is that determined? I probably am not a good person to speak to that... if the moneys are appropriated then they would need to fill out an application and that gets monitored. Ms. Yukimura: Wait a minute. I thought the applications come before the appropriations or is there a lump sum... and let us be careful not to follow the State. Chair Furfaro: The question has been answered, we can get into discussion about you process later. The $70,000 is earmarked for a repair and maintenance item or a capitol improvement in the Y, that is the answer to the question. Mr. Heu: That is the answer. Mr. Costa: That is correct. Ms. Yukimura: I am not clear on how this North Shore Transportation Feasibility Study is going to be done. 1 Mr. Costa: We are earmarking the money and then we are going out and doing a process to select a consultant to help us with that North Shore Transportation Plan which also includes the Ke`e Beach Shuttle that is part of the Mayor's Holoholo 2020 Plan. Ms. Yukimura: Well, there is a need in Poipu for similar kind of study. That proposal coming back from our consultant who helped us to the workshop who is very well informed about how to develop these shuttle systems is for $250,000 and that is why I am asking, how are you going to use the money? I do not want you to use the money and then come up with results that are not really useful. >I have seen that too often in this County. What do you expect as a work product from this? Mr. Costa: We are part of that Poipu Road Planning so we are hoping that what we learned out of that process which takes place this weekend, will help us to determine what we need for the North Shore Transportation Plan. Ms. Yukimura: That road process is not going to address the development of a shuttle system. It might say that it is needed but that is not going to, if you want to know how you are going out for an RFP —is it going to be a private system that ties into the bus system or is it going to be a bus system that is part of the... and how do you determine need? It is going to take a survey that is asking "where are people coming from, where are they going, how often do they stop?" So, who is going to do that? Is $42,000 going to accomplish what you want? Chair Furfaro: Okay... the items on here for us to discuss is the May 8th, if you want an item to talk about how, what, when — it goes into Committee. You answered the question. We have 6 minutes left before we break. When we come back at DECISION-MAKING 22 MAY 9, 2013 1:30 we are going to be in decision making. The question has been answered, and you do not have all of the details right now but you have answered what the money is for. Mr. Costa: Right. Chair Furfaro: That was the intent of having you guys come back up. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. Bynum: As I have been the last 5 years I am a little uncomfortable with this discussion that happened earlier about what are surplus will be next year, we are really anticipating what the lapse will be, right? But that is not going to be the General Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year because we put this surplus into a separate fund which I believe is not necessary but that is a different discussion. I just want to be clear that we are anticipating the lapse. In our past practice has been to use some of that but I agree with the premise that you guys have put forward that we are going to end that practice with this year, right?Have I got this right? Mr. Hunt: We are looking at Fund Balances that are actually verifiable fund balances. We are not in this process of always using what we estimate to be from the year before. The challenges as we presented in the past too, is sometimes when those estimates are incorrect, like was done on the Golf Fund and like was done on the Solid Waste Fund, we had to come before you with money bills. As our surplus in totality has declined, we are now down to an actual bank Fund Balance in that area of about 11.6 roughly. There is no well to go for money bills. The more we put in as an estimate into a budget that is forthcoming, if those numbers are incorrect or do not come to fruition there is no surplus to go back to tap, that is the concern and what we are breaching. That is where we are getting away from. Pass practice, we have a very large surplus and essentially we had cover for whatever we estimated that lapse to be and if that p Y p number that we estimated twelve million and it was zero, we had twelve million in Fund Balance to cover. Now, we are at a point where we do not have coverage. We have been asked to get our budget in line with actual spending which means going forward those surpluses will be minimized, if at all, there would be much and much smaller surpluses. What we are trying to do is to come up with a formula that will give us a sustainable program where revenues and expenditures are in balance. Mr. Bynum: Two points —that is a fundamental change of the way we have done things for years and I am in agreement with it as long as we all understand what the implications of that are. It is a more appropriate way to budget. Mr. Hunt: Right. Mr. Bynum: And as the Chair said, those are suggestions from our Auditor and not requirements, right? Mr. Hunt: Correct. It is best practices. Mr. Bynum: But I just want to be clear that that is different than the General Fund Balance in the CAFR. A portion of that is a surplus that you are referring to but there is additional fund. Mr. Hunt: We are talking about the unassigned Fund Balance which is available to be used, everything else is just committed assigned. Mr. Bynum: I understand that. I do not know that everyone listening to this broadcast might not understand that and that is why I said... and it goes back to what I have been saying for a long time, we should based our decisions on our DECISION-MAKING 23 MAY 9, 2013 actual practice and not budget plans that we may or may not have followed. In next year's CAFR, we except there to be more than ten or thirteen million, correct? Mr. Hunt: Absolutely. Chair Furfaro: Okay. And I want to make sure that the $13,300,000 I am giving you — that is a conservative number because I do not want to end up being naked there. Right now, how much is in our Reserve? Mr. Hunt: Including the Disaster Relief? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Hunt: Okay,there you go. I was only talking about... Chair Furfaro: Yes and that is where everybody gets confused. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: We do have a reserve. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: It is a small amount then what is desired and we have to build on it. Mr. Hunt: It is slightly over 2.6 million in that additional reserve that is restricted. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: In the shift to what you are calling best practice, are we not then setting up limitations against this overspending that we have done in the past where we have spent more than we have taken in? Mr. Hunt: Yes, and especially as those Fund Balances are deleting than you are now forced to budget to what you are actually spending. Ms. Yukimura: This kind of restrains us from doing that, right? It restrains us from just taking mid-year from this surplus and spending as if... Mr. Hunt: Hypothetically speaking if we were to take the $11,000,000 that we are showing in the May Stn budget and you were to add $10,000,000 in anticipated surplus even though it goes against best practices, it does not say you cannot, it said you should not... and you were to put that $21,000,000 into this budget to reduce potential tax and revenues. At the end of FY 2014 when we are budgeting closer to expenditures and say that we are now going to anticipate $3,000,000 in lapse, going into the next Fiscal period in 2015, we now have $11,000,000 carved out that we had in this budget plus we are down the $10,000,000 and we only have $3,000,000 to work with. Now, we are chasing in totality everything that we have deferred in what the revenue enhancements were this year in one year. Ms. Yukimura: That is what we have been doing in the past which has brought us to this situation? Mr. Hunt: And it is not sustainable. DECISION-MAKING 24 MAY 9, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: Right and so the shift that you are making right now to best practices hopefully will as Councilmember Bynum has been saying, put us on a more sustainable budgeting form. Okay, thank you. Chair Furfaro: I do not know what is so difficult about that. We are at right now, you spent the surpluses accordingly whether there were from Charter amendments and so on but the reality is that you can only spend what is in your check book going forward. But the first line in your check book is a balance line and you add your anticipated revenues and so forth and I am saying that line conservatively could take$2,000,000. That is what I want to make sure that you understand. Thank you very much for making yourselves available. I assume the team is going to be available in the afternoon in case we have questions but we need to get to decisions to get something to you by 12:30 on May 14th. We all have assignments for the rest of the day. I will start Steve by asking everybody to acknowledge that we are going to work off of the May 8 submittal and I have to do that by a vote. There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:56 a.m. The Council reconvened at 1:36 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I want to make certain on some ground rules. I mentioned that I will be looking for a motion to accept and work off of the May 8th submittal made by the Mayor, so that we are dealing with 1 document. Mr. Bynum moved to work off of the May 8, 2013 Mayor's Budget Submittal, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Discussion? Yes, JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I think it is a good idea and I guess it is a working tool that we do not formally amend the ordinance right now. We are just doing it as a working tool and preparing the formal amendments. Chair Furfaro: Yes. At the end, we will take 5 votes. Mr. Kagawa: Last year of observing the few times that I watched, I think that was the big concern of the Council was that the first budget came in and then the second budget was really different from the first one. This year, it is quite similar. I have no problems with it but it just goes to show you that the opportunity to really turn in something different is still there and that is why you guys just asked us for 1 budget but anyway that is where we are at and maybe we can still look at changing it all through just 1 submittal. Mr. Bynum: I want to concur with Mr. Kagawa that last year I was pretty unhappy with the budget submittal and I said that I thought it was being used strategically. I do not feel at all that way this year and the May submittal incorporates the union issues that we have to. I am not going to debate whether we should just have 1 —the voters came close to accepting that but did not and so that is where we are at. I do appreciate the submittal is logically the one that we should work off of. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anymore decisions before I call for a roll call? I want to go through Division by Division and not go all over the board. I intend to go through Department by Department and when we close that one, we are moving on. Roll call vote. The motion to adopt the May 8, 2013 Mayor's Budget Submittal was then put, and carried by the following vote: DECISION-MAKING 25 MAY 9, 2013 ADOPTION MAY 8, 2013 BUDGET SUBMITTAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL - 7, AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL - 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL - 0, RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL - 0. Chair Furfaro: Next thing that I would like to do is I would like to complement Keith and the Finance Department for responding to the CIP comparisons that we asked for before we broke for lunch. Thank you very much for making this commitment to us and we will work with this comparison as well. This is about identifying expenses and we have the screen up on the board. Clerk: Chair if you would like to refer to page 5 of the Comparison that the Staff prepared. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Clerk: General Fund Expenditures and it starts with the Mayor's Office—Administration. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Okay we are starting with the Mayor's Office. I will start with 1 item that I asked about earlier and I just wanted to get confirmation that there is 1 adjustment here, am I reading that right for $2,254? Clerk: Yes. Chair Furfaro: And I would have no other changes in that area right now. Members? Mr. Kagawa: Surprise, surprise —I have an addition to make. Chair Furfaro: We are only dealing with deletions. Mr. Kagawa: Only deletions right now? Chair Furfaro: Correct. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. I will wait. Chair Furfaro: Deletions in the Mayor's Office. Mr. Rapozo: Chair? We all have these sheets right? We are going to follow these sheets? I am assuming that the process will be — we will propose the change. Chair Furfaro: You get your 5 votes. Mr. Rapozo: 4 to remove, correct? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I just want to preface my proposals that I looked at this budget with the intention to cut as much as I felt that was not essential. That we did not have to do this year, and that it could wait next year. I do not expect a majority of these things to get the four votes, but as I stated yesterday, I had requested that the Administration take a look at possibly reducing their individual budgets by 5% and the response was that they were operating at bare bones and no more cuts. Some of these seem DECISION-MAKING 26 MAY 9, 2013 very small amounts, but collectively, when you add them up, it contributes to quite a bit of expenditures. So I will just go through my proposals for the Mayor's Office, and like I said, we will let the chips fall. I do not expect a lot of dialogue. The basic premise for these removals or reductions are simply that they are non-essential for this year and that, in fact, should the economy get better, should revenues increase, that they could be restored. So I just wanted to preface my comments. So for the first one, starting with the Mayor's Office, the updating of the Drug Response Plan, $25,000, I just believe that at this point, that can wait. There is no rush for that plan. The existing plan is currently being used. So that was one. So is it going to require a motion to remove? Chair Furfaro: I am going to ask you to make your presentation, and then I am going to see if there are four votes. Mr. Rapozo: I will make a motion that the $25,000 for the updating of the Drug Response Plan be removed. Mr. Hooser: Second. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Special Projects-Update Drug Response Plan (Facilitator/Printing)" in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: I have a second from Mr. Hooser. You have had your discussion and let me see, do we have four votes to remove that? May I see all those that want to indicate aye? Okay. Ms. Yukimura: I have some discussion. Chair Furfaro: I am going to tell you folks again this, okay? I gave you two hours with all of the staff to make your list. It was not shared with each other, but we have only today, half-day, tomorrow, and Monday, and Tuesday, half-day and if you are going to go into discussion on each item, I will allow it, but if we do not get to the end, we will be at the end and the Mayor's budget will override this. Just that reminder to you folks. Let us not carry on a chapter of discussion when the fact that we have had these people in front of us. JoAnn, you have a question? Ms. Yukimura: I want to say that I have a proposal to actually strengthen the Life's choices work and actually change it into a focus of children and families. Chair Furfaro: We are not at that decision. Ms. Yukimura: I know, but it affects this piece that is being proposed to be deleted. You know, in part of the discussion and in considering this, we need to have that complete picture. Chair Furfaro: The time to do that JoAnn was when the Mayor's Office was in front of us, if you had that idea. That is where it should have been discussed. Ms. Yukimura: I will be bringing it up as an addition to the Office and I want to signal that is the reason I will be voting against the deletion,because it will be part of the resources of what I hope will be a new focus without ignoring drugs. And I hope that it will be both an enhancement of the anti-drug efforts, as well as the focus on children and families. Chair Furfaro: I too, will not be voting to delete it. Is there anyone else that wants to speak about Mel's motion at this point? Nadine? DECISION-MAKING 27 MAY 9, 2013 Ms. Nakamura: Yes. I want to share some concerns about doing this Drug Response Plan, because you need to assess where you are in the implementation. There have been two plans done, a lot of resources spent on these plans, and it is time for implementation of the plans rather than doing more planning. Sorry, B.C. So I think there is a need to assess the current plan and see where we are at in implementing and what is preventing us from achieving some of the goals in the plan? But I agree, I do not think there is a need to go through a whole update process and even if you did it and did it right, this is inadequate. So I think just internally there needs to be an assessment of the existing plan. Chair Furfaro: Okay any further dialogue? Roll call on the removal of the $25,000 from the Mayor's budget as it relates to the Drug Enhancement Program. The motion to remove funding for "Special Projects-Update Drug Response Plan (Facilitator/Printing)" in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—4, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: So the $25,000 is removed. Okay. We will put that up on the board. We are still in the Mayor's Office. Are there any more recommendations for removal of an item that shows up in the May 8th budget? Mr. Rapozo: I do, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Y ou have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Does anyone else have the Mayor's Office. Chair Furfaro: I recognized you. They had an opportunity and said nothing, but perhaps you encouraged them to say something. You have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, the next item is under "Special Projects" $1,000 and again, this may sound very, very minimal, but collectively the amount is $1,000 miscellaneous under "Special Projects." and I have no idea what it is. It came with no narrative. The Mayor does have a contingency fund and my motion is to remove the $1,000 from the Special Projects. That would be my motion. Chair Furfaro: Okay, do we have a second? Mr. Kagawa: Second. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Special Projects-Misc." under the Mayor's Office in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a second on that. Does anybody want the floor about the removal of $1,000 in the anti-drug group for miscellaneous items? No discussion. Roll call, vote, please. The motion to remove funding for "Special Projects-Misc." under the Mayor's Office in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000), was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 4, DECISION-MAKING 28 MAY 9, 2013 AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: So note $1,000. I feel like an auctioneer. Any more items in the Mayor's Office?Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: I have a proposal that I would like to do at the end, which actually impacts every Department. But I am not ready right this second. Chair Furfaro: You have a proposal that might impact overall? Mr. Hooser: Every Department. Chair Furfaro: Is it an add or delete? Mr. Hooser: A delete. Chair Furfaro: So why do you not talk about it now? Mr. Hooser: I am still working on it, but it will be done shortly. Chair Furfaro: Okay. The time and calendar is with us, and if it deals with all Departments, we can look at it no matter where we are at. Mr. Hooser: I just want to give you a head's up. Chair Furfaro: I got the head's up. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, Mayor's Office, again, in "Other Services." this would be the removal of funding for the "Other." I do not know what "Other- Transfer VIP", but it is $5,000 and I would make the motion that the $5,000 be removed. Chair Furfaro: Do I have a second? Mr. Kagawa: Second. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding in the Mayor's Office for "Other Services- Transfer VIP" in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and second. Mr. Hooser...I am sorry, Mr. Heu...he had his hand up by his glasses. Gary, I am going to suspend the rules. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GARY K. HEU, Managing Director: Thank you Chair. Chair Furfaro: I do not want to go through a lot of suspending of the rules and talking story. Mr. Heu: I want to make sure that Councilmembers are aware of the actions that they are taking. These moneys are used when the Mayor has dignitaries, sometimes Sister-City type things and they are unaccounted for expenses for VIPS. And so you take the $5,000 out of there, then I mean, again, a will lot of this is protocol issues that the Mayor's Office has to deal with. You could choose to do that, but I DECISION-MAKING 29 MAY 9, 2013 would request that the Council consider leaving that funding leaving that and we have brought down the number through the years. Chair Furfaro: We have both items that have been removed, but your commentary to indicate that members should be aware of the fact that we might portray ourselves as the orphans of the storm because we have nothing to give and recognized and well-taken, but the three of us that wanted to keep it in did not prevail. The four that wanted to take it out, prevailed. That is what the process is. Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor again. Mr. Rapozo: Well, really, I appreciate the explanation. I take no offense. Like I said the Mayor has a line item for Sister Cities and the Mayor has a line item for contingencies. We have the difficult task of trying to make this budget work. And you know, I am not offended if it does not pass. I am not, really. I do not take anything personal and I do not expect the Administration to take anything personal, but I believe we had a second and if no more discussion I will call for the question on the $5,000. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: The motion to remove funding in the Mayor's Office for "Other Services-Transfer VIP" in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000), was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 3, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: 4-3. 3-4, it stays in. Okay, still in the Mayor's Department, any more suggestions for the Mayor's Office? Mr. Rapozo: There is another $5,000 for funding for the Leadership Kaua`i and I am assuming this is a scholarship for County employees. I believe that Leadership Kaua`i is a great program. I was in their inaugural class, Mr. Chair when you were the Executive Director. I paid my own way and I believe if anyone is interested, I just do not believe that the taxpayers should be funding that training in these economic times. So my motion is to remove the $5,000 from the Leadership Kauai. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the funding for the Mayor's Office for Leadership Kauai in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000). Motion failed for a lack of a second. Chair Furfaro: Is there a second? No second. Mayor's Office, any new item? Go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I am ready. Thank you, Chair. This cuts across all funds. This incorporates the vacancy factor of 2%. At any point in time there is at least a 2% vacancy and the staff has helped me calculate the amount would reduce the overall from every Department a total of $1,781,690 and would not impact operations at all, because it is just a constant cushion that is already there. A 2% vacancy reduction across all funds for employees. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question for Gary. Mr. Hooser: I will make a motion to do that. DECISION-MAKING 30 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Is there something being handed out, so we can see more definitely what is being talked about? I am sorry I am at a disadvantage with my back to the board. Mr. Hooser: So it is a $1,785,690. Chair Furfaro: Is there another copy? Mr. Hooser: That represents 2% reduction in salaries across the County. And that 2% is based on the average vacancy factor, which right now it is already occurring 2% and right now either sits in the fund or gets used for other purposes. So this would...the intent any way and I believe it to be true, would not have any tangible impact on operations of any Department whatsoever, but would save $1,781,690. Chair Furfaro: Before any questions,I need a second. Mr. Rapozo: Second. Mr. Hooser moved to reduce the Administration's budget by a 2% vacancy factor across all funds, seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Rapozo you are recognized first. And Kagawa and Nakamura. Mr. Rapozo: That includes the benefits as well? Mr. Hooser: I am getting a head nod yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, I want to thank Mr. Hooser and I had a vacancy report in front of me and work on something as well. We were tasked with something very unique this year, to bring up proposals for revenues when you have cuts and we had some large ones last night and I commend Councilmember Hooser. He is going based on a trend, a trend that has been going on for many years. It is a very good educated guess. Those kind of guesses that need to be used in financial budgeting, instead of just assuming that this trend will be broken. I think this is a good method. We are getting back to closer to what actually is there. So I want to thank you, Mr. Hooser and I will be supporting this. Chair Furfaro Vice Chair? Ms. Nakamura: I wanted to find out how did you arrive at this number? Mr. Hooser: I asked staff to do an analysis of a certain point in time of all the funded vacancies that were vacant in the County at fully particular point in time. One particular day. And it is clear that at any point in time there are empty spots in an Office. Some are empty for a day and some are empty for a month, but there is an average vacancy factor. Ms. Nakamura: Because the budget is by Department, would we need to break it down? So that the amount of reduction is based on the number of vacancies in that Department? Because in the end, the Department has to balance their budget. Mr. Hooser: Right. DECISION-MAKING 31 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Nakamura: And this is an across the board number, which is different from how our budget is presented. Mr. Hooser: Right. Ms. Nakamura: So I am just wondering about the mechanics of how we do. Mr. Hooser: It is intended to be across the board, 2% and then the Directors would manage that, if they could. Ms. Nakamura: What if there is no vacancy in that Department this year? Mr. Hooser: Then they would have other funds to shift from other places into that. There will be vacancies. Ms. Nakamura: I do not know, some of the smaller Departments. Mr. Hooser: Perhaps not. Ms. Nakamura: I would not want to penalize those who are...let us just take the Office of Economic Development or Office of Elderly Affairs, very small Offices. Every person position is filled. Mr. Hooser: And if my understanding they could shift funds with the support of the Administration from other parts of the budget to fill those gaps and back and forth. It takes Administrative support from the Mayor, I believe, to do that, but they have the legal authority to do that. Ms. Nakamura: Can we get some clarification from the Administration on that point. I like the concept, but I want to understand how it works. Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize anybody else, first of all I will not be supporting it and I think both that method is illegal. And I will just share that with you, and that is why I am not voting for it. I am going to go to other Councilmembers. You have your time to respond to your proposal and other questions. If other members have questions for you, that is fine. JoAnn and then Tim. Ms. Yukimura: I do have the same concern as Council Vice Chair, in terms of the smaller Departments. And I am thinking of housing in particular, because they are very tightly budgeted. And I am concerned that it would unduly, it also penalizes those Departments that are very tightly budgeted. And I do not know if the Administration has some input on that, but I think we should know what the impacts are before we pass that. Chair Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Bynum and then I will go back to you Mr. Hooser. Mr. Bynum: I will save the discussion about whether it is legal or not, but what I will say is that we asked the Administration over the last couple of years to look at actuals, budget, related to actuals. They did that there year and we say we wanted to tighten up the variance and we challenged them to do that and they did. And so if they had not done that, if they were not trying to collaborate more with us, and they left, you know, big padded budget, then this might be a way to go, but it feels like they have been responding to our requests and now we are going to just kind of unilaterally take 2%. So I will not be supporting that. And it is like you guys did it, right? We did budget versus actual and that was part of what I was saying last night of how much the budget process DECISION-MAKING 32 MAY 9, 2013 has improved with the different leadership at the Council and the Administration being responsive to what we asked them to do. So this kind of almost penalizing them for doing what we asked them to do. h C air Furfaro: I m a going to come back to Mr. Hooser and then I g g will come back to you. I want to qualify my comment. I think the approach on staffing levels, as it deals with equity amongst Departments, can you either dollar-fund them or you can take the whole position out. But you cannot project an estimated vacancy rate. Go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Chair, I appreciate your comment, and I have had that discussion, similar discussion whether or not and the same can be accomplished...the same net effect can be accomplished by having the same savings applied to discretionary spending and not touch the salaries and have that different, if you would, supplemented from the savings of the vacancy anyway. So we have had lots of discussion around this table and we are always told reasons why we cannot do something and I want to believe that there are ways to accomplish it. And I think we can limit discretionary funding by the same amount. That would be travel and everything else and some of the things that we have already limited and then if the Department chooses to replace that same amount of money they could do it from vacancy savings on their own if they have it. We were tasked and I would argue also criticized for voting no on some revenue measure and we are tasked with the responsibility of proposing savings if you would or other revenue and that is what I am doing now. I respect everybody's vote and if people choose not to support this route, I respect that. This was something that I was asked to do in response to my no-votes and it is a legitimate way to do it and I understand if the votes may or may not be there. Chair Furfaro: I am glad you understand my point. I think your approach could be done by taking a position out or dollar funding it or making them come back, but I am weary about this approach and I so stated. I want to make sure that you also understand that we will come back with a cycle for revenue items. We are just talking about expense items right now. Mr. Rapozo you have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair and I agree with Mr. Hooser and I also agree that we could go down the list and dollar fund positions and what I hear perfect Mr. Hooser it is not going to be affecting the salary lines. But what will be reflected in that Department's budget is a 2% reduction of the vacant salaries. That is how I envision it. So whether or not you are not taking it out of the position. If it is $100,000 number and 2%, and I do not know what you call it "vacancy adjustment," and you remove it for that Department. I do not think it will affect operations at all, because like Mr. Hooser, I have been looking at this and I realize that at any given time, the vacancies are a lot. So 2% is not going to affect operations the County. Now if this does not pass, then I will work at looking at the positions in the individual Departments that have been vacant for a length of time and we will just dollar-fund those. You will get the same net effect. You will. They will transfer money from that line to hire that position. I still think we can get to that number and a appreciate your work, because I agree, when we voted against those measures last night, we had to come back...and that is what I am trying to do as well and if we can get some staff assistance to go through the most recent personnel report and we will do it that way. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, you had no problem with my definition of another way to do it? Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Chair Furfaro: You have no problem? Mr. Rapozo: No. DECISION-MAKING 33 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, this method can be done. If you can dollar- fund a position, you can reduce positions to equate this cut. We are asked to raise taxes or cut the budget. Mr. Hooser is trying to cut the budget. Mr. Hooser and I were not here last year to add 125 positions to this and now we are finding out our expenditures are exceeding revenues for the past two (2) years and now we are in this spot. We are elected here to try to fix this problem. Either raise taxes or cut expenditures. I commend you and I will follow you in this budget-cutting process. Because I want to cut our budget, as much as possible, control our spending and it will make our future of Kaua`i much brighter. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, you had a comment before I call for the vote? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. If this were applied to the larger Departments, I could feel maybe comfortable about it, but I am not happy with how it will impact smaller Departments. And I am looking at the worksheets that we had our staff do. For example, in the Housing Agency, the Fiscal Year Budget 2013 and this year's budget, there is a minus 13% you know this year's budget is minus 13% from last year's budget and from actuals this year's budget from 2012 actuals, which is the only thing we had was a minus two (2) already. So I mean, I think it would hurt the smaller Departments. And because it includes it I cannot support it, but I would look at other ways to try to leverage these vacancies. Chair Furfaro: Well, I gave my explanation, but I am going to suspend the rules and ask Gary and Al to come u . p Y p There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Thank you Chair Furfaro. Chair Furfaro: Before you go further, I want to make sure you are clear on what I am saying. Another option for us is to dollar-fund a position or remove the position all together. Mr. Heu: Absolutely. Y Chair Furfaro: You understood my comment. Fine and I want to get the interpretation of that as it relates to legal staffing guides versus estimates. Mr. Heu: Thank you, Chair. First of all, I wanted to say that actually we did administratively look at this issue in terms of applying a vacancy factor, and the different ways that that could be done. We were stumbling across the same issues that think you folks are stru gg lin g w ith in terms of how to administer that? Ultimately, we decided to not move in that direction, but instead, look at other ways of reducing expenses. What I would say that if, in fact, this Body is considering a vote to implement a vacancy factor, that you would just consult with our County Attorney's Office, because we understand that...and I am not sure if the circumstances are exactly the same. But I believe the Big Island of Hawaii had a similar situation, and there were opinions rendered that the action that they took was outside of their authority. So I would just ask that the body double check with Legal Counsel to assure that the action that is being contemplated is one that everybody can step out and feel comfortable in terms of doing the right thing in terms of legal perspective. The other thing, I wanted to provide a point of clarification, because I think over the past few weeks we have heard about 140 positions being added to County government over the course of four years. Those, the number 140 may have some relevance to payroll issues. The bottom line if you go back to the budget ordinances the past four years and do an accounting of actual new positions that were DECISION-MAKING 34 MAY 9, 2013 added into the County, there were 43 positions. And the majority of those positions were either in the Prosecutor's Office or in the Council Services. So if you really want to talk about new positions added into the County, you really need to go back to the budget ordinances and see which ones were marked as "new," and it is very easy to pick those up. Relative to the number 140, I think that was over the course of five years, and what that li was actually fully-funded positions in the budget ordinance. They were not new positions necessarily. But they were positions that had been maybe previously...they were vacant for whatever reason, and that they happened to be filled at time that that snapshot was taken. Again, I just wanted to provide that clarify case, because if you are sitting in the public and hear the number 140 positions were added to the County, you know, new positions, I think we would all take a gasp and step backwards. So I just wanted to provide that clarification for everybody. Chair Furfaro: We are going to stay with specific items and not drift all over to discussion and so forth, as we go through this. Do you have a legal opinion to share with us, where the Council is allowed to book an estimated vacancy factor as it relates to Mr. Hooser's proposal? AMY I. ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney: I believe Charter Section applies in this situation and that particular section does say that the Council may reduce any item or items, Therefore, you cannot do an overall reduction, but a specific reduction in a specific item. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser do you have a question for the County Attorney? Mr. Hooser: Just to clarify. So if we went through the entire budget and made two percent (2%) to every position, that would be legal? Ms. Esaki: If you are looking at each item at two percent (2%) reduction for each item. Mr. Hooser: Okay. And that applies whether it is to positions or pencils and paperclips and paper? Any line item on the budget, as long as we did it individually? Ms. Esaki: That is correct, each line item. Mr. Hooser: So we can do that, Chair but when I talked to staff, the binder was a lot of paper to propose that. So I choose to do it to describe it like this, but the intent is certainly to do that. Chair Furfaro: Well, then Amy, because we have three and a half days of the decisions here, I want a legal opinion made available to us on Monday morning. Ms. Esaki: Yes, Chair. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure that you understand, it is not on a particular item. It is based on a forecasted estimated vacancy. It is a lot different from saying reduce this item two percent (2%) and so forth. Okay? First you have to understand the subject matter. The subject matter is a forecast of what a vacancy would be. It is not a tangible number. It is a forecast. So it is intangible. Okay? And we will look forward to your opinion. Ms. Esaki: The question that I understand that is being asked is whether you can delete or reduce a specific item. DECISION-MAKING 35 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Not reducing a specific item. They are reducing an intangible vacancy factor. That is the difference. That is what the subject matter was on the Big Island and before we get into any more dialogue, the votes will fall on this, but I want a legal opinion on forecasting of vacancy factor. Ms. Yukimura: Question for Amy. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Ms. Yukimura: I do want to request that the County Attorney's opinion that comes back to us be in the form of a question with a yes or no. And that has been your regular practice, but it is deviated several times recently. And it is hard to know what the answer is without the clear question. Ms. Esaki: I would like the clear question. And what is the clear question that is being asked here today? Chair Furfaro: Well, Mr. Hooser will put one together and we will send it over. We are going to continue with our business today and the votes are going to fall where they are. But I think it raises an important question for us is this legally approachable? Mr. Rapozo? Mr. Rapozo: Amy, thank you for being here. Last year's budget there was a 5% vacancy factor in the Kaua`i Police Department, across the board, no different than what Mr. Hooser is proposing today. Five percent (5%). Ms. Yukimura: From the Administration. Mr. Rapozo: But this Council passed this budget. Regardless of what is proposed, we pass the budget and if that charter says we cannot do that, then we cannot do it, regardless of who proposed it. This is the problem that I have, if it suits you, we will make the opinion fit. Last year it was fine, because it came from the Administration, five percent (5%) vacancy factor, approved by this Council. So Mr. Hooser, I just want you to know, because you were not here, it was a line item in the budget and it was legal back then. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Thank you, Chair. I just hesitate to vote until we hear...I know some members are concerned about it and I would not hold it against them voting against it if they are not clear on the legality of the issue and I would prefer to settle on it before we vote on it and number two, I understand your discussion in terms this is a concept of vacancy reduction. I am not proposing a concept. I am proposing a specific two percent (2%) per person reduction in funding, and so I am not proposing something that is theoretical. I am proposing two percent (2%) per line item and I would be happy to talk to the County Attorney and get it in writing. Chair Furfaro: I think we are going to. Mr. Hooser: This is not a theoretical proposal, but a specific proposal of two percent (2%). Chair Furfaro: I think it will depend on how you came from the question going over and it was specifically to the staffing guides. It was...JoAnn, you came right between our conversation. We are going back and forth. Ms. Yukimura: Excuse me. DECISION-MAKING 36 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: It was specifically to the staffing in the Police Department and this is the difference, I think, with across the board. ALFRED B. CASTILLO, JR., County Attorney: Council Chair, may I make a comment? Chair Furfaro: Sure. Mr. Castillo: Al Castillo, County Attorney. First of all, just...I know we will be getting the specific question from Councilmember Hooser. But from what I understand is the topic of the discussion is as Councilmember Rapozo said he used the example of the Kaua`i Police Department. Where we have say, just for an example, we have ten positions, and we are saying here on this side that you have to make sure that you have budgeted for the ten positions. The full amount. And the proposal is to reduce the amount for those positions, even if they are not filled by a percentage. So that is my understanding. The other thing that I would like to mention is that...and this has always been the case with the County Attorney's Office. We never give you an opinion to fit a purpose. When you ask the question, we research the matter. We research the question. And we provide you an answer that is defensible. Chair Furfaro: I sense that. That is why I asked, we will get the question specifically from Mr. Hooser. I am saying to you, you need to put your staff on the response and we are looking for it on Monday morning. Mr. Castillo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: I want to thank you Councilmember Rapozo for bringing this up, because I did look at it and it is a five percent (5%) vacancy factor in the Police Department. And if this approach has been done before, then maybe it can be done again. But I think that in moving forward it would be important to look at each specific Department vacancy factor. Police was interesting because for many years they had vacancies and no program for filling them and we knew there would be positions not filled because they were going through their recruitment process. So I think there was some comfort level about doing that vacancy factor. I think again, if you could do it by Department and maybe avoid the smaller ones, where there is no fudge factor there. There is no vacancy currently and I think that approach might be the case. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that. Mr. Kagawa, then Mr. Bynum. Mr. Kagawa: You know, when you are cutting...I want to speed things up a little bit and I know I am talking and I am not speeding it up. But to get around it, my method was actually legal. My method is all the vacancies that we have, is to eliminate those positions. In the General Fund I have $1.3 million. In the Highway Fund, I have $257,000. In the Sewer Fund I have $119,000. In Solid Waste I have $104,000 of actual positions to be dollar-funded or removed. So I have a solution to this and we do not need opinions if you agree, but I thought Mr. Hooser's method would have given the Administration the flexibility to fill the positions as you see as priority. We do not work every day and know all the battles that you go through. So I thought that Mr. Hooser's method was very ingenious, and that it would give you the discretion. But as I follow here, it might actually kind of restrict Departments that really are not at fault. I can see that now. So we have a direct deletion. It is huge. But I would defer to Mr. Heu, last year I know in campaigning we knew that 27 positions or something were added last year and you are telling me the previous three years only 20 were add? I used to work here. The County has grown a lot. Our responsibility has grown a lot. And I can see that, but it seems that this year we have to kind of stop it or even cut it down a little bit. So that is why I am DECISION-MAKING 37 MAY 9, 2013 inclined to make these big cuts. I do not want to be raise taxes, as much as possible. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I just want to point out, if you look at the CAFR, the Administration gave us reduced spending two years in a row at the beginning of this. I already said that I do not like the approach of doing two percent (2%) or five percent (5%). And the Administration has already tightened the variance. Although when I got this resubmittal I thought we might have something from the Administration similar to what we had last year, where they identified positions that were currently vacant, and three quarter-funded them in recognition that it was going to take at least a quarter to get through the sole-source and hiring procedure. My guess is that there are probably a number of positions that we could go that way, but I would want guidance from the Administration. But that...if I am correct, at the submittal last year, there were a number of positions that were three quarter funded that were vacant. So I think we could look at that as an approach; that would be more thoughtful and not just kind of across the board. Chair Furfaro: I do not want to carry this on as if it is a Council Meeting.This is decision-making. You have the floor, Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: Just very briefly, that is actually the approach that I took with some of my deletions is just looking at the vacant position and after hearing from the Departments and when they anticipated hiring based on past practices, I made some...at least one deletion because of using that approach. So it is not fully-funded, but p artial-funding. Mr. Bynum: I will wait for that proposal. Chair Furfaro: Steve, I know you want to say something, but I do not think we have questions. STEVEN A. HUNT, Director of Finance: I was just going to comment regarding the vacancy factor to begin with. When we met going through the budget with each Department, we went through all of the vacant positions. And we dollar-funded a number of them based on our interviews. We checked to see where they are in the hiring process. Had they interviewed? Had there been a list selected? Had an offer been made? And part of that was the reflection of the timing and we had some positions that we deferred. Parks Planner was one of them with the October date and where we thought we would push the dates we short-funded for the year to cover that timing allowance. So a lot of the vacancy was also with police and police has since filled many of that. So there is not as much vacancy as there once was in prior budgets. To some degree we have done our own vacancy factor in our budgeting process this year. The other question that I think I heard when Councilmember Hooser initially posed the question was can you have a vacancy factor? But as a secondary question, can we go and take two percent (2%) off all the salaries? You can do what you want to the vacant positions, but you cannot short-fund a warm body Civil Service position. That is the opinion that I have gotten from the Attorneys. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, we will see the opinion from the Attorneys on Monday. My approach is if you are not filling the vacancy, Position 899, Position 2469 has not been filled since July of last year. Okay? Those positions should be out and not carried in the budget. We have another position dollar-funded in the briefing that I got from you folks, that is a new approach, but we are going to get a legal opinion. What is on the table right now is Mr. Hooser's motion. And I want to see if we want to pursue it with a vote and get a legal interpretation on Monday or not. Mr. Hooser, you have the floor, the meeting is called back to order. DECISION-MAKING 38 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Hooser: I would rather defer the vote until we get clear on the legal. And again, there would be another approach I mentioned briefly would be to take a percentage off the discretionary funding that equaled the same amount and that money is moved back and forth. We all know that the budget money is always moving around, but I would prefer not voting given the legal question. We had the County Attorney actually tell us that we could do it and now the Director of Finance just told us he did not think we do it. So there is definitely some confusion legally and I would like to clarify that. So do I withdraw my motion or move to defer? How do we do it? Chair Furfaro: We will revisit it on Monday. I will make that exception. Mr. Hooser: Okay. Chair Furfaro: If we go to the other discretionary pieces I have things in here that I would like three percent (3%) on Workers' Compensation, one percent (1%) on Electricity and still needs to go down. We have a Green Team and what are we measuring? So I do not want it to be just a blanket piece, but to be sure where we make the cuts in my opinion we also leave ourselves an audit trail and know what we took out. Thank you. I will guaranty revisiting this on Monday after we get the legal opinion, Gary. Anymore in the Mayor's Office? Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry, this is not the Mayor `s Office. Chair Furfaro: Mayor's Office. Mr. Rapozo: I believe that is it. Chair Furfaro: Okay. So what is on the board right now for the Mayor's Office? I cannot read it. Do we have a mic over there so you can tell me what it is? What is the dollar amount? Can anybody see it? Mr. Kagawa: $26,000. JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: Next Department, we have gone through Mayor's Office Youth Work, Mayor's Office Equal Access. Mayor's Office, Boards and Commissions. Chair Furfaro: Am I hearing any items? If not, next. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next Department would be the Office of the County Clerk, Council Services. Chair Furfaro: Office of the County Clerk. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: The first item from the Council Services is the new Secretarial Assistant that was proposed and the benefits as well and the number is $58,971. That is the motion. DECISION-MAKING 39 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: That is a request for a second? Mr. Hooser: Second. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the "NEW-Secretarial Assistant" position and associated benefits in Council Services in the amount of $58,971, seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Was that you, Mr. Hooser? Okay, motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Rapozo: The only discussion I have, Mr. Chair, is that as I stated last year, during the budget as well, you know, we as a Council need to lead by example. We have a great staff here. And they definitely service our needs. As I expected the Administration to do more with less, I expect our Department to do the same. So I will not be supporting this new proposed position. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: Since Mr. Furfaro has been the Chair, we have tried to address staffing issues at Council. We did a Human Resources Subcommittee last year, which clearly illustrated that our staff is way smaller than every other County. Mr. Furfaro filled vacant positions. It is absolutely true that we have an outstanding staff that works their tail off. And they are still pushed to the limit. And this is part of the Chair's thoughtful about getting us adequate staffing. So I am not going to support cutting away the work of three years to get us grounded. Chair Furfaro: Did you wanted to speak, Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: This is a new position that was being proposed. This is not the vacant Secretarial Assistant position, right? Chair Furfaro: This is a Secretarial Assistant new. Mr. Hooser: Right. So I am supporting the removal and I agree we need to lead by example. Chair Furfaro: Any more discussion? Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: Same here. I feel that we do need to lead by example and I think we can do without this position. So I will be supporting this. Chair Furfaro: First of all, before we actually take the vote, I want to say that we have had some great accomplishments here. Great accomplishments. We recently got an A+ rating that I shared with you folks yesterday against 3,026 Counties across the nation and our staff does a great job and I thought this was an enhancement piece. Yesterday we introduced an update of the County code, which had not been updated since 1987 and says done it is done and I want to recognize our staff has been working very hard. Ms. Yukimura: I want to say that the recognition of the sign of an incredible staff here and also recognize the Council work that was done to move us towards that recognition as well. Chair your leadership and I want to particularly recognize Councilmember Bynum, who was an advocate for this system of agenda and having all of the bills available, the supporting materials available to the public for all of our meetings. It was an arduous journey under the previous Administration of the Council. Our present Chair has really facilitated it and I appreciate that kind of leadership. DECISION-MAKING 40 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I like to lead by example also. I just feel like I am giving the staff so much work that I would be remiss if I cut this position and then get the additional work that I am sending out on behalf of constituents done in a timely manner. So I am sorry, Mr. Rapozo, and Mr. Hooser, I will not be supporting you on this one. Chair Furfaro: Let me see if I have anybody else before I recognize Mr. Bynum a second time? Okay, Mr. Bynum you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I think anybody that watches this government knows how much more dynamic this current Council is than they were six years ago. We give tons of work to the staff, and you know, there are decisions that we make that I would love to support lead by example kind of talk, but we make mistakes here, it costs a lot of money for the County. And I just cannot see us not honoring the work that is substantial and I am pleased to support this. Chair Furfaro: On that note I will call for the vote. The motion is can be I cannot see that number, including salary and benefits. Mr. Rapozo: $58,971. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: On that note, I want to say Mr. Chair, I do honor the work. The comment that Mr. Bynum cannot see us honoring the work of our employees. Toxic. Mr. Bynum: Work of the Chair. Mr. Rapozo: I honor the work of our Chair and I honor the work of our staff. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I am going to call for the vote. This is for the new position Secretarial Assistant in the Council budget. Let us do a roll call, please. The motion to remove the "NEW-Secretarial Assistant" position and associated benefits in Council Services in the amount of$58,971, was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Hooser, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL 4, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Kagawa, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: 4-3. Okay. We are still in Council Services including Elections and so forth, Jade. Mr. Hooser, the floor recognizes you. Mr. Hooser: I am recommending that we also dollar-fund a dollar of Council Services Administrator for $95,957. The total savings would be $148,881. And if we dollar-fund that position, just for the record, there will still be three other vacant positions two of which are hopefully being filled, but we will have three other vacant positions. So when we started the conversation, there were five and this is an existing position and again, more leading by example. Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Second. DECISION-MAKING 41 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Hooser moved to dollar fund Position No. 2708, Council Services Administrator and associated benefits in the amount of$148,881, seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: We have a second and just for clarification for everybody, two of the positions that we have, we lost internally this year to the County. One went to the new Prosecutor's Office, one went to the Auditor. And then we lost one in- house to the private sector. And those are pretty recent. I have a number that is different than yours and I will be supporting this, Gary. But my intent was to move that money to Planning as an add-on when we come to the adds, because I want to do something to support Planning on the TVR Enforcement. So I will be supporting this request. But my number is different. I have $148,944 and let us use the lower number for Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Since you mentioned what your intent was...and I know we will get to it and my intent was to fund the Meals on Wheels. Chair Furfaro: I have a little money for that when we get to that. Mr. Hooser: Okay. Chair Furfaro: Let us agree on cuts first, but I wanted to disclose I had plans to use that and my intention was to use that for support in the Planning Department. Ms. Nakamura: My number was $148,881 for the deletion as well. Chair Furfaro: We are about $14 off here on the calculation. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I will be leading by example on this one. This position is not needed at the current time, and therefore, I will be supporting it. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am very reluctantly going to support this, because it has not been filled. I believe it should have been. This is a position, a key position for leadership that I think our current Deputy Director is taking on all of that work and more. And I think it is a mistake, but I am going to reluctantly support it. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Bynum. Before I go any further, I want to give praise...this is a position that has been in the County Council for a while, many years and I want to make sure that you understand. I think some of our investment in the people that we have right now does allow to walk away from this position now and it is due to a tough message of thank you for doing this and the recognition is that we are taking away a position. So let us call the roll call, please The motion to dollar fund Position No. 2708, Council Services Administrator and associated benefits in the amount of $148,881, was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR DOLLAR FUNDING: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6, AGAINST DOLLAR FUNDING: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1. DECISION-MAKING 42 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: So that number is up on the board for savings. Okay, are we still in Council Services? Mr. Bynum: I wonder if everyone that voted to eliminate a clerical position was aware we were going to eliminate that position as well and whether that changed anybody's mind about a clerical position. Chair Furfaro: I will resurface the question. We have lost the position to be determined where it is used later along with a clerical support. Is any member concerned that they did not know we were going to lose the two? Mr. Kagawa: No. Chair Furfaro: Okay. So no reconsiderations. Council is out two positions. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: This is a no-brainer. Chair Furfaro: Still in Council Services. Mr. Rapozo: $23,000 was added to the HSAC line under "Dues and Subscriptions" last year because HSAC and the City and County of Honolulu were proposing an Executive Director position to the body. That has ceased with the departure of a couple of Honolulu Councilmembers so the $23,000 allocated last year will no longer be needed and I move to remove the $23,000 from "Dues and Subscriptions." Chair Furfaro: Seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding in Council Services for "Dues & Subscriptions- HSAC Executive Director" in the amount of$23,000, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: I will be supporting it, Mel. Mr. Rapozo: For your information, Kauai was the only County that fully funded that...in fact overfunded the effort. Chair Furfaro: Part of it is by lead by example and we wanted you to have the money to lead. So $23,000 out of HSAC dues and subscriptions. No more dialogue, let us vote. Roll call, please The motion to remove funding in Council Services for "Dues & Subscriptions-HSAC Executive Director" in the amount of $23,000, was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST REMOVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: Seven ayes. Do we have any more in Council Services? If not, can someone tell me the number...can somebody look at the screen and tell me the number. DECISION-MAKING 43 MAY 9, 2013 Ms. Nakamura: I have one more. Chair Furfaro: We have one more in Council Services. I recognize the Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: I would like to propose deleting Secretarial Assistant E-2710, this is Morgan's position. She left and I believe the two secretaries can handle the work. They have handled it. So the deletion is with salaries, social security, health fund, retirement, and OPEB to total $78,824. And it would be not to delete it, but to dollar-fund it. Chair Furfaro: Okay. JoAnn, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: What position was that? Chair Furfaro: What is the vacancy that was created? Ms. Nakamura: E-2710. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I want to say amongst the six Councilmembers I will not be supporting the removal of that second position, for you folks. As we get busier and as it gets more intense, the support is going to be required. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. I will not be supporting it. When Morgan was there, I think we had a little more communication going on, and I know it is tough right now for Lisa to juggle between four of us down there in that Office. I want to thank Lisa for stepping up. Lisa Watanabe for stepping you up and doubling her duty, but I would say that I could really use that secretary, as well as other Councilmembers. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I will not be supporting that, because I think some of us are well-staffed, but others need some support and we need to make sure that they have it, too. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, can I ask first, I am sorry, I did not get a second. Mr. Kagawa: Second. Ms. Nakamura moved to dollar fund Position No. E-2710, Secretarial Assistant in the amount of$70,824, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hooser Mr. Hooser: I thought I heard a scream coming from downstairs. An ouch, I should say. I think we have taken enough right now and I think we need help downstairs. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: This is based on the fact that currently I share with Councilmember Yukimura, and I can appreciate what she said, because I sometimes find myself juggling needs with Councilmember Yukimura as well. So let us do a roll call vote. Mr. Bynum, go ahead. Mr. Bynum: I am going to say this one more time. We are the only Council in the State of Hawai`i where each Councilmember does not have I think a DECISION-MAKING 44 MAY 9, 2013 Secretary and Administrative Assistant. We are not effective for you as we could be because we do not have basic support. We have to do our own clerical work in certain circumstances. Are we going to be a sophisticated County or are we going to be backwater? These are the choices that we are make. Chair Furfaro: I am calling for the vote. The motion to dollar fund Position No. E-2710, Secretarial Assistant in the amount of$70,824 was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR DOLLAR FUNDING: Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—2, AGAINST DOLLAR FUNDING: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: So it fails 2-5. Now can you tell me what we have taken out of Council Services? What is that number? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Mr. Chair, so for Council Services we have taken out $230,852. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I think the Secretarial Assistant did not come out of the top. Can we recheck the vote? Chair Furfaro: The vote for the number? Mr. Kagawa: The first one $58,971, that did not pass. I did not see it. Chair Furfaro: That was the new position that passed. Mr. Kagawa: The new one passed? Chair Furfaro: There were two, one in the current budget caused by a vacancy and then there was an add for next year. That add came out, right? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The new Secretarial Assistant... Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, B.C., I am going to take a ten-minute caption break and go look at the board. There being no objections, the meeting was recessed at 2:48 p.m. The Council reconvened at 2:59 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are getting close to some of the housekeeping items that I wanted to reconfirm. As I mentioned earlier, when we go through a Department, I am going to close it out, if there is a need to want to reconsider something you will do it at that time, and if not, the time is gone and we are moving on. At present the number that was up by Ashley folks was $230,852. That is the correct number. This is the last item in Council Services and Elections and before I close this, does anybody want to reconsider? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: As someone who was in the prevailing vote for the new Secretarial Assistant, I would like to ask reconsideration of that. Councilmembers Kagawa and Bynum have told me how important that position is to their needs and as Councilmember Bynum pointed out, the Council is fairly thinly staffed. With this new DECISION-MAKING 45 MAY 9, 2013 position there would be four assistants for seven Councilmembers. So would I like to ask for a revote on that. Just while we are waiting, so right now it is? Chair Furfaro: $230,852. Ms. Yukimura: The new position that we are talking about is the new Secretarial Assistant position listed at $58,097, which is salary plus benefits. Do I need a motion? Chair Furfaro: Let us wait for Mr. Rapozo. We are in reconsideration, before we close out Council. Councilwoman Yukimura was in the prevailing section and has asked for reconsideration. Do I have a second? Mr. Kagawa, Mr. Bynum tandemed the second. So we have a second for that reconsideration. Ms. Yukimura moved to reconsider removing the new Secretarial Assistant position in Council Services listed at $58,971, salaries and benefits, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Yukimura: Do you want to vote on the reconsideration first formally? Chair Furfaro: We are not coming back. So we are going to do a reconsideration right now. We are going to vote now. Let us vote on the reconsideration first, and we will take the vote. Ms. Nakamura: Can I have a one-minute recess? Chair Furfaro: Okay. We are in recess. There being no objections the Committee recessed at 3:00 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 3:01 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: To make sure everybody understands in a reconsideration, before we close out that Division of the County, the one person in the prevailing vote may ask for a reconsideration. We will vote first to see if we have enough people that would support a reconsideration and then give that person the floor to explain what they want to reconsider. So now I am asking for a recall vote on JoAnn's request for reconsideration. Roll call,please. The motion to reconsider removing the new Secretarial Assistant position in Council Services listed at $58,971, salaries and benefits was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Kagawa, Hooser, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL— 5, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: Nakamura, Furfaro TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: So we have a 5-2 vote. JoAnn you now have the floor for the item that you wish us to reconsider. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. I move to remove the deletion of the new Secretarial Assistant. DECISION-MAKING 46 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: And that amount was how much? Ms. Yukimura: $58,971, salary and benefits. Mr. Bynum: Second. Ms. Yukimura moved to restore the new Secretarial Assistant position in Council Services in the amount of$58,971, salaries and benefits, seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion. Further discussion? Councilwoman Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: I feel that with the position...the new position that is unfilled and vacant right now, that we will be filling shortly, that there serves the needs of this Council. I believe that if we are asking all of the other County Agencies to make due with less, to make some sacrifices, I think this is something that we as a Council Body can do. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, then Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Bynum: I am just going to respectfully disagree with that position and say we just eliminated an administrative position at a much higher salary that has been on Council Services forever as far as I know. So I appreciate the reconsideration, and I hope we can prevail on the vote for a low-level clerical position. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, you have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just removed a $96,000 position that has been vacant for a long time. It does not matter how long it was filled. It has been vacant for a while. We never tried to fill that position. In relation to the service that I personally receive from our Staff, contrary to what Mr. Bynum said earlier that we are not getting served, I got to disagree 100%. I have been serviced extremely well. Our memos get done. The only time I do my own clerical work is if I choose to. That is the only time. Often times we have last-minute requests and Ashley is our HSAC person in addition to all her additional duties. The point I want to make to the general public is that we are being served well here by our Staff. Are they working hard? Definitely. Are these tough times? Definitely. You know, I am sure the Mayor could make an argument for every single position we are trying to cut here and I know it is tough and I am asking you folks to suck it up this time, this year. I am asking our colleagues to suck it up as well. So to sit here and say Mr. Mayor, sorry, we are going to dollar-fund and two percent (2%) and do this and that, but we want this and that and add ours and I do not think it is right. I hope this is not trend for the rest of the budget that we are going to be voting and reconsidering. Chair Furfaro: I would like to say to you, reconsideration will be done at the Division at the end. After that, it is done, no more revisiting it and so we have come to the end of Council Services and we are revisiting it, which I plan to do with each Division. But that is pau. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Maybe I will make a reconsideration on this reconsideration at the end of the Council Services. Chair Furfaro: Anybody else who wishes to speak? Mr. Bynum? Mr. Bynum: I do not like that Councilmember Rapozo tries to take my position as wanting additional clerical support as a criticism of our current Staff. He knows that we have Staff Analysts who do specific jobs. I have absolutely no complaint about that Section, I have only praise. This is about basic clerical support to make DECISION-MAKING 47 MAY 9, 2013 Councilmembers more effective at our primary responsibilities and not organizing and filing and writing letters and responding. So there is a difference. Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I am personally very well-served, too and I am glad that Councilmember Rapozo is too, but like I said, we have to think of all our Councilmembers and this is important to at least two our members and even if it were important to one, it is important. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just to clarify the vote is to restore the position? Chair Furfaro: The new position. Mr. Hooser: Okay. Chair Furfaro: The clerical position, which will leave us from going from $230,000 of savings from the Council, the Council's new number is a savings of $171,000 if that position is restored. Mr. Kagawa: Can you clarify what the ayes and nays? Chair Furfaro: First of all the motion to reconsider was answered positive. Now JoAnn has made the recommendation that we restore that one position and to support it you would say aye. Do I have that right, Staff? I think so. Please call for the vote. The motion to restore the new Secretarial Assistant osition in Council p c Services in the amount of $58,971, salaries and benefits, was then ut and carried by the p Y following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: That is the last of Council Services and Elections. Council Services is closed with a savings of$171,880. Next Division. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next is Office of the County Auditor. Chair Furfaro: Any proposed changes with the Office of the County Auditor? Go ahead. C t Y Au d to Ms. Nakamura: My proposal is to reduce the line item used for Forensic Auditors and Professionals and basically contracting out audit assistance by the amount of $40,000. And even with this change, there is a balance of$155,000 in that line item. Along with the consultant fee, right above that line item is $225,000. When you add those two together it is still above the 2012 actuals for this Division. I think I would like to make this request. Mr. Bynum: Second. Ms. Nakamura moved to reduce the line item for "Forensic Auditors and Professionals" by forty thousand dollars ($40,000), seconded by Mr. Bynum. DECISION-MAKING 48 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Steve may I ask you to come up. I have a second. Am I correct that the $200,000 is the item that shows up as our external audit? Is that where it is at? Mr. Hunt: The $200,000? Chair Furfaro: That is the external audit, right? Mr. Hunt: Yes. The assistance. Chair Furfaro: I just want to share that with everybody and the adjustment being proposed is the $40,000 on the one item is that what you are suggesting? Ms. Nakamura: There is a line item for the CAFR audit. That is the $225,000. I am not touching that. There is a separate item that relates to Auditors and Professionals and this would be contract services $195,000 and I will reduce it by $40,000, so it is still going to be $155,000. Chair Furfaro: Without toughing the money for the CAFR? Ms. Nakamura: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Steve. Okay we have that motion and did I have a second? Yes, I had a second over here. Further discussion? If not, roll call, please. The motion to reduce the line item in the Office of the County Auditor, "Forensic Auditors and Professionals" in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000), was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much, going to the next Department, any reconsiderations for the Auditor? If not, next Department, please. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next Department is the County Attorney. Chair Furfaro: County Attorney's Office. Nothing? Nothing. Next Department. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next Department is the Prosecuting Attorney. ■ Chair Furfaro: Prosecuting Attorney's Office? Nothing. Next Department. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next Department is the Finance Department. Chair Furfaro: Finance Department? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance Administration. Chair Furfaro: Finance Administration. Thank you. Okay. Next item. DECISION-MAKING 49 MAY 9, 2013 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance-Accounting. Chair Furfaro: Finance-Accounting now. No deletions, next Department. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance-Information Technology. Chair Furfaro: Finance-IT, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair, because, like I said, we have raised questions about Mr. Hooser's accounting of deletions, I am just using the sheet of vacancies, meaning that I am not cutting any warm bodies Position No. 244. IT Specialist IV and Position No. 273 is also we are going to vote ala carte. I am just using this list...if you do not want to give me that direction as to what we can reduce, I am just going to...I got to get down to the $2 million that I did not vote in the Vehicle Tax. This is my main method. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Can I have a second before I bring up IT...I will bring the Finance Director up. If you so note, my colleague and friendly baseball neighbor, we are speaking French now, ala carte. We have the steak and looking for the vegetable and potatoes. What were the two items, please? Mr. Kagawa: Position 244 and 273, both are IT Specialist IVs. Mr. Kagawa moved to dollar fund Position No. 273 and Position No. 244, seconded by Mr. Hooser: Chair Furfaro: Let me ask you, is there any recruitment that we should be aware of that is actively going on right now? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: Yes, in fact, I think Brandon Raines spoke to this earlier. We had one very overqualified candidate looking at moving from Newport Beach and eventually gave us the no, it was not enough, as much as we could leverage to the top degree of that step. And so we are out recruiting again. I believe they have done interviews at least for one of the two positions,if not both. Chair Furfaro: Do you know what position numbers is which? Mr. Hunt: I do not know. I know they are interviewing because they are the same position. They have kind of expanded the list as being interviewing for both positions at once, because they are qualifying them as the same position. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: How long has the position been vacant? Mr. Hunt: I do not know offhand. Mr. Rapozo: I know the answer. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo you can give the answer and then I will give Mr. Hooser the floor again. DECISION-MAKING 50 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Rapozo: Position No. 244, according to the report submitted to us, January 27, 2013, relatively recent. Position No. 273, January 1, 2010. Three years. Over three years. So I remember Mr. Raines up here saying that they have interviewed, but they have not found the quality. So I will be supporting the dollar-funding of 273, because that is over three years. But I will not be supporting the recent vacancy. Chair Furfaro: What was the other number? Mr. Rapozo: 244. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Just to point out, that even the relatively recent is four months, it seems like. January to now. And pardon me? Okay. So that is money that was funded that was not spent. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I do anticipate that that 244 number with recruitment from January is for the IT Department is a highly technical position? Mr. Hunt: Yes, it is one of the most advanced positions in that Department. So it has been difficult to find. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: When was Brandon hired? Mr. Hunt: When was Brandon hired? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Mr. Hunt: I do not know that answer. Ms. Yukimura: About two years, right? I have commentary. Chair Furfaro: I will call the meeting back to order before we get to the vote. I will let you practice brevity with your commentary, but I will give you the floor then. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I will be as quick as I can. When I came to work for the County I had a computer that ran Windows `98 that had not been supported for like three or four years and every time that somebody used the printer in my office the computer would shut down. We have come a long ways since those days and Brandon, I think was an outstanding hire. He purposely had to redirect this whole Agency and he purposely held positions open to get grounded and so he could meet with his staff and he could come up with a long-term plan and get accustomed to the County systems. He has explained all of that over the last two years to us and this Agency more than anyone else in the County has increased our productivity and saved us tons of money. Brandon is really hitting his stride right now and to take these two...you know, he is being very cautious about who he hires and I applaud that. So I will not be supporting either of these. Mr. Hunt: Just as commentary, when we were going through the budget process... DECISION-MAKING 51 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, Steve, you do not respond to the individual member. Mr. Hunt: Okay. Chair Furfaro: You get recognized by the Chair. I want to make sure, because I do not want us to start thinking it is a practice to have open narrative over here, okay? You have comments? Mr. Hunt: Thank you, Chair. Yes. Just for your edification on the budget process, when we gave Brandon a number to cut for his Division, he had an option of the body, or the position, or other things within operations and he said he would scavenge whatever would do on end of life materials and made significant cuts in order to preserve these because he is anticipating more demand service of his Specialists. I know even for getting WiFi and other rollouts it takes time and bodies and he is with a limited staff and it was a conscious decision to keep the position and cut other places. Chair Furfaro: More questions? Mr. Rapozo: I just have a question. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: You brought up the WiFi. You know, when I got elected back to this Council in 2010, when I came back, that was one of my first requests, Steve. To get WiFi in this Chambers, so that when we do Council Meetings that we have the laptops. We did not have iPads then, but we have laptops and that, in fact, we could utilize the internet. That was many years ago. Realizing it does take time, it does not take that much time. I work p art-time at Kaua`i Beach Resort and we have to relocate the Security Office because of some flooding and some whatever. It was really interesting, because I called the Manager and asked was there any way to get wireless in the new office and within 45 minutes we had wireless. I know the County is a little slower than the private sector, but this has now been three years, three and a half years. I am not sure what makes this place different. We need a router and a connection. We have a connection, because we have the connection to here...does this not have internet? So we need a router, that is all. Mr. Hooser brought it up during the budget deliberations and we do not have information. We do not have wireless. I understand, and whatever Mr. Raines decided to do with not using up the funds, $110,000 a year times three years is $330,000 that has been in a pot of taxpayer money that has not been used. So we dollar-fund it when he is ready and comes back to the Council and find the money, but I cannot continue to fund these positions and no action is being taken. So I hope you can appreciate my position. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Okay any more questions for Steve? If not, Steve, thank you very much. Could I have a revisit of what was the motion? Was the motion on Position No. 273 or 273 and the other? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa: We should go ad seriatim. Ms. Yukimura: Good French. Chair Furfaro: Actually, that is Latin. Ms. Yukimura: It was a joke. DECISION-MAKING 52 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Okay. Go right ahead. Mr. Hooser: And to clarify which one was vacant since 2010? Chair Furfaro: 273. Mr. Hooser: 273, okay. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure, reconfirm 273 has been vacant since 2010. 244 has been recruiting since this January. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I think a lot of us want to cut the one that has been vacant for three years, so let us take 273 first...if we can. I cannot tell you what to do, but I am requesting. Chair Furfaro: To make a decision, I need to hear your feedback on that. Is your motion, 273? Mr. Kagawa: Okay. Thank you my man. Thank you Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: So we are going to take the vote on Position No. 273 first. Okay? Before I call for the vote, JoAnn, you have your commentary. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. You know, we have been talking over and over again about how we want good work, good decisions, good managers, and if we want good work we have to support our good managers and I think it is very clear that Brandon Raines is an excellent manager in a really important position that affects every Department. He came...I remember when he came on board we were throwing everything at him at once in terms of what needed to be done. They are huge things, the 800 MHz System, the Payroll System, all of these interfaces and every Department wanting to do different things in IT. He, has, I think exhibited great judgment in not immediately hiring and getting the lay of the land and I think we need to leave these positions open for him and he has been actively seeking these positions. They are not easy to find because they are really underpriced for the skills that we need and the nature of the work. So I will be votin g against n removing g st any of the positions in his Division. Chair Furfaro: Are you finished JoAnn? I just want to remind everybody of the E-mail that we got from Brandon recently, that in the next couple of days, you know, wireless is going to be activated and so forth. So I just want to remind us. Vice Chair you have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: Just in my conversations with Brandon, too, I learned that he real...his strategy was really to get the lay of the land when he first got on board and then to not hire just to fill the position, but to get the right person. I think that he was really trying to make some very deliberate decisions, so that because he knows about the longevity and the impact of one person can have in his Department. So I am not going to support this. I support your intent, Councilmember Kagawa, but I think this is one area where we need to invest, and I think we even need to have that conversation about what do we really need to attract the right person? If we cannot fill these positions because it is underfunded, I think it is important that we have that conversation with the Administration. Chair Furfaro: Let me see if there is anybody else who wants to speak before I give you the floor again Mr. Kagawa. Go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I find it interesting that we are going to get the WiFi in a couple of days and I am happy to hear that. I am not supporting removing the DECISION-MAKING 53 MAY 9, 2013 funding because we have not gotten the WiFi, but I do question why we did not get...the big things are important certainly, but the small things are important, too and the Council does ultimately have budget control and budget authority. I wish we would have had the WiFi earlier. I wonder what $330,000 has been...gone somewhere. Chair Furfaro: It goes into the surplus and it has for three years. Mr. Hooser: Or it is reallocated in some other way. Chair Furfaro: Could be. Mr. Hooser: My intent is to leave the other one funded. So if a good person is found for whichever one, then the position can be filled or they can come back and ask for additional funding. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: All good points. I want to make sure, I only brought up what I read in an E-mail a couple of days ago. I hope you got the same information regarding the WiFi. If you did not get it, I am sorry, but I got one. I read about 100 E-mails a day. So I know you folks face the same thing and maybe just did not get to it. I only brought it up, because it became a discussion in a place that I used to work at that could respond in 45 minutes. At least they are keeping up the standard, but I want you to know what I did there. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These positions were vacant for quite a while. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: And if that was intent of the Department Head or the Division Head to scope it out and check it out and maybe we should not have budgeted it last year. The strategy that I have is that it is not going to be...there is not going to be a hire in the next to month or two or three and probably not in the next four, five, or six. So by allowing one position to be funded, technically, you will have two six- month funded positions. So that is the safety net for it. Should they be successful and it has been years and they cannot fill one of them, it is very unlikely that they will fill two of them in the upcoming budget year. So if we leave one position, I mean, I would be okay leaving two positions funded for six months. That will give them six months to recruit and hire. Chair Furfaro: We are going to vote on the first piece and the first piece is to remove Position No. 273...dollar fund...thank you, Mr. Hooser. Roll call vote. The motion to dollar fund Position No. 273 was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro relinquished Chairmanship to Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: 3-4. I want to put on the table $55,000 savings for Position 273 and that is only half a year of funding. We cannot overlook the fact that DECISION-MAKING 54 MAY 9, 2013 this recruiting is taking so long. That is factual. And the other thin g say want to and I see Y we have some HR people here, the fact of the matter I have been working on a Resolution that going forward if we have a position that goes vacant more than one year, there needs to be a presentation made to the Council going forward. I mean, I have $398,460 in my calculations of positions that have been vacant for more than 18 months. You know, there needs to be an urgency and a recognition. So go ahead. I have made a motion and I have to find a second for it, but go ahead. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I just want to know, because last night, when we did not approve some of the rate increases, you know, you reiterated some other members reiterated if you voted for the cut, or not to raise the Gas Tax, for example. Then make sure you have a solution or a cut. Now I was one of the four votes not to raise the gas tax, but it went up anyway. And I voted against the Fuel Tax and it did not pass and it cost the Council over $2 million, right? Steve? The Vehicle Weight Tax cost over $2 million. So my instructions were you find $2 million in cuts even though you are one out of four votes. Here I have a solution, it is $210,000 and even though I raised the solution and it does not have the votes...can you tell us and I do not have the votes, does that count towards my cuts? Chair Furfaro: I think it is fair and reasonable that you put your nose to the grindstone and have been finding money. I am trying to find $55,000 here. I am willing to take it...if it does not pass it does not pass, but I attempted to find $55,000. Mr. Kagawa: As long as I proposed my $2 million in cuts...well, if I do not get the votes, it will be to my credit, right? Chair Furfaro: Absolutely. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are very reasonable. Chair Furfaro: I think I am a reasonable guy, yes. I have not finished making my motion. Mr. Rapozo: Well, it is a process question, because Mr. Kagawa did 273 and that did not pass. So you are staying on 273? Chair Furfaro: I am still on 273 and I am coming back with half of that money. So I would like to see...oh, you wanted to have some discussion before I make my motion? Ms. Yukimura: No. Chair Furfaro: I am proposing $55,277 so that this position shows up in six months. I want to disclose fully to all of you folks that I am going to support 244 all the way and not make any reductions there. I am asking to consider $55,277 on Position 273. Mr. Kagawa: Second. Chair Furfaro moved to reduce funding for Position No. 273-IT Specialist IV by fifty five thousand two hundred seventy seven dollars ($55,277) to account for six months of funding, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: I have a second. Discussion? Mr. Bynum: I want to get a clarification. I think I heard Mr. Hunt say both of these positions are actively being recruited right now. And so...and we were in negotiation with someone that did not pan out because we could not pay them what DECISION-MAKING 55 MAY 9, 2013 II they thought the position was worth. Brandon is being very selective and he has informed us fully about all of this. I agree with Councilmember Rapozo in retrospect we should not have funded this position last year and should have dollar-funded this year and now it is actively being recruited and again, JoAnn was quite articulate here. We need to support good managers, especially when they come here and tell us what their plans are and lay it out. And now he is ready to move and there is not a Department that does more to save us money and increase productivity than this one. So if it was not actively being recruited I think there are positions we could look at for three-quarters funding. Chair Furfaro: And this sends the message if you have been actively recruiting three years, you need to look at that. JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: These positions are both being actively recruited and they are really hard to fill. If you have someone who is willing to do it, you have to be able to grab them when they say yes. So these are not...and I would...I would say that these positions have been open from the time that Brandon...after he took the position, and did an assessment, it should be...we should say it has been open since he started recruiting. That is really to me how long. Because I think we should allow managers to take time to really understand their situation before they hire. I also think that they should be given leeway to not hire until they find the right person.We all know how important it is to have the right person and how crazy it is when you hire the wrong person. Chair Furfaro: Well, you said your peace, JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. So I am finishing saying my peace. We have to support good managers. Chair Furfaro: That is not the question here. The question here is he finds the right person he has the liberty to come to this Council and say I need to re- status that position. In fact, that is exactly what the $55,000 is saying, continue the recruiting. You are lucky it is not a dollar to hold the position. There is nothing that p revents these guys to interact and dialogue with this Council when they do find the right p erson and for that reason alone, we should respond positively to good management performance, which is bringing the problem to the Council and we should respond if he feels that is the right guy. I am sorry, putting my offer on the table, Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Yes, I supported removing all of the funding, but I will be supporting your proposal, Chair. Going on what...I want to say representative...Councilmember Kagawa said...maybe I am trying to get you to change your job. And what I said earlier in terms of our responsibility, those of us who did oppose the fee and tax increases, and we are trying to do that. But I would suggest that that responsibility extends to everyone, because at the end of the day, those funds have to be achieved one way or the other. So just like I think everybody has to realize that. So I would just encourage everyone to look for savings. If you cannot support some, look for them in other places because we have to get there and we have to be aggressive. Chair Furfaro: We do have to get there by Noon on Tuesday and if we do not, there is a consequence, the Mayor's budget goes into effect without us. Mr. Hooser: Quick clarification, it is my understanding that the revenue side of the budget is dependent on our action here. So the Mayor's budget goes into effect out of balance and the Mayor would have to balance it based on the revenue that we pass. Chair Furfaro: I understand your point and I am referencing his original March 15th submittal as well. DECISION-MAKING 56 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Hooser: They would not be able to spend that money, but reduce it to match. Chair Furfaro: We have the same understanding. It is everybody's responsibility to either find savings or find revenue and obviously we have to do it through some savings on the expense cycle, because you are not going to find $2 million in revenue. Any further piece on this? I have a motion and second to reclassify six-month Position No. 273 with savings of$55,277. Roll call. The motion to reduce funding for Position No. 273-IT Specialist IV by fifty five thousand two hundred seventy seven dollars ($55,277) to account for six months of funding, was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4-3. Chair Furfaro: So it did not pass. Mr. Bynum: It did pass. Chair Furfaro: Okay. I want you to tell me, pass or no pass, so I do not have to do math in my head again. So 4-3, it passed. Okay. Now the other item on the table, Mr. Kagawa, and I want you to know that I will not be supporting it. It is Position No. 244. You do not want to? 244 is the one openly solicited since January. We did not vote on that. Mr. Kagawa: I want to amend the motion. I want to go half again. Like the other members, I love Brandon, nicest guy you can find and very efficient, but he can come back to us. I just have to stick with my responsibility. I have to be responsible for my cuts. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Understood, I just want you to know I will not be supporting your amendment. Any further discussion? Do I have a second? Mr. Hooser: Second. Mr. Kagawa moved to reduce funding for Position No. 244-IT Specialist IV by fifty five thousand two hundred seventy seven dollars ($55,277) to account for six months of funding, seconded by Mr. Hooser. Ms. Yukimura: When you say "come back to us," it sounds easy, but it may take a money bill, which is first reading, public hearing, and second reading. So it is not that simple. Especially when you are hiring, it is a huge block to being able to move swiftly. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: You move it away from available funds in your Department and come to Council to replenish via the money bill. It is easy that time and Ricky, I love you as a manager. You are a great manager and Jay, I love you, too. But your position sits empty for a year. I am sorry, Ricky, I love you, but you are out. Former Councilmember Kuali`i brought this up last year, the people see this budget and we approve the budget for positions and they do not hire them. They use the funds for something else. That is what bothers me. They do not have to come to the Council and say, you know what? DECISION-MAKING 57 MAY 9, 2013 We are not going to use those moneys. That is $300,000 plus thousands of dollars that could be used for anything else. That is what bothers me. I will support the $55,000 that gives Brandon a window of six months to go out and hire. It takes longer to hire someone than to get a money bill, really, even with the new HR, it is still taking a long time. So six months is pretty much a reasonable time, and again, it is quicker to get a money bill than to hire someone. So I will be supporting the $55,000. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion before I call for the vote? The motion to reduce funding for Position No. 244-IT Specialist IV by fifty five thousand two hundred seventy seven dollars ($55,277) to account for six months of funding was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: 244 remains intact. Do we have any more in IT, or IT Finance? Are we done with Finance-Administration? Finance IT? Finance- Administration? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We are now on Finance-Treasury. Chair Furfaro: Finance-Treasury. Okay. Looks like there is no discussion on Treasury. I want to make a question though for the Treasury. I want to get an answer from the Administration that if I can by Monday, I want to know about the Bond money that has been financed for the sprinkler system at the Wailua Golf Course? There is an allocation in the budget supporting the principle and interest of$193,944 and how close are we to the end of that financing? No others in Treasury? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have Finance-Drivers' Licensing. Chair Furfaro: Finance-Drivers' Licensing. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance-Motor Vehicle. Chair Furfaro: No items? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance-Real Property Assessment. Chair Furfaro: Finance-Real Property Assessment? No. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Finance-Real Property Collections. Chair Furfaro: Finance-Real Property Collections? No. Finance Purchase? No. Finance-Risk Management? No. It brings us to Personnel. We are closing Finance overall. At this point, is there anyone that has any item that they want to be reconsidered at this time? No? Finance is closed. What was the Finance savings? You have such a petite voice. $55,277, savings from Position No. 273. Finance is closed. Next item. Chair Furfaro: Department of Personnel Services. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, I have one, and this is what is happening now as I believe I heard from Personnel, Tom has stepped up to do the Director's job and I believe that the Human Resource Department is still working on getting a lot of the other Departments to fall in. Therefore, I believe at least for this fiscal, we should dollar-fund DECISION-MAKING 58 MAY 9, 2013 Tom's previous position, and we should just allow the Department to run without that manager position. So I have not done all of the totals, Staff, if you could do it? And if members do not agree with that, we can go with a second proposal and project when they would be hiring Tom's replacement. Because right now Tom is already sitting there in that job and I want to commend him for doing that job. But like I said, it is a, pretty small Department. Large responsibility, but we have got a Director at $103,000. And then we have three other managers at nearly $100,000 or over and most of our large Departments we only have a Deputy and a Director and I just think it is kind of overkill. It may have been an oversight last year by the Council, but I will not judge the past. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: So although you are collecting data and I will ask Mr. Heu to come to the table and we are saying that the position that Tom vacated to be the acting...I want to look at the savings there? Mr. Kagawa: Correct, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: At least all or a portion until it is filled. Mr. Kagawa: Let us go for all of it and then go to the projected months we expect to hire a replacement. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: You are asking the staff to give you what that number is? You do not need to rush through it. They are working on that number for you right? I am going to suspend the rules for Mr. Heu. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Thank you, Chair, for the record Gary Heu. I want to clarify Tom is still currently in his old position and he is receiving a differential for acting in the capacity of the Director. So I really do not think that is something that we want to do. Chair Furfaro: So just to get clarification. Tom is in the position right now, which in today's existing budget, the Director's position does not exist? Mr. Heu: It is vacant. Chair Furfaro: It does exist? Mr. Heu: It is vacant. Chair Furfaro: So what I am saying what Mr. Kagawa is saying that he is saying whether you gave him a differential over his old pay or not, this portion is vacant and we are saving some allocation of money because Tom is wearing two hats. Whether it is the differential or if he actually moved up in a temporary role as the Director. Mr. Heu: Yes. So probably... Chair Furfaro: Which is it? Mr. Heu: I think I see where you folks want to go with it and probably the more appropriate way to approach it is based on the timing of staffing for the Director, for the hiring of a new Director, to short-fund that position. Chair Furfaro: Okay and for the new Director, I had gotten from our meeting with them...were you talking to me? You indicated that an October 1 date.... Mr. Heu: I think that is what they represented. DECISION-MAKING 59 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: That is what they represented to us. But is that $39,000 is that represented as already being out of your budget? Mr. Heu: No, I think we fully funded the position. Chair Furfaro: You fully funded. Mr. Heu: The budget shows it fully funded. Chair Furfaro: So part of Mr. Kagawa, there is $39,043 savings if the new HR person does not start until October 1st? Mr. Heu: If that is what the calculation is. Chair Furfaro: That what they presented to us. Mr. Heu: Okay. Chair Furfaro: So there is $39,000 there. Mr. Rapozo: It is $156,770. Chair Furfaro: What I am saying is during the budget time, they presented that even as fully funded in the budget, and they were not going to start until October 1st, which gives us almost $40,000 savings. Mr. Kagawa: That is why I wanted the two proposals. We tried for the first one... Chair Furfaro: Got it. Mr. Kagawa: If we do not have the votes then let us just go for the realistic one. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question for Gary. Chair Furfaro: Well, I think the theory from Mr. Kagawa is what we are doing here is we are required to put some reach and of course, there is the g q p secondary position, which is the narrative that they gave us at budget time. That is potentially $40,000 of savings. I got that right, Mr. Kagawa? Yes. Gary, did you have any more? Mr. Rapozo: I have a question for Gary. Gary, you said that Tom is currently in his current position and he is not the Acting Director. Mr. Heu: He is acting as the Director, so he is being compensated, paid a differential. It is kind of like a TA. Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Mr. Heu: Because the Commission has taken no official action to put him into that position. Mr. Rapozo: I know the Chair mentioned October, but it did not sound like the Commission was rushing. It does not sound like the Commission was looking at filling that position any time soon. DECISION-MAKING 60 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Heu: Yes. Chair Furfaro: It was the Commissioners who told us October 1st. Mr. Rapozo: But I think it was almost a...I will not say coerced but encouraged, how about October? Yeah, sounds about right, and I was not convinced that they were actively recruiting that position as Brandon is. Chair Furfaro: You are saying it is going to be longer? Mr. Rapozo: I think it will be. I am not sure if Tom is in his existing position that we can dollar-fund the position. Chair Furfaro: I do not think we can. I do not think we can, but I am planning to ask Amy to come up, because I have a couple of questions as well. Vice Chair and back to Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Nakamura: My recollection of our discussion was that they were going to redo the job description for that position. They are going to be initiating a pretty comprehensive search process to find the most qualified person, to lead this new Agency. And I think we tried to encourage them to take that time, do it right and get the right person there. And I think that is going to take time. So my proposal was going to be g ive them six months and see what ha pp ens at that point. So I was going to see if it is legal to do it that way. Chair Furfaro: I mentioned I was going to bring Amy up. So your thought is six months? Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: I just want to figure this out myself real quick. Mr. Rapozo: Is it possible if Tom's position is dollar-funded, is it possible to transfer the funds from the Director's position to that position? I believe you can. It is unexpended salaries and within the Department, they could move that money and it basically balances out. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Heu, would you take a seat here and Amy, hold on. Your question is to Mr. Heu. Mr. Rapozo: I think the Charter allows transferring of unexpended salaries, and if you have a vacant Director of Personnel Services, funded at $100,000 or whatever it is and you have a person temporarily sitting in a position number that is dollar-funded, I would assume that moneys can be transferred to the position to fund that person that is on temporary assignment. It is a wash, because you are taking what would have gone to the Director to this TA, this Temporary Assignment. So you would do that, and at the time...I do not know whatever they decide to hire or appoint someone, at that point, I think we would know. Because like now we are funding two positions for one person. Chair Furfaro: Introduce yourself. Mr. Hunt: Steve hunt, Director of Finance. I think one of the challenges if you dollar-funded Tom's position and used the Director's pay to pay him and then a Director were hired and you did not have anything more than a dollar in that position, now you have a Director and Tom and there is no funding for both. DECISION-MAKING 61 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Rapozo: Well, you will have funding for the Director. Mr. Hunt: Right, but you are saying that you are using the Director's pay to fund Tom the dollar position because he is still in that position. Mr. Rapozo: Understand. Mr. Hunt: We are taking away all your pay Tom, but pay with you with the Director, but when the Director is hired and the Director and Tom co- exist in the same Fiscal 2014 budget. Mr. Rapozo: Obviously we have to fund that position when that happens. And I think the proposal from Councilmember Nakamura with six months would work, because you have the six months and I do not think they will hire someone in six months, honestly, because of what they said. I think they agreed to the six-month partial funding, but just the search alone would take a while. Chair Furfaro: I want to get some clarification here. This is Mr. Kagawa's consideration. Thank you, Ricky. There are two parts here. Let us talk about the money. There is a minimum of $39,043 including PT&E, if we say the start date is October 1st, the $78,086 available to us if we go with Council Vice Chair's recommendation is a January 1st start. Are we clear on that? Okay. That is the financial part. On the other question dealing with partial budgeting for a position for a Director, are there any legal challenges we have there? And if you have to call on the resources for the Department, those wonderful ladies have been sitting towards the back of the room for part of the day and we can call them up, okay? I do not see Tom. He is not here now. Okay. So I want to make sure that we understand the two parts. There is a $78,000 number for six months. They must change the tape. This is not a five-minute answer. There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:57 p.m. The Council reconvened at 4:06 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are back and I guess Crystal, can I have you come up and join us? What I am...I want you to red-flag anything with your professional years in HR, if I am stating it that causes you any concern, that you are right at a mic to tell us. Okay? It looks like around the table, there are probably will be a motion that will save about $79,000. How is that done? That would be done by not filling the HR Director's position until January 1st. Okay? Now that being said, is there anything that prevents us using Tom for that amount of time in a temporary transfer? Does it cause any confusion or any permanent escalation in his salary because he has been temporary transferred for a long period of time? There being no objections the rules were suspended. CRYSTAL FUJIKAWA, Human Resources Manager: That is a no. Chair Furfaro: Okay and if we do that, that actually is pushing it more...that is another three months more than what we heard from the members who came from the Civil Service Commission. Amy do you see any problems with that? Can you can stay right there. Do you see any problems with that? AMY ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney: No, I do not see any problems. Chair Furfaro: Because I think that is something that will come out of this discussion, if I can revisit with Mr. Kagawa on what his motion is and we will go DECISION-MAKING 62 MAY 9, 2013 into a discussion on that motion, but it has got to be made first. Okay. Let me get a motion on the table first. You are going to make the motion. There being no objections the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Nakamura: So the motion is to reduce the position of Director of Personnel Services by the amount $79,670 and that includes the regular salary, Social Security, Health Fund, Retirement Contribution, and OPEB. Again the total is $79,670 and that is just to recognize that there will be a lengthy process, a thorough process to fill this position. We want to encourage that. Ms. Nakamura moved to reduce funding for the Director of Personnel Services by six months in the amount of$79,670, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a second from Mr. Kagawa. Based on that, you have no more to contribute to us and I will let you go back to your seat. Excuse me, Mr. Bynum has a question for you. Hold on, Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Bynum: I kind of knew where the Chair was going with this. I just want to know from you guys, do you anticipate that the Director would be hired before January 1st? Ms. Fujikawa: I do. Well, January 1st, I think that is comfortable. I think that is comfortable. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Bynum: So even if you were recruiting in December, or October/November, whoever you hired you would say we have selected you, but we cannot...there could be a delay is that right? Ms. Fujikawa: That is correct, yes. Mr. Bynum: I heard you say you could live with January 1st. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Any more questions for Crystal or Amy? No? Thank you ladies. There being no objections, the meeting was called to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I am going to call the meeting back to order. The motion on the floor deals with saving approximately $79,000 on the adjusted start-date for the new Director of Human Resources for January 1st. Discussion, members? The motion to reduce funding for the Director of Personnel Services (6-months funding) in the amount of seventy-nine thousand six hundred seventy dollars ($79,670) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. DECISION-MAKING 63 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: Seven ayes. Thank you very much. No reconsiderations? Very good. I think I want to end on the HR Department. Do we have any more associated items with HR? No? Very good. Recap a couple of items for today. Could you add up the total amount of expenses that I have and just give me a little note here at the end of the day I want to say where we are at. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I had a question for Personnel. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Rapozo: And it was regarding the two 89-day contract positions. If someone could explain what that is for. Chair Furfaro: Crystal, we have questions about two 89-day contracted positions, that either one of you ladies that could help us answer that and if not, Mr. Heu, could you answer that? Steve, could you answer that? Two 89-day contract positions in the HR Department and trying to get a little more information about what it might be. Steve, did you hear that? It is page 65. Everybody should introduce themselves again if you are going to speak. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. JOYCE SCHUIERER, Department of Personnel Services: To the best of my knowledge, the original intent for those two positions was to assist us in getting our personnel and payroll records in our systems caught up-to-date, because we were still behind, but that was the original intent that I remembered. Mr. Rapozo: That has been completed? Ms. Schuierer: No, it has not. Mr. Rapozo: We do not even have the software yet, do we? Ms. Schuierer: We are just talking about our current payroll system and taking the information that was in the past and getting it updated into our current system. Mr. Rapozo: When is that scheduled to get done? Ms. Schuierer: I do not know, we have not discussed it in a while. Mr. Hunt: Steve Hunt Finance Director and I believe these are positions that they are looking at to assist in the HRIS clean-up. It will be associated with Fiscal Year 2014 and I believe they had four or five meetings on that subject and the time and attendance is the remaining piece that is remaining to be coordinated with the system, but some of the data that we need exists, but is not clean and needs to be scrubbed and that is what those positions are going to help do is clean that data. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: In wrapping up yet, we have taken the vote on the $79,000. No further questions for HR? Okay. Before I close this, any reconsiderations for Personnel? None? Personnel is closed. Okay. I want to recap the day, if I can. As you know, we started the day chasing $2,187,000, which was revenues from the Solid Waste DECISION-MAKING 64 MAY 9, 2013 Tipping Fee and the Vehicle Registration and we have adjusted downwards at the end of today $372,282. So we are still looking for about $1,790,000. That is where we are going to end the day, but before we close the day, Mr. Heu I will give you the floor and I have a couple of reminders for the Finance Director. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GARY K. HEU, Managing Director: Thank you, Chair Furfaro. For the record Gary Heu. Chair, just so that I am clear on how the proceedings are going to play out tomorrow. As you saw today we had our Parks Director here, our Public Works folks here, because I was not sure how you were going to approach of the exercise of the cuts. So maybe so that we are not hanging our people out tomorrow, what I will do is if you are going to continue this method of going through each Department, we will just make sure that Departmental personnel are here at the point in time that you hit their budget relative to operational cuts. We have never done that in the past necessarily. This year we thought, because of some of the dialogue we wanted our big-hitter type Departments here, but I think based on what I am seeing... Chair Furfaro: I will tell you what my plan is here, Gary so we can cut the narrative. I am following from page 3 or page 4 your May 8th submittal. Okay? Mr. Heu: Right. Chair Furfaro: By those Departments. We are going through expenses and today we ended at HR, no need to come back. Tomorrow we will start with planning at 10:00 a.m. Okay? When we get through that, we will close it and so forth and we will come back and revisit that same sequence where there are additions of revenue. Okay? Mr. Heu: Okay. Chair Furfaro: So if you would like, I would say tomorrow we are planning to call Planning. Planning is here, who is on call? Economic Development is on call. After Economic Development, Police is on call. That is how we will do it. Mr. Heu: Okay. Chair Furfaro: I would appreciate it from you, to understand that I would like to have the next team in the batter's box. Mr. Heu: Absolutely. Chair Furfaro: And I would like to keep the chalk laid out that way, so not a lot of kicking and screaming and when you know you are supposed to be here, do not kick the lime dust, but be here and be in that order and if we could be one ahead of, it I would really appreciate it. Mr. Heu: No problem. Chair Furfaro: And we will go through the same sequence on the revenue parts. Mr. Heu: I appreciate knowing that, Chair. Because as I said, historically we have not known. Chair Furfaro: I appreciate it that you had everyone here. We got a little flavor of the popsicle today. } DECISION-MAKING 65 MAY 9, 2013 Mr. Heu: And because of the level of details to which we are drilling, Steve and I are not going to be able to answer every little question about every Department and it would be helpful to have them here. Chair Furfaro: I appreciate that. Mr. Heu: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Bynum: Question for you Chair. I just want to be clear, we are going to go through the Department for cuts and... Chair Furfaro: Yes, expenses. Mr. Bynum: And then go through Department by Department through additions or revenues? Chair Furfaro: Let me clarify revenue/adds, meaning adding dollars. If you are looking to add persons you have to be able to show me where you got the funds to add that person. If you want to add something now is that your question? Mr. Bynum: No. My question is that I will have a proposal about tax rates so when will that come in? Chair Furfaro: The revenue cycle which is the second part of this piece. Mr. Bynum: The first time I ask for an addition, I will present the entire... Chair Furfaro: When we get to Finance Real Property and you want to talk about the tax portion that is the time to do it. Mr. Bynum: Okay. Chair Furfaro: Fair enough? Mr. Bynum: Okay. Mr. Rapozo: I just need some clarity. Let us say I have an add of a position. I will use one that I is going to suggest is in Finance, it is in Finance, it is in Accounting it is an Accountant. $30,000...at what point do we? Chair Furfaro: When we get to Finance adds, so I want to get to the point that this is what we have in savings and now we are going to say that Finance is broken up with Real Property Tax, with staffing, Administration. Mr. Rapozo: Got it. Chair Furfaro: If you want to add, that is the second time around, but let us see what we have to add with. Mr. Rapozo: I understand. DECISION-MAKING 66 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: And I am not having a problem with the fact that I am going to say that I have some adds, too. But mostly about revenue, adding revenue, Okay? Mr. Bynum: I am sorry, I do not mean to belabor this, but at lil some point we have to vote on new tax rates? Chair Furfaro: Yes, which will be a separate piece in the budget. We know what those tax rates are. Mr. Bynum: When will we vote on setting those? Chair Furfaro: Towards the end. Do you want me to give you date and time specific? I cannot right now. Towards the end of the sequence. Mr. Bynum: I do not have a lot of adds, but those I have, I want to address the revenue needs through property tax rates. Chair Furfaro: And when we get to property tax, second time around, on the tax rates, that is the time to talk about it. Mr. Bynum: Okay. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Fair enough? Mr. Bynum: I think I get it. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just a little bit more clarity on the process. So we are looking at a $1.79 million or $1.8 million. Chair Furfaro: Whatever that number is where we ended today. Mr. Hooser: We are in the red basically in the budget. Chair Furfaro: We are in the red for that amount. Mr. Hooser: Do we have to get into the black before we add? Chair Furfaro: I think it would be wise. Do we have a yes check? Mr. Hooser: So the point is that if we go through the process, and we are not in the black. Chair Furfaro: Do not be planning to add. Mr. Hooser: And the other thing would be the revenue or further cuts or another round of cuts. Chair Furfaro: And I have a few revenue adds that I am proposing. Mr. Hooser: I assume that the Administration wants to make other suggestions for cuts rather than have us hack and slice and chop and if they have other things that they would want to help us, they are welcome to suggestion that also? DECISION-MAKING 67 MAY 9, 2013 Chair Furfaro: I would think that is right, but I want to remind everybody. The Administration already had twelve days. We have three and a half. Mr. Hooser: I understand that. It would be a lot easier, because they do know inside their offices better and while we are trying to get at that number and we will get at it one way or another. Chair Furfaro: I think they got a clue where I am coming from, because they are telling us $11.6 and I am saying based on the fact that you have $2.6 already in the account, my forecast for revenue we are short right now about $1.7 million. I think there is $1.7 million that we are short that we are not accounting for. That is a forecast, that is a reasonable guess. Mr. Hooser: Just for the record, I believe our Office Department is around five percent (5%) reduction. Overall we accomplished it. Chair Furfaro: We accomplished that, yes we did and thank you for pointing that out. We had shown a five percent (5%) belt-tightening at least, maybe a little bit more. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have two points. You said Human Resources does not have to be here, but I think if you look at the cuts, Four out of seven cuts came in bodies. So therefore, I thixik if the personnel person who handles each Department may need to be here to clarify where they are in the process of hiring. Because I have a lot more to go. Chair Furfaro: Good point, but I would say, if the Division Head does not know what that individual does or does not do for them, and they cannot speak up, I certainly do not expect Crystal to come and speak up. I expect the Department Head to be here to say why I value that position. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. And my second point, you know is that I do not want to turn this into a pity party, but I feel that the people... Chair Furfaro: Did you say "pity party?" Mr. Kagawa: Yes, the but the thing is this, the people who voted for the tax increases are at an advantage, because if they do not vote for my cuts, then I still do not get the credit. But then the fact of the matter is that I was only one of three votes...I do not know. I feel like if I propose cuts and getting back to what I was talking about earlier, if I propose a cut, but it does not pass do I not get credit for my cut? Chair Furfaro: I am saying as part of the team we are recognizing what you put on the table to offer. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I love the praise. Chair Furfaro: It is well-deserved as well. So along those lines, any more questions or comments before we close today? Yes, go right ahead. Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to agree with Councilmember Kagawa, that if the route we are going to go is looking at those vacant positions and looking at what is the realistic hire-date, then I think if we can have that information from the Department Head, at the time of the deliberation, it would be very helpful. Chair Furfaro: Rules are suspended, Mr. lieu, did you want to respond to that? DECISION-MAKING 68 MAY 9, 2013 There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, that is why originally I had asked for both Janine Rapozo and for Crystal to be here the entire deliberation time. So if you are proposing to do something with a vacant position, it would be good to know real time where in the process that position is? So that is the support that they are here to support. Janine will be here tomorrow also. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I just want to remind everybody that is your call who you have here to do this. This is the single biggest interaction between the Administration and the Council every year. You have to make some choices about having the right people here for the right reason. In the order of Department Heads we are going to follow your May 8th submittal. I hope that helps. Mr. Heu: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Members, I am not going end by asking you to help me sing happy birthday to the building. But the building is 100 years old today and at 5:00 p.m. with the Chamber people next door at the Museum, we are going to have a walking tour of the building. Can you take your ukana and make it look organized on the table, or put it in the back room? One or the other is acceptable. Thank you and we are recessed for today. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 4:29 p.m. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 1 The departmental budget decision making reconvened on May 10, 2013 at 10:45 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable Nadine Nakamura Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair Chair Furfaro: I would like to call back from recess our budgetary reviews and the plus/minus calendar. As I stated yesterday, if there is any public testimony we would take it each morning at the start of the meeting. Is there any public testimony? There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony. There being no one to testify on this matter, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Seeing none, I would go to the County Clerk. Clerk, would you like to acknowledge — I think we are starting today with the Planning Department and then the Police Department, I believe. JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: Planning and then the Office of Economic Development (OED). Chair Furfaro: Planning Department and then the Office of Economic Development. I would suggest from my instructions yesterday that someone gets a hold of George's Office because I want the following Department ready to go. On that note, who is representing the Planning Department today? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: I believe Director Dahilig was here this morning and Miles. Chair Furfaro: Miles, are you coming up? Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin going down line items, are there any general questions for the Planning Department? Mr. Rapozo: I have a process question, Mr. Chair. It really is because of in the interest of time. Yesterday we spent a lot of time as if it was budget reviews again and this time has been allocated for deliberations and I understand that if there are some questions. But if we continue the pace we did yesterday, I am not so sure we will get done by Tuesday. I know you have referenced that sort of yesterday, but the time for the review was the last three (3) weeks or so. We are in deliberations now. We have all had our sheets. I guess my only suggestion is that the Councilmember that proposes an add or a deletion state their case and we take the vote because we will never get done. In my experience and knowing the way this dialogue is going, it is not really a 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 2 deliberation. It is really another set of budget reviews and although I respect my colleague's questions, I think this is the point where we need to convince our colleagues to support our proposals. I would just ask that we kind of focus on the time. I know we are starting late today. I cannot stay late tonight. I am not asking the Council to not continue without me. But just in the interest of the time ask that we focus on the deliberations and move forward. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I recognize the piece that you are sharing. I share the same. I also said because of our Sister City relationship event today, we would start late. But some of us should plan to go at least to 7:00. I will again, and I said that yesterday, so I will again ask are there any questions of the Planning Department? Thank you for being here. We are calling the meeting back to order. There is no testimony. We are going through the Planning Department plus and minuses. None? None? None? None? Aloha. There are refreshments with the Mayor across the street. Next Department. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair the next Department is the Office of Economic Development. Chair Furfaro: He is not here? I do not know how clear I can make it to the Administration. I sat here with Mr. Heu yesterday. This is business. There have been two (2) events that I have had to go through and change my schedule and I only am asking for a little cooperation here. I do not want to get out of sequence. Are we going to talk about Economic Development without him or shall we go right to the Police Department? Mr. Rapozo: I think we should proceed with the schedule, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Rapozo: I would like to start if I may? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Other Services — Kaua`i Marathon" for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Discussion? Mr. Rapozo: If I may Mr. Chair, we have had numerous discussions on this item throughout the years. There was a commitment from the Kaua`i Marathon that they needed three (3) years' of funding which the majority of the Council approved. I did not approve, but it did pass. We have met that commitment on the County side and in this tight budget cycle and in the interest of core essential services, I am proposing that we remove that. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further dialogue? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. I certainly have talked to a lot of local people who told me that I need to go down and witness it. The Kaua`i Marathon, I think, is doing well. I think Councilmember Yukimura ran it, my friend ran it, and they said it was excellent. However, I know that the tourist industry is booming down 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 3 in Koloa/Po`ipu. I think twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) can be gathered from the hotels and the Visitor Industry. I believe that, as much as possible, large events such as those should try to maximize funds from the people who will benefit from that. I will be 1 supporting Councilmember Rapozo's deletion. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, Mr. Chair. Not because I run in it because I am not even sure I can run in the next one. But I think it is a wonderful event that not only brings in visitors, but it also gives really good publicity for the island. I think they are already raising a lot of the match from the industry and I think this is also it the way, as I think Nalani Brun said, gradually supporting events and then taking them off. I think we need to do this for the last time to do that. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Further discussion? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I will be very brief. I am not going to support removing this. The Kaua`i Marathon, they are four (4) or five (5) years in. It is becoming very much a signature event. Even during the downtimes there has been an increase of participation throughout the world each year. This is the kind of investment we make and citizens know that we invest in almost all of the festivals and this is part of what we do as a County and this has been a success story so far, not without some problems, as anything. But with this dwindling support, it is important to keep this event alive. { Chair Furfaro: Any more dialogue before I call for the vote? The motion is yes vote to remove twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) as made by Mr. Rapozo, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Roll call, please. The motion to remove funding for "Other Services Kaua`i Marathon" for twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL—2, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: I want to make a statement for myself. Originally we agreed for three (3) years. This is an extra bump and this will be my last support for this money. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The vote is 2:5, it stays. Chair Furfaro: The vote is 2:5 and stays. Okay. Next item. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, does anyone else have any cuts? I feel like the really bad guy because I am the guy proposing all the cuts and that is fine. I will be the bad guy. As I prefaced my comments yesterday, I said a lot of these cuts are to me... Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, George. I am going to be very honest with you, you were called up to represent your Department earlier. You were not here. We are in decision-making. You do not need to be there. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 4 Mr. Rapozo: A lot of these proposed cuts I am making are simply because in my opinion they are non-essential. They are good to have. At the end of our tallying, if we find some additional funds, there are definitely opportunities to reconsider. But at this time, because I know I will be portrayed as the evil guy, I am making a motion to remove the funding for the Airport Greetings that is fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) that I think the State needs to pull their fair share. We keep talking about the State taking back and taking back and the County has to fill the gap at the expense of our taxpayers. I appreciate the music and the dancing at the airport. Is it an essential service for the core function of County? No. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Other Services — Airport Greetings" for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: There is a motion and second. Discussion, members? Go ahead Mr. Kagawa, followed by Mr. Hooser. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. We heard news from again — I will repeat myself, Mr. Pacopac and said that the Governor was bragging about the three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) surplus that they had this year at the legislature and a large chunk was given to the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) which is already a gigantic body that promotes tourism for the State. The airport is a State function. The Tourism Authority is a State function and they should pay for these kinds of services. We get cuts from the tourism tax, the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), and they enjoy keeping the thirteen million dollars ($13,000) that they should have given us. Why can they not pay for this measly fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)? Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Yes. I object to the Councilmember's characterization. I think Councilmember Kagawa and I share the title of being bad guy too and want to be considered in that category. I introduced almost two million dollars ($2,000,000) in cuts yesterday. We are cutting other ones and I appreciate the need to cut. So, just bringing in a little levity to the conversation here. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I am glad for those who are proposing cuts because they make you really think about what is essential and what is necessary? I mean, I have always wanted to make sure that in this whole tourism business instead of moneys just going to large corporations and then going mainly off-island that our people here, including our performers and those who are keeping Hawaiian music alive, be beneficiaries of some of this. I think everyone knows that it adds to the whole atmosphere in y p the airport. I also think the points made by Councilmember Kagawa about how the State should be carrying its share are really well taken. My take on this is the State has been so negligent in their responsibilities of stewardship of their moneys and resources and now, not only are they unable to do their responsibilities, but we are being asked often to carry it. I guess I would be open to a smaller cut, but not the whole thing. Chair Furfaro: We are not negotiating the item right at the present time. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 5 Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: The motion and second on the floor that is to remove it. Vice Chair, you have the floor Ms. Nakamura: I agree that the airport is a State function and unfortunately much of these services that add value and add to the experience of the visitor coming to Kaua`i is so important. It is not just bringing people here, doing the marketing, but it is once they get here, making sure that they are welcomed, that there are products, there is great bathrooms, and so forth and experiences, like festivals and ways to engage with the community. The problem is that with the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) , that the eleven million dollars ($11,000,000), I believe, was targeted for marketing. From my understanding of talking to Kaua`i Visitor's Bureau (KVB), is that does not always translate to funding that goes down to the County level to the Visitors Bureaus and I think that is a problem. I think that is where as a County and as all the Counties, we need to get together and talk to HTA about how we can get a fair share of the funding allocated by the legislature. I think that is something that the Economic Development Committee might want to take a look at, initiating those conversations because otherwise it is going to go worldwide marketing rather than the improving the local experiences. I think that is going to take some time to have those conversations. But I think it is really important that that is a next step that this issue is bringing up. I guess I would also be more comfortable moving in the direction of lowering this amount, but not completely wiping it out because it does benefit some local cultural practitioners and musicians. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am not going to support this cut. We are having that dialogue hopefully. We started it last year and I thought there was a commitment to consistently fund the KVB because there are things that they can do that the HTA cannot do and this money in particular is a long tradition on Kaua`i. We have so many outstanding musicians and cultural practitioners who give back to the community with no compensation, so much of their work. This is something that give a unique experience for visitors, makes Kaua`i different than other places, and supports local practitioners who give so much. This is one of the few places that they get at least some compensation for their efforts. The Mayor proposal cuts KVB ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) over what we agreed last year, we would try to make a sustainable fund. Maui County gives over three million dollars ($3,000,000) a year to their local Visitors Bureau and they have been able to posture themselves differently quite successfully over the years. That is something that Kaua`i does do. But the amount that comes from our County to this effort is not that great and it pays dividends. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: My motion, Mr. Chair, was to remove the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) funding from the Airport Greetings Program. I want to make a short, brief comment that this year we saw a lot of cuts come over from the Administration. The one that pained me the most was seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) from the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) Sexual Assault Treatment Program and the Family Violence Shelter, seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). My goal is try to put that back in. Instruction was to find funds. I look at it a lot simpler than, I think, my colleagues is it essential or non-essential? This is non-essential and some may disagree. Maybe in a good economy we could afford it. Mr. Bynum talked about a lot of cultural practitioners that are giving back to the community. They are getting paid, that is not giving back to the community. I mean no disrespect to those practitioners because I think they do a great 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 6 thing. But we have a lot of volunteers on this island that give back to the community for non-profits and they are not lining up at our door asking for money. I think that State — until we cut that "nini-bottle" — I will reference my grandmother a lot during this budget session. Until we wean them off the "nini-bottle," it is not going to change. Our taxpayers — we represent our taxpayer, Kaua`i. Our taxpayers are funding these State, that in my opinion, are no one essential. I would just ask for the consideration. Obviously, if I cannot get the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) we will support — I think as we are sending a message over to the Administrating this year, that same message needs to be State, our Governor, who can brag about giving one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) to this organization and three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) surplus. Election year, go ahead and brag, Mr. Governor. Take care of your business here in the Counties as well. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, I am going recognize you. But I want it kept brief folks. But there are some bigger problems that we have not even talked about. I remember when I first got on the Council twelve (12) years ago, we participated in items that talked about having some influence over the State's Capital budget, where the State is directing money to the various Counties and so forth. We do not get any dialogue about that one. They have eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) more earmarked for the Visitor Industry and they took our two million nine hundred thousand dollars ($2,900,000). There has to be a reaction to them from us so I understand the Councilmembers' comments. We need to stay focused on what we are accomplishing today in the plus and minuses. Let us try and keep the dialogue around the financial picture. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I would not be asking for the floor. But I just want to ask Mr. Rapozo to not misconstrue what I just said. What I just said was the culture — and without listing names and I could because we know who the musicians are. They give back to the community all over the place. This is the one place they do get some compensation. That is what I said. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: The motion on the floor is to remove fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from Economic Development and there is a second. We are not considering any moderations or reallocation. A member wants to make a motion on a second vote, we will do such. But let us get a vote. A "yes" vote removes the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — Airport Greetings" for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 2, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5. Chair Furfaro: 2:5. Is there any further discussion on this item? Vice Chair Nakamura. I am sorry yesterday I also referenced her when we were sharing secretaries as Vice Chair, but it was during that period. Now, Vice Chair, you have the floor. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 7 Ms. Nakamura: On the same line item. I would like to recommend a reduction to twenty-five thousand dollar s ($25,000), fifty percent (50%) that shows the intent that we need to move in this direction, we would like the State to take the responsibility for what happens at the airport to greet our visitors, but gives us some time to get there. Ms. Nakamura moved to remove funding for"Other Services —Airport Greetings" for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Second from Mr. Hooser on the modified piece. Mr. Hooser, do you want the floor on your second? Mr. Hooser: Yes, just really briefly. I am obviously supporting this. But I want to say thank you to Councilmembers who are initiating the cuts because it initiates a conversation that we would not otherwise have and we had some yesterday and that is really the hard part, really is making those cuts and being willing to make that statement to say that some things are more important than others. I think it is good and it forces us to deal with that and make those decisions and I just want to say thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mahalo for that commentary. JoAnn, you wanted to be recognized? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I was going to suggest a twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) cut. But I will go with twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). Chair Furfaro: We have a motion to reduce the budgeted amount by twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). We have a second on that. Do a roll call. A"yes" vote would reduce to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — Airport Greetings" for twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL— 5, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1. Chair Furfaro: Let us show the adjustment accordingly. Ashley, you followed it? Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, one (1) more. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, we are still in Economic Development. Mr. Rapozo: I would like to make a motion to remove the funding for the North Shore Transportation Feasibility Study. We had discussion in the budget hearings and, in fact, I sensed some apprehension on the Council in the Committee during the budget hearing. The Administration heard the concerns of the Council that Ke`e Beach is a State beach. Again, we are looking at a Feasibility Study to run shuttles and so MEN 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 8 forth on the North Shore. Maybe I misread the communications that were going on, but the supplemental budget came back with an increased amounts, increased amount. I do not think that right now with the issues going on this island as far as transportation, we are dealing with Koloa and Po`ipu. Again, is it essential for this year? Is it essential? I do not think so. We are trying to get to one million seven hundred ninety thousand dollars ($1,790,000). This seventy-two thousand four hundred dollars ($72,400), in my opinion, can wait until a later date. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Other Services — North Shore Transportation Feasibility Study" for seventy-two thousand four hundred dollars ($72,400), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum and then followed by Yukimura. Mr. Bynum: I am a huge supporter of the North Shore shuttle plan. I thank the Mayor for resurrecting it. We all know the reality of the North Shore. We choose, as a community, to keep the rural character, to keep one-lane bridges, and the caring capacity of all the facilities form Ke`e Beach to Hanalei is maxed out because virtually every visitor wants to drive to the end of the road. This is a concept that says visitors eventually could not go beyond Princeville other than on the shuttle. That would eliminate the traffic congestion, it would be able to pick up those residents who live past where the bus currently goes to connect with the bus. There are places on this planet that are just so special. We cannot let one million (1,000,000) cars go there. Yosemite did this years ago. There are many areas in Yosemite that you cannot drive to. You have to take the shuttle to preserve the environment and the character, that is what this initiative is for, and it is great. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I think we are finding both in Po`ipu and on the North Shore that just addressing parking supply is not sufficient. We have to address parking demand. I guess it is another way of saying as Councilmember Bynum has said, you cannot just let cars going into an area because it becomes untenable and really expensive. I think we are all due for a study and what I was going to propose was and this is an addition, but it is affected by this proposed cut. So, I would like some ability to explain it. What I was going to propose... Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, JoAnn. We are only entertaining cuts. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: I am going to go back through the list for people who want to do adds. Ms. Yukimura: I know. Chair, but it is related to this cut. If I just allow me to describe what I have in mind, it may make a difference on how people vote on this cut. Chair Furfaro: I am in such a pleasant mood today after being after the Sister City recognition for fifty (50) years and so forth. But practice brevity here and we are going to come back to this when it is an add. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 9 Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I will. My thought was to put one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in the budget for transit corridor studies in both Po`ipu and the North Shore, to put this as a CIP item not in Economic Development, but allowing the Transportation Coordinating Committee and the Administration to decide who would oversee it. The reason I am suggesting this is because the Po`ipu Workshop recommendations that are coming out on our next meeting recommend a two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) study for Po`ipu alone and it has a very clear outline about the issues that have to be addressed in a corridor study. I am thinking seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) —oh, I might need more. Anyway for two (2) and using match on a twenty (20) / eighty (80) match, if we can get Federal planning moneys, we should do both at the same time and under the same contract. I think economies of scale, we will get some expertise help, and it is more appropriate under the Transportation Coordinating Committee. It is an investment in the future that we have to address very soon if not yesterday to keep that money. Chair Furfaro: George, I am going to suspend the rules. I want you to come up for a second. George your family is a North Shore family, my family is a North Shore family. What can you tell me about the State's plans that they have got going right now about reducing traffic to Ha`ena based on the fact that they are doing a traffic study? I do not want to be duplicating things here. What do you know about it? You can be honest with me because I only heard about it from people dealing with Maka'ala and I am going, we have no understanding of what State is doing, real poho kind. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GEORGE K. COSTA, Director of Economic Development: Right. It is my understanding that there is a group working on a Ke`e Beach shuttle. PBR Hawai`i is coordinating with the State. Chair Furfaro: And funded by the State? Mr. Costa: And funded by the State. Ms. Yukimura: PBR? Mr. Costa: I found out earlier this morning that the person that is coordinating those meetings will be here, I guess, attending the Po`ipu Road planning charette, so I have asked to have a meeting with that person on one day. Ms. Yukimura: It is Kimi, right? Mr. Costa: Right, Kimi Ewing. I guess there has been a lot of meetings and talk for a while.' Chair Furfaro: You have only confirmed what I am saying. When I first got on the Council, there was dialogue in the preparation for the legislature to be able to interact with State about where their Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) money is going. We do not seem to do that anymore and what I am afraid of, we are putting money there that is duplicated from another study. I would almost want to have you grab them, get in the circle of what needs to be done there, and then if we have to put up a Money Bill later, we will put up a Money Bill later. But I have no clue and I mean, my family goes 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 10 back to the powerhouse in Wainiha and I have to tell my daughters they have to take a shuttle? Mr. Costa: I hear you, Chair and that is what I am trying to do, even on a personal basis because the families that I know out there are troubled because the traffic is just so bad. Ms. Yukimura: And the parking. Chair Furfaro: We all agree with that. But I am saying that we have to be coordinated here. Mr. Costa: Right. Chair Furfaro: I do not think we are coordinated. Mr. Costa: I do not want to duplicate the efforts so I agree with Councilwoman Yukimura that there needs to be a coordinated effort. I put moneys in there just so we can do something. But you are right. We need to do a coordinated effort and so, anyway that is my manc o. Chair Furfaro: I want you to find out the facts for us. Mr. Costa: I will. Chair Furfaro: Because right now I am tending to vote that money out, and when we know what is going on, if we have to revisit money, I am almost to the point about revisiting money. Mr. Costa: Actually, I would entertain that and let us revisit it later. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that comment. Mr. Costa: You are welcome. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn has a question for you. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Did you say the State has money to work on it? Mr. Costa: Again, I am assuming because they are conducting these meetings. Somebody has money to do these meetings. It is not coming from us that is for sure. Chair Furfaro: Go find out. We need the facts. Go find out. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: This is such an obvious cut. George is telling us right here to take it out and you folks are still trying to talk to him about keeping it in. We are never going to reach that number if you folks are asking these kinds of questions. It is ridiculous. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 11 Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, I am not talking about keeping it in. I am telling him to go and get the facts before we leave something like this in that is what I am saying. I want to make sure you and I are okay. Mr. Kagawa: I think he just said that he is not ready, he does not need the money, take it out. I think that is what I heard. Mr. Costa: You can take it out. I will find the facts and come back and report. Chair Furfaro: That sounds like a good plan and thank you for responding to my request. Mr. Costa: We are all trying to help. Mr. Rapozo: Call for the question, Mr. Chair. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Question, please? Restate the question, seventy- eight thousand dollars ($78,000). I'Y Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seventy-two thousand four hundred dollars ($72,400). The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — North Shore Transportation Feasibility Study" for seventy-two thousand four hundred dollars ($72,400) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST REMOVAL: Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: 5:2. George, I am very, y serious. We have got to get closer to those things that are going on with the State. Keep us posted, please. Next item, please. Mr. Costa: Can I stay here? Chair Furfaro: George, you need to go back to your seat. We are back in session. I will call you up only when we need you. Any other things going on here? Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair. There were a lot of items in the Economic Development budget and these were small amounts, five thousand dollars ($5,000) for Cultural Program, five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a swimming challenge, twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)for Cultural Place Name Research Project, another five thousand dollars ($5,0000) for the Canoe Racing Championship, and another ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for a conference. My concern is at what point does a request for 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 12 a grant become an Economic Development Project that is going to really system the economy or is it a special project that the Mayor wants to fund? Chair Furfaro: No, I understand your point and I think you should submit something to me and we should have dialogue about the procedural parts. I know the canoe piece has economic benefits to it because I think it is our year to host the States and people come overnight and so on. But I think if you want to put some of those questions proposed as to what is the criteria that we are doing this, I think that is fair and reasonable. Mr. Rapozo: I do want to have that discussion because we could stretch any project. Pop Warner could have a State championship or for that matter a Regional championship on Kaua`i that would generate some people to come over with the parents and stay in a hotel and rent some cars. Does that mean I could get twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) from the County? Chair Furfaro: No, I do not know. What I am saying is we do not have a clear procedural project that we all understand. But that is a question that will be coming over, George, in a discussion item. Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry. Ms. Nakamura: I want to add to your comment. Mr. Rapozo: Oh, okay. Go ahead. Ms. Nakamura: I think Councilmember Rapozo brings up a really good point. One of the things that the County funded was a study on sports and recreation impact on Kaua`i's economy and that report was presented to us and some of these fall under the category. Now, what we should be doing is saying rather than this scattered approach where we do not know how these projects ended up on the final list from the Administration, what is the process that is used? What are the criteria? Is there a group that is really focused on which ones will bring the most revenue or have the most impact on our economy? I think that is a good point that Councilmember Rapozo brings up. Likewise, like this after school intercession program, the five thousand dollars ($5,000) one in Anahola is similar. Last year, when I proposed funding for a Kapa'a Elementary School after school program every around this table voted "no" on it. So, what Councilmember Yukimura did was say we are going to set aside these pot of funds, one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), which is then approved so that there is actually a process, a criteria, and now it looks like it is going to be matched by a private foundation. Now we have three hundred thousand dollars($300,000) to work with to do the same thing. I think that is the model we should be following, similar to when we get the State funds for cultural product development that Nalani gives out to different festivals and cultural programs. I think that is the process where there is clear criteria, people compete, and the best projects get funded. We need to move in that direction and I would like to ask the Administration to really take a look at how we do this next time. Chair Furfaro: On that, I want to concur with the earlier request. This is not a Council Meeting and I guess George, you are hearing from me. I concur that we need to have a process. I concur that we need to be more coordinated with the State on what they are doing so there are no duplications. I will be very honest with you going forward, to me, the priority is the golf course in Economic Development. We 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 13 employ people, we went from losing six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) a year to one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000). There is forty thousand dollars ($40,000) that you put in your budget and just reallocated to a different group. I want you to know when we get there, I would say that to have a celebration of Jurassic Park is nice for a few selected pieces of the destination. But I would like to use the forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to promote the golf course and you getting closer to the hotels in the Wailua corridor because later I am going to add one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) worth of revenue to the golf course which comes with no additional costs when we get to revenues because our rounds are falling, partly because of the fact that we do not have the right amenities in place. That is how Economic Development has to do it. That is jobs, that is maintenance, and that is concession revenue. We have to have that eventual discussion. I will do that at revenue time, I will share my worksheet. You have a question for George? Mr. Rapozo: No, I do not have a question. Chair Furfaro: George, you will not have to come up every time. we will call you up if we need you. There bein g no objections, the rules were suspended. J p Mr. Costa: Okay. I figured I just would explain that we have a criteria that we look at the projects. What economic development opportunities do they bring? Canoe races — I feel I am in a predicament because we promote Visitor Industry which is our main economic engine and until we can get energy, agriculture, and diversify our economy, this is the industry that we have. Chair Furfaro: I am going to tell you right across the table, performance on these items need to improve and let us start with the golf course because these are cost items and if you have got a marketing plan to help your people in the Department of Parks and Recreation, I would like to see it. If you have a criteria for this, we should have had it at budget preparation time. That is what would have saved what could have been some of the items that we are just talking about. Obviously, there is a group that is looking at the marathon. We are giving them one more year at twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). That money did not come out. But we need to understand that. If nobody has figured this part out, let me share with you, the bottom line is the purse strings are controlled by the Council. Nobody here made a bad decision because they have had too much information. George, I would appreciate if you have that material and you get it over to us. I am calling the meeting back to order and we are going to vote on this item. Mr. Costa: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I want to point out two (2) things. We just had this dialogue about not doing what we just did the last fifteen (15) minutes. Chair Furfaro: I just said that too, Mr. Bynum, when I talked to the Vice Chair. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 14 Mr. Bynum: Excuse me, I think I have the floor. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. But I want to re... Mr. Bynum: So, please do not interrupt me, sir. Chair Furfaro: I want reco ou to recognize that that is what I said. Y g Mr. Bynum: Please, do not interrupt me when I have the floor. Chair Furfaro: We are in recess for ten (10) minutes please. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:25 a.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 11:38 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We are in session. Sometimes the purpose of a recess is also to keep decorum at the table. But also I want to say that I want to give Mr. Bynum the floor again and he has questions or statements. He has that time now. If not, I will come back to you. Mr. Bynum: I think, as I have said, we have a lot of really fine people working in the County of Kaua`i and one of them is George Costa. We all know here that a lot of these projects get put into his Division because of the competence that he has the people be prior to him to administer some of these. The core mission for many years has been about promoting cultural events, tourism, and I believe that office does it very, very well and has a set of criteria. Other things get put in here, as I said, and some of them are requests from Councilmembers. The Council says, "We would like you, Administration, to do this and they give it to Economic Development because they have been credible and competent for many years as far as I know. I think George is a professional, a full grown adult, and the tone that some Councilmembers are using with members of the Administration disturbs me greatly. We do not need to lecture these adults. We do not need to be condescending. We need to respect the work that they do. Our government is not a beast. It is something that serves the people. I know there is a criteria for what gets put in here and how it gets selected. If we do not know that then we should ask for a meeting and I will be happy to do that in our Committee to have a dialogue. But if Councilmembers are not educated about what is happening in Economic Development, that is not necessarily their fault. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Before we go any further. I shared that earlier with you folks. I probably know George better than most. George replaced me at several hotels, he was my replacement. I understand his qualities, but what I was trying to say, this is not our place to be discussing items. We had twelve (12) days for that. We need to get to a budget by noon (12:00 p.m.) on Tuesday. I want to remind all members of that and then, in fact, let us move on. Take a deep breath and move on. Yes, go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I stated, and I spoke to Mr. Heu on the break, my proposals are not being presented because I believe they are 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 15 bad programs, not at all, absolutely not. In fact, when the budget hearing was here and the gentlemen from the different non-profits were up here, it was very exciting. Gary also told me as he told Mr. Bynum, a lot of the projects that get put into Economic Development over the past few years are projects that the Council had requested. The difference between then and now is that number on the top. We are chasing one million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000). In prior years we had money. I cannot tell you how many times people from the community have come up to me, and said, "Hey, Mel, can the Council can help us with this project?" Can the Council help with us this festival? Can the council help us with this parade? Can the Council help us with this?" Unfortunately, this year the answer was no because we knew. My proposals to remove these items is not because they are bad programs, it is just that there are many, many viable and deserving Agencies out there. I have to agree with Councilmember Nakamura that, in fact, there needs to be that pot. There needs to be a pot and there needs to be parameters set up. There needs to be a process so everyone can apply and not just the select few that the Mayor and the Administration feels that is warranted, exactly the same as if the Council wanted to add in. I am going to start with making a motion to remove the funding for the Kaiaulu Anahola Cultural Program. It is five thousand dollars ($5,000) again, in line of what Mr. Hooser said, it gives us an opportunity to discuss it. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the funding for "Other Services — Kaiaulu Anahola Cultural Program" for five thousand dollars ($5,000), seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Chair Furfaro: I would like to say for myself, all of those many small cultural pieces canoe races, swim events, and so forth, I was pretty certain I would be supporting those when those groups made their presentations. I just want you and the other members to know that I will not be supporting any additional deductions there. Anyone else want to speak before I call for the vote? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I have a lot of faith in Nalani and George in terms of their ability to understand the community and where the needs are. I have been very grateful that they have been looking at visitor marketing and efforts in terms of, as Vice Chair said, of the visitor experience and the connecting of people with visitor and with our residents, over common ground of music and learning, those kinds of things. I do think that the program needs to be more formalized and George has said that they have criteria. I think they need to let us know in the process too, of application and so forth probably needs to be better publicized and even streamlined. I am not real familiar with the process. But I think we need to give them a year's time to get that together, if that is our concern. I am not ready to press judgment on which ones get cut and which ones stay in. We have not gone through. If we are going to be the judge of the cuts then we should have a proper application process ourselves. Anyway, I am not ready at this point, but I think the discussion is very well received as far as I am concerned and it signals the kinds of change we want to see in the process. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair. We are talking about five thousand dollars ($5,000) here and we are having discussion that takes a lot of valuable times from other things so let us keep it brief. Ms. Nakamura: I too supported the presentation during the budget process. But this was described as an after school and intercession program and that is the reason why I am not going to support this because I feel that we now or very shortly will have an avenue for groups like this to apply along with other groups that are doing very similar and good things for our children. Thank you. C j 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 16 Chair Furfaro: The motion on the five thousand dollars ($5,000) is to remove it. Roll call vote, please. The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — Kaiaulu Anahola Cultural Program" for five thousand dollars ($5,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: li FOR REMOVAL: Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 2, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5. Chair Furfaro: Okay, 2:5 and the money stays. Any more items? Ms. Nakamura: I do. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: This one came in the supplemental budget for the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) to put up photovoltaic panels on their site in Puhi. I am just concerned again about how this non-profit is getting these funds when there are many other non-profits that would like to save on energy uses. Again, it is a facility that not everyone in the public has access to, you must be a member to use the facilities. Again, I would like to see a plan or an opportunity to look at who are the other non-profits interested in these types of funds and what criteria is used to select this one? Chair Furfaro: The motion is to remove that amount? Ms. Nakamura: The motion is to remove. Ms. Nakamura moved to removed funding from "Other Services—YMCA" for seventy thousand dollars ($70,000), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: There is a second by Mr. Rapozo. Discussion? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, well, I was the one who first raised the question. So, I understand what Council Vice Chair is saying and I think the signal again is that if you are going to have energy grants, there needs to be criteria for them and how to apply and how they are selected. However, I do think that the YMCA is serving a public purpose by having that pool and we described, I think Ross, describing how the Kaua`i High School pool is not available to the public. It does not have hours for the public and as one who when I was a student at Kaua`i High wrote on why we needed a pool and if somebody were to actually study the history of the pool, it is another example of horrible State management both in the design and running of that pool and that is what necessitates this other pool. But they are providing a really important public service on the pools even though membership is required. If they did not have that pool, I do not know what the kids would do and I know that they are struggling to keep that pool operating so helping them reduce expenses will be important and we are not paying for running that pool. The County is not, although we could be. It is very much a core function of us to provide pools, I think. ICI 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 17 Again, it is huge and it shows that when we waste money and do some wrong management decision. Chair Furfaro: Brevity, please. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. But that is what we are denying here or making it hard to fund. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I agree with the discussion about being more systematic about how these moneys are allocated. But we are in budget decision-making right now and these are things in process. We have all done a lot to support the YMCA pool over the years. The County has from land acquisition because it is the only facility we have. It has a very high electricity cost to run it. I want to have these follow-up dialogues. I will put had in my Committee when it is appropriate. But these are plans that are ongoing and I am not going to intervene at this time during budget decision-making. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, the pool situation for the East Side has been horrible now that Kapa'a Pool is basically shutdown as far as the shower and restroom facilities. This is the only reason why I believe supporting this grant would be a one (1) time only unique case and Kaua`i High School is really — I do not know what is the deal with that pool. Certain people can use it and I do not know. But anyway, it goes through the Principal and the Department of Education (DOE) or whatever and the public no longer uses it with open hours. It is a one (1) time deal, but I would hope there is some way that we can somehow before we release the funds to the YMCA, we can draft a new agreement with them that collects back the seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) at some point in the savings that they receive. Basically, they will have free electricity and that will be their benefit and they will have a free system. I do not know if we can work out some way of repayment of some sort, maybe not the full price, but maybe something. So, that I will promote. If that cannot be worked out, the grant is just fine. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I will not be supporting the cut. When I was in the Senate, I supported funding for the pool. I believe it is a valuable public asset. I am concerned about the process. I understand there is a process, but I believe the entire community should be able to apply, they should know when the deadline is, they should know what the criteria is so any non-profit could apply for these type of processes whether it is grant-in-aid process that the legislator has or should better than that. But clearly defined and clearly opened whether it is cultural or whether it is energy savings. So, definitely moving forward we need to do that and I would even suggest that we are a legislative body, at the State level the legislative body decides on what is to be awarded and that is something to be considered also. It does not necessarily need to be an Administrative decision necessarily. But I will not be supporting the cut. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. March 15th we get the initial budget, May 8th we get the supplemental, and we go into decision-making May 9th. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 18 There is no opportunity when we are in decision-making to go and explore these. We do not have the time. I cannot believe that the Administration did not have an idea about the seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) request from the YMCA before March 15th so we could have had the discussion, we could have had the public input, and we could have had other Agencies and organizations chime in. It puts us at a very, very tough position today to have to say for me, "Sorry." Of course I approve of what they do. If it was bit for the County, the YMCA would not be there. Let us all remember that. But there are many other Agencies like I talked about. But from May 8th and we go right into decisions-making, there is no opportunity. I am not going to call them up now because we are in deliberations. My position and my statement and comment to the Administration, and this i p y s s substantial, seventy thousand dollars ($70,000), sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), it is not small money. The five thousand dollars ($5,000) and things, all of that was in the 15th budget. But on May 8th we do not have that opportunity. I agree with you, Mr. Hooser, there needs to be a process, there needs to be an open process for everyone to have an opportunity. It is again, it is not the Mayor's money and it is not ours. It is the taxpayer's money and in this process of deliberation they do not have an opportunity. So, for that I am going to support the removal. Chair Furfaro: I will give you the floor first, brevity for everybody, please. Y Y, p Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Chair. This will be brief, and because it looks like there will be support for this line item, I would like to ask the Administration in your agreement with the YMCA, to look at the value of the seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) and the previous funding we gave last year for similar solar improvements. Then look at what is that value as it translates into membership and will they give free passes to our elderly or our low-income kids who cannot afford that membership because of the value that we are putting into this? So, that is just my two cents. Chair Furfaro: Nice approach, nice a pp roach. JoAnn, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I just want to say in response to Councilmember Rapozo's last point. This big crunch is why I proposed that Charter amendment that would have given the Administration just one (1) time to give us the budget and that charter amendment failed... Chair Furfaro: Okay, that Charter amendment failed and that Charter amendment would have wreaked havoc on this Council because we would have had one (1) time and we would have had to handle all the adjustments. Mr. Rapozo: Call for the question, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Question is being call for. Can I have a roll call vote? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 19 The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — YMCA" for seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—2, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5. Chair Furfaro: I do want to say on the 2:5 vote, George, there was some excellent narrative from the Vice Chair about getting some passes. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove funding for "Other Services — CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" for sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: There is a motion and a second. Mr. Rapozo: If I may, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I do not know if any of the other Councilmembers have participated in the CAC Host Community Benefits (HCB) program. I know we approved the moneys and all of that. But I have been to numerous meetings and have not seen colleagues and I am not saying that you should be. But my position here is because I have —oh I am sorry, Mr. Kagawa did come with me to one (1) of them. I do not know what he will say. He may contradict what I say, but it is up to him. That HCB process is still messed up. We provided sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) for a facilitator which was hired and has just started. It is a new facilitator and she is trying her best to get all of the people back on the ranch. There is a project out there, and again, this goes back to my statement that when we get it on May 8th, we have no opportunity to have the discussion. Now I thank you, Mr. Chair. It is going to be on my Committee agenda next week, but that is too late, that is after the deadline. But what I am seeing and hearing out in the West Side community is that there is some concern about this mega project that has been proposed by the CAC to the Mayor. What I am also hearing is that the Mayor has somewhat approved this mega project which would in essence wipe out that entire Host Community Benefits Fund. It is about seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) plus project that has been proposed by some members of the community. Now this sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), as I understand it, is to support or provide consulting for that project and I have to tell you, I believe that the community needs to be involved, that is why I am having it on the agenda next week. Again, this should have been presented to us in March so we could have had the opportunity. This project did not happen overnight. This project has been on their agenda for a very long time. Again, because we are chasing and looking for non-essential moneys to cut, I am not ready to support this. We have had absolutely no briefing and there is no time today. But when they are ready to come and present that to the Council and if it is something the Council can agree and to the community, than I am 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 20 prepared to consider supporting. Thank you. So that was my motion to remove sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) CAC Host Community Benefits consulting line. Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize Mr. Kagawa... Mr. Rapozo: We need a second first, Mr. Chair. You did, thank you. Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize Mr. Kagawa, I also want to say that he was partially cultivating that last idea about the pool trade off. But since he voted with the majority, I did not recognize him. Thank you for that idea as well. Now you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree totally with Mr. Rapozo. We attended one (1) of the meetings there and it appears that we need to hear from them. At that time, I think Councilmembers will have a better idea of whether we should go forward with the Administration's recommendation to add sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) for a facilitator. We cannot just be throwing money out there because they think we take their word it is a good idea. We should hear from the horse's mouth and hear from Mr. Bulatao and the group member if they want to come because there does seem to be some confusion. I think we need to have them here and we can make a wise financial decision. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just a question, I need some clarification. I did attend one (1) meeting of the group also. It is my understanding by removing the funds it does not impact the benefit fund itself and there is say facilitator already paid for and hired, so this is above and beyond both the fund and facilitator. Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Mr. Hooser: Okay, so I will be supporting the motion. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, did you want the floor? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Tim, did you want the floor? Mr. Bynum: Just for a second. Ms. Yukimura: I attended the meetings early on when Kaua`i Planning & Action Alliance (KPAA) was organizing the group to try to make decisions about the Host Community Benefits and I have not been there over the last two (2) years maybe. But I also have a sense of this project which I understand it was putting on some kind of a solar device on homes which would be something that serves families continuously into the future. It has the potential for a really big benefit. I do not know the details. I do know it is very complex. I am willing to take it out for now, but I think the Administration was trying to make sure it would work well so it would give benefits that accrue on a fair basis to households and families. I want to support that. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 21 Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I look forward to future Council meetings about this so I will not go into all of the details. But it has been a long process and I did not know that this facilitator was different than the one that we already funded. I do not understand it. But my question was going to be if the group needs facilitation, why would it not come from the Host Community Benefits? The group in the past has said we want more, we gave more. We want the interest from the funds and we gave from interest from the funds. I have not had an update about the process. I hope that it is good. At one time we had our Recycling Coordinator trying to deal with this community. Now, you give close to a million dollars and you might look at the contention that we have with dealing with money. Hopefully, it is being facilitated well, but I do not know why any facilitation would not come out of the funds and so I am going to support this proposal and look forward to getting more information. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Just to clarify, this money is not for a facilitator, this is to hire a consultant to assist with the solar photovoltaic (PV) project. The facilitator as will Hooser alluded to, is funded. That was in March 15th that has been approved. This is an additional sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) to assist in this project. We will get into it next week in the Committee, but I do want to let Councilmember Yukimura know that there are a lot of questions pertaining to the project. I am going to be asking this of our Legal Division, but this project — there is a potential of additional funding in next year's budget. It would require this Council's approval. There is also a very, very big concern and an issue which I have spoken to Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) about, that when you do a PV project of this magnitude, KIUC can only accept so much. That is the logistical issues, there is the emotional and environmental and sustainable rah, rah, rah, but there are practical limitations. That is one of them for the neighborhood. So, it is real and this project would technically, basically almost clearly wipe out that fund and that will be discussed next week. I just wanted to answer your questions that you may have that I believe this is premature until we get more information on the project itself. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and I would like to get to a vote, please. Would you restate the motion, Mr. Rapozo. � p Y p Mr. Rapozo: To remove the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) CAC Host Community Benefits Consultant line. The motion to remove funding for "Other Services — CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" for sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Bynum,Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST REMOVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. 0.91•01111•M ARMIN 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 22 Chair Furfaro: We are still in Economic Development. Is there any more discussion here? JoAnn, you have an item for Economic Development? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I would like to remove the five thousand dollars ($5,000) for capacity building for arts & culture. In the report, I have no sense that there is a really good communication with the eo le who are already doing arts & culture p p Y g in our community that we are really reaching identity to that group. I think it needs more thought in terms of how to structure. I believe that arts & culture are a very important part of Economic Development, but I am not clear that this project will help us get there and I do not want to do capacity building for a small group of artists. I just do not have a feeling that there are real connections to the people who are doing culture & arts and it needs to be rethought and come back. Mr. Rapozo: Is that your motion? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Ms. Yukimura moved to remove funding in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for "Other Services—Capacity Building." Chair Furfaro: Seconded by Councilmember Rapozo. Did I hear a second? Mr. Rapozo: You heard a second. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilwoman Nakamura and then Mr. Kagawa. Mr.Nakamura: I will not support deleting this. The reason why is that KPAA generated a report that cast a very wide net on arts & cultural organizations on the island. I do not know if you read the report, but it was to me it was a good attempt to reach out to the arts & culture community to get feedback and understand what their needs are because this is one of the industry clusters that we are trying to promote and build on this island. It may not have reached the conclusions regarding the multi-use center that was envisioned, but I do not think this is the avenue for that. This is about building the capacity of this industry that has the Garden Island Art s& Cultural Center group that does a lot of the leadership, but it also brings in other voices in the community. This is just a process to address some of those immediate needs that were identified in that report and build on what we have already invested into the process. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we talk about cutting we need to think big and this five thousand dollars ($5,000) is what you would call "manini" and we have a match. It is a twenty percent (20%) match of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) value for culture & arts and I relied on George as the Administrator to make sure that this five thousand dollars ($5,000) is going to be served well. Normally, when you get a twenty percent (20%) match, you get pretty good value because eighty percent (80%) comes from elsewhere. I will be supporting keeping this line item in. Thank you. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 23 Chair Furfaro: I want to share with you folks, I have let you speak once, then you want to speak a second time, and so forth. I am going to tell you again like I told you yesterday, this is the Committee of the Whole. I am the Chairman. We need to get through it. If we do not get through it and take these stops for five thousand dollars ($5,000), I mean how much dialogue can you have about spending five thousand dollars ($5,000) when it costs us right here six hundred ninety dollars ($690) an hour to run the Council Meeting. Let us be sensitive. If I make the Chairman's decision that you can speak once, I let you speak once. You want to keep the dialogue on and I decide not to, then that is my decision. If you get sensitive to it and challenge me and so forth, I am going call a time out. The fact of the matter is that we need to hold the decorum and let us try to get through this thing or else you will not have a budget to vote on Tuesday. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: I will recognize you. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. I mean we argued for a long time on one thousand dollars ($1,000) from the Mayor's Office and other issues. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, I have to... Ms. Yukimura: I want to respond to Councilmember Kagawa. I do not know if George has new information, but he told me that there was no match and so that is what I was going on. Chair Furfaro: I want to remind you, when we made that comparison, that was the second item yesterday that we took that long to talk about. I made a statement about not getting through. Now we are here, we are starting the morning late and I have made a second statement. If I make a third statement, I am just going to march us through here and give everybody one (1) chance to speak on an item and call for the vote and that is my prerogative as the Chairman. Now, we have the Administration that would like to come up. The rules are suspended you have the floor. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GARY K. HEU, Managing Director: Thank you very much. To the extent that is possible, we are going to stay out of your way in decision-making. But I think it is our responsibility if we see something that puts us at exposure as a County, that we should at least advise you of that so you have that information as you make the decision. My understanding, and George can correct me if I am wrong, is that what you are seeing in there is final payment for the report because my belief that the report has pretty much been wrapped up. Mr. Costa: That is correct. When I came up here and gave the CIP report, this Council wanted a determination of what was appropriate for CIPs in this year's budget? There are two (2) items and I am sorry, Councilwoman Yukimura, when you asked me, I did not recollect at the time. This is not a twenty percent (20%) match, this is the twenty percent (20%) balance that is due after the report was submitted on June 30th. I apologize. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Heu, I want to let you know, in the last two (2) days, when you put your hand up I have not recognized ,measismi MINE 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 24 you and we will continue to do so. But we need to make sure that we understand it will be only for clarity. Mr. Heu: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: You had your twelve (12) days over the last three (3) weeks. So, raise your hand and you will not be not recognized. Call the meeting back to order. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura: I withdraw my motion if it is an obligation that we have to pay. Mr. Rapozo: I withdraw my second. Councilmember Yukimura moved to withdraw her motion to remove funding in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for "Other Services Capacity Building," Councilmember Rapozo withdrew his second. Chair Furfaro: The motion and the second have been withdrawn. Moving on. Nothing more in Economic Development? I have one (1) piece of commentary and I want to make sure, George there was a removal of some money and I am just announcing this to the Administration and so forth for an item that dealt with one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for a promotional piece which was reduced to forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in your second submittal. I want to make sure that you understand that it is my intention because we have never earmarked money to market our golf course, that I would hope that that money and a plan ends up being one that can use for promotional effort to get revenues back up at the golf course so we do not have to cut any more expenses. Although it is in your plan, I want to say to you, I have a different opinion of what we are going to ask you to do to help get Wailua Golf Course back on its feet when we have a pro shop, when we have a restaurant, and when we are part of the Royal Coconut Coast Resorts. We do not even have a brochure to put in any of the guest rooms. I want to make sure you understand where I am at and that will come up in the new money items. Any more last comments or reconsiderations before I close Economic Development? JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I have an amendment on moneys that I do not want to take out, but I want to restrict or condition. I am willing to do that at the time of additions. But I just want to make sure that I am not losing my chance by not speaking right now. Chair Furfaro: Understood. When it comes on the additions, there may be some things for us to consider as being provisos in the budget, George. I would suggest you talk to Councilwoman Yukimura to get a better idea of that. Okay, Economic Development? George, thank you. Next Department. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next Department is the Police Department. Chair Furfaro: Chief, I want to ask you a question. Is it better for us to start this half an hour discussion and see if we conclude anything or would you 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 25 rather come back at 1:30 p.m.? Now? Fine, thank you. Just thought I would offer the courtesy. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, Mr. Chair, in keeping up cutting of positions that are vacant, I am making an exception for the Police Department and the Fire Department because I believe that public safety is our number one duty. I will be withholding my cuts for the Police Department and the Fire Department. I do not think I will get the votes anyway. I just wanted to make that statement. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We have the chief and his key staff here. Are there any direct questions of the Chief before we move any further? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question. Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. Mr. Rapozo: It is a question that does not require a response now. But we are in the cutting phase and obviously I will not be proposing any cuts in the Police Department based on what you have told us in the budget hearing that if that budget on March 15th would pass, you would be in front of us next year for more money. I am not going to propose any cuts. However, I do want you to submit to me as soon as possible any items that you may need that is core service and necessary for your function of public safety. If I could get that. When do you anticipate us getting to the adds, Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: I would say it is probably Monday. Mr. Rapozo: Before Monday. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Anybody else? I have some comments for the Chief that I want to propose. Anybody else? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I have no cuts. Chair Furfaro: I want to raise a couple of concerns about operating costs just as we are here. This is my worksheet for eight (8) months into the year. I want to say on your regular straight salaries and maybe someone should make a note of what I am going to say so you can go back and look at it. You are about two percent (2%) lower than what you should be at an eight (8) month ending, Chief. In the overtime line item, you have spent eighty-six percent (86%) of your budget so far when you should have only spent about sixty-seven percent (67%). We are out of whack by about nineteen percent (19%) right now. I do not know if that is related to some earlier training that you have had or so forth, but I would like to see if I could get a better understanding because at that rate, we are going to end the year and we are not going to be in a good place. DARRYL D. PERRY, Chief of Police: Sure, we will get those numbers for you. Chair Furfaro: The third line item I looked at is this temporary transfer (TT) premium pay line. I guess that is from TT, officers, and so forth. This indicates that you have spent one hundred nine percent (109%) of your budget in eight (8) months. Could that be related to the accelerated training you are doing with two (2) 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 26 classes? I do not know. But I think those three (3) items, they raise some issues for me right now. I do not have anything else for the Police Department. But I would like to know you are two percent (2%) under in regular pay, you are at eighty-six percent (86%) which you should be at sixty-seven percent (67%) of your overtime, and your premium transfer pay, you have exhausted it and then some. Mr. Perry: I will get you those answers for you right away. Chair Furfaro: I have no other questions for your Department. JoAnn, you have questions? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chief, I think in your budget, I am not sure if it is CIP or Operating, you have something for a training building, right? Mr. Perry: Yes, we have it in there for the training facility. We were going to use Asset Forfeiture Funds for that. Ms. Yukimura: Is it in this budget? Mr. Perry: It should be in this budget, yes. Ms. Yukimura: There was testimony about you using the Kapa'a Armory, that we has public testimony. Was that looked at as a possibility? Mr. Perry: For a training facility? Ms. Yukimura: Right. Mr. Perry: We have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Defense (DOD) and part of the MOU does not cover that particular usage of the facility. We are looking at this long-term. I believe we will be using the facility for about four (4) years and we will have to find another place. We are looking at more of a permanent structure as we move forward. Ms. Yukimura: But for temporary purposes, if you just got the MOU changed, would it be useful to use? Mr. Perry: We could explore that possibility. It is already been signed and completed, there may be an amendment. But we could explore that. Ms. Yukimura: It seems like if it does not require a whole lot of alterations, then I do not know how you are doing your training now, but it might enhance it. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Chief, you are aware that the training facility money was removed right from the budget? Ms. Yukimura: Was it? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 27 Mr. Rapozo: According to the May 8th submittal, fifteen thousand three dollars ($15,003). Mr. Perry: No. Mr. Rapozo: Yeah. That is what I am looking. In the Forfeiture Fund, the May 8th submittal, there is a reduction of fifteen thousand three dollars ($15,003 for a modular training facility. You reduced it by fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)? What was the original amount? Well, it was reduced by fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Were you aware of that? Mr. Perry: I knew that there was a reduction, but I did not know how much. Chair Furfaro: I want to repeat what she said. I do not think she was picked up by the microphone. The original number was seventy-eight thousand dollars (78,000), you said, in a response to Mr. Rapozo, you are acknowledging it was reduced by fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)? Is that what you said? DAURICE ARRUDA, Fiscal Officer I: Well, I do not know the exact amount, but it was reduced. The original amount was seventy-six thousand dollars ($76,000) for the modular. Chair Furfaro: Seventy-six thousand dollars, okay. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: If the members wanted to take a look at it, it is reflected on page 13 of the sheet that we had circulated. Mr. Rapozo: I see page 13. What I do not have in front of me is the original amount. It just shows the reduction. Chair Furfaro: The original was seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000). It is on page 13 of the May 8th submittal. Any more questions for the Chief? Chief, I want to let you know on the evening of the public testimony, we were given some testimony on some items from an individual. I wrote a cover letter to you and the Police Commission. If you could keep me informed on that testimony. It was issues about spending and one of the reasons that I looked at this overtime line was generated by that testimony, too. If you could just keep me posted and could have that discussion with the Police Commission, I would certainly appreciate it. Mr. Perry: Okay, will do. Chair Furfaro: But they did mention this TT line and the overage that we had in overtime. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Personal privilege, please. Just a short one. Chair Furfaro: Personal privilege, yes, of course. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 28 Mr. Kagawa: I would just like to thank the Chief. I do not get to see the Chief often. We do not have much of your stuff in my Committee. But I have sent several requests, minor type, but the response from you has been outstanding. I just wanted to thank you. One of which was homeless occupying Kalena Park and the park was not being used by the kids who really used that basketball court a lot. You did it quickly, Y Y q Y, swiftly, and the kids have returned to the park and the families enjoying the park again. I just wanted to thank you and your staff for all of that. Mahalo. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I was looking at this page 13. The is gym equipment for seventy thousand dollars ($70,000). Is that your training facility? MICHAEL M. CONTRADES, Deputy Chief of Police: No. The gym equipment, the plan is to purchase equipment for the Officers who work on the outer districts and that is through our Asset Forfeiture Funds also so it is not impacting county budget. Ms. Yukimura: Well, actually they are County moneys, too. But have you explored the possibility of just reimbursing people for gym membership? Mr. Contrades: I mean that is something that has been discussed, but that was not the route we wanted to go. We wanted to have in each station, have them have their own gym. Ms. Yukimura: Why did you choose that? I mean, I am hoping there is a rationale. Did you really explore the possibility and the other one is more expensive or something? Mr. Contrades: If you look at it in the long run, if we continue to pay, eventually the cost of the gym equipment will be outweighed by the continuous payment of the memberships. Ms. Yukimura: It depends how — I would love to see the actual use. I mean, the one thing about payment and I have been looking at best companies to work for and there is a competition and they promote health benefits so they reimburse. Ii But at least you know that people are using it. Chair Furfaro: Please get back to a question, JoAnn, please. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to see the figures as so when it would be more expensive. How many years out would that happen before it gets more expensive? Can you do that? Mr. Contrades: Sure. Ms. Yukimura: That would be great. You would estimate numbers and can you do that before Monday? Chair Furfaro: I am not requesting you to do that before next Monday unless the Councilmember wants to make a motion to cut the item, then I would 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 29 want a response appropriately. But for discussions that can come up in the Risk Management Committee and be prepared for it. Ms. Yukimura: I certainly do not want to make a motion to cut until I get all of the information that shows the justification for it. Chair Furfaro: Then we will look for the justification at a future Committee Meeting. I am not asking for the justification on the overtime right now. I just want to bring it to your attention. I do not need that before I vote today. Additional questions? Yes? Mr. Rapozo: I am feeling compelled to respond to Councilmember Yukimura's request. Gosh. Chair Furfaro: Can we hold that? Mr. Rapozo: Okay. I will not. Chair Furfaro: Can we hold that emotion, please? Mr. Rapozo: But I will say this. It did not help your overtime budget when two (2) Assistant Chiefs and a Chief were put on leave because that requires an escalation of every rank up there which would take that TA pay. Anyway, I just want to make sure we understand that and thank you. I echo Mr. Kagawa's comments. The sting or whatever at Kalena Park resulted in some arrests as well. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: If those are the justifications, I would like to see your narrative and we will take it from that discussion into a Committee if need be. Mr. Perry: Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: Any more questions for the Police Department? If not, thank you Chief and thank you Deputy. Thank you for the conversation I had with you in the back regarding our incident here on Wednesday evening. I know you folks will follow though for us. Thank you. Police, you are dismissed. I saw the Chief of the Fire Department—wait. Let us come back to the table. JoAnn, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, thank you. I guess I am confused. I realized that I do not see the seventy-six thousand dollars ($76,000) for a training facility in this budget. Am I wrong? The seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) is for gym equipment. Mr. Contrades: It was reduce because we have funds from this year's budget that will not be expended from our Asset Forfeiture and so those funds will roll over into the next fiscal year. At that point, we will be coming back for a Money Bill to fund the rest of it. But we wanted to get a portion of it in there for this next budget year. Chair Furfaro: As I read it, am I correct we have about twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) of it in? Could somebody just nod their head from the Department of Finance? You have some money carrying over from this year? Is that my assumption? I am making the right assumptions? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 30 Ms. Yukimura: I see. I am sorry. You have sixty-two thousand dollars ($62,000) approximately for the training facility in there. It is in the budget. Mr. Contrades: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: It is about twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) short which might come up next year I think. Are you okay, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, thank you. Chair Furfaro: Chief, I am sorry to make you come over. I thought I told you yesterday, and I am talking to the Chief of Fire, we have to break at 12:30 p.m. You will be first on the agenda at 1:30 p.m. and then Civil Defense, I believe. Chief, I do not think we have anymore for you. I will call the meeting back to order members. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Unless someone has anything for the Fire Chief, does anyone have any proposed cuts for the Fire Chief? Then we may not need him to come back. Chair Furfaro: That was a good point to raise. Let me call the meeting back to order. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Police is pau. The question surfaced about the Fire Department, if we have any questions for him in the operational costs as we go through right now? Chief, it looks like we have none. Oh, you do have one? Mr. Kagawa: Just one question and it will be really quick. Chair Furfaro: Chief, will you please come up, I will suspend the rules again. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Kagawa: Can I? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In keeping in line with my vacancy list, Chief, there is one (1) position. I just want to reiterate and I apologize that day I missed the budget session on the Fire Department. But there is a Water Safety Officer that is on the vacancy list, Water Safety Officer II, was opened since January of 2013. Is that position being filled? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 31 ROBERT F. WESTERMAN, Fire Chief: Yes, we actually have four (4) right now and we are actively recruiting. We are doing the physical agility test next week for the four (4) that are open. Mr. Kagawa: They will serve which beach? Mr. Westerman: Well, the four (4) that are here will be roving. They are the lifeguards, not the Water Safety Officers that are assigned to a tower so they are roving. Mr. Kagawa: It will help to fill some needed gaps? Mr. Westerman: Several vacancies on a daily basis, yes, sir. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Chief, I am going to keep my comments on the revenue part. I think you know what it from my discussion yesterday about the recovery of fuel costs for rescues. But that will be during the revenue portion. Mr. Westerman: Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: I think you and some of your staff have an appointment in Po`ipu? Mr. Westerman: Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: Have a nice day. We are going to break for lunch right now. When we come back, we will be starting where, Jade? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We are done with fire? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: All Bureaus? We will be starting with Civil Defense. Chair Furfaro: Civil Defense members, you are in the back. You will be first in the batter's box at 1:30 p.m. We are in recess for lunch. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:32 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 1:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I will call us back from a lunch recess. I believe we are going to Civil Defense now? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: A general housekeeping item, even though I implied we would go to 7:00 p.m. tonight, I think we will only go to 5:00 p.m. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 32 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: But be prepared on Monday, we may have to go for a very long day at the pace we are moving. What Department do we have up? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, we have Civil Defense up. Chair Furfaro: Is there anyone here from Civil Defense? The whole team, it looks like. At the beginning I see if there are questions, short questions about budget and budget only. Then I will call the meeting back to order. So, please come up. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa I will recognize you with the floor first. On a housekeeping notice, Councilmember Yukimura has made contact with me. She has an issue that requires her attention right now and she does think she will be tardy. But we need to move on. We will go on. The way that I do this is I ask members if you have any final questions for the Department before we pull everything together? Any final questions? Gentlemen, you just need to have a seat and listen. I will call the meeting back to order. Mr. Rapozo, you want the floor. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Rapozo: Yes, Mr. Chair. Last year, at the same table about the same time, there was a motion made to remove position E-2503. There was discussion regarding the necessity to have two (2) executive level position in a Department of four (4) to the tune of well over two hundred thousand dollars (200,000) with benefits. This year I noticed they moved one (1) position of County Telecommunication Officer into Civil Defense from I believe Information Technology (IT). Originally that position was at the Police Department and it went to IT and now it and now it sits in Civil Defense. We found out yesterday that the existing Executive Assistant to the Mayor has announced his retirement from that position. I still believe that it is a duplication of service or I think a duplication of work. I think Councilmember Nakamura last year put the two (2) job descriptions side-by-side and it was very clear that there were numerous duplications of job duties. That is one Department that I believe that can function. It had functioned with one (1) Manager for as long as I can remember and this would be an opportunity now because of the absence of a warm body to remove that position. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove position E-2503 Executive Assistant to the Mayor in the amount of one hundred forty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-four dollars ($148,944), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: That is salaries and benefits, the number that you are reading to us? Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 33 Mr. Bynum: I remember that meeting last year and I supported the Mayor's request even though at that moment, at that meeting, I said at the meeting. I am not clear, but the Mayor is asking for this deference and I am going to supply it. I have had a year to look into if I would support this position or not and I have come to the conclusion that I do and these are the reasons. The reason is that things have changed for Civil Defense pretty dramatically since 9/11. We had a lot of Homeland Security money come to the County which has been handled very well by Elton. But we are Kaua`i. We are a small town. But we are also a world class famous resort. We could be the target of a terrorist kind of activity and we need to be prepared. I think we are prone to hurricanes as well. When my Mayor comes and says I feel so strongly about the health and safety of our citizenry and that we are prepared for these events that we all hope do not happen, that we be fully prepared, I feel a burden to make sure that that is why I want this position. I have a really hard time not supporting it. If that is what we need to make sure that the health and safety of our citizens is prepared and the Chief Executive of the County says I need this to feel safe and secure about it and that we are doing our very best efforts, I am going to support that. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: I am going to support this. I think staff did some research that found out that all other Counties the Head person is a Civil Servant position, not an appointed position and they all seem to get by with that. I am concerned about the trust issue, communications issues, and I just hope that that can be worked out between the Administration and the current staff. But I do have confidence that the current staff can serve this County well. Chair Furfaro: Any further dialogue? Mr. Heu, I will suspend the rules if you want to come up and speak. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Thank you, Chair. I promised first not to insert ourselves in your decision-making to the greatest extent it was possible. But I do think on feel very strong 1 about this. When we talk about public safety and this particular issue, I fee v p Y p Y gY health we focus on the Police Department and the Fire Department and sometimes Civil Defense is somewhere in the background because we do not see it every day. But when we do have a major emergency, a hurricane, tsunami warnings, forty (40) days of rain, and Kaloko Dam breaking, I mean, I cannot stress how important that Agency is. I think that I am in a position to be able to speak about that. That organization and it is functioning in my management positions both at HawaiianTel and Verizon. I was in emergency operations for two (2) hurricanes being here since 2002, I have witnessed numerous activations for various things such as storm related issues and tsunamis. To me, I just do not think that if we are going to scrimp anywhere that it would be in a critical public health safety and health organization such as Civil Defense. The reason that we created this position a few years back with the support of Council is because I think we collectively saw the wisdom in providing sufficient leadership and capacity in that organization. It was like rather than having the oversight provided by the Mayor's Office, we actually put a position in Civil Defense tied to the Mayor's Office which I think is critical because when we go into an emergency situation and a emergency is declared, the Mayor becomes the Head Emergency Officer of the County. I think building the capacity in Civil Defense was the right move and I would encourage the Council to consider that, again, in activation. Councilmember Yukimura was the Mayor at one point in time. She knows how critical that 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 34 Agency is and having the right people in that Agency to perform effectively because bottom line that is the Agency that is going to be directing all the emergency operations including Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works, and all of the other Agencies including State Agencies that are involved in a unified response to an emergency. I thank you for the time, Chair, and I am more than happy to answer any questions if there are any. Chair Furfaro: If there are any questions, I would like to keep them rather brief because as I mentioned earlier, this is not a questions & answers (Q&A) session. But if you have one more Mr. Heu, I certainly felt that it was appropriate for him to be able to speak on this subject. But are there any questions of Mr. Heu? If not, Gary, thank you very much. Mr. Heu: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We are back in order. Discussion, members? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a tough one more me. I struggled with this decision. I knew it was coming and I hear the arguments to keep it here, public safety going down and I just cannot believe that losing one (1) Manager is going to do all of that. I think we have a Manager there. We have capable people in Elton and David and I think it is a small office and I do not think we need two (2) Chiefs for such a small stride. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, it is true. I have been in the Mayor's position and I know how important it is to have someone of great confidence in a position leading the Office, someone that the Mayor has confidence in. The Mayor now has a chance to put someone in there if we keep that position. I believe he will put someone there who can really handle the job and I expect that. For that reason, I will be voting to keep the position, so I guess against the proposal to remove it. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Heu, do you want to be recognized again? Mr. Heu: Just for clarification. Chair Furfaro: Please come up. The rules are suspended and because you are representing the Mayor, I will allow you. But please keep it brief. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to clarify that if you folks looked at the organizational chart that was passed out during budget presentations, there are not two (2) positions that do the same thing. That may have been how it looked last year and when you looked at the position descriptions. But with the formation of the new Human Resources (HR) Department, we have been working for a number of months now to try to figure out without having major impacts on the old 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 35 manager position, how we are able to formalize the position descriptions to show very distinct functionings. But if you look at the organizational chart that we presented, it definitely shows you two (2) distinct and separate positions and that is how it should function. So, whether or not the job descriptions as they currently exist today, prior to being modified by HR reflect it, the organizational chart shows how that organization operates on a daily basis now. I just wanted to make that clarification. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Heu: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Discussion within the group? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Just real briefly. I am somewhat surprised this is a contested issue because if there is of a place where you are on the side of caution, this is it. I am going to support keeping this position. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, this is not an issue. This position is not critical for public safety. The Office has run for decades without this position. If there was such a huge concern for public safety, the Department's budget, the Police Department's budget would not have been limited. The Fire Department's budget wouldn't have been limited. If you sit here and asked the Chief of Police what he needed and if you saw the list that he submitted for his budget, there was mean hacking off of that the budget. I know that because I saw it. Realizing that we had limitations to funding, but to say that if we cut this, we have no concern for public safety is not accurate because I can tell you, one hundred forty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-four dollars ($148,944) could be used in the Police Department's budget with much more impact to public safety than this one. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Is there any more discussion before I ask for the vote and speak myself? Mr. Hooser. Mr. looser: I will be supporting the cut. I think it is very clear that the organization is top heavy. If there is excess capacity at the top, then it has to be dealt with. If we are spending too much money at top management in such a small organization, it has to be dealt with. The Administration has chosen for whatever reason, whether it is hamstrung by rules not to deal with it, it just seems to me there is far too much money being spent for management. I am going to be supporting it. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: If not, before we go to vote, I just want to say a couple of items. It is really hard to find the real tangible items here in an emergency. For myself, some of you know I was within a South Pacific Archipelago, Tonga in particular, within the archipelago we had an earthquake and a tsunami that flooded the hotel within twenty (20) minutes. I was in Aitutaki with a major earthquake, yet Iwa, I was the Hotel Manager at Sheraton Kaua`i and taking care of public life and safety as well as the guests. It is really crunch time. During Iniki I set up the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) offices at the Hilton where I was General Manager, just coming on to take over that project. In fact JoAnn sent me a letter of appreciation when she was Mayor. Thank 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 36 you very much. But I just want to let you know that within an organization and preparedness, preparedness takes a coordinated effort. So, with Teddy's resignation effective June 30th, his departure, that is a question for all of you to consider. But I just want to let you know, I have been there in these tough times. I have been there worrying about employees because I am sure the County has and it is probably one that I am not going to support removing. But we will do a roll call vote now. The motion is again —what was the amount, Mel, to remove? Mr. Rapozo: The amount is to remove position E-2503 Executive Assistant to the Mayor and the associated benefits. The number is one hundred forty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-four dollars ($148,944). Chair Furfaro: Roll call vote, please. The motion to remove position E-2503 Executive Assistant to the Mayor in the amount of one hundred forty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-four dollars ($148,944) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL—4, AGAINST REMOVAL: Bynum, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Chair Furfaro: 4:3, for removal of that amount, it takes precedence. Next item, we are in Civil Defense. Does anybody have anything else on Civil Defense? If not, Civil Defense, does anybody who wants reconsideration? No, it is closed. Civil Defense people, thank you for being here. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, we now move into the Department of Public Works, Public Works Administration. Chair Furfaro: Yes, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I would like to comment on the budget in general. Chair Furfaro: Sure. Mr. Hooser: I just want to make a comment and you can call it a personal privilege or whatever. I just think that it is important that Councilmembers know that when we started the session I introduced a measure to do an across the board two percent (2%) cut on all of the salaries. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Hooser: There was discussion about whether or not it was legal and what options were available? At the end of that discussion I was going to be checking with the County Attorney's Office, they would get back to me on Monday. Since then, I have spoken briefly to the County Attorney and looking at the process, I have decided to withdraw my intent to do that on Monday for a variety of reasons. I thought it was a good, more elegant if you would, solution because it was across the board and would 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 37 have affected everyone. But now that we have started into the process and we have already cut some positions or have funded some position and now it is a lot less elegant and I would be supporting the direction put forth by Councilmember Kagawa and others to look at individual positions and either eliminating them or short-fund them individually. I do not want people thinking that we are going to come back on Monday with an answer to that. If people want to feel they want to pursue that on their own, they are welcome to do. If they feel they want to pursue that objective. But just so no one is thinking about it and expecting me to come back. I have already told Ms. Esaki not to spend her Mother's Day working on a legal opinion for me that would not be used. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Well, we will consider that a personal privilege and since the request to do it on Monday was directed by the Chair, but you have so eloquently rationalized why we are not doing it, I just want to say Amy, the memo went over yesterday from me so just ignore it. Have a good Mother's Day as Mr. Hooser said. Mr. Hooser: Thank you, Chair. I did not want to supersede your authority. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: So, we are at that part and it is good to be as efficient as possible. I do want to say though Mr. Hooser, there are a couple of items that I fi have on my list that we will talk in general because they affect all Departments. Obviously, all Departments consume energy/electricity and there needs to be a goal. Obviously, all Departments have issues with Workers' Compensation premiums. We will talk about that on Monday. I have recommendations. No other reconsiderations? We are finished with Civil Defense. Again, thank you, gentlemen. Next is the Department of Public Works, you say? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes, the next Department is the Department of 1 Public Works. Chair Furfaro: Jade, how would we break that broken down now? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: If you would like, we could do it by Division. Chair Furfaro: I would like to do it by Division. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Did you want to include all of the Department of Public Works, including the different funds? Chair Furfaro: We might as well. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Okay. Chair Furfaro: Is the County Engineer in the building? Larry, did you understand how we are going to proceed with that? We are going to go down by 1 Division. But if we have questions I will call you up by Division. Let us have a start, other than CIP, okay? Other than CIP. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This would include Highway Funds, Solid Waste, and Wastewater. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 38 Chair Furfaro: Yes. We will go to the Highway Fund first. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Or we could do Public Works Administration and continue with the General Fund. Chair Furfaro: Okay, let us do Public Works Administration. Mayor, thank you for being with us in the afternoon.y y g e noon. I know you had very special guests with our Sister-City Program most of the morning. Engineering Administration? Do I have anything? I am sorry, Public Works Administration. Nothing from the floor, we can move on. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Public Works —Fiscal. Chair Furfaro: Public Works—Fiscal? Nothing. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Public Works —Engineering. Chair Furfaro: Public Works —Engineering? Nothing. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Public Works—Building. Chair Furfaro: Public Works — Building? Members, Public Works —Building? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I am not sure if this is a correct one and I kind of told, as Chair of Public Works / Parks & Recreation, I know that the primary function that is very visible to the community. But in telling them that I would not cut a position, I am not going to cut a live body, but I am going to propose cutting a vacancy where we do not intend to hire soon and not cut, but dollar-fund. If I can get Larry up. This is position number, and you may need help of Personnel, Position No. 1021 Maintenance Worker I. Where are we on...? Chair Furfaro: Lyle, why do not you come up as well. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: Position 1021 has been filled. Mr. Kagawa: Has been filled? Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: I am done. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: We are in Buildings. Before I close on Buildings and so forth, Larry, I delivered a short message to the Police Chief about some concerns that we have with trends dealing with overtime and so forth. I just want to ask you real quick, is there anything there the Building Division that you believe we cannot, and I am asking you this question because it is over in the Department of Parks and Recreation but you guys have the expertise, that would prevent us from doing the repair & maintenance (R&M) on the Wailua Golf Course restaurant and plumbing that would prevent us to be done by August 1St, simple "yes" or "no". 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 39 Mr. Dill: Mr. Chair, I am afraid I cannot give you a simple "yes" or "no". I believe that the Department of Parks and Recreation is planning on outsourcing that work so we have not been involved in that discussion. So, we have not considered it. Chair Furfaro: Please get yourselves involved in that discussion. There is a lot of potential revenue is tied to that date. If you can extend — and I think the value we are talking about, if you can extend them some kOkua, all I am asking you is do you see any red flags that we cannot make? They gave us a July 1 date. I gave them an extra thirty (30) days and we can kill that from the Building Division. Any other questions for building? We are going to move on, Larry, from Building. You and Lyle may as well stay there. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Next section of the Department of Public Works. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair it is Public Works — Building Repair & Maintenance. Chair Furfaro: Questions from anywhere? Larry I am going to ask you for something for the future that describes the rationale why some of these things are in the Department of Parks and Recreation and some of them are in the Department of Public Works, so we understand what you folks rationale is. I am sure having Ian as the Deputy Parks Director and having an architectural background is part of that. But I just want to make sure that there is some definition that we know. What are the criteria of how a project goes where? No other questions, next area. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next area would be Public Works —Janitorial. Chair Furfaro: Public Works — Janitorial. Any questions? My compliments to Millicent Agena, you found a real champion there. She is on it with our carpets, our furniture polishing here, and so forth. I just want to pass that onto. She was a great find for your Janitorial Division. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Thank you. We will pass that on. We hear that from a lot of Departments, so thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Anything else in Janitorial? If not, Janitorial is closed. Next item. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item is Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: Highway Fund. Mr. Kagawa. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 40 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Highway Fund would also include on page 12, the portion of Transportation. Mr. Kagawa: Highway Fund, includes the Transportation? Chair Furfaro: A portion of it. Mr. Kagawa: Alright, position number 899. It is TS and Marking Crew Leader. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: We had identified someone who initially indicated a desire to go into that position and that process began and then that individual changed their mind and pulled back. Now we are going through recruit/examination and anticipated to be completed by the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Kagawa: It has been open since October 11th and I got this report March 30th that is why I am asking you that now. This is the late that latest that we got. Mr. Dill: Well, part of this also has to do with as we presented to Council some time ago on reorganization of the Roads Division and so as we mentioned in that presentation, we did purposefully hold off on filling some vacancies until after consultation with the Union because we did not want to hire them and then have to try to move the positions. Now that the consultation has been complete, we are moving forward with all the vacancies there were in the Roads Division. Mr. Kagawa: It says, Marking Crew Leader. Mr. Dill: Right. Mr. Kagawa: They do not have a leader right now, the marking crew? Mr. Dill: Well, somebody is TAing the position. Mr. Kagawa: TA? Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. Chair Furfaro: I am going to second that request, posItion 899 for a Lead, it says Lead Traffic Sign Marking Person. Mr. Dill: That was the position we just addressed. Chair Furfaro: I thought you said you dealt with the gentleman and then he did not accept the job and you are back to recruiting? Mr. Dill: Yes. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 41 Chair Furfaro: For that position? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: You have not recruited him yet? Mr. Dill: We had somebody who was a candidate for that position. Chair Furfaro: Right, he dropped out. Mr. Dill: Right. Chair Furfaro: So, you are back to recruiting. Mr. Dill: Right. Chair Furfaro: Right. I am saying, I am seconding that discussion because it is not like there is nobody there to paint lines. Mr. Dill: Oh, correct. Chair Furfaro: Right? This is the Leader, right? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: I had mentioned earlier and I think following up on Mr. Hooser's comment, I had about one hundred sixty-four thousand dollars ($164,000) of positions that I wanted to visit and this is one of them, comes to forty-two thousand eight hundred sixteen dollars ($42,816). So, for discussion, I would second Mr. Kagawa. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I am going to propose the cut then. We will just call for the question, dollar-funded. Mr. Kagawa moved to dollar fund "Position No. 899 — T.S. & Marking Crew Leader" in the amount of seventy-one thousand six hundred eighty-seven dollars ($71,687), seconded by Mr. Furfaro. Chair Furfaro: Dollar fund that position. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I was Chair of the Public Works Committee for four (4) years and this sign shop supports a lot of other Departments and in my view had been underfunded and undermanned and it caused us difficulties in the past and I think we are back on-track. I am not going to support removing this position. I did not get to follow-up about thermal marking, but I will talk to you later. This is a safety issue, too. When our roads are not marked well, especially at night, especially people who are old like me, it gets me really nervous and this is a really important Division that kind of in past has been neglected and I do not believe it is neglected now. But taking the position out could cause difficulties. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 42 Chair Furfaro: JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: I think this is an essential function for the County. I also do not want to penalize Departments that have been reorganizing to better meet current conditions and to see how to do the work better with less. I think this has been somewhat caught up in that process. I do not want to penalize the Department of Public Works by removing an essential position. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I am supporting the cut. As we go through the budget, virtually everything, I think, adds some value and we just cannot afford it. I think at the end of the day we have announced that we have to get one million five hundred dollars ($1,500,000) more. It had to come from somewhere whether it comes from paperclips and pencils or positions or insurance or electricity or taxes out of the public's pocket. It has to come from somewhere. If we have a position that is vacant, the work is still getting done now where it is not a warm body, we are not impacting anybody's family, I think when we have those opportunities, and we should take them. I will be supporting it. Chair Furfaro: Lyle, I want to make sure that I understood. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: You have somebody right now that is TA to supervise the crew? LYLE TABATA, Deputy County Engineer: Right and they are short a man. Chair Furfaro: This is budget time. Those decisions are ours, not to carry discussion. You have someone there that is TA to supervise the crew? That was the answer, yes? Mr. Tabata: He is a working foreman. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, roll call vote, please. The motion to dollar fund "Position No. 899 —T.S. & Marking Crew Leader" in the amount of seventy-one thousand six hundred eighty-seven dollars $71 687 was then put, and ( ) p , carried by the following vote: FOR DOLLAR FUNDING: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST DOLLAR FUNDING: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Chair Furfaro: 4:3. Mr. Kagawa: It was dollar funded? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 43 Chair Furfaro: Yes, it was dollar funded. Gentlemen, I want to make sure that you understand, it is dollar funded. The position line item did not go away. But if you get to a critical point, you need to come and see us because the position will be there. But for now, we are accepting the temporary transfer of supervising this paint crew. Anymore positions/items? Mr. Kagawa: Yes, Mr. Chair. Hanapepe Base Yard, Position No. 941, a Laborer. Where are we on position 941? It was not filled since January 2012, a year and four months. There being no objections ,the rules were suspended. Mr. Tabata: We are calling Crystal to explain. CRYSTAL FUJIKAWA, Human Resources Manager II: 941 was part of the reorganization so that was held up until we got the reorganization implemented. Since then, we are holding it up for a Workers' Compensation case. Chair Furfaro: I am sorry I did not hear you. Ms. Fujikawa: We are holding it up for a Workers' Comp case, to offer an individual a position. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I do not understand. What do you mean we are holding it up for a Workers' Compensation case? Ms. Fujikawa: I am not sure I can discuss this in open session. But we are holding a position available for an employee who is not able to return to his job. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Propose dollar-funded and let us call for the question. Mr. Rapozo: Did you make a motion? Is that your motion? Mr. Kagawa: Yes, that is my motion. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa moved to dollar fund "Position 941 —Laborer I" in the amount of fifty-seven thousand two hundred forty-six dollars ($57,246), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question as well? Chair Furfaro: So do a few other members. Tim, you have the floor, then Nadine. Alum 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 44 Mr. Bynum: I think we have these situations in the County where positions by law have to be held open and so I do not know if we can cut a position or not fund a position in this circumstance. Let me just say two (2) things and I am going to ask Larry a question. I think hearing that from Crystal needs to give us caution. It is not the only circumstance in the County where that is happening as we speak. I want to remind Councilmembers that the Mayor did send us a budget with a number of positions dollar funded and they went through this process of saying what are the positions that they felt were necessary? Any position that we cut, is after that review and maybe we need Amy to tell us. But I do not know that we can cut a potion that is being held open pending an outcome of a Workers' Compensation case. I do not know. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill, I will suspend the rules. You need to give us a short answer because we are in deliberations. But you want the floor, you have it. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Thank you, sir. I do not know the technicalities or the legal response. But from our perspective, this is a Workers' Compensation/personnel issue and this individual remains out until it is resolved and when it is resolved, we will need a position for that person to come back to. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question. Chair Furfaro: You have a question for him? Go right ahead. Mr. Rapozo: What is the anticipating return date? Mr. Dill: End of the fiscal year. Mr. Rapozo: This fiscal year? Chair Furfaro: So, your anticipated return is June 30th? Mr. Dill: Correct. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Discussion? I do also want to caution everybody if this is something that is dealing with a Workers' Compensation piece. I think we have we have had enough advice from our insurance people that the fact of the matter is that is a territory we should not venture into. I will not be supporting the removal. Call for the vote. The motion to dollar fund "Position No. 941 —Laborer I" in the amount of fifty-seven thousand two hundred forty-six dollars ($57,246) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR DOLLAR FUNDING: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 2, AGAINST DOLLAR FUNDING: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 45 SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: The motion fails 2:5. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: With that vote, I will expect a briefing in Executive Session at the next available spot regarding that specific case. The reason is I just do not see how we can keep paid or funded positions, the position can remain. But that position was vacant for over a year. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Your query is well understood. Members, if I can ask you, we will stay on the items here. But please do not depend on me to remember every request. Let us make sure that we remind the staff, too. Mr. Bynum said something the other day that earlier today that he is getting up there in age, that maybe fifty (50) something. Hey, I am sixty-four (64) folks. I cannot keep all of the notes. Give it to the staff and we will follow through, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: In my continued effort to reach my goal of cutting two million dollars ($2,000,000), I need to continue on this task of cutting vacant positions. So, Position No. 956, a Bridge Maintenance Worker. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: We have interviewed, selected, and made an offer for that position. This is another one of the positions that affected by the Roads reorganization. As we presented to the council some time ago and negotiated with you and it took a while, once that was done, we are moving quickly to fill all of these positions. This position, we have interviewed, we have selected, and we have made an offer to this individual. Mr. Kagawa: Okay, moving on. Can I continue? Chair Furfaro: I want to send a housekeeping item in. Larry, there is a little different from a Council Meeting. When we are in deliberation, if you are going to respond, let me see your hand, so I can suspend the rules and you can speak to that specific point. Mr. Dill: My apologies. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceed as follows: Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. a 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 46 Mr. Kagawa: I am sorry, that was my last one for Highways. Chair Furfaro: Very good. What is this Division called? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We went through Hanapepe Base Yard and the last one was with Signs & Roads Marking. Chair Furfaro: I got a position question for you gentlemen, so I am going suspend the rules. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: I had two (2) positions on my list, one of them earlier was similar to Mr. Kagawa. But where is this Power Generating Repair Position No. 2469? Where is that? Mr. Rapozo: Are you in Highways, Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: I thought I was in the Department of Public Works. Mr. Rapozo: Is that Highway? Mr. Kagawa: Highway Fund. Where are we? Chair Furfaro: I am sorry. I had my old vacancy sheet with the number. Position No. 2469 is described as a Power Generator Repair Person. Could you help me with this? Mr. Dill: My Personnel Director tells me that is not in the Department of Public Works. Chair Furfaro: Okay. That is fine. Ms. Yukimura: Where is it? Chair Furfaro: I will go dig it up somewhere else. Mr. Dill: It is in the Water Department. Chair Furfaro: Okay. What Department? Mr. Dill: Water. Chair Furfaro: Oh, the Water Department. Mr. Bynum: Got it. Chair Furfaro: Now it makes sense to me. These are, Larry, for all the pump stations, wells, and so forth, I guess? That is probably where it is at? Got it. Thank you very much. AlMOW 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 47 There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I am sorry, Mr. Chair, I missed one. I assumed that Auto Maintenance was in their own Department, but it comes out the Highway Fund. I have Position No. 1336, a Construction Equipment Mechanic I. It is been open for about two (2) years, a year and a half. Where are we? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: This position has been open for a while. With recent improvements or upgrades, more technologically things and equipment, we had started to recruit for this and then recognizing that we needed to change the position description because a lot more electronics are required a higher level of certification. We are looking at a higher position description and we are have not resolved the problems with figuring out the position description though recently been attacking this one again to formalize exactly what we want. Also, because the Water Department and I think it is Transportation Agency of the Fire Department looking for a similar position has found it difficult to find an appropriate candidate out there. We have been working with their recruitments as well to keep tabs on those and so we have not found a candidate out there prior to going because we do not want to go out there and recruit and end up with someone that we are not necessarily looking for. Mr. Kagawa: Well, just talking to regular mechanics, I can see that might be a problem because they say a lot of cars now, the new ones, are all computerized and much different than the past. Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: Chair, I would recommend that we dollar fund it and when they are ready, they can come back and fund probably a higher amount, as soon as possible (ASAP). So, proposed dollar-funding. Chair Furfaro: Let me see if we have other Councilmembers with questions. Mr. Kagawa moved to dollar fund "Position No. 1336 — Construction Equipment Mechanic P" in the amount of seventy-nine thousand three hundred eighty-six dollars ($79,386), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: I have a second from Mr. Hooser. Is that correct, Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Let me recognize Mr. Bynum for a question while the rules are suspended and then Vice Chair Nakamura. Mr. Bynum: Well, we have had a lot of discussion about the Automotive Shop over the last couple of years and I believe it is tight there but we are 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 48 putting in some storage facilities to try to make better use of the space. When do you anticipate these issues will be resolved and you will need this funding? We are still in question and answer. Mr. Dill: We have recently completed — there are actually two (2) projects that Dwayne is taking care of with the Auto Shop to make the space more efficient. There was moving of the column so we turning two (2) bays into three (3), that has been accomplished. Also the next project, which is in the works, is creating a mezzanine to enhance storage capabilities to get the things off of the floor and make more work space downstairs. He could use this position now. Mr. Bynum: Now? Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Bynum: But you have some issues to resolve, right? Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Bynum: I am only thinking about whether we could partially fund it for a portion of the year to give you time to resolve those issues and recruit. Mr. Dill: We had discussed that on our side and our proposal would be requesting it would be funded for half a year. Mr. Bynum: Half a year? Mr. Dill: For half a year because we feel we would able to find the right person by that time. Mr. Bynum: This serves so many Departments and we are on a roll here get something issues resolved to the best our abilities without building a whole new shop which some day we will have to do. Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Bynum: I would not want you to lose momentum and I suggest that we consider half year funding as opposed to taking it out. Mr. Dill: Okay, thank you. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: My question was asked and answered. Chair Furfaro: Okay. JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I just want to really confirm that that will work for you and it would not interfere with your timetable in any way, the half year? Mr. Dill: That is our best projection right now. The possibility exists that somebody might walk in the door tomorrow, in which case we could 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 49 come back to Council and ask your support for full year funding. But our projection now is that half a year is a reasonable estimate. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just to clarify, if we dollar funded and somebody walked in tomorrow, you could use the unspent funding from the other position that is 1 vacant to shift those funds to this position to hire, is that correct? Mr. Dill: If we had unspent funds, yes. Mr. Hooser: We have one (1) position that we did not dollar fund. You have other vacancies, so you could shift those monies around, if you needed it, if you had it? Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Staff, let me ask, what is the half year position dollar amount? Thirty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-three dollars ($39,693) without benefits, right? With benefits, that is including PT&E. I have a tendency myself to speak to that. I would prefer the six (6) months rather than the dollar funded. I will tell what is really critical about the dollar funded and I said this from the beginning, for any reason that we have to go back and revisit the budget, we want to leave ourselves an audit trail that says we did this position halftime. We did not go somewhere else to find the money in there. That is a hard audit trail to follow. But you are asking for the position to be dollar funded is that what is on the table right now? Mr. Kagawa: No, Mr. Chair I want to withdraw my motion and let us amend my motion to include halftime because I can count. Mr. Kagawa withdrew his motion to dollar fund "Position No. 1336 — Construction Equipment Mechanic P" in the amount of seventy-nine thousand three hundred eighty-six dollars ($79,386). Mr. Hooser withdrew his second. Mr. Kagawa moved for six (6) month funding of "Position No. 1336 — Construction Equipment Mechanic I" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-three dollars ($39,693), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chari Furfaro: Okay. Joann you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: If I could say that if it is all right just to speak. I do not have a question anymore. But I see this Division or shop as very important place. If there are delays in getting the equipment fixed then our people out in the field cannot work. I am comfortable voting for the half year position because Mr. Dill has indicated that they can manage with that. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 50 Mr. Rapozo: I was just reminded by staff that we short funded some positions and we never indicated that it was to be for the second half of the fiscal year. I just want to make that blanket statement that all of these short funded positions are for the end of the year working backwards. Chair Furfaro: Let me do this. I am going to call the meeting back order. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I would like to have a motion that says on all the positions that we have done half year funding, it is the intention of the Council that funding is for the third and fourth quarter of next year. Mr. Rapozo moved that all positions reduced for half time is for the second half of the year to start January 2014, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: May I say an acknowledgement on that. The motion that all positions reduced for half time is for the second half of the year to start January 2014 was then put, and unanimously carried. Chair Furfaro: It is understood. Thank you. JoAnn just had the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I am done. Chair Furfaro: Did somebody want to talk again before I call for the vote? Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just real quick, part is a process question. But I will be supporting, obviously, this motion. Looking at the one million three hundred ninety- seven thousand dollars ($1,397,000), I just want to be clear for the body that I am not able to support any additional tax increases to get to that number and so for myself personally, it will have to come through cuts. I am not sure how many more Departments and how many more positions and I just want to encourage everyone to focus on, as painful as it is, to get to that number. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: But I want to make sure what I heard. You would not be supporting any more taxes, but you might be supporting some additional fees or none at all because I have a one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) proposal that we are going to see that is about the golf course? Mr. Hooser: I will rephrase. It is going to be very difficult for me to support any new fees or increases on anything. Chair Furfaro: Very good. Mr. Hooser: But I will keep my options open to hearing people's presentations. But I think cuts are the way ultimately, the majority of this is going w. _ 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 51 to happen. I do not want to get squeezed at the end. You talk about a squeeze play when we only have one (1) Department left and we are still quite a ways. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Understood, your position is understood as being it will be difficult for you. Mr. Rapozo: I would echo that as well. Just for my colleagues, I noticed a lot of these cuts are not passing. Just so that they understand as well, that I am in the same line with Mr. Hooser, that there is going to have to be some action to make up that money and if it is not coming from taxes or fees, I am very much open to your golf course proposal after seeing spreadsheet. So, my options are open. But as far as Property Tax or anything else, we have to seriously consider the reduction of expenditures. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you and thank you both for at least understanding. I have a couple of revenue proposals that will not go out until Monday. Did we take a vote? No? We are going to do a roll call now for that position. But I want to say something, Larry, to you. Regardless of how the vote falls over here, Dwayne Adachi, this person should be the Manager of the Year. I was very impressed with his presentation. He showed the strengths and weaknesses on the options. He came very well prepared. Whatever that is worth from the Council Chair, I would certainly say that this gentleman is deserving of getting nominated for some recognition. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Thank you, we will pass that on. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Roll call. The motion for six (6) month funding of "Position No. 1336 — Construction Equipment Mechanic I" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-three dollars ($39,693) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR FUNDING: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST FUNDING: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Are we still within Mr. Dill's and Lyle's Divisions? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes we are, if everyone is done with Auto Maintenance. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 52 Chair Furfaro: We are done. No reconsiderations for Automotive? No? We are done. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We can go back up to Roads Administration or Highways Administration. Chair Furfaro: Questions on Roads Administration. Larry, I am going to make a general statement. I do think we, we as the body, would like more detail about the two (2) year incremental on roads because you have said to us that we will get a few additional miles based on the fact that there will be a larger project release. But nobody is telling us is it ten percent (10%) more? Is it fifteen percent (15%) more? Is it seven percent (7%) more? I would really like to you give that some thought in the event of a future query in the Roads Department. Doing this two (2) year rotation will give us what kind of leverage for additional and just some narrative to explain it. Any further questions for Roads? If not, we can go to the next area. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next item is Kapa'a Base Yard. Chair Furfaro: Kapa'a Base Yard. You have your hand up JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: No. Chair Furfaro: Okay. No questions for the Kapa'a Base Yard. Moving on. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next item is the Hanalei Base Yard. Chair Furfaro: Hanalei Base Yard. No questions? Moving on. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: I just want to verify that we have completed Signs & Road Marking and the Transportation portion of the Highway Fund. The next item would be Solid Waste on page 13 of our worksheet. The Solid Waste Fund, first item being Solid Waste Disposal. Chair Furfaro: We are going to Solid Waste. Ms. Yukimura: I am sorry. When you say the Transportation part of our Highways Fund, you mean the bus budget, right? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Councilmember Yukimura, the portion on page 12 that that you have identified. Scott is there. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I am fine. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: We are going to do that later. Ms. Yukimura: I want to do additions. Chair Furfaro: Today is not addition day. Ms. Yukimura: I know. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 53 Chair Furfaro: Today is subtraction day. Ms. Yukimura: I know, that is why I said I am ready to go on, Chair. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, it will be difficult for me to search which Division of Solid Waste, so I am just going to bring up the two (2) that I have here. Position No. 1923. It is a Landfill Operation Assistant, Kekaha. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill. Mr. Kagawa: Where are we on that? Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill, would you like to respond? Mr. Dill: Yes. We went through the recruitment, we made a selection, we made an offer, and our offer was declined. Now we have to re-announce that recruitment, work through that process again. Mr. Kagawa: Realistically, how long will it take to have a live body in that position? Mr. Dill: We anticipate two (2) months. Mr. Kagawa: Okay, I will be counting on that. Next position. Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, I want to get some clarification. Mr. Dill, we are talking two (2) months from May 10th. You are basically saying by July 1st, that position would be filled. Mr. Dill: July 10th, yes. Chair Furfaro: We tried to push, just a little push. Very good. Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor again. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, if I was really a hard budgeter, I would prorate that one (1) month. But I will not put staff through that that would not be worth it. Let us go to position... Chair Furfaro: I wanted you to know being a baseball proficient, that was a big concession on his part because is he not going to throw it high and inside. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. I Chair. Position No. 1932. Landfill. Is that the same one that I read? Instead of 1923, 1932. Mr. Dill: That position has been filled. Mr. Kagawa: Has been filled? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 54 Mr. Dill: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have no more questions for Solid Waste. Chair Furfaro: Solid Waste questions? Solid Waste questions as they relate to the budget? Moving on. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: So, that would be all Solid Waste areas disposal, collections, and recycling crossed off? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item would be Wastewater. Chair Furfaro: Wastewater. Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the staff and personnel for coming up with this list as of March 30th. Thank you very much and if you folks do not like answering the questions, you can blame them. Let us go to Wastewater, right? Position No. 1003, Maintenance Mechanic I. Mr. Dill: Position No. 1003, we have gone through recruitment and we are right now we are scheduling interviews for those positions. We have received applications and scheduling the interviews. Mr. Kagawa: How long do we think it is going to take, approximately? Mr. Tabata: The interview is on the 14th for the personnel and if the position gets accepted within two (2) weeks, the notification goes out and we schedule physical, drug test, etcetera and paperwork. I would say within a month and a half the position should be filled. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. Next one. Can I continue, Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes, you have the floor. li Mr. Kagawa: Position No. 1989, Wastewater Operator Assistant. Mr. Dill: This one has a little background to it. As Council is well aware, the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant going through update and expansion, in all likelihood for certain, it is eventually going to be upgrade and classified by Department of Health from Class III to Class IV plant. Our current DRC Operator in direct response is in charge of that plant, holds a Grade III license and to-date has not passed the Grade IV exam. Ultimately, we will need a Grade IV Operator there. In the event that that current individual in the position is not able to get the Grade IV license, we are holding this position for him to return to or to move into. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 55 Mr. Kagawa: I am confused. If we dollar fund it, would that work? Mr. Dill: If we dollar fund it, we will need the position. I would request that we fund it for six (6) months because by that time, because we will need that position one way or the other, because also we understand that we will need to increase our staffing with the upgrade of the plant. My request would be to consider funding it for six (6) months. Mr. Kagawa: Are you sure? Crystal? I just want to make sure it is good. I do not want to do it and find out we should not have done it. But six (6) months sounds good? She is nodding her head. Chair, I want to make the motion that we take half of sixty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-six dollars ($62,866) and divide it by two (2). We will cut that half a year. Mr. Kagawa moved for six (6) month funding for "Position No. 1989 — Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Assistant" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-one thousand four hundred thirty-three dollars ($31,433), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second. Larry, before we vote, I have a question for you. The plant upgrade is from R2 to R1 water? Mr. Dill: That is correct. Chair Furfaro: That will happen on the recyclable water by midyear next year? Mr. Dill: The actual completion of the work is — I believe anticipated by this summer. Chair Furfaro: Oh, okay. Mr. Dill: But then the Department of Health has somewhat of a lengthy process to go through to reevaluate the plant. Chair Furfaro: I am fine. I understand. Congratulations to you on the R1 upgrade. Any further discussions? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: If not, the motion is to fund for six (6) months. Do we know what that savings would be? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Thirty-one thousand four hundred thirty-three dollars ($31,433). Chair Furfaro: That is plus PT&E or that is inclusive? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Inclusive of. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 56 Chair Furfaro: Roll call, please. The motion Mr. Kagawa moved for six (6) month funding of "Position No. 1989 — Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Assistant" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-one thousand four hundred thirty-three dollars ($31,433), was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR FUNDING: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST FUNDING: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. Thank you. Moving right along. Any more in Wastewater? Wastewater is pau. Next. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item would be the Department of Parks and Recreation. Chair Furfaro: Larry and Lyle thank you very much and thank you for understanding some of the requirements that we have. Department of Parks and Recreation. Where do we go after the Department of Parks and Recreation? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: After the Department of Parks and Recreation is Elderly Affairs and then the Housing Agency. Chair Furfaro: I see all of them here, good. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first item, Chair, would be the Department of Parks and Recreation Administration. Chair Furfaro: Parks and Recreation Administration, no questions? Next. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Parks and Recreation—Fiscal. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, Parks and Recreation—Fiscal. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Kagawa: Lenny, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I announced this earlier and I was very hesitant to even talk about cutting the Departments that I so much rely on to try and accomplish things for the community. I think my first five (5) months yourself, your Department, and Larry's folks have been tremendous. LEONARD A. RAPOZO, JR., Director of Parks and Recreation: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa: But we made some decisions not to follow with the Fuel Tax increase and so on and we have to be accountable. So, that is why I am just going through the vacancy list. I have two (2) in your Department. I feel like I am biting 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 57 the hand that feeds me, but I am just going to go through it anyway. I have more than two (2). The first one is Park Security Officer I, position 1215. Where are we on that? Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: We went out for testing earlier because we have two (2) vacant Security Officer positions, of the candidates one (1) was made an offer for a position. Unfortunately, the eligibility list is good until May 20th. All the other candidates on that list we felt were not appropriate for this position. We are waiting for the expiration of the May 20th list and then we are going to go out again for a new list. Mr. Kagawa: I guess, realistically when is that earliest we think we might be able to get that person in the Office and working? Mr. Rapozo: Personnel has been really good now that we have established how we have been doing this. It takes about three (3) months to four (4) months for them to qualify a list, for testing, for us to interview, and then to make the offer and hire. Mr. Kagawa: I will not propose anything for that one. Can I move on? Chair Furfaro: Yes, you still have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Position No. 1345, it is an Irrigation Repair Technician. Chair, let me know if I am drifting off subject because there are various Divisions. I am confused which one goes under which. The Irrigation Repair Technician, that one has been vacant for a long time, 1345. It is been vacant for four (4) years. Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: Actually, that is not real true. That position is a converted position that was a Truck Driver position that was dollar funded. When the Mayor made the conversion from going dollar funded to fully funded, we looked at the operations and the needs of that particular Division which falls under Beautification West and we could get away with a Truck Driver as operations are now so we converted that Truck Driver position into an Irrigation Repair Technician which is done within this past year. In order to establish this position, we have been working with Human Resources and they needed to come up with a position description and qualifications. What they have done is they have gone Statewide to see all of the specifications from every County into what we are looking for in this particular position in order to come up with the position description. We received the position description on April 12th and we are addressing the questions that were posed from Human Resources to address whatever the concerns are with the position and we were sending back our comments. Mr. Kagawa: It seems like we are a little while away. Yu think we can maybe fund six (6) months? Do you think that will work or is your desire to start the position a lot sooner? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 58 Mr. Rapozo: Well, if I could, I would like to start it sooner. But we have a ways to go because what is also going to be involved will also be a test because we want the candidate to be able to do certain functions. So, there will be tests involved. Mr. Kagawa: That is awesome, Lenny, that you folks are looking at making sure that that person can do the irrigation work or whatever that you want them to do because there are a lot of problems that happens with our irrigation. Mr. Rapozo: Well, actually we do not have an Irrigation Repair in our Department which causes a lot of problems, a lot of problems, a lot of problems. Mr. Kagawa: Chair, if I can make a motion to take half of Position No. 1345. Ms. Yukimura: What page are we on? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Councilmember Yukimura, this is page 193, Parks and Recreation Beautification. Mr. Kagawa: If we can take half of that number and put it up and I will make a motion to delete six months you. funding. Thank Mr. Kagawa moved for six month funding for "Position No. 1345 — Irrigation Repair Technician" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-two thousand five hundred forty-five dollars ($32,545), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Lenny, I have questions for you from Mr. Bynum on the motion that is on the floor as well. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Lenny, I think you know that I am very pleased that you are creating this position. You and I have talked a lot about irrigation issues, both current and future. We are more irrigation than we did in the past, right? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Mr. Bynum: In fact, I was really concerned to see cars parked at King Kaumuali`i for May Day on top of our new lawn and irrigation today. So, we may need this person tomorrow. I just want to make sure you are not delayed on this. Is half year okay or would three quarters of a year be better? I think the need is pretty great. Mr. Rapozo: If I could start him tomorrow, I would because there is a real need within the Department. But realistically, we need to respond to HR's questions and then qualifying the list and doing the test. I think six (6) months might be appropriate. Mr. Bynum: I very much appreciate the initiative on getting this expertise. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 59 There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Let us call for the roll call vote on the six (6) months. Would you restate the savings, Mr. Kagawa? I cannot see it. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. It is thirty-two thousand five hundred forty- five ($32,545), Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. The motion Mr. Kagawa moved for six month funding of "Position No. 1345 — Irrigation Repair Technician" with funding to become available January 2014 in the amount of thirty-two thousand five hundred forty-five dollars ($32,545) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR FUNDING: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST FUNDING: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. Thank you. Did you want the floor again? Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My last one. Chair Furfaro: Let me make sure, we are called back to order so you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Position No. 1880, Park Caretaker I, Hanalei. Where are we on hiring that person? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Rapozo: We made an internal transfer. We made a hire, someone is in that position. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. No more questions, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Any other questions or any other items at this point? JoAnn, did you want the floor? No? Are we wrapping up here in the Department of Parks and Recreation? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We completed Parks Administration, Fiscal, Parks and Recreation Planning and Development. Chair Furfaro: That is where we are at now? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes, we have taken care of Beautification, also. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 60 Chair Furfaro: Lenny, I am going to ask this of you and I am going to suspend the rules for a response. I just need either a "yes" or"no". There are some critical thoughts when we come into the revenue cycle. I just want to ask again, that you are feeling comfortable that the planning and improvements for Wailua Golf Course, concessions, and pro shop, we will be operational by the first of August? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Yes. That is all I need. Other items? Members? Park planning? No? Moving right along. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Parks and Recreation, the Recreation component. Chair Furfaro: The good fund component of Parks and Recreation. Questions? If not, we are fine. Moving on. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Parks and Recreation—Maintenance. Chair Furfaro: Parks and Recreation Repair & Maintenance. I will just make had a general comment, Lenny. The rules are suspended if you want to respond to me. But we need to get a handle on the general accepted accounting principles of what is a repair & maintenance item for small tools and so forth versus a definition of a capital purchase for a piece of equipment. We need to have a common understanding and that will be for later on. But I want to make sure that the red flag is up on that. Mr. Rapozo: So acknowledged. Chair Furfaro: Any other questions? Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I assuming it would be under maintenance, it may not. But I would be remiss if I did not ask when I would get the information on the pesticide use by the Department of Parks and Recreation and the golf course? Mr. Rapozo: I have been working on it the last week. If you do not believe me, come to my Office and see it on my computer. Mr. Hooser: When would you be able to get it to me? Mr. Rapozo: As soon as we are done and done with this process. I always continue to work on it. Mr. Hooser: Next week maybe? Mr. Rapozo: Hopefully, yes. Mr. Hooser: Thank you very much. You are the last person in the County that has not gotten me the information yet. Mr. Rapozo: Sorry about that. Mr. Hooser: Was there any staffing requirements that support this? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 61 Mr. Rapozo: I just need to take the information that was given to me by my golf course and my Parks Maintenance Chief and put it into a response. That is what I have been working on. A lot of it chemical. You asked for chemicals breakdowns and percentages that come with the labels. It is not just like writing Dear Mr. Hooser, we are getting to your things tomorrow or whatever. Mr. Hooser: As soon as you can, I would appreciate it. Mr. Rapozo: Yes. It is in the hopper. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, I will follow-up with that. Can we agree by May 17th, next Friday? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I think it is good that we have an actual committed date. Thank you, Lenny. Any more questions on this portion here? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We just have Parks and Recreation — Stadiums, Parks and Recreation—Convention Hall. Chair Furfaro: We are now on Parks and Recreation —Stadium and Parks and recreation Convention Hall. Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I just have one (1), Lenny. I do not need to read the position, I think you all know about it because Eddie Sarita has only two (2) people besides himself. Where are we on hiring the replacement I guess? Mr. Rapozo: The Electrician Helper, this is another position that needed to be revisited. In order to have an Electrician Helper you need to be working under electrician. The electrician that was at the Convention Hall moved back some years back. Actually, this position really was not—I do not want to say the term legal, but he had no guidance because he was supposed to be working underneath an electrician. This person retired and so we looked at the position. We are hiring for another Electrician Helper but we are not hiring a Facility Maintenance Worker and that would encompass whether we need somebody to help maybe some of the landscaping, a little bit of janitorial, be able to lights and sounds of the facility. It is more of Utility come in at night, and operate the is a a Ut t g p g Y Y Worker. But in order to encompass all of this, one of the blessings of having an HR Department is that they do all the research and they had to take what we expected and went out Statewide to see if there was something out there. Unfortunately, there was not, but they came up with something and it is been called a Facility Maintenance Worker. It took a little while to come up with the EMQs as well as the DPs for this position. We finally had it. We went out to recruit. We have three (3) names. We are in the interview process and we need to schedule them, one is an out-of-State person so we need to schedule an interview for them as well as the two (2) other people that live on-island for the interview. Mr. Kagawa: What is our projected date that we can have that person start? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 62 Mr. Rapozo: By July 1st. That is the target date within our own Department that we want to have it. Mr. Kagawa: That is great. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Stadium and Convention Hall questions? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am confused by this page. There is no funding for Adopt-A-Park this year? Mr. Rapozo: No, I thought there was. Ms. Yukimura: What page? Mr. Bynum: I am looking at page 200. It says year-to-date encumbrance is eight thousand dollars ($8,000). The Mayor's supplemental is blank and original budget is blank. Maybe it is a typo? Are there funds for Adopt-A-Park? Mr. Rapozo: I thought there was, the last I looked. Mr. Bynum: There is a line item under Convention Hall, page 200 in the budget at the top. Mr. Rapozo: Eight thousand dollars ($8,000). Mr. Bynum: In mine, it is under the column year-to-date expenditures. Special Projects? Thank you. Sorry. I just want to make sure we did not make a mistake and not fund it. It was not a target for cuts. Thank you for clarifying that, Steve. Mr. Rapozo: Special projects. Mr. Bynum: Convention as well as Stadium, any further questions? If not I am going to close this discussion. Are there any reconsiderations for the Department of Parks and Recreation? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, the last item in the... Chair Furfaro: I am sorry, we have one (1) more. My apologies. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The last item for the Department of Parks and Recreation is the Wailua Golf Course. Chair Furfaro: I have gotten my questions answered and my revenue projections are scheduled to come in the revenue cycle Monday, I guess. I think people are waiting to see the proposal on that. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I do not know if this is more of a question, but I understand that there are some current issues that I hope that you folks know about. I think one (1) of the cashiers got injured or something and he has been out for a week or two. When Susan retired we did not hire. Susan Honjiyo, you folks all know Susan. She was 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 63 working there for years and when she retired, I guess we did not hire a replacement for her. I think the cashiers and the starters or whatever you call them, they are shorthanded now. I think one person has a family member who is going through some tough times and has been calling in with leave often. They told me there are days that they are kind of worried that if someone is sick, that the course would have to close without a cashier. I am wondering if maybe we should make sure that we put some priority into hiring Susan's position. I just wanted to make sure that Susan's position is still in there? Chair Furfaro: You can respond. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa, Tuesday night someone from the public made that claim so that was news to me. But as far as Susan's position, that is not accurate. One of the things when I came aboard as the Director was to look across the board and look at all operations, positions, in terms of and you would know, Mr. Chair in the hotel business. You have the General Manager and everybody else that are appropriately placed in levels. At the golf course, you had Susan's position as well as the cashier and the starter position at the same level so there was no incentive for people to TA because you would not get a premium adjustment. Susan's position is the top there in terms of the Office. We worked with the Department of Personnel at that time and it took quite a few years in order for it to change to where now we have this level, this level, and a hierarchy chain that was established. Susan did retire and we went internally to hire and somebody is in the current position right now and we are moving up now, so that everybody is appropriately placed. In dealing with the personnel issues that is something that I just found out, like probably you did. I am looking into it right now But in terms of Susan's position, there has been a hiring there. Mr. Kagawa: I thought so, it was June, right? Mr. Rapozo: Baron is the new Susan. Mr. Kagawa: No, but I mean the new person that came in after Susan—oh June came in when Susan was there. Mr. Rapozo: They were still there. Mr. Kagawa: I do not want to carry on the conversation. I am sorry, Mr. Chair. But we are done. Chair Furfaro: Your point and query is well surfaced. It could be something else, but we do not have a money issue right now on the agenda table. I just want to say—go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Since we are on the golf course, are there funds in the budget to buy a cash register? Mr. Rapozo: Yes, as well as a credit card, whatever direction we are going to do. Mr. Hooser: It will be electronic, modern cash register? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. They have having active discussions as we speak. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 64 Mr. Hooser: Great. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mine are similar to Mr. Hooser's. I did visit with the people at the bank and got an update on how those things are progressing. But I want you to know that there are a couple of things that are moving around you for Wailua and I want to make sure that we understand that is there going to be some talk about increasing revenue opportunities, not big ones. There is going to be some talk about promotional ideas tied to the i Royal Coconut Coast Beach Resort Operators Association that y p a is not for today. There is going to be some money available in Economic Development so that we can get some kind of informational piece in the one thousand five (1,305) guest rooms along the Wailua Course. We need to realize, if we can increase three (3) rounds a day of rack rated visitor play, that is one hundred fifty dollars ($150) a day of additional revenue, forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000) more for the year and the costs are already there. We are not adding any more costs. There are no more costs for fertilizer, there is no more cost for water, and there is no more cost for electricity. The costs are there. When we talk about revenues on Monday, it is things that will pretty much flow through the operation. I will reserve the rest of that. I want to thank the Administration for biting down hard on the credit card issues and some of the other things with the financial institutions. Thank you very much. We have no more for the Department of Parks and Recreation at this time. Please make yourself available when we talk about additional revenues in the revenue cycle. Mr. Rapozo: Monday? Chair Furfaro: Monday. Thank you, Lenny. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Is it fair to say we can go to Kealoha now? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. The next item is Elderly Affairs followed by Housing. Chair Furfaro: First of all, welcome. I am going to suspend the rules Kealoha and first of all say thank you very much for a wonderful event for the recognition of the seniors. I am sorry Vice Chair Nakamura and I was doing double duty, but towards the end we got to sit down with you and have some luncheon. Splendid event, splendid event and I would like you to acknowledge the senior winners were. You have the open microphone right now. LUDVINA KEALOHA TAKAHASHI, Executive on Aging: Thank you, Council Chair. The Outstanding Female is Dr. Lucy Miller and the Outstanding Male is William Neil Rapozo, Sr. We are really happy. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that again. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Now we are back in session. Members, we have Elderly Affairs here and I will not suspend the rules again, unless you have specific questions for Kealoha. Any specific questions for Kealoha? Elderly Affairs. Thank you I . 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 65 very much for yesterday and have a great Mother's Day weekend. I believe now we are going to Housing. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Housing. Chair Furfaro: Housing Department, if you want to come up to the microphone. We will not ask you to address us until such time that we have questions to pose to you. Members, the Housing Department will touch on all areas that are under their jurisdiction from voucher servicing to rent collection to development. Questions on the budget pieces for Housing? Did you want the floor, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: It has come to my understanding that Housing has not answered any of the budget questions that were sent to them. Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, Ernie, why do you not come up and help us solve the mystery of the unanswered questions. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. ERNEST W. BARREIRA, Budget and Purchasing Director: Good afternoon Council. I have just electronically transmitted that. It was sent to me April 22nd. I simply missed the transmission. My apologies to members of the Council. Scott has been sent those responses to questions. Ms. Yukimura: So, we do have some responses? Mr. Barreira: I did, five (5) minutes after I was asked the question as to where the responses were. The Housing people did respond. I simply did not transmit them. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I apologize for that miscommunication. Why do I not see if we can get some time for those answers to come back to us. If you gentlemen do not mind. It is 3:20 p.m. Are we going to Transportation? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have Transportation scheduled after Housing. Chair Furfaro: While they print out the responses to us and so forth, may I ask you to please to take a seat in the reserve section? We will ask Transportation to come up then. We are still in session here. I would like to first see if you have any specific questions for the Director? I am all questioned out myself for Transportation. Mr. Kagawa. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 66 Mr. Kagawa: Hi Celia. I have just one position that I want to ask you about. Position No. 9395. Heavy Vehicle Mechanic I. Where are we on finding that replacement? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. CELIA M. MAHIKOA, Executive on Transportation: Position 9395 we had a gentleman start April 1st. Mr. Kagawa: It is filled already? Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, it was fortunately taken care of promptly. Mr. Kagawa: Very good. Thank you. Ms. Mahikoa: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Questions for Transportation? Celia, we have no questions for you. That does not reflect the challenges that we gave you earlier and we q Y g g Y recognize that you had even stayed with your family late one evening to respond to our questions, which I may say on behalf of the body was much appreciated. We have no more questions for you at this time. Thank you very much. Ms. Mahikoa: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: After Transportation, where are we going? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: After Transportation, we have Liquor. Chair Furfaro: Is there anyone here from Liquor? Do we have any questions for Liquor? Seeing that there are no questions for Liquor, we will go ahead and accept the budget status for liquor at this time. Next. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next and final review would be for Housing, Chair. Chair Furfaro: Housing left the building. I thought they had reserved seats. B.C., how are we going on a caption break? Can we take one now? Let us take a caption break, ten (10) minutes, and come back to Housing. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:22 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 3:46 p.m. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much for being patient with us and we are back from our recess. On that note, I hope everyone has had time to visit the commentary from the Housing Department. Kamuela and Gary, may I ask you folks to come up, please? I have not suspended the rules yet. In the event that there are questions 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 67 for you, I will. But we are in deliberation at this point and we will see what questions pop up, starting with Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I have a question. It is kind of broad in nature, but when you come before us before you talked about the need to stack up projects. You have various projects in various stages and so in terms of capacity, if there was any significant funding available, let us say new funding in CIP, bond funding, would you have the capacity to go out and let us say, look for new land acquisitions if the money was there to purchase? I know it is a long process, but would you have the capacity to start a new process? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: You can respond to Mr. Hooser. Thank you. Mr. Cobb-Adams: The reason I pause is because I try not to turn down any opportunity and try to look into everything. I guess the shorter answer is we will try our best to figure out a way to make it happen. That is my philosophy, make it happen. I guess the short answer is that we will look into it. I guess it depends if there is an opportunity, we are going to try to make that opportunity work as much as possible. Our philosophy has been to do more with less and be more efficient. I guess one of the things that I have told the staff if we are on a ten (10) speed bike and only in second gear, let us take it to tenth gear and still use the same amount of energy to do more work. If there are opportunities, we always try to figure out how to make it happen. Mr. Hooser: I think what I am hearing is that if you were given more money to spend, you would do your best to spend it wisely and with prudence? Mr. Cobb-Adams: Yes and just to point out, three percent (3%) of our budget takes care of all of our salaries and benefits. We are running pretty efficient as it is and that is not three percent (3%) of general. It is three percent (3%) of our entire salary and benefits is what it takes out of our entire budget this year or right around three percent (3%). I think we are running pretty efficient when it comes to the amount of money we pay for staff and the amount of money that we administer. If we can make it two percent (2%) or one percent (1%), we will. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Questions for the folks from Housing? Pretty impressive, no questions. Thank you for your patience. You may step away from the piece. Mr. Cobb-Adams: Thank you. There being no objections, there meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We may talk about CIP later. That CIP might touch on some of things in Housing so you may want to stay close for the rest of the day. I see Lyle and Mr. Dill came back. I just thought if we touch on CIP, Keith was here for that. Where are we at with the Departmental Reviews now? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have completed Decision-Making. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 68 Chair Furfaro: Through decision-making, we are finished with Housing. Yes, sir? Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I know it is kind of like bending the rules. But I got a call from the four (4) horsemen of the Kekaha Host Community Benefits and they have some new information and I would like to ask if members would like to reconsider our vote on the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) that we took out. But I understand, if you guys want to hold firm, and wait for the discussion. But basically it is needed to move that project and I am willing to change my vote and support that project. As you all know, the reason for that Kekaha Host Community Benefits is to really provide a benefit to the Kekaha community and the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) is actually intended to work with Ben Sullivan who should have been here when we had the discussion and do it all legally. They cannot do it pro bono with their friends and everything. This thing has to be under a certain Manager, I guess and had Ben been here, I do not think we would have even had a vote. I would like to ask members if you guys want to reconsider. Chair Furfaro: Let me close out. We are finished with Housing. Let me close out with the following, there is a request to consider reconsideration. Could you re-present the vote for me that took the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) out and I would like to know by member because I need the person from the presiding side to make the motion. The item was suggested to remove sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) from the amount put in for the Host Community Benefits Facilitator, I believe. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Host Community Benefits Consulting, sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), all members voted to remove it. Chair Furfaro: Anybody can ask for the reconsideration? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa has asked for reconsideration and based on that, any of you can in fact, second his motion for reconsideration. Mr. Kagawa moved to reconsider on the motion to remove the funding for "Other Services— CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting," seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: We have a second from Councilmember Yukimura and we can have some discussion now, but it is on the reconsideration. We have to have the discussion on the reconsideration first. Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: I understand the request. I believe the maker of the motion was Councilmember Rapozo who is not available to advocate one way or the other for this. I do not know if we are able to defer the decision until he is able to be present. I am not sure why he is not here, but I am sure it is a legitimate reason. So, that would be my concern is that the person who initiated the concept is not here to talk about it. Chair Furfaro: Well, I would say this procedurally. I think the first question is seeing if we have enough votes to even consider the reconsideration and then I would agree with you that he should be present when we have that discussion, so there are two (2) parts to this. First is do we have enough votes to reconsider? Secondly, the maker of the motion would be present if this reconsideration passes. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 69 Mr. Hooser: One more question. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Hooser: Does this mean that all motions are open to reconsideration from prior decision? Chair Furfaro: No, I am going to give you the rules again. It was my recommendation that if there is a reconsideration, it occurs at the time that we close out that Division. That was my rule, but since this business has occurred today, I will make that exception. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: That is why I asked that there are periods at the end of the Division that I have asked for reconsiderations. We have a motion and we have a second for the reconsideration and that is what we will vote on now. Mr. Hooser: Since Councilmember Rapozo just came in, if you would restate what we are doing? Chair Furfaro: Sure. Mr. Kagawa came in after the break and asked that we could reconsider the vote in putting back the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) in the Host Community Benefits for the purpose of the consultant and the fact that Ben Sullivan was going to be involved with it, that is what is on the table. Since the vote was 7:0, any member could make that determination for the reconsideration. If the reconsideration passes, then we will address the specific item. But we first have to see if we have four (4) votes to reconsider. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I apologize for throwing this wrench in everything. My only reason for voting no was that I did not know the feelings of the four (4) members who are spearheading this solar project. It is very competent individuals who are well respected in the community, Garrett Agena, Patrick Pereira, Dennis Eguchi and Buddie Ayudan. They have full confidence in this project that it will really help the community. As Councilmember Yukimura said, this is getting the commitments and things, yes,'it is important. But I believe they will not move forward with the project if a gs� Y p Y p J red flag like that comes up during the project. Who would proceed with the project without the permission? I trust that they know better and they will not just waste our County's Y ou. money. Thank Chair Furfaro: I am getting ready to call for the vote on the reconsideration at this time. Councilwoman Yukimura, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: The reason why I believe in extensive debate on these issues is because it is important to know what the facts are and this is new information. It is about assumptions that we were making when we first took the vote that need to be re-looked at and that are why I am supporting this motion to reconsider because I think there is new information that we need to consider. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you wanted the floor? 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 70 Mr. Bynum: I am going to support reconsidering. I may not support putting the money back, however. Chair Furfaro: Anyone else before I ask for the vote? I want a roll call vote on the motion for reconsideration made by Councilmember Kagawa. The motion to reconsider the motion to remove the funding for "Other Services — CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Kagawa, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: Rapozo TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Hooser TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1. Chair Furfaro: Reconsideration passes, 6:1. Now Mr. Kagawa, I will give you the floor to present your narrative on the rationale behind and it would be sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). Am I right, Jade, to add sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) back to the project? You have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had a conversation with Mr. Iguchi and this is saving them sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) from the money that they have currently which is seven hundred eighty thousand dollars ($780,000) or whatever. They need that seven hundred eighty thousand dollars ($780,000) to do their project as intended and they were planning to pro bono their services and connections with other people to do that work. However, they were told by Mr. Sullivan and the Mayor's Office that this type of project needs to be done a certain way, I guess with a professional overseeing it. So, this will not take out from the money that they have. This is to allow them to still keep their same plan and not hamper it by taking out sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) from their construction money or whatever. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa moved to restore funding for "Other Services — CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" in the amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Further discussion? Mr. Yukimura, I will recognize you, followed by Mr. Bynum. Did I say Mr.? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: I am sorry. Ms. Yukimura: That is okay. I am sure people knew what you meant. First let me say, it has incredible potential because if you can harness the sun to lower people's electric bills, this is a benefit that keeps going for the life whether it is PV or solar water heating, it goes for the life of the installation. It is not just a one (1) shot thing so to me it is a great potential and it helps us get off oil. It meets a lot of our goals. I think as it is coming forward, to have a citizens' group deal with so much public money, seven 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 71 hundred eighty thousand dollars ($780,000), is really tricky because you cannot just use it like it is your private business, you have to follow the rules of procurement and accountability. There are some technical issues, I believe, like the fact of the interface with KIUC and so to me, it has to be very carefully planned and worked out. If the intention is to do a good project,it needs really good planning and design work. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I guess my question is for my colleagues has anyone seen the proposal? Has anyone even looked at the proposal? I am not faulting you folk because this just came out. Is anyone of aware the part of these proposals and part of these options if to have loan programs where as the residents have to borrow the money and repay the money? There are a lot of things going on in this project and I want that to be vetted out. I agree with Mr. Kagawa. Those entire four (4) individual, stellar. But it is bigger than the four (4) gentlemen. This is a project that again, we are in a bind and I do not even have a problem if you put a dollar ($1) in there. Put a dollar ($1) in that line and keep the line item going. We can fund it, I mean, we will definitely have sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). But I do not think we should vote on this unless we know what we are voting on. Did anybody get a narrative besides the line item? Did anyone, really? That is my point. Please, it should have come with some kind of presentation and some kind of explanation and again, if you have not Mr. Chair, we can take this up later. I do not know what your plan is, but I suggest you go back to the HCB website and read the minutes and learn a little bit about the project before we vote on sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). No reflection on those four (4) gentlemen. But I think we should do our due diligence before we make that decision. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Anybody else that would like to speak? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: This is a tough one for me. I just say that the history, I know when we are doing Host Community Benefits, we are creating the wheel here on Kaua`i and it is been a while. When the community asked for the funds, I supported that. When the community asked for the funds to be increased,I supported that. When the community asked for the County to fund the facilitators, even though I believe those funds could have come from the Host Community Benefits, I supported that. If the process is done properly, it is the community's decision about how the money is spent. But this line item is saying no, "We want to use all of these funds and County, we want you to help us with the coordination or the position." They could do that with their own funds and I still might be open to that. But once you ask us to fund again, then our due diligence responsibility kicks in and I think that is what Councilmember Rapozo is saying. I much prefer the idea of leaving the line item with a dollar and then revisiting that when we have time to do our due diligence. But I would also say an option is for them to hire the consultant they need within their own funds and then it is not our kuleana to make that decision. It is theirs, right? I would support a dollar funding and keep the line item so we can move things into it after we do our due diligence. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Really good points on both sides. The thing is that we said we are not going to have any say about the Host Community Benefits and that it would be a community process. It is true this is extra money besides the host community. I am wondering if there is a way we can keep it in the budget, subject to approval of the 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 72 Council in a one (1) shot vote. But I am seeing Vice Chair shake her head. It may not be possible. But I think we should get a technical read from our staff. Chair Furfaro: Any further dialogue? I just want to say that I see this request that Mr. Kagawa brought to the table as one that is really about the Community Host Benefits and we have had a lot of discussion about the amount. I would say that from the arguments that I have heard from both sides of the table, that I could support keeping this sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) in the budget as long as I know that between the Administration and Ben Sullivan, we are getting regularly quarterly updates that is how I am feeling about it at this point. On that note I am going to call for the vote. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, really quick. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: You mentioned quarterly updates, but this project is not new. This project has been talked about and approved or recommended by the CAC for quite a while. We have not received any updates on such a major project on Kekaha, on the West Side, at all. Chair Furfaro: I understand you well. Mr. Rapozo: I agree with you the quarterly updates. But this was sprung on us with no time to really investigate and I am shocked and before that, I simply cannot support it. Chair Furfaro: I understand your point. But I am look at this from the standpoint of having a better understanding of the piece, that there is involvement from our energy group, Ben Sullivan, and his influence and request for regular reporting. That would gain my support. I am going to call for the vote now, please. Let us call for the vote, please. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is to restore the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, three (3) Councilmembers hands went up after I said call for the vote. I am going to go in order that I saw them. JoAnn, Nadine, Hooser. If ou have some more to say before I call for the vote. Y Y Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I have checked with staff. It is true we cannot approve something subject to a subsequent approval. We can approve something and require a report. Chair Furfaro: That is what I am suggesting. Ms. Yukimura: But it does not change the approval. But it does at least allow for a report before the expenditure of the moneys. Chair Furfaro: Yes, you could not tie this to a proviso that controls the money. But you could tie this to a request for quarterly reports/updates. You have the floor. 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 73 Ms. Nakamura: Yes, I think the four (4) gentlemen described are long time residents of Kekaha and are probably very invested in this process. I just feel at a disadvantage because we have not been briefed on how these funds will be used and just the larger context of the photovoltaic project. So, that is why I am a little reluctant to move forward, but I am very open to considering funding once we get a better understanding and briefing and unfortunately, that is going to be after this budget process. I am very open to look at a Money Bill when the presentation has been made and questions have been asked. I think otherwise, I feel like I am operating in a vacuum here. Chair Furfaro: I do want to qualify something, if I could say. I have a little bit of an advantage based on the fact in the 1980s as Manager of the old Sheraton Coconut Beach, I was involved in the first co-generation plant to save energy. When I was Manager last, we started the project that you see now over at the old Hilton. It was always on the books, but for the solar power over the driveways and so forth. I am saying that I look at that measurement and believe it or not, and George can confirm this, the electric bill was two hundred forty-eight thousand dollars ($248,000) a month. It had great benefits and those systems today, from co-generation back in the 1970s to now, have come a long way. So, that is all I want to say. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I just want to echo what the Vice Chair and I will keep my comments short because she said what I wanted to say. Before we vote, I would just like to restate what we are voting on because of the conversation, it is a little fuzzy sometimes. Chair Furfaro: I am going to ask if there are any corrections from Mr. Kagawa, please correct me as I restate the motion. It is to put back into the Operating Budget as proposed a sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) number to be used in particular for the Kekaha Host Community Facilities Benefits for them to pursue using those funds versus the funds that are in there account for the pursuit of this energy plan. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I move to amend by conditioning the line item with a request for a report prior to expenditure. Chair Furfaro: Would you consider expanding that to say a report prior to the expenditure as well as quarterly updates? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Ms. Yukimura moved to add a condition for "Other Services— CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" to State funds contingent on report back to Council prior to expenditure, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a second from Mr. Kagawa. The motion to add a condition for "Other Services CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" to state funds contingent on report back to Council prior to expenditure was then put, and carried by the following vote: 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 74 FOR ADDITION: Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, AGAINST ADDITION: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Hooser TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: That is 3 ayes. I believe Furfaro, Kagawa, and Yukimura. The e amendment fails. Now, can I have a roll 11 ca vote on the item as it is being reconsidered at this time, sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) with the narrative that I gave? Roll call vote, please. The motion to restore funding for "Other Services — CAC Host Community Benefit Consulting" in the amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR RESTORATION: Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, AGAINST RESTORATION: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: The vote is 3:4 and therefore, fails. Very good. Now for the rest of your day, I promised we would get out of here at 7:00 p.m. and then as we moved along I said 5:00 p.m. and now I am feeling that we are at a point where we could probably leave today at 4:30 p.m. with the following exceptions. I want to make sure that we understand. When we come to session on Monday, Monday is going to be about adding revenue. Monday is also then going to be about reviewing CIP. I want to get a glimpse of it today to see if we have to go into it for the next fifteen (15) minutes, then we will actually go into talking about the main revenues related to tax proposal, and that is where we will be on Monday and have to finish Tuesday by 12:30 p.m. Ms. Yukimura: Question? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: On the CIP, are we going through a cutting procedure first, like we have been doing with the Operating Budget? Chair Furfaro: Absolutely, that is where we are start. But I want to any have a glimpse of it right now for about fifteen (15) minutes, to adjourn today, and then that is where we are pick up on Monday. On that note, Mr. Dill, you may come back up and join us, if you would like. We have finished our business with Housing. I think they are in the audience to hear what might come up. Keith, please come up as well. Lyle, if you want to come up, please come up. We are now on the CIP. I am going to ask that the body focus on items that, for lack of any other judgment and terminology, seem to be the easier ones because I want to get out of here at 4:30 p.m. If we have questions that are about the bigger projects, we will save those for the 9:00 a.m. session starting on Monday morning. Members, we are in session to talk on these items and I will start with Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Thank you. I have one (1) CIP cut. I am suggesting account W13006 one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study. I think this is premature and if we want to do a Feasibility Study, we 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 75 should look at connecting Eggerking Cane to the Foodland which somehow fell off radar and at one time had funding. Chair Furfaro: Haoli Road. Mr. Bynum: Pouli Road, exactly. It is like, where did that go? But I think that this one is premature. Mr. Bynum moved to remove funding for Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match) in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Just for you folks that are not that familiar, what Mr. Bynum is referring to is that extra cutoff by Foodland in Kapa'a that would allow traffic coming out of the Foodland process to actually go to the bypass. Ms. Yukimura: Point of inquiry. Chair Furfaro: I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew the name of the road and what was referred to. The point right now is about the Lihu`e bypass, right? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: We are just doing a proposed cut, not an add, right? Chair Furfaro: No, right. But I just wanted to give clarification to Mr. Bynum's comments. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? We have a motion and second to remove that one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Vice Chair, you have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: I have a question for the Department Public Works about this project and the genesis of this idea. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Dill the rules are suspended, please respond. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Good afternoon. This project, I guess the original genesis was the 1997 State Kauai Long-Range Transportation Plan and that plan is admittedly somewhat dated and in the process now of being updated by the State. But the history of the project came up again in light of the proposed landfill at Ma'alo. It was under consideration as a possible way to address traffic mitigation and so that brought it back to the table again. Since then, as the landfill projected has moved along, it is determined that that project is not warranted by the landfill itself. We are looking at other opportunities to gain access to the landfill site. However, we feel and we proposed to the Council and Council approved in Fiscal Year 2013 budget, that it was still a warranted project though the landfill in and of itself does not require construction of the bypass road, it would certainly be a significant benefit because then we could divert landfill traffic out of Lihu`e from going through the town, going through Hanama`ulu, and coming from Puhi from that 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 76 side as well. So, it would be a significant benefit and we have gone to Federal Highways and got approval of funding for this project. We have gone through the consulting selection process, we have negotiated a contract, and we are I think about to sign a contract with the consultant. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure that we understood that response which was a very good one, Mr. Dill. The moneys that you have in the CIP and you have concurrence with Federal Highways, that this would be used as matching funds for the study? Mr. Dill: Yes. The one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) with County matching funds. So, we have four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) of Federal Highway funds to go along with that. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just to clarify. The Approval of the project is approval of the Feasibility Study, not approval of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or the approval of the actual road construction and all that comes in the next twenty (20) years? Ms. Dill: Correct, that is exactly right. It would be the preliminary investigation, preliminary engineering, preliminary environmental costs, routes, that type of thing. So, it would lay the basis for any potential future. I would also point out in the 1997 plan, it is identified as a State project. Our intention in initiating this project now is do this preliminary work to set the stage for the State to take it over and complete. Chair Furfaro: Unbelievable. It is a State project, but we are going to fund the starting line. Mr. Dill: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Unbelievable. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: It is really hard for me to do that when you say that. But I still think it is warranted and here is the reason. The State is addressing the issue of traffic going westward. We have no serious State project for the traffic going east. But we have the coning that is ongoing and it is been adjusted. But if you were in Kapa'a last Saturday, both ways, it was gridlock. You could not get out of Safeway parking lot because there would only be two (2) spaces each light every five (5) minutes. It was crazy. I do not know what happened to Pouli Road, I want to find out. It was in the County budget at one time and that is where a critical need. I do not believe that the State will ever fund a Lihu`e bypass in your lifetime. I think it is highly unlikely. I have lived on Kauai twenty-three (23) years, for twenty-three (23) years we have been told that the EIS for the Kapa'a relief route would be done next summer. For twenty-three (23) years, every time I asked the question, every year next summer. We did the cone. We did the Wailua Bridge because we know the State is never going to fund a four hundred million dollars ($400,000) bridge over the Wailua River. So, that is why we are addressing our Transportation Plan and focusing on transit. But it is that East Side that has still a critical problem and many of us believe that the Poli Road extension, would allow people to come from the Homesteads go to the market and go home and never get on the highway. Right now Houselots is a 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 77 lollipop neighborhood. There is only one way in and one way out. Those things we know cause serious congestion problems. If we have to prioritize this, and I do not believe the State — so it is really hard to pass up four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) of State money even for planning. But does that turn into something on the ground in our lifetime? Mr. Dill: It is interesting comparison to the Wailua/Kapa`a bypass. The Wailua/Kapa`a Bypass project you referred to is against — through some unchartered territory, there a lot of unknowns and archaeological issues and also the expense of river crossing. The strategy that we are using for the Lihu`e rnauka bypass is that we are going to follow existing plantation roads. So, there will be no areas that have not been used by agriculture or for roads. Actually, since we are trying to limit to existing roadways, we are hoping that we will be able to go environmental assessment instead of having to do a full blown EIS because it is not new lands, all have been worked before. We do not have the same types of unknowns we would encounter with the Wailua/Kapa'a bypass. But I do not argue with you, it is a big project and it will be an expensive project. But in comparison of the Wailua/Kapa`a, there are some significant differences there. Mr. Bynum: Well, I was actually surprised to see it in there when it was made clear we were moving ahead with the landfill plans without this requirement, right? So, this is tough, this is really tough. But I just do not see it happening so I just do not see throwing good money after bad. The State, we know what they are going to do over next few years, right? They are going to build this bridge sooner than we thought. They say they want to go beyond the college with the four (4) lanes this way. We know that this Kapa`a relief route is fantasy. Chair Furfaro: We need to tighten it up this fantasy a little bit. Mr. Bynum: This is really hard. But I will put the proposal and see if it goes and I apologize. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: This dilemma that we are facing right here at this table is because the State does not have any sensible plan for the highways and they are spending money on all kinds of projects that are never go to be built on this island. I want a good plan first before we start building or even designing. It does not make sense. Chair Furfaro: It is now 4:27 p.m. and it looks like we got to one p g item. Mr. Rapozo: Not even. Chair Furfaro: We are going to vote on this motion. But I am back to, and I know it is the third time I am saying this today, we used to have dialogue with the State about CIPs intended for our island. We have to get that cultivated again so we have a clearer idea. Now, the motion on table is to remove one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), I believe, on the Lihu`e Bypass Road. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be voting no. I think a cut in the Bond Fund really accomplishes nothing anyway. But I, unlike other Councilmembers, I like the idea of looking for alternatives. The Wailua Bypass, Kapa'a Bypass, I use it every day. I love it. I do not think everybody in the community had 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 78 support prior to it being done. But obviously, anything that alleviates traffic in congested areas can possibly lead to a good thing. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just really quickly for the record, we have invited the Department of Transportation twice formally in writing to present their plans to us and both times they said we are too busy. Chair Furfaro: I realize that because they respond to my Office. Mr. Hooser: They have said they are too busy. I am definitely supporting this. I think it is a waste of money. The Wailua/Kapa`a, I agree it has challenges, the bypass. But one option was to follow the existing route and they still have not gotten that right. I think there are much better uses of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) and how we can alleviate traffic today. I am definitely supporting it. Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote. Mr. Dill, I do not want to turn this into a Council meeting. The question is about the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), the use of it. I want to point out again, it is bond money. We have a lot of other bond projects that we can refer this money to because it is borrowed money and it is money that we are paying interest on, but I will give you the floor for a minute. Mr. Dill: Thank you and I will not take a minute. It concerns me significantly when Council approves funding for a project, we proceed on that basis and make presentations to the Department of Transportation and Federal Highways, they make limits to us, and the we reverse course. It really endangers our future credibility with them. Chair Furfaro: May I just say right now, their credibility with me is shot. Let me just say. We have invited them here. As I said to Mr. Hooser, to get the responses at the request for us to get an update and we are the legislative body of this County. We are Officers of this County. But your point is taken well. What I am trying to do is activate things that we used to talk to them about. We are five (5) from we must do a caption change for the tape and it is 4:29 p.m. and thirty (30) second. JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Well, I just said, this is part of an updated plan that was well done, I would vote for it. Chair Furfaro: Okay. Quickly. Mr. Bynum: Two (2) words. Chair Furfaro: Two (2) words. Mr. Bynum: Hardy Street. What you just said, I totally agree with, Larry. Look at the history of Hardy Street. That was not the Council. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: 05-10-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 79 Chair Furfaro: We have some housekeeping notes and need to vote on this item and we start on Monday at 9:00 with CIP. Can I have a roll call vote please on the removal of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) from the Bond Fund earmarked for a Lihu`e contribution? The motion to remove funding for Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match) in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR REMOVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST REMOVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Nakamura TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: 5:2. The money has been removed. To you gentlemen, thank you very much. To the people in the audience, to the Council, I want to remind everybody that this is Mother's Day weekend. Please, please take time to reflect on that. I gave you an idea of what we are going to run through on Monday and Tuesday. For right now, this Council is in recess. There being no objections, the decision making process was recessed at 4:32 p.m. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 1 The departmental budget decision making reconvened on May 13, 2013 at 9:08 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable Nadine Nakamura Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair Chair Furfaro: Aloha and good morning everyone. I would like to call back from recess for the budget hearings. We start today with the follow-up on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) item which was in discussion before we adjourned Friday, I am sorry. I want to point out that Engineering CIP Manager, Treasurer, if there are any items in there that have moved farther along than we are anticipating, then you need to raise your hand and tell us. You need to keep us informed. On another item, I am going to be distributing a memorandum to you folks that I worked on over the weekend on some financial matters in comparing the eight (8) months of actuals and what is actually made up of the fund balance now. I do believe we have actually in the first six (6) months collected a little bit more than what was forecasted in actual real property taxes that are not reflected in the numbers that were given to us to the tune of about one million dollars ($1,000,000). I think that is conservative and I want you all to know that I was always pretty conservative in my numbers. Along the other line I met with Steve this morning and I am feeling comfortable also that there is about five hundred forty-eight thousand dollars ($548,000) in fund balance unaccounted for in the way of not being physically identified but not being physically assigned to anything. The good news when I get my piece out to you folks is that I think we have about one million five hundred forty-eight thousand dollars ($1,548,000) that is in the actual mode of eight (8) months actual that is not counted as available to us which might go to the top of the list. I would like to have some conversation with you a little bit later. Today's business, we are going to go through the last item we had in CIP, if there are any challenges on it and if not, we are going to go through the rest of the CIP as reductions. Then we will start by going to additional revenues of which I already shared with you folks. I have a worksheet that I am going to pass out also about revenues for the Golf Course in the way of fees. That will add about one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000). But I want to make sure on this one, if we agree on that, we also have to agree in advance that we will be supporting the rate increases. I will go over that with you. On that note, do you have my worksheet for me to sign? We can pass this out directly. Is there anyone in the audience, and please note it is about ten (10) minutes past • 9:00 a.m. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify on the agenda items that will be covered today, CIP and the revenue cycle? There being no objections,the rules were suspended to take public testimony. There being no one present to testify, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 2 Chair Furfaro: There is no one. On that note, Steve may I open by giving you the floor? Rules are suspended. We are going to start the reductions on CIP. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. STEVEN A. HUNT, Director of Finance: Thank you Chair. On Friday, one of the first CIP projects that was voted as a reduction was the Lihu`e Bypass Mauka. I wanted to go through the process of the CIP that is currently appropriated in the Fiscal 2013 and some of the projects that actually may come to fruition before the end of this fiscal year. That is one of them. We have gone through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. We are actually at the point of recommendation of award and contract signing and knowing that you are now looking at suspending that for Fiscal 2014, if we were to complete the process for Fiscal 2013 which has been appropriated, then that potential savings of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) would not be there. I am looking at, as we go through these recommended CIP cuts at the moment, that we have a Department Head or the CIP Manager speak to the process, much like we did when we went through the vacant positions whether offers have been made, whether positions have filled, that there is an update provided. I am concerned about the process that we are in fact appropriated those funds in Fiscal 2013 and now we are somewhat hamstrung if we are changing the appropriation and there may need to be an adjustment to the Fiscal 2013 CIP budget in order to actually remove or defund those. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure I understand because this is carryover business from Friday. Do you want to have Keith and Mr. Dill explain this in detail and answer some questions from the body here? Mr. Hunt: I would like to have them come up and just explain where they are in that process and how far along we are in that particular line item. But as a general process when these recommended cuts are being made, if there is an impact that they be allowed to speak to that. I know one of the concerns on this particular project was, these are matching funds that are coming in as well and we have gone to the Federal funding source for this on a number of projects that have also been cancelled. I believe the Maluhia Road and the Northern Leg of the Western Bypass had gone down this process. There might be concern about essentially "crying wolf' that we have been given these moneys, you have not spent them, and have been cancelling the projects when we actually need them. If we do this too many times, we may not have that source available. That is one of the concerns as well is our credibility in going through process. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure you understand, your people have to want to be recognized to speak to us too. Mr. Hunt: Understand, if we raise our hand... Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa you have the floor, then JoAnn. Mr. Kagawa: So Steve, you talk about one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) savings. But it is my understanding that from the Bond Fund, it is not really savings that can be used elsewhere. It is just savings in the Bond Fund right. Mr. Hunt: Correct. But if it was Council's prerogative to reassign that one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to a project that they felt was more important, that cut of that one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that was going to be 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 3 put to another project, if it actually gets encumbered, it is not available for Fiscal 2014 if we do it in Fiscal 2013. Mr. .Kagawa: Okay. Y Chair Furfaro: JoAnn you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. What you describe Steve, is evidence of the dysfunction in our planning process for the projects where we work with the State because we can do very little County money and leverage a huge amount of money but that is also a huge commitment to a project. If there is no agreement between the Administration and the Council and we do not have a clear plan with priorities, that is what you get, this back and forth. I tried to remove that Northern Bypass proposal and lost it here. But then you folks decided this year that that was not a priority. It is really hard to determine our priorities with an obsolete Land Transportation Plan. I mean this is a plan that was dated in 1997 and we are still following it when so many things have change, plus complicated by the fact that the Department of Transportation (DOT) will not talk to us. They will not engage in conversation about it. In this kind of system or dysfunction, we are wasting so much money, time, and energy because it is a yes, no, yes, no, here, there and we do not even know how they will fit and what is the most important because we are going project by project. When you do it in a planning, it is much easier to see what the most important project is and if we could in this planning process come together State and County, come together, County Administration and County Council and work on a plan that we all agree on, then we could fly because there would be consensus. We need some help from the Administration to assert that to the DOT and some leadership so that we can come and I guess it is an opportune time since the Long Range Land Transportation Plan has been so delayed. But now at least there is a conversation that is scheduled for June 13th, although Larry cannot be there and he is kind of a key person. We want to know what the way out of this dilemma is and we need partnership and help from the Administration to get us into a rational planning process. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo and then Mr. Bynum. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question about that project, that one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) project? Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. Mr. Rapozo: So Steve, we are... Mr. Hunt: I do not know much about the project, processes I can talk to. Mr. Rapozo: If I understood, if we are looking at a one hundred percent (100%) scale, where are we as far as being able to encumber those funds? LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: Ninety-nine percent (99%). Mr. Rapozo: Is there any chance of encumbering those funds in this fiscal year? Mr. Dill: Absolutely. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 4 Mr. Rapozo: If you encumber the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) this year, then it will not be available to cut next year? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: That is not going to cut the fund this year. Mr. Dill: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: You have no restriction to encumber those funds in this fiscal year. Mr. Dill: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: We should be okay? Mr. Hunt: Unless you are planning on using the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that you just cut for Fiscal 2014 to re-appropriate somewhere else because those funds will not exist. Mr. Rapozo: That is my point. I think it happened last budget if I am not mistaken with some amounts of money. I believe, if I remember correctly, it was the Drug Treatment Center Study. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: That we said stop and the funds went and got encumbered and that is your prerogative to do. That is the Administration's prerogative to do. I did not want to vote to remove that money, but I just wanted to get a better picture. In line with what JoAnn was saying and I said this numerous times, I think this County, we allow the funding to drive the planning. We go after the funding and whatever we can get and spend now, we will go even if it disrupts the plan, if there is even one. I guess I agree with JoAnn that we have to get a better plan that will let the plan dictate going after the funds versus using the term "low hanging fruit." There are the funds here and let us go get it. Let us go spend it and even if it is not part of a master plan or general plan. Anyway, I appreciate the explanation Larry, ninety-nine percent (99%), we are there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Keith, did you want to say something? Larry you want to say something? Mr. Dill: Just to respond a little bit to Councilmember Yukimura's comments. I certainly concur the 1997 plan is an old plan and it needs to be updated and it is a good thing that the State is finally updating that plan. We are participating in that process. I will not be present, but Public Works will be there. Lyle will be there for that event. We presented this to the Council last year on the basis of the available information and the plan. Much of that plan, I have read the 1997 plan and much of it is still valid, a lot of the assumptions that are in there. It needs to be updated because it is old. But many of the assumptions are still valid and we have been in conversation with the DOT. I do not know why they have not been forth coming to this body more. But we are in regular communication with the DOT and Federal Highways about projects like this 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 5 and they certainly concur with the validity of this project or else they would not have funded it. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: You are bringing up an important issue that we need to discuss. But we are in decision-making right now and you are talking about credibility. Look back at the last seven (7), eight (8) years the County's relationship with Federal Highways and we have had a lot of problems with credibility and I think we know what those are. The one that is most appalling and I asked you Friday to look into it, look at the history of Hardy Street and that was not the Council that did that. That was the Administration that did that and there have been other examples. When I came here and people told me that the six-year CIP was a joke. We had no credibility. I started to go to Statewide Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) meetings fifteen (15) years ago and nobody ever showed up to those meetings. We funded the beginning of the bike path because citizens asked the question, "Are there not funds available in the Federal Highways for this?" The County had never gone after those funds ever. So yes, we have to have a big long discussion. So, let us talk about this specific project. When we funded it previously, I am under the impression that it was linked to the landfill. That this whole concept came from the landfill, the idea of having a Resource Recovery Park. How can we cut something that is currently in the 2014 budget and you say we cannot because you have the option to spend the money before we approve the budget? I am confused about that. Mr. Hunt: It is not the option. When you approved the Fiscal 2013 budget, you essentially appropriated the funds and at that time it was seen as a valid project. That gave the green light to pursue and they have gone through the whole process of going through the contracting, selecting of the vendor, and all of that to the point that we are ready to execute a contract. Between from mid March through the end of the fiscal year, you are now looking at potentially trying to renege on a project that is appropriated because you do not want to fund it in 2014. The reality is that we may not need to fund it in 2014 because we may spend it down and this is a project that may be spent down in Fiscal 2013. Mr. Bynum: Why was it in the budget if you did not need it? Mr. Hunt: As a catch-all in case it did not get contracted. Mr. Bynum: We put things in the budget as a catch-all? Mr. Hunt: We put it in March and it follows into May. Mr. Bynum: Then we get into the bigger debate as to whether this is a project that the County, in the long-term, huge project that I think is very unlikely ever to come to fruition. Just because it is in the queue, we should chase the money, right? I have heard this concern from Councilmember Rapozo since before I was on the Council and there are times that I totally agree with it. We get into this mode and chase the money and we say, hey this is matching funds, so we have to chase it and it is some project that never comes to fruition or somewhere down the line the County changes its mind and it has not always been the Council that changes its mind. The Northern Leg of Northern Bypass is a good example. The Administration strongly pushing this proposal even after we had a 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 6 comprehensive transportation plan that said it was a low priority and it is a huge expense for a small portion. I questioned that for years. Last year in the budget, I supported to move to cut that funding because of this reason that we were discussing these two (2) things. So yes, we need to really balance this. I understand the credibility concern. We have already gone down this road and if we stop now, what does our credibility look like and basically you are saying, we can go ahead no matter what you want Council, kind of like the Administration did last year with the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center money. After we cut it, they encumbered it anyway which I do not think was a good idea. If we move forward with this, we are making a long-term commitment to future funding for this project, correct? Mr. Dill: Not necessarily. Mr. Bynum: This money is for a study right? Mr. Dill: It is feasibility and environmental preliminary engineering, right. Mr. Bynum: If the feasibility says it is not feasible, then that money was wasted. If it says it is feasible, let us move forward and we are talking about something that takes substantial County match moneys in the future. Mr. Dill: But I would not say it is wasted because when you do the feasibility study, that is the nature of a feasibility study to determine if it is worth pursuing or not. Either way the decision is knowledge to help you move forward one way or the other. So, you have to look at other options. But I would like to clarify a couple of things. The genesis of the Lihu`e Mauka Bypass was not the landfill. It was the 1997 Long Range Transportation Plan. It came up again in the context of the discussion for the landfill as potential access for the landfill. We have since determined that it is not necessary, but would nevertheless be a significant benefit to traffic in the Lihu`e/Hanama`ulu area because it would divert traffic from going through town to get to the landfill. I just want to clarify that the genesis was not the landfill for this project. Also to clarify one other point, you will see many projects that are not encumbered yet. As I mentioned before, we are ninety-nine percent (99%) encumbered therefore you still see the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). If it was one hundred percent (100%) encumbered, you would not see the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Am I correct? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Mr. Bynum: But is it correct that the fundamental question here is do we want to make a commitment long-term to pursue this project which is likely to incur more funding in the future? I mean, if that is a really strong sentiment, then maybe we should move ahead. But the Northern Leg is a great one. Many Councilmembers came to the conclusion, that this is not why we should prioritize our funding. But it took a couple of years for the Administration to wake up to that, I think. I assume, because the money was removed this year, right? Mr. Dill: The money was removed this year, yes. Mr. Bynum: When I look at all of our transportation needs, short-term and long-term, is this the priority? I am going to find out what ever happened to Pouli Road? That was a really high priority. We spent come money. It was in the budget. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 7 I do not know as I sit here what happened to that. It still comes down to a choice of priorities and this is a fundamental time for this, what is a huge project. We are going to move forward or not? Chair Furfaro: For those who have not asked questions yet, I am going to go to Vice Chair Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: Good morning. Just wanted to clarify that the intent is that this road would be eventually would be a State project? Mr. Dill: It is identified in the 1997 plan as a State project. Ms. Nakamura: If it is a State project, does the State have funding for these types of feasibility studies? Mr. Dill: They could have pursued this, yes. That is my understanding, is these funds would have been available to them to pursue as well. I am not real familiar with the exact state of their funding. But I believe they could have pursued this. Ms. Nakamura: We just do not know what the priorities were and that is why we wanted to move it along by putting up County funding up? Mr. Dill: Correct, yes. Ms. Nakamura: But if we had done nothing, the State may or may not have decided to pursue a feasibility study. Mr. Dill: Correct. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: The ninety-nine percent (99%) is encumbered, but it is not encumbered? Mr. Dill: We are zero percent (0%) encumbered right now. You are either encumbered or you are not. Mr. Hooser: Right. Mr. Dill: But we are very close to the point where we can be encumbered. Mr. Hooser: We are not encumbered? Mr. Dill: Correct. Mr. Hooser: If we left that money in the budget, the Administration would encumber the funds, is that my understanding? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 8 Mr. Hunt: Right now it is actually considered pre-encumbered. Mr. Hooser: No, but it is either encumbered or it is not encumbered. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Hooser: If the moneys remain in the budget, the Administration's intent is to encumber the funds and move forward with the feasibility study, is that correct? Mr. Hunt: That is correct. Mr. Hooser: I mean if it is not correct, tell me. Mr. Dill: That is correct. Mr. Hooser: If we remove the funds which we already voted to do, then the Administration will encumber the funds and move forward with the project anyway. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Dill: Yes, because you have not removed them from the Fiscal Year 2013 budget. Mr. Hooser: You would disregard our clear intent and go ahead and encumber them in 2013 before our action took effect? So, you would scoop it from in front of us before we can use it for something else? Mr. Dill: You can use any terminology you like. But the Council's clear intent in Fiscal year 2013 was to fund the project and so we have diligently followed that for the last several months in scoping the project, working with DOT, and working with Federal Highways. All of our consultants have put in the effort to put in responses to our requests for proposal, we have selected a consultant, and we negotiated the contract, all following Council's clear intent in Fiscal Year 2013 CIP. This is, we feel somewhat pulling the rug from under us and that is the problem that we are having now. Mr. Hooser: Chair, I suggest we move on. We voted, they are going to do what they want to do anyway. They have already said that so nothing seems to matter. Chair Furfaro: I just want to clarify, in their defense, Mr. Hooser and I follow your point very much. When we approved it in 2012-2013, the reality is that they can move it. It does not have to come back to us. Your point is well taken. But so is Mr. Hooser's and I have never heard of...what did you say? The pre-encumbered. I have never heard that term before. Where did that come from? Mr. Hunt: Maybe Ernie can speak to that. He has done the procurement end of this. Mr. Hooser: A follow-up after he does that. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 9 Chair Furfaro: I will give you the floor back, Mr. Hooser. I do not know how you can pre-encumber something that has not been approved. ERNEST W. BARREIRA, Budget & Purchasing Director: Good morning, Chair and members of the Council. Pre-encumbrance is an actually an accounting terminology whereby a requisition must be processed before any Department submits a procurement request to the Division of Purchasing. That establishes proof that the funds that are needed to support the project are in fact, allocated within the budget and can be confirmed within our financial accounting system. It is called a "pre-encumbrance." A requisition pre-encumbers the money, a fund certification which eventually leads to a contract, a fully executed contract or the issuance of a purchase order will fully encumber the moneys. Chair Furfaro: Understood, Ernie. But what I am saying is you can do a pre-encumbrance with the money that is in this current budget? Mr. Barreira: Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: How do you do it for next year's money that we have not approved yet? Mr. Barreira: You cannot do that. That is not the intent. Chair Furfaro: That was my point. Mr. Barreira: Yes. Chair Furfaro: I promised Mr. Hooser I was going to give him the floor back. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: If the Administration wanted to, they can pull the plug on this contract because it is not encumbered and the repercussions from that would be perhaps a loss of credibility with the consultant and the State or Federal government? But would there be any other tangible repercussions, fees, or penalties? Mr. Barreira: In my recommendation, I think the issue is deserving of a legal discussion in terms of contractual obligations and the meeting of the minds which I cannot comment on. Chair Furfaro: I clearly disagree with, Ernie. You are kind of telling me it is a legal question about next year's money. I am sorry, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: No, I am finished. I am done. Chair Furfaro: Bynum and then JoAnn. Mr. Bynum: I have a question about this and what happened what happened last year. We removed funds from the study for adolescent treatment and the Administration encumbered it anyway. Then that put us out of balance, right? We violated the Charter in essence, did we not? The Administration took actions that they knew would give us an unbalanced budget. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 10 Mr. Barreira: In terms of any interpretation about a violation of the Charter, I would defer to the County Attorney. Mr. Bynum: Well, we had to fix it, right? Mr. Barreira: We did. Mr. Bynum: Because we were in the year with an unbalanced g budget which is against our Charter. g Mr. Barreira: We submitted two (2) bills to balance the budget, yes. Mr. Bynum: Right and so that is kind of what you are saying right now is that even though we know your intention, Council, we may go ahead and encumber the money anyway because we can. Mr. Barreira: I believe that is the interpretation as we sit here today. Yes, sir. Chair Furfaro: We have got so many more. Mr. Bynum: I will try to be quick. But the story I just heard and please correct me if I am wrong, this was in the Long Range Transportation Plan, State Plan since 1997, doing nothing, going no where, and there are many things in the plan that will go nowhere, we know because it is a conceptual plan. It is kind of like the bike plan Kaua`i which conceptually has paths all over the island. But we have to take subsequent action to take that concept and put it into reality and this ended up getting back on the radar screen at our request as a County, right? We will help with this and the reason was for the landfill, right? The initial reason we re-upped this, it did not come from out of the blue and now we are hearing that the landfill does not need it and it is not a requirement. It is still this long-range, but I am concerned about the credibility issue, that is why I was concerned about us last year about Hardy Street where we were actively engaged with Highways on one side of the government saying that we need to get this going, it is important for our community and it is tied to the Lihu`e Civic Plan and the Lihu`e Plan. Come on State, please help us expedite this and they did and then the Administration said no, we do not need that money for six (6) more years. That is the thing that has been happening. We are on the way to correcting that by having a six-year CIP that is meaningful. Maybe this is the death throes of us doing un-credible things with Federal Highways, but that is the name of the game for this County and for other Counties. Priorities shift, things change, that is why we have the strategy of getting ready to go so we can capture moneys when Maui makes similar decisions, right? To me it is still a big question is this the thing that we want to fund and pursue? I am open to hearing more about that and maybe even changing my mind if you really feel it is that important. Chair Furfaro: I am only allowing this discussion because this will be almost since we are in CIP, this would be like a reconsideration. But that is up to the members. JoAnn and then Mr. Kagawa. Ms.Yukimura: Thank you. Larry, you said that some assumptions of the plan are still current. My question is what assumptions are you referring to? It is also what is the amount of money that if we follow the plan, it will take to 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 11 implement the plan and within that plan, which are the priorities that are current? I do not think we have had any discussion on that. Therefore, it is not responsible to move ahead with certain projects without having a consensus between the Mayor, the Council, the County, and the State. My question to the Administration is given where we are, are you willing to not encumber the moneys, which I believe you can legally do, in deference to the Council's concerns about this Bill and come back if there is a consensus that we develop through our discussions to request the money again? Mr. Dill: I think our preference would be to proceed on the basis we are currently proceeding, get the contract executed, and keep moving forward. Chair Furfaro: That is the answer to the question. We have got a long way to go here. Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I have a follow-up. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I want to try and speed things up. I mean, we heard the answer. We heard the Mayor come in and say we have to agree to disagree at times. They are not doing anything illegal by proceeding. Do I agree with what they are doing? That is for me to decide and I mean,we are talking about the Civic Center, the landfill, the drug treatment center and we are on the Lihu`e Bypass. I mean, the plan was we were going to try to get through CIP, try to get through our additions by today whether we go late or not. At the rate we are going, even if we stay in all the way to midnight, we will not get done because we are just drifting off subject and we are not even being timed or anything. It is ridiculous. Chair Furfaro: I stated my position in the beginning. I am going to allow some dialogue here. We are half an hour into dialogue and everybody has had two (2) attempts to speak. Who has not had a second time to speak? Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I am not going to speak. What I want do is make sure that we follow the process and I mean no disrespect to anybody. But as Mr. Kagawa said, if we continue on this long dialogue that is really outside of what this issue is about, we will not get done. As much as you want to get done, Mr. Chair, we will not. I would ask that when we are on a new item, that we follow our rules, set the timer, and each Councilmember has the appropriate time, otherwise we will not. Ms. Yukimura: I have one question. Chair Furfaro: You have one question, JoAnn. Keep it to a question. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Is the Administration willing to not encumber the moneys if we keep the money in the budget in some form of contingency and allow us to have a discussion before the money is encumbered? A discussion within the next month or two (2)? Mr. Dill: As I said, we prefer to move on the path we have are moving on. We have relied on the Council's approval of the budget from last year and have moved forward accordingly. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 12 Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Well, there are changing assumptions here. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: At this point, is there any one that wants to reconsider the vote? Seeing none, thank you, gentlemen. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I want the Administration to know that you equally have to produce a reasonable discussion on why you want something to be reconsidered. We are still in CIP and we are moving along. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, if I may, just because I think from what we heard, they are going to encumber the money. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I think it would be irresponsible for us knowing that they are going to encumber the money to proceed with removing those funds. We are going to end up in the same boat. I was on the losing side,so I would encourage someone on the winning side. Whether we agree or disagree, whether it is pulling the rug from under us, one would argue that we do that too. When you folks come to our budget and we have the votes, we pull something out from under your feet. That is this process. I would highly suggest that someone on the prevailing side make the motion to reconsider. It is going,to happen. We know it is going to happen and whether we agree or disagree, I would suggest that, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Is there anyone that was on the winning side? Mr. Bynum: Now we have a different discussion about whether we should reconsider. Chair Furfaro: Yes, that is the purpose and the prevailing side was Tim, Gary, JoAnn, and the Chair. Mr. Bynum: Do I have the floor? Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I agree we should not have this long discussion right now. But basically the Administration just came up and said we are going to do what we want. We are going to create a situation like we did last year where you have an unbalanced budget and you have to fix it. That is not the way to do business right here. We have a right to pull this funding and if you move ahead after the Council has done its intent, that is highly inappropriate in my view. However, having just said that, I do not want a —you can come up with anything that we do in CIP, you could do this unless it was first year funding, right? If it had been in a previous budget previously and you did not like what the Council did, you could run out and encumber it. Is that the way we want to do business going forward or do we want to solve this problem of our credibility which has been a problem both on the Council and the Administration's side over the last few years? I want to solve the problem, but I do not like doing it under pressure. You are basically 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 13 saying we are going do something which I consider irresponsible. If you feel that really strong about it, I would be willing to vote to reconsider. Then we can have a discussion about the merits again. Ms. Nakamura: Can you make the motion? Mr. Bynum moved to reconsider the motion to remove funding for the "Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)," seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion to reconsider and second by Nadine. Nadine was a silent vote so her vote fell with the majority and she can second the motion to reconsider. We are in a motion now to reconsider made by Mr. Bynum and seconded by the Vice Chair. JoAnn, I will recognize you. Ms. Yukimura: I suggested a compromise which I thought would allow us after the budget to have a lengthy discussion. I do think the Administration owes us a plan with priorities about what projects we are aiming for and I think this is a proper time to talk about it. Actually, it is a little late. I would prefer that we land on that. If so, the money will stay in the budget. But at least we will have a discussion and give us all more clarity about what this road is about. We will get Larry to give us his assumptions that he says are current about it and we will be able to really look at the overall plan for the island in terms of what our major roads are rather than continuing to throw money down, both State and County moneys, down a rat hole. Chair Furfaro: Then that was your speech on the reconsideration. Mr. Heu. I am sorry, Mr. Hooser. I am looking at Mr. Heu. Mr. Bynum: They are both Gary. Chair Furfaro: They are both Gary, too on top of that. Mr. Hooser: I will not be supporting the motion to reconsider. I mean, if the Administration wants to disregard the intent of the Council, that is their prerogative. I do not have to agree with it and I believe as long as we did not appropriate or spend it somewhere else, then we are acknowledging that they are going to spend it and we are not spending it on something else that might be the another way to approach it. Let us not put one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) on another item, but just ignore it. I am not going to support the motion to reconsider is the bottom line. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I am going to support the move to reconsider while I actually was against the motion to take it out anyway. Last year's Council was in support of doing it so it is kind of mixed. Last year's Council approved of doing it and this year's Council by a majority vote does not. I say it is an Administrative prerogative what to do within your means to do what you want to do in following the law and that is why I will be voting to keep the moneys in. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? This is a vote on the reconsideration. If not roll call to reconsider the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 14 The motion to reconsider to motion to remove funding for the "Li.hu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)" was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: We have five (5) ayes for the reconsideration? JADE-K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Now we are reconsidering the item. My Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I know we cannot approve these funds and then ask for a proviso to come and discuss it before they are expended. I know we cannot do that. But I can ask the Administration if they would be willing to make that commitment, that we put the funds back in the budget and you do not encumber them until we can have a full dialogue at this Council. It will still be your option to encumber or not, but I am asking that in order for me to vote to keep this funding in. If you will agree to come and have a Council Meeting where we discuss these broader issues at a time where it is more appropriate. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: I will be supporting putting the funds back in and I agree with Councilmember Bynum that I think a fuller discussion is important. In looking at the six-year CIP, this is a forty million dollars ($40,000,000) construction project estimated with in the future eight million dollars ($8,000,000) of County Bond Funds being appropriated to this project. That is why this discussion of the six-year CIP is so important and I hope in the future it will happen at the end of each year or the very beginning of the fiscal year so that we can have these discussions prior to getting the budget. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Right now as we sit here today, the money is out. Chair Furfaro: For next year's budget, yes. Mr. Rapozo: Right. It is out. The money is in this year's budget and it is going to be encumbered. So, being that the money is out of next year's budget, I do not understand what action that this Council has to take because it is not in the budget. So there is really no action. If the action was to remove the money, I do not understand what we would do. It is out for next fiscal year. Steve, if I am wrong, correct me. But I am saying as we sit here today, the budget has been removed. The Administration has told us that they do not need it next year because they are going to spend it this year. We are working off a brand new budget for a new fiscal year and in the budget as we sit here today, it is not in there so we do not need to do anything. It is out. I do not believe that any action is necessary. I believe that the action was taken and that is it. Am I correct? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 15 Chair Furfaro: I think it would be appropriate to make that assumption and to get someone from Finance up here. Mr. Rapozo: I am just trying to figure out what the motion would be? The motion was not to remove, it passed, and so the money is not there for next year. The motion was not to remove it from this year which that would not be able to be done anyway. Am I correct, Steve? That the fact that the money is removed, everything is okay? Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, rules are suspended. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: Thank you. My understanding is in the March submittal there was some uncertainty as to whether this project would be done by the end of the fiscal year which is why CIP Manager Keith put it in the budget. Probably should have been amended earlier in May when we had a better timeframe as to what that was. But it probably continued to roll over. In one regard, you are right. It would not be reflected in Fiscal 2013 if we spend down now. Currently it is though. Mr. Rapozo: But we are :not discussing Fiscal Year 2013 budgets today. We are talking Fiscal Year 2014 budget. Mr. Hunt: Correct. What I am saying is that currently in the Fiscal Year 2014 it is included as a one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) line item. Mr. Rapozo: But we removed it last week. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: This Council made the motion to remove that item and it was removed. Mr. Hunt: Correct. So long as that savings are not supplanted somewhere else, then there is nothing to do. Mr. Rapozo: No, we can do whatever we want. We can add five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) if we wanted to. I mean we just have to come up with the money to fund it. But I am just saying as we discuss this today, there is no action to be taken because the money is not there. We are working off the May 8th submittal. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: The one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that everybody is talking about is not there right now. So there is really no action to be taken by this body. Obviously, now with the motion to reconsider, we have to restate the motion to remove which I would assume would get a unanimous consent. Notwithstanding all the disagreements or whatever, I mean I could sit here and tell you all the projects that I never supported that got picked. That is neither here, nor there. The body decided and the body took action. I agree with Ross that you folks have the prerogative to do it. Mr. Hunt: Correct. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 16 Mr. Rapozo: It is not irresponsible because again, one would argue when we did not pass the tax increases or the fee increases, you could use the same argument that that was irresponsible on the Council's part knowing that we did not have a balanced budget and now we have to chase moneys. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Rapozo: I would just ask that we each would use our authority on either side of the aisle and where the chips fall, is where the chips fall. Mr. Hunt: My understanding and not project specific but just in general with the CIP, it is not an eight (8) month CIP project it is the full fiscal year and there is the process that you could defund a current Fiscal 2013 by amending the CIP Budget Ordinance. So that would be the process to defund something that you did not want in the Fiscal 2014. You could do it now through amending the Fiscal 2013. Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Mr. Hunt: But to hamstring the remaining four (4) months of the year projects yea o n p ojects that you approved and we are in the committed process. Mr. Rapozo: We do not have enough time to do that right now because of the requirements so that is a moot issue. Chair Furfaro: Let me just give everybody clarify. On Friday in the budget we removed the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). We did not remove it from last year's budget. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: So that we are all clear. Now we are reconsidering that removal, right? We have approval to begin this discussion about returning it. But you have money in the previous CIP that would come cover this. Mr. Hunt: Essentially it is the same money and this was just a cover for timing lapse in case it did not happen. Chair Furfaro: I just have to go through those steps for everyone. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Thank you, Chair. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes, I wanted to second what Councilmember Rapozo said. I think my wife has a saying. She says "when the penny drop," so the penny dropped for me. The money is not in the budget. We removed it. The Administration does not need it in the budget because they are spending it on the 13th. So, we do not need to take any action, I agree. It actually makes less sense putting it back in the budget because they are spending it in 2013. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 17 Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: When you present us a budget that says here is the CIP money we want to continue with into 2014, it is fair for this Council to assume you are not going to encumber in 2013 or you would not be putting it in 2014. I am very uncomfortable with this whole discussion because what the Administration did last year, say Council, even though you cut the funds for the Adolescent Treatment we are going to go ahead and encumber it. As far as I know, that had never happened before because I can. But it was inappropriate. It was irresponsible. Now this year, Larry was clearly really unhappy and said we are right at the brink, but on Friday, had accepted that the Council said no, we are not moving forward with the project. Now you come up here this morning and say we really want this bad, will you reconsider it? But that is not all you said. You said because we have the right to encumber and we will do what we did last year again. It is highly inappropriate. This is not the way we want to do business. Yes, there is a problem, if we add the money back and you encumber it, we will be out of balance again. I think we need to follow-up with legal interpretations whether that is legal or not. Last year I was appalled when that happened. I did not make a big deal about it because we have enough things to argue about in this County so we will let it slide, it was an anomaly. It is not an anomaly, it is an intended practice. If you wanted to encumber the money in 2013, it should not have been in the 2014 budget. Do you disagree with that statement? Mr. Hunt: I will let Keith speak to that, on the timing. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Mr. Suga: I think Councilmember Bynum is bringing up some good points. As I went through the process this year and worked closely with the different Department Heads for all of the CIP projects, we went through several meetings to try to identify which projects were actually going to move forward and which projects, for example, like the Northern Leg was something that we considered to defund to move funds to more appropriate projects. I believe this is always from my experience going through the process the first time, it is certainly a timing challenge because when we submit in March, we are utilizing the unencumbered balances as of the ending of February and what moneys currently there, does not mean that the people were not working on the projects. They could have still been working through the Lihu`e Bypass Project, but at that current point in time, the moneys were not encumbered yet. But yet we have to submit something showing, at that point and time, the unencumbered balances. As we go from March to the second submission,there is the same time issue that happens where prior to the submission in May, I am working with the Analysts to look at the unencumbered balance and there could be some changes with some things that got encumbered and maybe some things did not that I have to take into consideration as we produced the May. Again, it is not as if I feel that we are waiting unit the last minute to encumber something. It is just part of the process. At that point in time, the project was not ready to be encumbered. But there are several that between perhaps March and May that have been. Mr. Bynum: But you did not remove this from the May submittal. Mr. Suga: Because at that point in time when we ran the numbers, it physically was not encumbered yet. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 18 Mr. Bynum: Between last Friday and this week you figured out that you wanted to encumber this year? Chair Furfaro: I think we are missing something here first of all. Steve, the one hundred thousand dollars 100 000 that was put in the CIP last year? ( ) p Y Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: This Council cannot take that money. Mr. Hunt: You could. You would have to amend the CIP Budget Ordinance and that is the vehicle, if you really felt strongly about defunding the project. Chair Furfaro: That is the vehicle that we would have to use? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: What we are voting on now deals with the items that show the proposed budgets. These are the new additions and deletion, right? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: We are having this discussion and I just want to remind everybody, it would take an Ordinance to move the money from the previous year. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Bynum: May I finish? Chair Furfaro: Yes you can. Mr. Bynum: I asked two (2) questions and I did not hear an answer to. Is it reasonable when the Council sees a CIP continued funding in the next fiscal year, that that signals an intention that you need the money in the next fiscal year? That is reasonable for us to assume, yes? Mr. Hunt: That would be a reasonable assumption, yes. Mr. Bynum: Is it reasonable for the Administration to say well because we do not like the policy decision you just made, we are going to hurry up and encumber this and throw our budget out of balance. Do you think that is a good practice for us as a County? Mr. Hunt: I also do not think it is a good practice to have an eight (8) month CIP budget because when the new CIP budget submit that a previously approved project is no longer valid and that really hamstrings the Administration towards getting any of these done. We have a CIP project that is not going to be one hundred percent (100%) complete by the end of next year. These are project has it all have different priorities, all have different timelines, and all we are doing is assigning funding to those projects. This particular one happens to be one that was moving forward and to go through 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 19 the entire process with a valid CIP and appropriated budget and then at the last minute we are talking about rolling over that because we are not sure if we are going to encumber and we want to earmark that for next year to say that we are still pursuing it, to now that the Council feels they does not want those fund approved. But we have gone so far and it is appropriated. The only way that we would get that message from Council is to address the current fiscal to say defund, address it. We do not think this project it valid anymore. Mr. Bynum: That was a long answer, but you still did not answer my question. Is this the kind of practice we want to do as a County, that if the Administration is not happy with the priorities we set in the next fiscal year that you will run and encumber this before, is that a good practice? Mr. Hunt: I think that is systemic within the process of the timing of CIP projects. Mr. Bynum: I do not know if it ever happened prior to last year. Maybe it had, but I do not know that it had. My other question that I asked and had not heard an answer, is if I change my vote to put this back in the budget for 2014,will the Administration agree to come in and have a dialogue about the viability of this project and implications long term before they encumber the money? Mr. Hunt: I think Larry Dill already answered that question. Mr. Bynum: What was the answer, "yes" or"no"? Mr. Hunt: They are pursuing this project. Chair Furfaro: Let me make sure we all understand things here. Friday, there was a discussion about removing one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) from the budget that was already approved. But the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is in the previous budget? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: That is your point. We can only remove that by an Ordinance because it was previously approved. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: The appropriate balance after the Ordinance is the same because it is a carryover? Mr. Hunt: Correct and if those moneys are encumbered in Fiscal 2013, so long as the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is not earmarked and re-spent, we are still in balance. It is not an issue. Chair Furfaro: Understood. On that note, I want to call for the vote. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, it is not a commentary. It is a question that I think is very relevant. I think you will agree. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 20 Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: Are there any other CIP projects in the proposed budget that are going to be encumbered this year? Mr. Suga: I believe there are. Mr. Rapozo: We need that list because we need to take it out of the funding for Fiscal Year 2014. That is a fair question. If there are other projects on this 2014 budget that you know you folks are going to encumber before the end of this fiscal year, then I would agree that it would be irresponsible for not disclosing that to this body. That to me, would be pretty irresponsible. Up until that point, I am the biggest critic of you folks, but I will tell you that I disagree with Mr. Bynum that we should be congratulating you for getting the funds encumbered and getting the project going that was approved in the current year. But if there are other projects that you folks are not telling us that is going to be encumbered, then to me, that is deception. So get that list to us before the end of today, of what projects you folks will encumber this fiscal year so we can adjust the Fiscal 2014 budget accordingly. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Chair Furfaro: I would like to call for the vote on the reconsideration. We have a motion and second, right? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura: Inquiry? We voted on the motion to reconsider, so we are voting on the motion to restore? Mr. Rapozo: No, I make the motion to remove the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) as it was earlier passed. The motion to reconsider canceled the vote. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: That we did last week. As we sit here today, the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is in the budget. I am making a motion to remove the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) line item regarding the Lihu`e Bypass Project, because we need to start over. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the funding for the "Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Clarification question? You have the floor and then Mr. Hooser. Ms. Yukimura: Basically, I hear what Councilmember Rapozo is saying is if it is like just saying we want to stay with the decision we made to remove it. Mr. Rapozo: That is what Robert says. Robert's Rules of Order says that is how to do it. When you do a motion to reconsider and it passes, it cancels out the action that was taken. Right now the act that we took last week, this body 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 21 took, removed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). If we did not do a motion to reconsider, we would not have to do anything. But because we made the motion to reconsider, it canceled out the vote so we are back as if the vote was not taken. I am making the motion again and again I am changing my position now. I am making the motion to remove the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) line item in the CIP budget. Mr. Bynum: Second. Chair Furfaro: We have second. Mr. Heu, we are on the brink of a vote. We have been...fifty five (55) minutes on this discussion, unless this is a tactic for us not to pass it, come right up and give us a brief summary. GARY K. HEU, Managing Director: I do not know. I am not clear on this whole issue of whether by this action we create an unbalanced budget as we move forward. I am not clear and so that is why I was consulting with Mr. Shimonishi and I am not sure if it is worth taking a five (5) minute recess just so that when the Council takes action, we will all be clear on what that action does. Chair Furfaro: We will take a ten (10) minute recess and I will give Mr. Rapozo the floor when we come back. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 10:07 a.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 10:16 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Can I have the County Attorney up, please? Amy. Amy could you introduce yourself? Ken, no need to come up. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. AMY I. ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney: He is coming with me though. Chair Furfaro: You are very clairvoyant and see exactly what I am going to do. Ms. Esaki: We come as a pair Chair Furfaro This is what I am going do. I am going to push this to the end of the CIP discussion. We are one (1) hour into our morning dealing with procedurals. I believe the moneys are in fact, approved in the previous budget. The fact of the matter is that it would make an Ordinance to remove it. That is my belief. Now Amy, I would like you to prove me wrong, if I am wrong and we will come back to you folks at the end of the CIP discussion. Ms. Esaki: Thank you. Chair Furfaro Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, if I may ask Amy. Amy, as I was just explaining to Mr. Heu, we went into a similar situation last year with the Adolescent 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 22 Treatment Center, so I would ask that we would review that process and I am not sure if it is a legal issue or a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), accounting, or a financial issue because they all make sense right not. If you folks could come back and I appreciate it. But I would just ask that we review last year's process because it is almost identical. Thank you. Chair Furfaro Amy, again what I am asking to you come back with at the end of the CIP, some form of legal opinion. Now if you folks are gathering somewhere, take your conversation outside of the room. I would like to move forward. I want to be very cautious on a discussion item for you folks that if you are revisiting something that in fact is a carryover, you are going to stumble on this procedural issue each time. I would strongly suggest that we are looking at our CIP as it is a proposed new item. A removal of anything that was previously approved will require an Ordinance either from the Council and/or from the Administration indicating that they are no longer doing a particular project that was in the CIP. Let us move forward now at this point. Other items in CIP for discussion today? Mr. Hooser. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Hooser: I would like to propose we remove the funding for the Kapahi Bridge replacement, four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851). I believe the County Engineer indicated that it was not going to be ready. They are looking at going back to the community and looking at changing it. These are Highway Funds also. It is not Bond Funds. It is another reason to take it out of the Highway Funds. If it was going to be funded, I think it should be in the Bond Funds and not in the Highway Funds. We need Highway Funds for operational and buses and things like that. Mr. Hooser moved to remove funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match)," seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and second. For the Engineering Department, please address us on the engineering assumptions. Do not attempt to address us on the legal or financial assumptions. Larry, you have the floor. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: As was mentioned Kapaia Bridge is a project we have been going through a lengthy design and Federal 106 Process on to arrive at a firm scope. We have been working with the community and our consultants to get that done. The design funds are already encumbered and moving forward. We hope to be able to conclude the design of that project in Fiscal Year 2014 and be able to go out to bid for the construction of the bridge. This is a project that it is a Federal Highways funded bridge and therefore it is eligible for Federal Highways Fund, therefore we do our biannual bridge inspections. Kapahi Bridge was identified as a bridge that is in critical condition so we moved this one to the forefront as that we would like to move on first to get repaired. To us, this is a critical project and we would like to keep the funding there Chair Furfaro: Any more questions of Mr. Dill before I call the meeting back to order? Mr. Hooser and then JoAnn. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 23 Mr. Hooser: Just to clarify, you will not be ready until 2015, I thought you said? My question was that I thought it will not be ready for construction until 2015, so we do not need it in this year's budget. Mr. Dill: It may not be ready until 2015 because of the 106 Process it is difficult to put a timetable on when the design will be done. In the worst case, I think we were to keep on the STIP because it is a Federal aids bridge, we need the moneys in Fiscal Year 2014 to match the Federal aid funds that are available. Mr. Hooser: The question about whether it is Bond Funded or Highway Funded, Chair, do you want them to address that? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Where are we at Keith? Mr. Suga: We are on page 3, I guess it would be of the CIP underneath the Highway Fund section. Chair Furfaro: It is page 5 for us on the May 8th submittal. Questions for Keith? Go ahead, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I guess the question is that why could we not — I do not see the rationale for spending Operating Funds generated from the gas and the other direct fees like that for Capital Improvement Project? Those should be bond funding for major Highway Funds for a bridge project like this. Those funds could be used for operations and for paving roads, right? Mr. Dill: Correct. Mr. Hooser: We just raised taxes and the bus needs money and so I thought it would be more appropriate to fund this in the Bond Fund. Mr. Dill: Well, it certainly eligible for Highway Fund use. Mr. Hooser: I understand that. I am done. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. You said you are almost done with the design work? Mr. Dill: I am not going to say we are almost done. We anticipate it being done in Fiscal Year 2014 and then once that design is done then we will have construction drawings that we can go out and bid for. Ms. Yukimura: But the design is that twenty-two (22) foot one-lane bike lane and some kind of a shoulder for the pedestrian? Mr. Dill: We have not gone back to the community yet, but we have after recent reconvening with our team, looking at down scaling more proportions of the existing bridge. Likely be taking out sidewalk and bike lane because the historic folks are more concerned about maintaining the existing dimensions of the bridge. We are going to down scaling it. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 24 Ms. Yukimura: It does not have to be twenty-two (22) feet wide? Mr. Dill: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: How much for the design and how much is for construction? Mr. Dill: Well, we have in here in the budget four hundred thirty-two thousand dollars ($432,000), so with the Federal match, that would mean a probing project of a little over two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the construction. I do not have the numbers for the design in front of me because that was a previous year's appropriation. Ms. Yukimura: This is for construction then, this four hundred thirty-two thousand dollars ($432,000)? Mr. Dill: Yes. There may be some change order things that comes up along for design. But I do not anticipate that they will be significant at this point. The majority of this is for construction. Ms. Yukimura: If it were removed, then what would be the consequences? Mr. Dill: I beg your pardon. Ms. Yukimura: If it were to be removed, what would be the consequences? Mr. Dill: We would not have a match for our Federal Highways funds. There is always the possibility that we do not have matching funds that the funding can be taken away. Ms. Yukimura: The prospect is to actually do a replacement bridge? Mr. Dill: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Is that what the community has suggested or is there some talk is about a rehab, like Kapaia Swinging Bridge? Mr. Dill: Those details have to be worked out. We are going back with a proposal to them that is a long the dimensions of the existing bridge. But because the bridge is in such poor condition now in the existing condition, I do not know how much of a rehab is possible. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Other questions on this matter? Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: Just to note that in the report that was submitted to us, the design completion by June 2013. Has that been pushed back now? Mr. Dill: Yes. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 25 Ms. Nakamura: Is that for another year? Mr. Dill: Well, not for a year, I hope. I am hoping by the end of this calendar year. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you very much. Chair Furfaro: For design? Mr. Dill: I do not have that number with me. I can probably get it to you shortly. Chair Furfaro: How short is shortly? Mr. Dill: August. Chair Furfaro: We will move on to another item. We will excuse you. We are going come back to this. Larry, you can step out. The next question is for the two (2) gentlemen. Ms. Nakamura: If we are going to have a narrower bridge, do we need fewer moneys for this project? LYLE TABATA, Deputy County Engineer: Right now, it is slated the estimate is what this money is there for. In order to stay on the STIP, we need to have the matching funds for what was estimated. If we were to remove this, like Larry mentioned earlier, a possibility of complete removal and they take the funds because we are not { available with our match. ° Ms. Nakamura: What I am asking, if we are going from a twenty (20) feet wide situation with bike paths and so forth and now we are saying that we may kind of down size it, then will that affect the costs of the project? Mr. Tabata: Potentially. However, some of the requests from the community to match almost directly the existing esthetics will possibly increase the costs and we will need more money. So, I cannot answer that right now. It depends on the outcome of the 106 Process and the design. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. This time next year you will have a better estimate of what our actual matching fees may be? Mr. Tabata: Exactly. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Steve, can I ask you to come up? Steve, as we start to get this kind of information for projects that will be done in 2015 and 2016 and so forth. But to get in line, we have to pay our dues upfront. Does the Federal government realize what a horrible position that puts a small political subdivision like us in? That we have to earmark funds that affect for at least two (2) years our cash flow. Especially with the conditions of a bond. It is pretty obvious, right? We are not going to get to this thing until 2015/2016 and yet we have to stay in line by putting"money with our mouth is." 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 26 Mr. Hunt: That is correct. What we are doing essentially is within the existing bond float, we are earmarking funds and we recognize we are not going to spend all fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) in CIP within any one (1) year. It takes time to schedule and get these projects in line and until we anticipate a future bond float, then we are committing again those projects that could be used in other projects that may come soon. Chair Furfaro: So, you see where my questions are going? When are we anticipating a new bond float? • Mr. Hunt: Well, obviously a new bond float would have to look at our revenue sources for repayment on that debt and maybe possibly timing those to some of our 2005 bonds that may be maturing and trying managing that debt service. Certainly, with the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and the landfill on the horizon, those will be projects that will require a major bond float and we also have to look at the issues of privatization that go along with that and how we structure that bond. Chair Furfaro: I think you understand my statement here, right? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: We are putting almost five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in line for what could be two (2) years and if we do not have it there, we are not in line. Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Unfortunately. Thank you, Steve. Mr. Hooser and then JoAnn. Mr. Hooser: Yes, and one of the points is that this is Highway Funds also. It is not Bond Funds. Chair Furfaro: No, I understand that. Mr. Hooser: So, I think that it makes it even worse. Chair Furfaro: Let me clarify my question. I am thinking if it is Highway Funds and we are going to use it, then we ought to anticipate putting it in a future bond, that is what I was saying. Now you kind of follow my flow here. Mr. Hooser: Yes. The matching, you said it is likely or possible, but is it a requirement that we provide actual cash in the bank for matching funds to stay in there? Go ahead. Mr. Tabata: Councilmember Hooser, yes. We need to have the money, so to speak, set aside to match and that is the unfortunate thing until such time that we are ready to spend it, to be and stay in line. That is the dilemma that we have since we have come on board that we have been moving funds around to be ready for the shovel ready projects. As we have been moving them forward, this is our third budget that you see a lot of jockeying and moving the money around because we do not want the Bond 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 27 Fund sitting there on the shelf for that distance in time. We have been moving them to where we can almost more immediately spend them. Mr. Hooser: If there was reductions in the bond CIP sufficient to cover this amount, it would be shifted to the bond CIP, is that correct? Mr. Hunt: That is correct. That is an eligible project. Mr. Hooser: I am concerned. When we have things like the Kapa'a Pool and bus stops and lots of other things that might be good use of this money, too. I hate to see five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more sitting there, waiting on a project that could be a long time coming. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: What if we were to keep just half the amount in there? Does that make any difference in terms of the STIP funding? Mr. Tabata: Yes. We need to keep the appropriate match for the intended estimate. Ms. Yukimura: But if a narrower bridge will cost less money than a smaller match might also work? Mr. Tabata: But we do not have that estimate. We are still, as I mentioned earlier, are in the design phase and there are certain other accessories to the bridge that might make it higher. Ms. Yukimura: That might make it higher? Mr. Tabata: Yes. We are at a point where we are not done with the designs so this as the original estimate. It will be adjusted. The thing with the STIP program is if we say that we can reduce, we will likely not see that money back, because they will take it and give it to another County or another project somewhere else. We go with the best estimate we can in the initial conceptual design of the project and as we move forward, we polish it and we make changes. You will see some additional funds required in other projects that have to do with the Federal funding and the STIP. Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, Lyle. We need to stay on the subject matter. Gentlemen, if you do not know, I only have five (5) members tomorrow. That means that everything that you have in front of us has to get one hundred percent (100%) approval. Let us not go back through all the history and everything. Let us find out the principle pieces in each process and I think Lyle has told us that we need to put one hundred percent (100%) of our twenty percent (20%) in front and if not, we go to the back of the line. That is about what you told us, right? Mr. Tabata: That is right. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Call for the question. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 28 Chair Furfaro: Call for the question. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair this is to remove funding for Kapahi Bridge Replacement. The motion to remove funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match)" in the amount of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 2, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL- 0. Chair Furfaro: The motion fails 5:2. Am I correct? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Next item, CIP. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I have — and I hate to open up the dialogue. It is kind of along the lines, although Anini Bridge, we had the discussion during the budget session and they had appropriated four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) and I noticed that in the May 8th they upped that another one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) which would make this bridge replacement, if we are going along the lines of a Federal match, a two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) project for a very small bridge. I know I brought up the option of pursuing or at least researching a prefabricated bridge. The consultants said a bridge like that would be about five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). I do not necessarily agree with that. Now it is up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in the CIP Bond Fund and I still think that is a lot of money for that small bridge out in Anini. I do not know if I am prepared to make the motion to remove it, but I do believe that is a lot of money for that small bridge. I will just make the motion to remove. So that we can have the discussion. Chair Furfaro: I need a second before I can recognize anybody. Mr. Rapozo moved to remove the funding for the Anini Bridge, seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Hooser. Lyle, you can have the floor. Mr. Tabata: Council Chair, Councilmember Rapozo, after that discussion we went back and really looked at this closer. We have re-programmed this project to not use STIP funds and to do the project entirely in-house. We re-evaluated our 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 29 concerns and we have determined that we could do this project in-house for a lot less money and so this appropriation with the additional is not a match, but it is to do the project entirely with County funds only. Chair Furfaro: The number goes down from five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), say we do it in-house for four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000)? Mr. Tabata: No. The original amount in was for two million dollars ($2,000,000) and so that was the twenty percent (20%) match. Now that we are not needing our match but we need the entire amount to do the project with County funds, it is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) total. Chair Furfaro: It is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), either it goes as a match to make the two million dollars ($2,000,000) or it is ours and you use one hundred percent (100%) of it to improve the bridge? Mr. Tabata: Exactly, one hundred percent (100%) County funds. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and thank you. I appreciate the consideration. With that, I will withdraw the motion to remove. Mr. Rapozo withdrew his motion to remove funding for the Anini Bridge. Mr. Hooser withdrew his second. Chair Furfaro: New items. Ms. Yukimura: Why does being on STIP funding cost more at such a dramatic amount? Mr. Dill: When we receive Federal Highways funds it comes with a lot more requirements attached that we have to go through than we do if we just do the project ourselves. For instance when you have Federal Highway funds, we have are required to go through the Federal 106 Process which has certain criteria, we have to hire consultants, etcetera. It simplifies the process and we are really hoping it will accelerate the process a lot so that we can get this project done a lot sooner. Ms. Yukimura: Well, I commend you for your thoughtfulness on this issue, if we can do it for cheaper. But I wanted to know because I want to understand when we need to go for STIP and when we do not. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Larry, I do not want your financial answer here from your team. I want your engineering answer. Can this little bridge be deferred for one (1) year? Mr. Dill: No. In our recent biannual inspection the need was critical. Chair Furfaro: That is all I need. It is critical. Your motion was withdrawn. New items, we are entertaining new CIP items. JoAnn, you have the floor. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 30 Ms. Yukimura: I want to remove forty-one thousand one hundred eighty dollars ($41,180) from the Host Community Benefits because this is what was calculated based on the solid waste tipping fees increase and because the tipping fees increase did not pass, we do not even have those moneys to allocate, and we do not have the obligation either. Chair Furfaro: Do I have a second on that motion? Ms. Yukimura moved to remove funding for "Host Community Benefit" in the amount of forty-one thousand one hundred eighty dollars ($41,180) due to Bill No. 2473 —Solid Waste Tipping Fees failing by a vote of 2:5, seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Discussion? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. I will be not supporting this deletion and this is my reason. The Kekaha community was under the understanding that the mountain of rubbish would not be going any higher. We changed the terms of the game. We decided that we are just going to do it higher anyway because we cannot do the lateral and for that, I say we owe Kekaha this amount no matter what the tipping fee verdict was. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, thank you very much and I will agree with Mr. Kagawa. In fact as we go through the additions I am seriously considering adding more funds to that Host Community Benefits. I shared my concerns and we will have discussion on Wednesday as far as the Host Community Benefits. But regardless of my concerns right now, I believe as Mr. Kagawa stated that the decision to move forward with another vertical expansion is going to impact that community tremendously. I believe they should be compensated. I will not be supporting the removal. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: I agree and have worked really hard to move the solid waste process along, so we would not have to continue to depend on the landfill out at Kekaha and that is one of the underlying reasons I have been asking the Administration to address the management issue because I believe that is where the problem is. But if you want to stop or lessen the increase to Kekaha Landfill, then you want to increase the solid waste tipping fees because that causes people to look for other options. I mean that is one of the things that we should pass in order to lessen the impact on Kekaha. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? If not, call for the vote. Go ahead. Mr. Bynum: I have a question. This reduces the additional amount that would have is been there, if we pass the tipping fees? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, it was calculated on fifty-eight cent ($0.58) a ton. Mr. Bynum: Was that our agreement in the last budget that that would be the calculation? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 31 Ms. Yukimura: Pardon me. Chair Furfaro: No. Here is how it went. If I can answer you, Mr. Bynum. There was a proposed increase in tipping fees and the percentage of the old schedule matched with that contribution. If it was nine percent (9%) of whatever raised what the estimate to raise would have added this forty thousand dollars($40,000). But the Bill to increase the fee did not pass. So, the question is should we leave that money knowing that the tipping fees did not increase or should we knowing that it did not pass, take it out? Mr. Bynum: Then Mr. Furfaro, I thought there might be some people that were reconsidering the tipping fee vote? Do we know that is going to be on a future agenda? Chair Furfaro: Well, it can be, if I get a letter that states for reconsideration. But I should have that letter pretty quick before the next time we meet. Go ahead, JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: This does not remove the Host Community Benefits. It will still be given per the tons that go into the landfill. Chair Furfaro: At the current rate. Ms. Yukimura: At the current rate. All it does is it removes the increase which did not pass. We really do not have it to give. The solid waste operations are heavily dependent on General Fund. If we do not have it from the increase in fees, we have to take from the General Fund and that means depriving a lot of other needs of the money. If we decide to reconsider and increase the tipping fees we can put that back, too. But right now we do not even have it to give as far as I am concerned. The existing tipping fees will — a portion of that will continue to accrue for the Host Community Benefits to Kekaha. Chair Furfaro: What is in there now continues. The question is if it is rumored a reconsideration, then a portion of that should be reallocated to Kekaha. But I want to call for the vote right now. The motion to remove funding for "Host Community Benefit" in the amount of forty- one thousand one hundred eighty dollars ($41,180) due to Bill No. 2473 — Solid Waste Tipping Fees fail by a vote of 2:5 was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: That is 3:4. Mr. Bynum: Just to make sure I understand. We did not approve the tipping fees, but we did approve another increase to the Host Community Benefits even though we did not approve the fees? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 32 Chair Furfaro: The Host Community Benefits are fixed at the current tipping fee, yes. Mr. Bynum: Right. Chair Furfaro: But I am saying if someone is reconsidering the tipping fees, there should be a reconsideration of the vote. That is what I am saying. The amount and the vote again? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The amount is forty-one thousand one hundred eighty dollars ($41,180) and the vote was 3:4, which failed. Chair Furfaro: Which failed. But I want to make sure that we all understand that my vote is also contingent for reconsideration of the tipping fees and that is when the subject will come up again. Next item, please. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes, Chair. I am proposing that we delete Pono Kai Seawall construction of one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141). Also, a separate item but I am going to suggest the same thing to the Moana Kai Seawall construction which is one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000). Overall, it is a three million dollars ($3,000,000) plus, but we will do one at a time. The Pono Kai seawall and my hope is that we could reduce the Bond Fund CIP sufficient to reconsider the Kapahi Bridge, shifting it there, which would free up Highway Funds, which in essence frees up Operating General Funds because we all need more General Funds. That would be my end game so to speak and I probably should not have brought up the Kapahi until after we dealt with the Bond. But that is what my hope is, that we are able to do that. The Pono Kai Seawall, I was down there yesterday and walk that area frequently. Yes, there is erosion. But I do not know why we are spending public funds possibly to protect the footpath, the walking path. Other than that, there is plenty of green space and it is private property. It is one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) and I believe in the long run, actually the short run, hardening of the coastline is bad public policy and that we should not do that except when there is public resources that we have to defend or life and health type of thing. I also looked at the Aliomanu Seawall, Aliomanu Road, and I drove out there. That road accesses a number of homes so I could see how that is vital to emergency vehicles and ingress/egress. So, that is not on the list. But I see the Pono Kai Seawall as something that could be deleted. I will make a motion to that effect. Mr. Hooser moved to remove the funding for "Pono Kai Seawall Construction" in the amount of one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: There is a motion and second. Are we dealing with both items in your motion? Mr. Hooser: One at a time probably is better. Chair Furfaro: I think that is best. I want to make sure we are clear. Mr. Hooser: It is the Pono Kai Seawall for one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141). 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 33 Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I will try to be brief, but the Pono Kai Seawall since Hurricane Iniki history with the County, we have been back and forth whether we are going to replace/repair. I think there is a hold up at the Department of Health. I think we are currently on the repair side of that debate. I am going to support this, but for maybe a different reason. We did a Kapa'a Ocean Study of littoral cell that includes the Pono Kai Seawall and the Kapa'a Beach Park, that study has never been discussed at this Council that I am aware of and that study gives an option of doing beach nourishment and in essence the potential to create twenty (20) feet to fifty (50) feet of beach in front of the seawall and to retain that sand. I think it needs to be looked at in conjunction with the Po`ipu Beach study which I am waiting to get my hands on because it may not be necessary to do that Pono Kai Seawall. It has been in the current state for years and basically it needs maintenance. My personal view is that it does not need a security fence that has been up there. It just needs regular monitoring and filling of any kind of seepage that happens behind the wall. So, for those reasons, and I hope we find time in the next few months to follow-up on the other options that we have expended considerable County money on studying. So, yes. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to know from Public Works if any of that money is already encumbered? Chair Furfaro: Brevity, please. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: There are three (3) projects mentioned by Councilmember Hooser, `Aliomanu road reconstruction, Pono Kai Seawall, and Moana Kai. Chair Furfaro: Question right now is Pono Kai. Mr. Dill: Pono Kai was one of the three (3) projects that taking a long time through permitting and it looks like they are going to come out of permitting by the end of this calendar year. We have been monitoring this project as Councilmember Bynum mentioned, monitoring it to take care of my maintenance to do to make sure it does not fall into the ocean. It is a basic problem with it is construction that it is always subject to erosion in that area and will be an ongoing problem. It is County property so it protects County property, including the path. We feel it would be a mistake to remove the funding from this project because it would be ready to go in Fiscal Year 2014. We kind of defunded it last year understanding the permitting challenges we were having and brought it forth again this year because we believe it is going to be ready to go this year. Chair Furfaro: Any further questions? Larry, I want to say this project is almost five (5) years going and the fact of the matter is yes, the walkway is County property, but I am more concerned with the fact that if the erosion goes beyond the walkway we now find ourselves dealing with potential litigation issues with the condominium association for not taking action. I just want to say that. Nadine, you have the floor. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 34 Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to say that I had a conversation with Ruby Pap from Sea Grant because I had the same question about the hardening of this area. She felt that the seawall that working through the design issues with the Department of Health, but that it was needed in conjunction with beach nourishment. I do not know if that is part of this funding proposal. Mr. Dill: There is no beach nourishment as part of this funding. Ms. Nakamura: But her feedback very recently was that it was needed for that area. Chair Furfaro: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to share with you, I scheduled the CIP one entire day when we did budgeting and now we are coming up with these kinds of questions. I just want to make sure that we do not run out of time. But we gave a whole day to our calendar to go over CIP. Mr. Bynum you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: We went deep into this and history of the building of the seawall passed after Iniki with Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) funds. It really was not built correctly. It was an emergency procurement. So, we all know this history, but we can manage that. It was not in last year's budget and I just think it is important to look at the beach nourishment options because we have a critical need in Po`ipu. It is an economy of scales things. If we move to beach nourishment, it is better to do a lot all at once rather than to do a little bit here and there because of the kind of equipment you have to mobilize. I just think we should not spend money when we decide later that we decide to bury that seawall in sand. You build a brand new one and then burry it in sand and manage that coastline in a different model than seawalls with beach nourishment. That is where the world has moved and the State of Hawaii is kind of behind that game on this. This is very common in Florida, the Gulf Coast, and California. They are moving away from seawalls. I am going to stick to my guns on this one. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: My purpose is twofold, because I do not support hardening the shoreline, but also to be able to shift those funds into the bond account and because we are still working on permits and you are hoping by the end of the year type of things, there are no matching funds or no requirement to hold these funds there in order to get matching funds. We could fund them at a later date or reduce funding because it is not likely you will spend the entire one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) during this coming fiscal year. Mr. Dill: Well, when we encumber the funds we will need to have the entire amount because you do need them available as you spend them, you need them when you encumber them for the contract. We would need them all. Mr. Hooser: But once the permits are secured, then we could theoretically fund them next fiscal year and let the project slip by six (6) months assuming that the permits were done when you said they were done. Mr. Dill: I guess that is always an option to defer a project, but I do not recommend that in this case. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 35 Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: When you get the questions, rather than getting more dialogue, we do not recommend, it is urgent, give us those kinds of answers. I will say again, we had a whole day for this. Mr. Rapozo, you wanted the floor? Mr. Rapozo: No, I am ready to vote. Chair Furfaro: I am ready to vote, too. JoAnn, you had the floor once and I will give it to you again. But folks, we need to start moving. Ms. Yukimura: In light of the concern about adding the beach replenishment, would you have objections to re-titling the project to Pono Kai Seawall solution to leave it flexible because I really think you should look at the total context it needs to be. Oceanit is the design consultant, right? Mr. Dill: Yes, that is correct Ms. Yukimura: Well, so I do not know if they have been asked. I am not feeling confident that there has been a big picture addressing of the issue which I believe and I will vote for to support construction. But I would like to give the flexibility in case things come up in the process that you could use it both for sand replenishment and construction or however. It will not limit you to not use it for construction. But I would just like to give more flexibility. Mr. Dill: I suppose I would not object to that. To be perfectly upfront about everything, the amount in budget is based on our anticipated construction cost for the on construction drawings. It would take a major change in the scope. Chair Furfaro: Which is not what we are doing now? Mr. Dill: Right. Chair Furfaro: We are not changing scope and adding money. We will add later if somebody finds the money, they can add. Ms. Yukimura: I am not adding. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I just want to make sure we understand that. I do not think there is anybody here who is in favor of hardening things. The reality is that this problem has been in front of us for five (5) years. I myself have had to go to one of the association meetings. You have gone to the association meetings. I think there is also the secondary question, doing nothing might inject some legal response. I am going to call for the vote. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is to remove funding in the amount of one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141). 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 36 The motion to remove the funding for "Pono Kai Seawall Construction" in the amount of one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Chair Furfaro: 4:3. The removal of the seawall repair passes. We have another one. Moana Kai. We had a motion a second on Moana Kai. The amounts? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We do not have a motion or a second. Chair Furfaro: There is no motion? Mr. Hooser moved to remove the funding for "Moana Kai Seawall Construction" in the amount of one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Discussion? Any from the Engineering Department? Yes, Mr. Kagawa and then Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: My rational for the last vote was because of the Kapa'a Ocean Study. It does not cover this area. Moana Kai Seawall may eventually is going to need to be replaced. If we are ready to move ahead, I am going to support keeping the funding in the budget. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Moana Kai Seawall is similar to Pono Kai where we need to do it to protect the erosion and protect the safety of the bike path, I guess. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Yes. I am sorry, the road right there as well, right along the seawall. I forget the name of the road, Moana Kai Road is right there at the bike path and so it also protects the road. Mr. Kagawa: A little different in that not primarily the bike path, but the road as well. Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. { Mr. Bynum: I just wanted to say, that neither of these projects in my mind has anything to do with the bike path and that history at Pono Kai, the 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 37 ocean and Iniki almost took the buildings down. It is there to protect the assets that have been there. I will never support hardening a shoreline to protect the bike path. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote. The motion to remove the funding for "Moana Kai Seawall Construction" in the amount of one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4. Chair Furfaro: 3:4, the motion fails. Moana Kai stays. Mr. Dill. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: I am sorry Council Chair. I forgot that when I left the room and came back in to let you know the design cost for the Kapahi Bridges. Chair Furfaro: I have not forgotten. I will come back to you later. Mr. Dill: You want to come back to it later? Chair Furfaro: Yes, I am going to come back to that. I am going to see if there are any new items. Going once, twice—JoAnn, to you? Ms. Yukimura: I would like to the Northern Leg Koloa Bypass (County Match) under the Highway Fund. Ms. Yukimura moved to remove the funding for the "Northern Leg K6loa Bypass (County Match)" in the amount of thirty-nine thousand nine hundred eighty-six dollars ($39,986), seconded by Mr. Bynum. There being no objections, the rules are suspended. Chair Furfaro: Did you hear the proposal, Larry? Mr. Dill: I am sorry. Chair Furfaro: Your motion and second, would you restate is it. Ms. Yukimura: To remove the North Leg Koloa Bypass Road (County Match). 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 38 Chair Furfaro: And the amount? Ms. Yukimura: Thirty-nine thousand nine hundred eighty-six dollars ($39,986) on page 5. Mr. Dill: Mr. Chair and Councilmember Yukimura, as you can see we have already removed the majority of the funding in that line item. We have completed the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and with the completion of the EIS we are now able to acquire the land from the landowner. Then we plan to put a hold on this project. But this moneys that is left in there is for the purpose of acquiring the land. I think it is important to retain those funds too. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I think so too especially since the Council voted to obtain those lands. Go ahead, JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I agree that land — I wish all we had done is acquire the land and not done the EIS and all of that other stuff which I consider wasted money at this point. I withdraw my motion. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her motion to remove the funding for the "Northern Leg Koloa Bypass (County Match)" in the amount of thirty-nine thousand nine hundred eighty-six dollars ($39,986). Mr. Bynum withdrew his second. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, moving forward, Mr. Hooser you had another item? Mr. Hooser: I was going to talk about reconsidering the Kapahi Bridge at the appropriate time. Chair Furfaro: Well, we do not need to reconsider it because we did not take a vote. He just went to do some research for us. No, we did not vote on it. Am I correct? Yes, we did not vote on it. Mr. Hooser: I thought we did. Chair Furfaro: No, we took a break to let him research some information. Mr. Kagawa. • Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I think I recall there was a motion and a second though so if we can withdraw those. Chair Furfaro: The motions are there, but we did not vote on the Kapahi Bridge until we got this information. Larry let us go to the information that you found for us, Kapahi Bridge. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: Kapahi Bridge the design contract amount is about four hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars ($429,000). 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 39 Chair Furfaro: So we did vote? Hold on a second. We did vote and it failed. My apologies to everyone. I thought we were waiting for that information. But go ahead. Tell us what you found out. Mr. Dill: The design contract for the Kapahi Bridge is about four hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars ($429,000). Chair Furfaro: Evidently that money stays then because the motion to remove it failed. Mr. Dill: That is already encumbered under contract moving forward. That is a previous year appropriation and actually that is the whole contract amount. The County's match would be twenty percent (20%) of that, so eighty thousand dollars ($80,000). Chair Furfaro: It eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) is our match for the design piece? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Now we can start a new discussion, Jade. Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: I believe the design was in 2013 budget and so the funds that we are discussing now in this budget are the match for the construction is that correct? Mr. Dill: Actually the design was the prior year. Mr. Hooser: The motion that was voted down was for the construction match. The design has already been funded out of a prior budget. Chair Furfaro: Correction on that. There was thirty-nine thousand dollars ($39,000) left over from the carryover, is that the design piece was left? Mr. Dill: No. Ms. Yukimura: We finished that. Thirty-nine thousand dollars ($39,000) was the Po`ipu Bypass. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, page 5 Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: Page 5. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Under the Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: Thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000). Mr. Dill: Right Chair Furfaro: Was left. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 40 Mr. Dill: From the design portion, yes. Chair Furfaro: That is left from the design? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: That is not earmarked for the design? Mr. Dill: Correct. Chair Furfaro: That is left. Now we are correct. Thank you. Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Hooser: In the interest of time, I would like to make a motion to reconsider the decision removing the Kapahi Bridge money from the highway CIP fund, that is four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851). We voted against that motion. But I would like to ask for the reconsideration with the purpose of moving those funds into the Bond Fund and therefore freeing up Highway Funds and essentially general funds as well. M. Yukimura: You mean moving the project. Mr. Hooser: Yes, moving the project. Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, procedurally. I do not think you were in the majority so you cannot make that motion. Mr. Hooser: That is right. Chair Furfaro: You have to encourage a Councilmember in the majority for the reconsideration. Mr. Rapozo moved to reconsider the motion to remove funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Now we are copasetic. Motion and second to reconsider. I will give Mr. Hooser the floor. Mr. Hooser: Mr. Chair, I think it is all about said. I think we discussed the bridge. This would not impact bridge construction whatsoever. It just shifts these funds into the Bond Fund. There is space there created from the sea wall money and I think, make better fiscal sense and allow us greater flexibilities in the General Operating Budget General Fund. Chair Furfaro: Very good. The question shall be called for now The motion to reconsider the motion to remove funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match) was then put, and carried by the following vote: pi 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 41 FOR RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL— 6, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1. Chair Furfaro: 7:0. Ms. Yukimura: On the motion to reconsider. Chair Furfaro: Now we will call for the vote. Mr. Hooser: Now a motion to increase the CIP Bond funding by four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) for the Kapahi Bridge replacement County match. Mr. Hooser moved to remove the funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match)" in the amount of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Rapozo: I have a procedural question. His motion was to p p q add which would require four (4)votes. So, I would suggest that the motion be amended to q ( ) gg remove the money which would require four (4) votes and then when we get to the adds, you add to the Bond Fund. Mr. Hooser: Motion to reconsider was not sufficient? Chair Furfaro: No the motion to reconsider was sufficient, but we are now talking about adding an item. Mr. Rapozo: My suggestion would be —your motion to remove it from the fund and then when we get to the adds you can make the motion and only because of the requirements of the votes. Mr. Hooser: I understand. I would like to restate my motion to reflect the comments of Councilmember Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: Very good. Mr. Rapozo: Call for the question. I think we had more than enough discussion. Chair Furfaro: Call for the question. The motion to remove the funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacement (County Match)" in the amount of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL—6, 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 42 AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Moving right along. Any additional CIP items? Going once, going twice. JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I have a proposal that re-describes the Kilauea Agriculture Park. But does not change the funding for it. Should I do that at a later time or should I do it now? Chair Furfaro: If it does not challenge the funding, I would not do it now. Ms. Yukimura: but there will be a time later? Chair Furfaro: I mean we could certainly expand any narrative you want on Kilauea Park. Ms. Yukimura: It is actually amends the title. Chair Furfaro: Amend the title, okay. Let us entertain it now. Ms. Yukimura: I propose to amend the title from Kilauea Agriculture Park-Design to Islandwide Agriculture Park System Planning and Design for two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) and then Islandwide Agriculture Park system construction for two hundred thirteen thousand four hundred seven dollars ($213,407). Ms. Yukimura moved to change the project title from "Kilauea Agriculture Park-Design" to "Islandwide Agriculture Park System," seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion as such, stated. Would you state it one more time, JoAnn. We have a second from Mr. Hooser. Ms. Yukimura: Actually I am breaking up the moneys. If that is permitted. Can I just explain the concept? Right now all of those moneys are designated for Kilauea Agriculture Park, but the Office of Economic Development has told us there are major problems with the policy decisions about what kind of Agriculture Park it is going to be, the issues of birds, and water, and so forth. I would like to propose that we direct the Office of Economic Development instead to consider an Islandwide Agriculture Park System, three (3) lots of twenty-five (25) acres at Kilauea Agriculture Park with no frills, two hundred (200) acres at Kalepa of State land, and some acreage on the West Side. A lot of this has to be developed, but the Office of Economic Development using a consultant or figuring out a way to do it and working with a Committee of Agriculture stakeholders would set polices about how we would lease our lands? How we would qualify farmers? How long it would be for whether houses would be included on the agriculture lot and if not, how to address agriculture theft issues? How they would establish water rates and amounts? Who would be a managing entity for it? But the goal would be an Islandwide Agriculture Park System for farmers. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 43 Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser and then Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Hooser: Speaking in support, I am not sure if we need two (2) categories. But broadening the title to allow flexibility to address agriculture park issues Countywide, I think is a wise move. I actually prepared a motion to delete the funds and decided not to. But I like Councilmember Yukimura's suggestion in terms of broadening the description to allow the flexibility. Again, I do not know if we need two (2) categories or not. Chair Furfaro: Actually I do want to say that we should only broaden the description for this purpose. I see splitting it and designating certain amounts as a new project and should not be part of this discussion. We should it keep it as one (1) item for the body. Mr. Rapozo you have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: I agree, Mr. Chair, that would be reducing the fund and adding a new line. I will not supporting that. I can tell you the Kilauea Agriculture Park project has been around a long time. I am satisfied really. I am kind of disappointed that it has taken this long. I understand there are some issues. But I want to hear that from Economic Development. I want Economic Development to come up and say this is what we want to do. What Councilmember Yukimura just stated was she wanted done and it may not be in line with what the Administration wants and as I have learned over the years, many of our initiatives just do not get addressed because it is not in line. I agree that a lot these things need to be revisited. But I want it to happen with a discussion in the Administration and not basically telling the Administration what to do. I will not be supporting it. The Kilauea people have been waiting a long, long time. This agriculture park was part of a condition a long time ago and we have failed. This County has failed in not making that happen. But I do not think taking it away from Kilauea now is the solution. I think we need to work towards making it happen and that is my position on this. I will not be supporting the removal or the change. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, I want to make sure that you understand I am only supporting the title change. You have the floor. Mr. Bynum: Yes, a commitment was made to Kilauea more than thirty (30) years ago, I believe at this point. The Baptiste Administration finally moved to acquire the land. But the last kind of update I have heard, there are serious problems with proceeding forward with what was intended thirty (30) years ago and the primary issue that nobody seems to want to just handle is that there is no agriculture water on this parcel. Why would the County with all the agriculture land that we have, that has intact water systems, why would we be putting an agriculture park where there is no agriculture water anymore? That is the fundamental problem I think and there are others. I am going to support re-programming this and encourage Economic Development and this Council to have a robust and straight forward, honest evaluation about whether the agriculture park in that particular spot in Kilauea makes sense given the current on the ground realities. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes, JoAnn? I was going to see if there was anybody else that wants to speak their first time. Anybody? No. You have the floor. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 44 Ms. Yukimura: I first want to say in response to Councilmember Rapozo that my idea is not to abandon the Kilauea Park, but I think it is got really clouded with all kind of things. Actually, I think just three (3) lots of twenty-five (25) acres each probably is a good thing. It does not have to be that. But bottom line is that I am not abandoning it. I want it to be part of the Islandwide Agriculture System and I think this idea of thinking through how we go leases and how we qualify farmers can be applied in Kilauea as well as in other places. It is really including and expanding the idea beyond Kilauea. I was the one who helped get the condition of zoning that required that agriculture park and I am committed to agriculture in Kilauea. But I believe at the time that we did it, the irrigation system was still intact bringing the water down from mauka to the lot and things have changed. We have to adjust for those changes. I do not know all the solutions. I do not think we have to decide all of those solutions here at this table. But I want to expand the thinking about it and I do know that we need to provide land long-term tenure to our farmers in proper quantities for really good commercial production. I think this might be a way to inspire the whole thing. I am glad the amendment was made there. I want to informally amend my proposal or clarify anyway, that we are keeping the amount and just changing the title to Islandwide Agriculture Park System, that is what I want to change the title to. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend her motion to change the project title from "Kilauea Agriculture Park-Design" to "Islandwide Agriculture Park System," seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Yukimura: The second can agree to it. It gets taken out. But in fact I want the lands to be included in the Islandwide Agriculture Park System. But somebody has to figure out how to make that done. Chair Furfaro: Yes, Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: I just want to be clear. My understanding this does not preclude or take away. These funds could still be used for the Kilauea Agriculture Park? It just broadens the ability to implement? Chair Furfaro: That is my understanding. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I just want to agree with everyone on opening the possibility to be used for more than Kilauea. However, if they decide that they want to proceed with Kilauea, they are still not precluded from doing so. I think it gives George more flexibility. I think it is a nice amendment. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Can you please change the wording too as proposed? It is Islandwide Agricultural Park System. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Costa, I am going to suspend the rules and I am going to ask you to come up. Can you give us your mana o on this one before we vote? Let us not get into a long discussion. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. GEORGE K. COSTA, Director of Economic Development: Aloha Council Chair Furfaro and honorable Councilmembers. As an update, I think I believe I versed everyone. We did the Environmental Assessment. We have endangered bird species issues zC 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 45 to deal with and irrigation water issues to contend with. Right now, I am working with the Kilauea community on some other options that hopefully will cost less to develop the agriculture park and one of the options includes providing non-potable water for the property. I cannot go into any details right now, but just as an update. As far as changing the title, yes, that would give us flexibility and I think it is a good idea because there are other opportunities. Kalepa and some other locations around the island that have come up in last two (2) years. It does give us some flexibility. But do know that the Kilauea community is working on some other options that May cost less to develop the Kilauea Agriculture Park. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We have a question from the Vice Chair for you. Ms. Nakamura: To implement the intent of this, George, how do you envision moving forward on expending these funds? Mr. Costa: What took place prior to me coming into my Office with Beth Tokioka, they looked at different models. The Maui Agriculture Park, which is I believe four hundred (400) acres, is a real good model. They have a selection process and they have a review process. I know when this came about, a lot of people in the Kilauea community thought that this was only going to be for them. But once it is public moneys, it is open to anybody. So, there will need to be a process to vet who is appropriate for that? Ms. Nakamura: I guess my question is do you envision hiring a consultant to do this? Mr. Costa: We would have to. Especially if we start looking at other sites. We are probably going to do other Environmental Assessments as well for the other sites. Ms. Nakamura: It seems like there needs to be a lot of thought of how to set this up. Mr. Costa: Right. Ms. Nakamura: How you do a site selection and how you engage the community. It just seems very conceptual. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, George. Mr. Costa: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as q follows: Chair Furfaro: Let us do the roll call. The motion to change the project title from "Kilauea Agriculture Park-Design" to "Islandwide Agricultural Park System") was then put, and carried by the following vote: 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 46 FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I think we are at a point that we are out of the woods on the CIP piece. But I would like to have you stay there while we call Amy back up. Hold on, I have hands going up. Do you have another item? Mr. Kagawa: No, Mr. Chair I was just wondering on where we are going from here. Once we are done with the deletions, are we going to stick with CIP, finish the additions? Chair Furfaro: We are almost finished with CIP on the deletions and then we will go to any additions. Ms. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that would be a wise choice since we have everybody here. Chair Furfaro: Everybody is following me on that? We are done with the deletions, but we would like to hear Amy, your comments on the earlier discussion. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Ms. Esaki: The question was as far as the Lihu`e Bypass and deletion of the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for the next fiscal year and whether that was appropriate or not. When we looked at the budget and I compared it to the Adolescent Treatment Center that occurred last year. If we look at that, what I am hearing is that Public Works intends to encumber the funds by the end of this fiscal year. If they do that, then there is no one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) balance in the CIP. Therefore, a reduction by the Council of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) would put this Capital Improvement Project budget as an unbalanced budget. When we compare it with last year, as far as the Adolescent Treatment Center, the five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) that was appropriated for the Adolescent Treatment Center in the prior fiscal year which was 2011-2012 was actually encumbered by the Administration prior to the end of that fiscal year. During the budget process for 2012-2013, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) was deleted. Therefore there was an unfunded Capital Improvement Project budget by five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). On July, 25, 2012 a Money Bill was introduced to rectify that by adding another five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Therefore, doing what was intended here would not work for today. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: Amy, thank you for coming. That is my memory of what happened too and I will ask the County Attorney to look about whether encumbering those funds last year, when the Administration knew they were not in the subsequent year's budget was a violation of the Charter, because they took actions to put us in a position that our Charter does not allow. This year, I mean, it is like Councilmember 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 47 Rapozo said, it is irresponsible if we take the funds out. Well, we make the fiscal policy calls here. They gave us a budget with those funds in them. They had a re-submittal opportunity in May and they did not remove those funds in which case would not be an issue, but it is. I just find this process highly inappropriate. Chair Furfaro: You will send it over as a future question? Mr. Bynum: I will, absolutely. Chair Furfaro: That will be coming over as a future question. I want to stay on the subject matter with us right now. Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Esaki: That is fine. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Amy, I want to thank Jade for showing me and explaining to me. It is my first year back after being gone a while from this Office. Your understanding is we are not proposing one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), it is basically a carryover and deleting the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) would put us out of balance by $ one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) and it would be irresponsible to touch something from the prior year that is legally being covered by Public Works? Ms. Esaki: That correct. It is a carryover from last year's budget. Mr. Kagawa: In response to that, the County Attorney represents us, as well as the Administration and we have to listen to the recommendation. Let us do the right thing and please let us add the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) back. It was a good proposed cut, but now after seeing that it is not something proposed again, I think we should do that right thing, members. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I want to get to a vote here, I want to get to the adds. Mr. Bynum, your second time. Mr. Bynum: I just want to clarify. Are you recommending that we leave the money in? Ms. Esaki: I believe the money is a carryover from last year so it stays in. Mr. Bynum: It is not a carryover until we approve it, is it? Ms. Esaki: No. It is a carryover because it was approved last year and it is just moving into this year until it gets expended. Mr. Bynum: Are you recommending that we not cut the funds? Ms. Esaki: Yes. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 48 Mr. Bynum: Are you saying what Ross said, we would be acting irresponsibly. Ms. Esaki: Yes, because you would have to introduce a Money Bill like was done last year. Mr. Bynum: In my view Amy, if the Administration expended funds they know we have cut over the future budget, they are acting inappropriately. They came up here and threatened us today, right, and last July we had no option. But the action that put us in an unbalanced position was the Administration's, not the Council's and we are going to recreate that now. Right now as I said any single CIP that is a carryover, the Administration could do this, right? Chair Furfaro: Your comments are heard. Ms. Nakamura: Call for the question. Chair Furfaro: And we are going to call for the question. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Rapozo: I need to withdraw my motion, Mr. Chair because my motion was to remove. Let me just withdraw my motion. Mr. Rapozo withdrew his motion to remove the funding for the "Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Mr. Bynum removed his second. Mr. Rapozo: Right now for clarification, right now as we sit today, the money is back in the CIP. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Maybe we should vote on that, take a new motion. How is that Tim? Mr. Rapozo: It is there. Mr. Kagawa: It is as a cut right now. Mr. Rapozo: Well, that should have gone when we did the motion to reconsider. Chair Furfaro: There is no vote? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: A vote is needed if you wanted to keep it in. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 49 Chair Furfaro: If one of us talks at a time, we can get to an understanding of who is saying what. There is no need for this vote. I will entertain a second motion now. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum moved to remove the funding for the "Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), second by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: There is a motion and second. I am just going to call for the vote. We have talked this one out. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is to remove the funding. The motion to remove the funding for the "Lihu`e Bypass Feasibility Study (County Match)" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser TOTAL— 2, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5, fails. Chair Furfaro: Motion fails, 2:5. We are going to move to a new item, new CIP delete. We are still on deletes. Go ahead. Mr. Hooser: This is suggestion that we remove Highway Fund which would give us the option of adding it into the Bond Fund since there is space in the Bond Fund, one hundred thirty-two six hundred thirty-four thousand dollars ($132,634) that is designated for the fuel tanks in Kapa'a Baseyard. This is not discussion about the value of the fuel tanks. It is a discussion about in my opinion where the funds should come from and this would also free up Highway Funds and General Fund to the tune of one hundred thirty-two six hundred thirty-four thousand dollars ($132,634) if it was re-added to the Bond Fund. So, that is my suggestion. Mr. Hooser moved to remove the funding for "Fuel Tanks Kapa'a Baseyard" in the amount of one hundred thirty-two six hundred thirty-four thousand dollars ($132,634), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: There is a motion on the floor to move the fuel tank moneys from the General Fund contribution to the bond amount. Any further discussion? If not I am going to call for the vote. The motion to remove the funding for "Fuel Tanks Kapa'a Baseyard" in the amount of one hundred thirty-two six hundred thirty-four thousand dollars ($132,634) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL— 6, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Furfaro TOTAL— 1. AMISMINF t 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 50 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. Any more on reductions in CIP? So we can move on? Reductions in CIP is finished. Now I would like us to look at additions in CIP. We will start there since it is fresh on our memory. Go ahead, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I have sent a personal request previously to Lenny and this is regarding a new comfort station at Kato Field, Kato Baseball Field which is very close in proximity to the martial arts building. Currently we have two (2) portable there. The seniors Pat Baniaga and his senior softball team uses it every day for practice and we also use that for little league. Pat Baniaga is also the West Kaua`i President for Little League baseball. He said that when the martial arts users are using the facility, there is a bathroom that is open. However, if the martial arts users are not using it, they are advised to lock the bathrooms. I think we have portables there. We know that there is a need for restrooms, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities. It makes it difficult for them to go all way to the tennis court pavilions, it is quite far. If the neighborhood center is closed also, it is also a far journey. I think we have portables there, we know there is a need there, and I want to proceed with some plans and design money. I believe it is in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) and it would not be taking out of anything. I do not need a cut to add that. It would be transferred from the 402 account I believe which is the West Side account and moving it to earmark as Kato Field comfort station item. The number is thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796) and basically it just earmarks it for that. I know that there are some issues and that is why we have plan and design money. We do not want to put the whole amount and tie up moneys that are going to go to something that is not be realistically done. There is an issue with the septic system. I guess the sewer line is on the main road side where the main traffic goes into Hanapepe Stadium and we may need a septic system that may throw another wrench into the project. But least let us look at it. Like I said, it would be better than using port-a-potties for the facility. Members if you could please support this request. I think a lot of people would benefit. As you know we have large, huge tournaments there 4 every year. The softball tournaments are huge and I think it is hard for people with disabilities to go into the blue port-a-potties and it is much easier and much safer to have 1 the regular Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stalls. Thank you. J Chair Furfaro: What I would like to do is I would like to actually Isee if I can get a second on the item. Mr. Kagawa moved to transfer twenty-six thousand one hundred forty-nine dollars i ($26,149) from the Project Contingency and twenty-three thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($23,851) from the "Park Improvement Waimea District" Fund to fund "Hanapepe Stadium Kato Park ADA Comfort Station (Planning and Design)" in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Now I would like to take a break because now we `; are in the "adds" and I cannot see the screen. So, if you folks would not find, I would like to take a short ten (10) minute break if you do not mind. Ms. Yukimura: We need caption break right? Chair Furfaro: We are going to take a ten (10) minute recess and we will keep it to ten (10) minutes. t1 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 51 There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 11:38 a.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 11:49 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, we had a motion and second on your add, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair I would like to clarify the motion, so that the staff and everyone has it clear. We were talking about Kato Baseball Park at Hanapepe Stadium adjacent to the martial arts building. I moved that we move twenty-six thousand one hundred forty-nine dollars ($26,149) from the project contingency and we add twenty-three thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($23,851) from the 402 fund balance for the Waimea district. This will go into a new line item for the plans and design of a new comfort station next to Kato Baseball Field. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Clarification for myself. Scott, we are moving money from the Contingency Fund that is thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796), part of it is coming from that contingency? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: So that is the contingency in the 402 account, not the CIP account. That was the correction. Understood now. Further discussion? Further discussion on this item? If not, we have a second. Okay vote, please, roll call. The motion to transfer twenty-six thousand one hundred forty-nine dollars ($26,149) from the Project Contingency and twenty-three thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($23,851) from the "Park Improvement Waimea District" Fund to fund "Hanapepe Stadium Kato Park ADA Comfort Station (Planning and Design)" in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. We are in CIP adds. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes, Chair. Even though I am no fan of the Kapahi Bridge, when we removed the funds it was with the commitment of putting them back in the CIP Bond Fund. I would like to move that we move the Kapahi Bridge replacement County Match of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) into the CIP Bond Fund. pffilSZININY 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 52 Mr. Hooser moved to add funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacements (County Match)" in the amount of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Just so everyone is clear, we have approximately one million five hundred thousand one hundred forty-one dollars ($1,500,141) in the Bond Fund now and what was the number again? Mr. Hooser: Four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) Chair Furfaro: Very good. A motion and second, putting the Kapahi Bridge back in. Further discussion, if not call for the vote. The motion to add funding for "Kapahi Bridge Replacements (County Match)" in the amount of four hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-one dollars ($432,851) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, looser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Very good. Additional adds? JoAnn, we are taking one at a time and give everybody a chance. JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to propose in the Highway Fund CIP two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for North Shore and Po`ipu transportation corridor studies. Chair Furfaro: We need a second before I summarize that. Ms. Yukimura moved to add funding for "North Shore & Po`ipu Transit Corridor Studies" in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Bynum. Everyone knows in the CIP Highway Fund we have credits totaling five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) now. The motion is to add to that fund two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. looser: Yes, I would suggest that we consider putting this in the Bond Fund and therefore we can use the Highway Funds for operating expenses both as Operating Funds and/or Highway Funds. We would have a lot more flexibility and we have room in the CIP Bond Fund for these types of projects that have been proposed. Chair Furfaro: Before we go any further, Steve, do you see any reason that that money would not qualify to go in the Bond Fund? Remember to go into the bond fund an item need to be pretty much a hard asset or it needs to meet another criteria. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 53 There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: As long as it is identified as leading to a Capital Improvement, it should qualify. Chair Furfaro: Could you expand on that, JoAnn? Where do you see that leading to a CIP item that actually turns out ending up with an asset? Ms. Yukimura: These are basically planning and design studies towards a transit circulator. Chair Furfaro: Understood. But it has to end up in a baseyard. Ms. Yukimura: No, that is not for a base yard. Although long-term we will need baseyard. No, these are towards a shuttle system or transportation corridor. Mr. Hunt: So long as the scope of work identifies some potential Capital Improvements that the County would participate in, it should be eligible. Ms. Yukimura: I do not know for a fact. Chair Furfaro: You do not know for a fact? Why do not just say it will not? Ms. Nakamura: Here is a thought, if there is a North Shore shuttle, there will be a need for bus stops, shelters, and probably a location somewhere on the North Shore whether it is a park-and-ride or some facility where the terminus, the beginning of the shuttle system. Ms. Yukimura: Chair, may I respond? Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. Ms. Yukimura: There is going to be issues whether it is a public/private partnership or whether it is going to be a County function. We do not know yet. I think if we are talking about a baseyard we should label it as such. I am taking my cues from the Transportation Agency which is going to bring us a plan for needed funding for base yards. I think it is safer to keep it in the Highways as a planning study. I can make a separate motion for base yard except that we need to have a planner that works on that first. Chair Furfaro: The answer, Steve, she will probably stay with the Highway Fund for that amount. I do not feel comfortable in the business world saying that it can go to the CIP Bond Fund. Mr. Bynum. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Bynum: JoAnn is trying to argue against her own proposal here. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 54 Ms. Yukimura: No, I am trying to be honest. Mr. Bynum: Well, if we do a transit study, it is going to end up in some CIP. The rule is not that it be all CIP. But that will likely lead to CIP and it likely will lead to CIP. I may not support this proposal in the Highway Fund. But I will support it in the General Fund. Ms. Yukimura: In the Bond Fund. Mr. Bynum: In the Bond Fund, right. I think there is enough latitude and this is something that I have looked into and discussed with Steve and eventually I will discuss it with Keith. There is no reason, even if it led to a stop sign, it could potentially meet criteria. But it will more likely lead to some substantial infrastructure. Chair Furfaro: I want to clarify that. I do not think it ended up with a stop sign it would qualify for, JoAnn. You have to be a little bit more than that. We have beaten that up a bit and now I want you to restate your motion for two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for the staff, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Do you have that staff, two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)? Right now, it looks like it is coming out of Highway Fund that has five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) in it. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes even though I support the principle, I am not able to support taking the money out of Highway Fund because it is a pool of funds that could be reconfigured, if you would, into general operating funds and used to fund Meals On Wheels, Humane Society, other what I consider vital public services which I would rather fund first out of these funds and do planning and that type of thing out of Bond Fund. Chair Furfaro: I would concur with you. The Meals on Wheels could be reinstated with the highway money. We could also find ourselves in a situation of looking at Humane Society, also, Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), things like that. JoAnn, unless I have some narrative that clarifies the two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), that could go into Bond Fund because there would be an end product that would be an asset. Ms. Yukimura: Well, I mean there are possibilities that even the purchase of bus is considered capital equipment, right? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr.Hunt: It would be a capital asset for us if it is a long-term asset. Ms. Yukimura: I agree we should move it to the Bond Fund and appreciate all the help in doing that. I will go for two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) instead. If I can withdraw my first motion and have the second withdraw also, Tim? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 55 There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Bynum: Yes. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her motion to add funding for "North Shore & Po`ipu Transit Corridor Studies" in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Mr. Bynum withdrew his second. Chair Furfaro: Please restate. Ms. Yukimura moved to add funding for "North Shore & Po`ipu Transit Corridor Studies" in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: We have a second. Staff, did you get that? The number is two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). I will call for the vote here. Mr. Rapozo: I have a question. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: I do not know who at the Administration is here and able to answer that. But is that something that the Administration is going to press forward on? I am not going to approve funds if the Administration is not going to move forward on it. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? I want to explain. Mr. Rapozo: I want to hear from the Administration. Chair Furfaro: Wait a minute. Mr. Rapozo has the floor and Mr. Rapozo has a question posed to the Administration. Can you reply? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: I would have to check with Celia Mahikoa in terms of what her plans are for that because that would fall under the auspice of Transportation. Mr. Rapozo: I would assume tough that Celia is not going to make that decision by herself and the Mayor or someone. The thing is that I do not want go through the process of the Council dumping all these moneys into the Bond Funds and so forth and the Administration has no intention going forward. I am not going to do that again like we did last year. I am not going to do it and we just need some assurance from the Administration that, in fact, they are going to move forward because whether it is for a bridge or a study, again, it is money. It is available funds. Mr. Hunt: To the extent that the request is coming from the Council at this point, I guess I would ask for guidance as to what, in fact, you are looking for in that study in terms of both the scope of the work and what potential capital improvements that you might want to see out of that study. Without that direction, this is 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 56 i again something new coming up and I am not prepared to address that until we hear your intention as well. Chair Furfaro: Give the Administration one of these sheets passed out to the Council, please. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Rapozo: Like Mr. Kagawa proposed a restroom facility, he communicated with the Parks Director and it is something that can move forward. I do not have a problem with that. But if it is just something that I want you to do and you folks are not going to do it, then I do not think we should fund it. That is my position, Mr. Chair and unless I hear reflect Administration that that is something that they will pursue, I will not support it. Thank you. 9 Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? 9 Chair Furfaro: Yes, and I will recognize you in a minute. E Members, I would say if we are going to add items make sure that you have your pros and cons lined up in the suggestion because it is not going to be considered your item. It is going to be seen as the item of the body because you are able to get four (4) votes for it. So JoAnn, you have the floor. Mr. Rapozo: Five (5) votes. Chair Furfaro: I am sorry, five (5) votes for an add. Thank you [r. for the correction. Y h Ms. Yukimura: Yes, Mr. Chair. [ Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. r, Ms. Yukimura: First of all, this money incorporates the money we removed from the Office of Economic Development's budget for a North Shore shuttle r system/transit system and adds in what is a follow-up of the Po`ipu parking work shop and that report is actually coming on the agenda on this week's meeting. We know that in Po`ipu the recommendation is two hundred fifty thousand dollar ($250,000). I think in George's case it was seventy something thousand dollars. But we are putting it together into a two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) package assuming that we find matches for both sides. But that there will be some economies of scale, if you will, in planning for both. o The intention was to put it into the CIP budget and make it an issue for the Transportation Coordinating Committee which is the Committee that is responsible for implementing the r; Multi-Modal Land Transportation Plan. The shuttle ideas are both anticipated in the plan. c9 That is the part of expanding services and addressing issues, like the parking problem at o Ke`e and the parking problem along Po`ipu Road. Just this week we are doing that Po`ipu Road cht , b just about the physical development of the road which will include stops aret e for ut a shuttle system. But the whole planning fora shuttle system is very complex. Especially because there are issues about who would be the operator and how you ' work with the Po`ipu area and how you work with the North Shore area in the case if the � ` North Shore shuttle? It is following you on our plans that are in place. It is responding to 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 57 urgent needs that are coming to us from Po`ipu and the North Shore, Ke`e Beach but elsewhere as well. It is an effort to get ahead of the curve and work on the issue. Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote on that item now. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, I still have not heard from the Administration. I heard from JoAnn twice. I just wanted to hear. If they do not have a response, that is fine as well. I do not expect them to because a lot of these things are being sprung up today. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: When we were having the discussion, I guess it was last week about the specific dollars that were imbedded into the OED budget for the North Shore Shuttle Transit Plan, I think one reason why we did not necessarily object to the removal of those funds at that point in time was because there was some new information presented to us relative to the ongoing Ha`ena Master Plan that the State is spearheading. We thought it was reasonable to take a time out until we better understood what was going on there and to how there could be a collaborative effort to implement a transit system, a shuttle on the North Shore. Relative to what is happening in Po`ipu, I mean, we really have not heard a report out of what is going on down there yet from our folks who have participated. I think it was part of the Mayor's plan to support a South Shore shuttle system and it sounds like some of what may come out of this past weekend's work will again go into that. I do not know, I believe that collectively, we need to have a better understanding and my thought would be before we set aside the money, perhaps we should again collectively have that better understanding of where we should be headed and at that point in time maybe support a Money Bill having a better understanding of the needs and the requirements and then handle the expenditure that way. That would be our input. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you Gary for that candid input. I agree that in these times we should not be putting money in areas that we are not ready to go, until you folks call it shovel ready and I appreciate the answer. I will not be supporting it. Mr. Heu: That does not speak to our commitment. I think, like I said, the Mayor identified that as an area of interest and an area of need. We are still committed to seeing something happen down there. I just do not know at this moment if we are ready to say yes, let us commit that money and not really have a clear understanding where we might be heading. Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote, please. The motion to add funding for "North Shore & Po`ipu Transit Corridor Studies" in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 58 SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: That gives us five (5) votes for an add. I want JoAnn to remember this has to lead us to the right place. Ms. Yukimura: I will thank you. Chair Furfaro: We are still on rough numbers. We have eighty hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($867,000) in bond. We have five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) in CIP General. Mr. Hooser, I have to say, I might want to go to you next because Bynum, I am going down the line for additions. But if you can bear with me, Mr. Kagawa has had a turn, you have had a turn, and JoAnn has had a turn. Mr. Bynum, you have a turn for an add. Mr. Bynum: (inaudible) These funds could give the Administration flexibility in terms of funding these projects that they are bringing over Michael, Lyle, Dan Burden, and you have this great Building Environment Task Force. They are cooperating with Planning and they are coming up with these projects pretty rapidly. Some of them are not that cost expensive but I think it is a critical issue that we address traffic mitigation and safety. I think this would give them a lot of flexibility to do r that. Mr. Bynum moved to appropriate four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty- six dollars ($419,656) for Islandwide Traffic Mitigation projects, seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second now. Further discussion? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes. I really like the idea, the concept. But I am kind of troubled by the current problems that face us and to put Public Works on a new task would maybe distract from some of these things that we need to really take care of, such as the bridges. We heard of how many bridge repairs that was listed as current repairs. Current means that it needs to be done soon and just a lot of other issues out there. I think if we can kind of get back and I feel like with Larry and his staff, they are [! trying to move in the right direction. But just adding on to their list of to do list is not going to really be helpful. I will not be supporting it. ['; Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. E. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to ask the maker of the motion to explain how the projects would be selected. Mr. Bynum: If we put it in this form, they would be selected by the Administration. I mean, I would hope that they would look at resurrecting the Pouli Road Project which probably needs a couple hundred thousand dollars for design. I think 'p p i is the stage it was at But I have really been impressed by how much Public Works t has embraced these ideas and continues to meet with National consultants who know how ii; to do a lot for not a whole lot of money in terms of improving traffic safety and flows. This would give them flexibility and I assume they would use some on current projects that they are currently working on We should ask them if they are open to this kind of funding ,: because I think they have shown that kind of flexibility over the last couple of years. , E G 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 59 Chair Furfaro: I do not know if I am ready to recognize you Larry. I want to see if there is any discussion further from the members that might let you respond more broadly. Members questions at the table? JoAnn, you still have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I want to make sure that the title which is Islandwide Traffic Mitigation Projects sufficiently defines what you have in mind so there is a meeting of the minds in terms of what is to be done. For example, does it include walking paths and Safe Routes to School and those issues, too or not? Well, if it does, then traffic mitigation may not be sufficiently descriptive. Chair Furfaro: You want to respond to her? Mr. Bynum: Yes, may I? Of course those kinds of pedestrian projects will be because we know that giving people those pedestrian and bike options mitigates traffic. I mean if you wanted to make it a little more flexible, it could be Traffic Mitigation/Safety Projects because there may be projects that really are more focused on safety than actually mitigating projects. But traffic safety and moving people around whether they are in cars or on foot is something that is important to us Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes. I think there is no question that the worst traffic in our County is on the East Side in the Kawaihau district along that corridor. I personally would prefer targeted funding towards targeted improvements. I am hoping that Public Works would have projects. I know that the North end of Kapaca Town there is an intersection there that feeds that little temporary bypass that goes that needs expanded, there is Pouli Road, and there are other tangible transportation projects that have been discussed and talked about and I think planned over the last few years. I would prefer to hear from Public Works to see if there are specific, tangible projects that we can identify so it is not quite so broad. I would like at the end of the day to see traffic alleviated in the East Side. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: I am going suspend the rules for a moment, Larry, and I am going to ask you a question because Pouli Road whether you know it or not, was my pet project when I was first on the Council. It cut off traffic in Kapa'a that came down through Wailua. They come in the back of the Foodland, they could shop, and it was another item that supported building the connector bridge to Safeway. I have no idea what happened to that project. Could you tell me why we would not connect our backside of our shopping district in Kapa'a so that traffic would go not into Kapa'a Town, you go to the bypass which would free up? Those are the kind of tangible items I think Mr. Hooser is talking about and Mr. Bynum has talked about. If we are going to have any money to resurrect that study, for me, it would be for that and it could be a bond item because it would end up in a new road. What happened to that? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Dill: As the project pre-dated my time at the County,I am not familiar with the history or scope for that project. But I could concur that the proposal may have some merit. In terms of and in the context of this discussion, I think something like that would be a significant enough project to identify on its own merits as opposed to being part of a line item like this. A line item like this and I think as was brought up. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 60 Chair Furfaro: I want to qualify something. The reasons Mr. Hooser and I are ask those questions about a more tangible piece because this is a general study. But I think we are saying that there will more tangible pieces to the traffic solution and we are asking you that question so I know where I am going to vote on this blanket piece of mitigation versus getting Pouli Road resurrected. Mr. Dill: Council Chair, I guess I am not prepared to sit here, having it bounced off me right now to be able to weigh that against the merits of other projects. Chair Furfaro: You cannot tell us what happened to Pouli Road? Mr. Dill: No. Chair Furfaro: You do not know because it crossed wetlands or something that it was nixed? Mr. Dill: One thing we do know apparently it was a State project. I do not know why the State abandoned that project. I do not know. Mr. Hooser: Follow-up, Chair. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Hooser: Are there specific mitigation plans or projects that the County could move forward with to alleviate traffic in that corridor if the funds were available? Mr. Dill: Along the Kuhio Highway corridor? Mr. Hooser: Yes, and the feeder routes. I mentioned the North end of Kuhio Highway where you turn left to go onto the other temporary bypass. It is one way right now. There were four (4) or five (5) different options discussed at various points, that is one (1). Is there anything on the table, that if you had the money you could push forward or is it starting from scratch Mr. Dill: It would be in that area, as far as I know, starting from scratch. We would have to look into the Land Transportation Plan but that is a plan that is currently being updated to see the proposals in that area. Mr. Hooser: There is nothing tangible that could move forward right now if you had the money? Mr. Dill: Well, one thing I would like to point out as was discussed here is the Koloa-Po`ipu-Kalaheo design charrette that happened and is continuing today, brought out proposals for a number of smaller projects that could be low hanging fruits. Those projects would largely involve things like signing, striping, and maybe raised medians here and there. The way I look at this, as a source of funds to 1 accomplish those things for which we have no funding right now The effort this weekend will also result likely in some larger proposals for roundabouts and things. That would ■ become a separate project on its own. But this would give us available funds to take care of the smaller projects where we want to put crosswalks, inroad lights, (inaudible) and 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 61 flashing beacons, stripes, bike lanes, and raise some medians to make pedestrian safety better. That is what I perceive that we could make use of this. Though one question I would have in my mind is if we wanted to pursue a lot of these in-house, I do not know that we could use CIP funds for that purpose because that would have to be Operating Funds, I believe because in order to pursue these in-house we would be talking about things like supplies. We do a lot of work in-house with our producing budget. So from that standpoint if we want to do improvement from a CIP fund, we would have to go procure of the services and for that, I not sure this would be something as effective for something like this. Chair Furfaro: That was the explanation that I gave earlier about making sure that they qualify. You are saying that you do not think so and I think that question would be for Steve as well. Mr. Dill: At least not in the way that I am understanding this proposal. Chair Furfaro: Well, maybe we can get a little bit closer understanding to it, as we break for lunch, what it might be because we have raised those kinds of questions. JoAnn, we have five (5) minutes before we break for lunch. Your microphone is on. Did you want the floor? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura: No. Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen on this side? Vice Chair, did you want the floor? Ms. Nakamura: All I wanted to suggest, I think your intent, Councilmember Bynum, is very good about really focusing on East Side where we all experience this terrible traffic. But I really believe that the forum to do that is through our Committee structure so we can have some pretty detailed discussions with the Department. I think it would be good to look at the draft East Kaua`i development plan, because there is a section on transportation, there are a lot of very good, doable, scalable projects that could make a difference working with a lot of documents generated by the Kapa'a Business Association's work with consultants. Anyway, I just feel that that is the opportunity to really get into the details. I agree with Gary Hooser that we should focus on detailed projects that will make a difference. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo and then Mr. Bynum again. Mr. Rapozo: I agree with Councilmember Nakamura and let us not forget the West Side traffic as well. If you have not been in that recently, I suggest you try it, try to drive out to the West Side early in the morning and hit that traffic coming in. It is not just the East Side. It is the West Side. There are definitely some problems. But again, these issues need to be vetted out with the Administration and I would agree that should occur in the Committee and not here at budget with expecting the Administration. I will say to my colleague, if you have big items like that, over the lunch period, I would highly suggest that you go and talk to the Administration and get some kind of agreement because as long as I keep getting the responses and Larry, I agree with you. I really appreciate you being honest with us and saying it is really too broad or 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 62 whatever it is. We are not here to sit here and say yes, we want the money and then get crucified next year because you did not get it done. I do not want to see it. I appreciate the honest. I support the honesty. I support being very meticulous when you start to accept these kinds of moneys because they are big items. I appreciate your responses. Just for my colleagues, unless I can get consensus from the Administration, I am not inclined to support high ticket items. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, I will give you the floor and then call for the vote on your suggestion. Mr. Bynum: My memory of Pouli Road, and we are talking about a road that would connect at Agar Cane to the Houselots, go through the bypass and to Foodland to accomplish traffic mitigation by allowing Houselots people to leave their community without going through the traffic if they are going to visit people in Kapa'a or Kapahi or Homesteads. It will also allow people to get to the market and back without ever going on the highway. I believe the issues we were trying to convince the State it was a collector so we could bring down STIP funds. I know that is a dialogue happening now. To me it is clearly a collector when you go from Houselots to the shopping center. I think those were part of the issues. When the Bond Funds were kind of freed up by this, I really felt a priority about traffic mitigation is important for us to do and I was very much thinking about those kind of small projects. In retrospect I probably should have asked for three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) for Pouli Road specifically and a smaller fund like maybe one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for island wide mitigation so you can move quickly when you have these good ideas that come from the community that are not big ticket items. I point out that in the East Kaua`i Development Plan as Nadine said, there is an additional connector in the New Town Park that would be a really high value thing for the East Side and help mitigate some of the difficulties there. But last weekend, it was total gridlock and this is not just the East Side people, it is the North Shore people too who have to go through that to get home and visitors who come to Kaua`i and go wow, I spent an hour in traffic just trying to get to my hotel. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: On that note, there is a motion and a second on table for this five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to be used for... Mr. Bynum: Mr. Chair I would rather remove my motion and come back after lunch with a different proposal. Mr. Bynum withdrew his motion to appropriate four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($419,656) for Islandwide Traffic Mitigation projects. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her second. Chair Furfaro: You have removed the second, you removed your first. Now we are going to break for lunch and I want to make sure, members if you have not identified high potential items before lunch, please do not go out and run out at lunch time to look for what you want to spend because we have limited recourses and where we stand right now, we are at about eight hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($867,000) in the Bond Fund and five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) for CIP. I do want to get through CIP so that we can go on to other things and even have a chance to finish our business by the end of the day. I want to make that statement. Enjoy your luncheon. We will be back at 1:30 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 12:30 p.m. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 63 There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 1:38 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We are going to get back in order here and I am going to give the floor back to Mr. Hooser. We have no items on right now. We are on CIP and you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is housekeeping in a way and not what I would considered a new add that gets credited against Hooser, hopefully. But we did take the fuel tanks from Kapa'a Baseyard out of the Transportation CIP and I would like to suggest that we add it to the Bond CIP in the tune of one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634). There was bond funding for part of this anyway. So, this is all of it. Fuel tanks for Kapa'a added to the Bond Fund CIP, one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634). Mr. Hooser moved to add funding for "Fuel Tanks Kapa'a Baseyard" to the Bond Fund CIP in the amount of one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: A second from across the table there. Ross, did you want a moment for a comment? No, okay. Let us restate the motion one more time before I call for a vote. Mr. Hooser: This is to restate to add to the Bond Fund CIP fuel tanks for Kapa'a Baseyard one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634) which was previously in the Highway Fund CIP. Just moving from a Highway Fund CIP to the Bond Fund CIP. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? If not, I am going to ask for a roll call vote. The motion to add funding for "Fuel Tanks Kapa'a Baseyard" in the amount of one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634) to the Bond Fund CIP was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. So noted that we make that change. What was that amount again, Mr. Hooser? Mr. Hooser: It is one hundred thirty-two thousand six hundred thirty-four dollars ($132,634). Chair Furfaro: Thank you. That is now in the Bond Fund. Mr. Bynum, I am going to continue around table. You wanted the floor to reconsider another option? If not, I am going to around to the Vice Chair. ry 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 64 Mr. Bynum: I thought we were coming to the end of changes to the Bond Fund and that is why I made that proposal. If other Councilmembers have things that are going to impact the Bond Fund, maybe I could hold off for now. Chair Furfaro: I will give you the floor. I will keep my requests on the pool to be last. I will do the swimming pool last. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. I would like to add to the CIP fund funding for the Creative Technology Center. Previously known as the Digital Media Center and the amounts is seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000). Ms. Nakamura moved to add funding for "Creative Technology Center" previously known as "Digital Media Center" in the amount of seventy-eight thousand dollars, seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor, go ahead. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Just to give you the background, the • Council in past couple of years has approved the Feasibility Study and then a business plan for this Creative Technology Center. For some of you who were not here at the time, we did have a briefing last year where the Consultant talked about the Feasibility Study. We had quite a good cross section of the community here testifying in support of this project. Unfortunately, the business plan is in the process of being completed and we should have it had done prior for the budget process. But since we do not have it in front of us, I am just summarizing some key points here. We have Alan Tang who is working on the business plan. He met with Senator Kouchi. He has met with various landowners. They are looking at alternative sites within the Lihu`e vicinity. Again, this is through the Office of Economic Development who contracts with the Kauai Economic Development Board and they have met with the United States Economic Development Administration that gives out grant funding for these types of projects. They met with Senator Schatz, Senator Hirono, Representative Gabbard, and have received verbal support for the project. They have met with Kaua`i Legislators, Kouchi, Tokioka, Kawakami, and Morikawa. They have met with Wilcox Foundation and other foundations. Ho`ike, community television is interested in collaborating with this project. They have met with members in the film and video production industry, visitor industry. We had Chancellor Cox and Bill Arakaki from the Department of Education because of the teaching component possibility and that they are designing around. This is, to me, a very important project that we try to pursue and not stop in the process. They are in the process. They have looked at many different types of creative media facilities around the mainland to learn what works, does not work, and most importantly to make these projects financially sustainable and that is why this business plan that we are going to be presented at the end of June is so important. This is not about an ongoing commitment of County government funding. This is about trying to leverage our County funds so that it can be a long-term, sustaining venture. They are looking at various sites around Lihu`e, again. When we get updates on the business plan, they will have the site selection information, financial plan, implementation plan, and I think what is most important is bringing a lot of different players in the science, media, cultural, and technology clusters around this one facility. As we put more funding into the education of our youth and getting them up to speed with technology from elementary school on up, we really need to have the opportunities for these kids to now have a place to take off, either start a new business, learn how to develop their skills, or be a teaching center for digital media, really Statewide. There are many opportunities. I feel that this is one we should not let go of. We should try to move it along. They had asked for one hundred twenty 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 65 thousand dollars ($120,000). When I did my pluses and minuses I could only come up with seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000) from my plusses and minuses. So that is what I am asking for. Chair Furfaro: I am going to ask Steve Hunt for some comments. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: Thank you, Chair. The Administration is very supportive of the project. The challenge is when consulted with Brian Hirai in terms of eligibility for bond funding, it was determined that it was not eligible because they sites that were being located were not County owned properties and you cannot put capital into projects that you do not own and that is why it was moved out of the CIP. Had we maybe room in operation, it could have been considered. But in terms of at that time, the full funding was one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) I believe, that we could not find the room for it and it was not eligible for bond funding. Chair Furfaro: Steve, it could be eligible for the part of the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) on the regular moneys that we have found. Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Steve. Mr. Kagawa, you wanted the floor? Mr. Kagawa: No, that was my question whether it qualified for bond and it passed the three (3) prong test and it does not. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: This is one of the most exciting economic development proposals that the County is working on. We all know that jobs created in our Country have been created out of the technology, innovation, and creativity. I think in terms of a foundation for the future economic growth of Kauai, this is a really critical part. I love how it is tied into the education of our young people. If bond moneys are not available for, this we should find moneys elsewhere somehow. Chair Furfaro: Other discussion? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am very much in support of this proposal. I believe the State also finally decided to give film credits this year and is giving support to the film industry through film credits. But I would like to know more about that. But that would be good news for this type of funding, if I got that information correct. But my only concern is about where to find it and partially funding. If it is one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) that you need, it is one hundred thousand dollars ($120,000) that you need. I am in conceptually in support, just not sure where those funds are going to come from. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 66 Chair Furfaro: Further discussion? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I have a question to allow future funding. If it is not qualified for bond moneys, once a non-profit organization is created, could the entity not be qualified for special bonds at the State level? Chair Furfaro: That was a question you were posing to Finance? Would you come up? i There being no objections, the rules are suspended. i Ms. Yukimura: Do you know about special bonds? I Mr. Hunt: Are you referring to grant-in-aid through the State? Ms. Yukimura: No, there is a process, probably for our Senator here can explain. I think it is those moneys that the Shrimp Farm just got which are available to private entities with a public — I do not know, public purpose that can pay off. The State incurs no direct liability and the moneys are paid off by the private entity through the revenues that come in. Mr. Hunt: That would, I guess, be an individual entity coming in and looking at what options that they have for funding. I do not think it would be part of your budget process though. Ms. Yukimura: No. But I am just talking in terms of getting it N off the ground to qualify for other funding. Mr. Hunt: If you are looking at seed money, if you will, the is only way that comes from General Fund on our participation. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as bfollows: Chair Furfaro: Council Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura; I would like to because the discussion now is on , CIP, I would like to withdraw my motion. II I Ms. Nakamura withdrew her motion to add funding for "Creative Technology Center" previously known as "Digital Media Center" in the amount of seventy-eight _? thousand dollars. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her second. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. L. i. Mr. Bynum: Can I ask a related question even though it has been withdrawn? k Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. I There being no objections, the rules were suspended. '.1 fi 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 67 Mr. Bynum: In the General Fund CIP, we have not left much at all, right? But there is forty-nine thousand dollars ($49,000) for Kapa'a new fire station and twenty-seven thousand seven hundred dollars ($27,700) for security renovations. Could those be moved to Bond Fund to free up room in the General Fund CIP? Mr. Hunt: I would call up Keith who is more familiar with the individual projects. Mr. Suga: Councilmember Bynum, could you repeat the projects you are referring to? Mr. Bynum: Kapa'a new fire station in for forty-nine thousand seven hundred fifteen dollars ($49,715) and security renovation Mayor's Office, twenty-seven thousand seven hundred thirty-eight dollars ($27,738). Mr. Suga: I believe these balances are to complete those two (2) projects that you are listing and I do believe that they could be. I think they could be utilized in the bond funding. Mr. Bynum: Well, I agree with Councilmember Yukimura that this is something that we do want to pursue. If that makes it more palatable in terms of where the funds would come from. I am just brainstorming because I would like to find one hundred thousand twenty dollars ($120,000) to fund this if that is the identified need. I guess I got my answer. We could make those moves and then maybe place this in General Fund CIP. Chair Furfaro: Let me ask an accounting question here. For the money that we have saved in CIP Highway, those qualified items, we would take items out of the General Fund that are related to transportation, move it to this savings in the Highway and then that will free up money that we could use? Mr. Hunt: That is correct. Within transportation, three (3) Divisions; Administration which portions can be funded from highways; Operations which I think all of it can be funded from highways; and then the third is the small machine which cannot be funded from highways. Chair Furfaro: I think that might be something that we have to do first as Mr. Hooser pointed out to us this savings. But I would have to pull out a cumulative amount, transfer to the savings in highways which then would then make other moneys available that we could consider? Mr. Hunt: Correct. If you were looking at the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) before you and you identified five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) within transportation operations, that frees up the amount contribution General Fund which then gives you that much to play within the General Fund. Chair Furfaro: Is that something that you can do for us in about in a twenty (20) minute review, real quick somebody? Mr. Hunt: We will go through the operations within transportation and find those items that are eligible. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 68 Chair Furfaro: Because Mr. Hooser's comment earlier was then we can identify those moneys for add-ons of which Vice Chair's piece would be one of those that we could consider adding on. Mr. Hunt: Correct, other than I believe the operations as it sits now is one million three hundred thirty-six thousand dollars ($1,336,000) still in the negative. It would offset some of that. Chair Furfaro: If I took a recess that we could do that, I think that would help us all going forward with any adds especially if they were for particular pieces. We first need to identify what we can move to the transportation that frees up other moneys, right? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, you had your hand up. Were you following what I was saying? Mr. Hooser: I did. I think you restated it very well. I did have a handout that illustrates it for any member who is not clear because it gets a little condeluded. Chair Furfaro: Is this the handout? Mr. Hooser: Yes. It is my understanding that the five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) essentially can be spent for the General Fund operating and/or for the Highway Fund and that I would think if we operated under that premise, which the Finance Director says I think we affirmed, we 1 could let staff allocate whatever numbers that they need to because it gets more complicated. There might be proposals from members who want to keep money in the Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Hooser: We have the flexibility to do whatever, if we move it all to the operating and want to move some back to the highway, I guess we can do 1 that too. But we have pretty much complete flexibility and it is just a book keeping thing that the Administration and the staff would have to allocate to the right line items. Did I state that correctly? Mr. Hunt: Again, there are only a few items that cannot be covered by Highway Fund within transportation. We can find home for all of that five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) or a portion of it. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser has just stated what I would like us to do. Then have that discussion because from there then we can look at some of the considerations, like Vice Chair Nakamura has p ut on the table. Am I correct? Scott, if I kj 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 69 ask you folks to get together with Keith real quick, I think we would like to take care of that piece of business first, if we can. Mr. Kagawa, you have a question? Mr. Kagawa: I have a comment. Chair Furfaro: Any comment on what I want them to do first? Let us take a ten (10) minute recess and get that sorted out. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 1:57 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 2:12 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Jade, would you give us a summary? I believe what we are doing we are taking operating costs from payroll taxes and benefits and equaling it to the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485). Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Bus drivers, correct. Chair Furfaro: When it is all over, we still have to address whatever the net is of the nine (9) something? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: In operating budget, correct. Chair Furfaro: In the operating budget, right. You folks are all square? Yes? Nadine wants to entertain this again. It can go in the Operating Budget. When we come around to add on the Operating Budget, that is when I will give you the floor again. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: On that note, is there any more in CIP? JoAnn, I gave you the floor. He has had his chance. Nadine is having her chance. Do you have any more comments about the last item? If not, I am going around the table. Ms. Yukimura: No. Chair Furfaro: I thought you had your hand up for a comment. Going around the table, Mel, we are at you? Mr. Rapozo: I have no adds. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, we are back to you. Mr. Kagawa: I just have a comment on the Kaua`i Creative Technology Center. I love the idea. I love the concept. The only thing I did not love is that we tend to get a lot of the State Representatives' verbal support, but it is just verbal and they had a three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) surplus and I would hope that when you have unanimous support for a project like this, that is highly State function working with Kaua`i Community College (KCC), et cetera, I would hope with the support comes some money with the surplus. I know they decided that the Mana drag strip was 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 70 very important to them to the tune of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) and the funding of the Philippine Cultural Center. I also agree that those are important things to fund. However, I would have hoped that maybe they could have gotten some financial commitments towards a project like this which definitely directly affect our schools as well. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I am trying to move us out of CIP. Is there any more CIP? Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Chair, I am interested in supporting projects that are shovel-ready, ready to go, and it is my understanding that the swimming pool that you May propose Kapa'a Pool and I will defer to you on that. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I am going to plan to call up Lenny on that. Since everybody has gone around the table once, I would like to see if we could not identify at least another two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), not to make a temporary fix at the Kapa'a Swimming Pool, but piggy-back it with the four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) we have there and see if we cannot fix the filter pump, fix the roof, make the bathrooms permanent, and get the shower facilities operating. I would like a motion on my suggestion for an additional two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to see what we can get before I suspend the rules and call up Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Hooser moved to increase funding for "Kapa'a Pool Restroom Reconstruction" in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Lenny, if you could please come up. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: Lenny, what I understand that we have is four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000)? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: And that four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) is to help bring the pool up operationally and also to find ourselves doing some restorations to the bathrooms, the showers, the toilets, and changing areas. Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Is that still based on using temporary portables? Mr. Rapozo: Yes, Chair. Yes. Chair Furfaro: I am wondering, if we did not bump that another six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), if we could not make the Kapa'a Pool — I mean another two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) and make it six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) rather than pay for rentals for toilets and so forth. Could we not make the repair for the pool more permanent? Mr. Rapozo: Yes Chair. We have continued to do research and we just found this product called CTX that will be part of my presentation on 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 71 Wednesday. It looks like a permanent/portable structure that comes out of Illinois. We are doing some research in terms of seeing what it will cost which I would think will be about the cost of the purchase itself. It looks more permanent than the type of portables that we were moving to rent which is similar to what you had down at the temporary Council Chambers in Nawiliwili at the time. Chair Furfaro: I just want to say that because I think it is going to be many years before we can afford a new pool. Mr. Rapozo: I agree. The CTX or the other modular type we were looking at, that is why we looked at those as opposed to just the port-a-potties, that is unacceptable at that facility. Chair Furfaro: If I get support enough to bump the Kapa'a Pool project to six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000), an additional two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), could I relatively soon put you on the agenda so we can start having some dialogue about permanent fixes, not temporary fixes? Mr. Rapozo: Sure. I would love to. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Lenny, I know the cost of just an ADA type of restroom runs us half a million dollars ($500,000)and I am worried that the two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) additional may not be enough. I think we need closer to one million dollars ($1,000,000). I do not know how you feel. Mr. Rapozo: I believe initially to do the demolitions work I leveraged some of the 209 Fund to do the demolition work. I have a current bid but the demolition permit has been a challenge for me because of the location and age of the pool. That has been a challenge and the current four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) in there would probably take care of the current purchase of what we intended to from the modular homes and the CTX's look like it will be around that similar number cost. Mr. Kagawa: Are you saying no more additional? Mr. Rapozo: I think two hundred thousand dollars($200,000) would be awesome. Mr. Kagawa: Very good. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Total of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000). Mr. Rapozo: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I was supportive of the plan you brought us and what I have been told for a while so it may be many years that we are eventually going to abandon that site for it being a pool. Mr. Rapozo: That is our direction, yes. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 72 Mr. Bynum: If we go to more of a permanent fix—well first of all it is a pool restroom that has parameters I assume that are different from a regular comfort station. Mr. Rapozo: The CTX that we are looking at is portable, but yet it is a structure. Mr. Bynum: Right. I guess my question is are there other issues at the pool that is going to hit us in the future because I heard you say we are going to do the restrooms, make them usable in a somewhat permanent way. I was thinking about the restrooms that were by the courthouse. I do not know if you recall that. Mr. Rapozo: That was one option. But we just recently found the CTX, a better option. It looks more like a restroom building. Mr. Bynum: I just cannot see putting a whole lot more money if we find out in three (3) years that the pool itself has to be abandoned or needs major renovation. Mr. Rapozo: We have determined that the pool itself and the pump system seem to be in decent shape. Maybe the sand filter system that is in place since the pool was built and there seems to be some trouble in finding out exactly when. But Alonda Anaya says he went to the pool opening when he was a little boy and that was in 1961. So, that is when we think the pool was built. So that sand filter still is the original. Everything else has been replaced recently and that seems to be working fine right now. That would be the only foreseeable problem coming up soon or within the future. Mr. Bynum: For Parks you would welcome this additional funding? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We have on the motion to take Kapa'a Swimming Pool to a new number of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) by adding an additional $200,000. I want to make sure this does not cure all the pieces. This cures the immediate pieces. I think at one particular time I had raised the question about basic R&M for the pools. I mean they should be re-plastered every ten (10) years and I do not think any of our pools have been re-plastered. Those things have to go up later on the R&M and I would hope we have had those discussions about funds used from other accounts. There is normal repair & maintenance and then there is this. It totally has to be rebuilt, that is not repair & maintenance. I would hope we can do this instead of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for rental and temporary facilities we could do two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) additional and really focus on getting the pool back to operational order. May I call for the vote, please? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair for clarification, this is two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) on top of the three hundred ninety-five thousand dollars ($395,000), currently proposed? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 73 Chair Furfaro: Could I clarify that? That money can come out of the Bond Fund because it is for an asset. The motion to increase funding for "Kapa'a Pool Restroom Reconstruction" in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Seven (7) ayes. Lenny, thank you very much for the commentary and the support from the Administration. New item, Mr. Bynum. Before we go any further, it is 2:30 p.m. I want to make sure that we understand in our rules, you can speak no more than two (2) times on a judgment item. Let us stay with the rules because I want to try and see if we cannot resolve this budget by today. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: After talking with Larry and Lyle and doing some research on the lunch break, there is a line item in the bond currently labeled "Complete Street Safety Improvements" for seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) and I am going to move that we change that description to be "Complete Streets Safety Improvements/Traffic Mitigation" and add seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to make the total one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). Mr. Bynum moved to change the project title from "Complete Streets Safety Improvements" to "Complete Streets Safety Improvements/Traffic Mitigation" and add funding in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second on that. Further discussion? If not I am going to call for the vote. The motion to change the project title from "Complete Streets Safety Improvements" to "Complete Streets Safety Improvements/Traffic Mitigation" and add funding in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. Moving right along. Any other proposed additions at this point? Joann? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 74 Ms. Yukimura: Yes, thank you. I would like to move that we add forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in the Bond Fund for Transportation Baseyard Check-In Facility. It was part of Ms. Mahikoa's Fiscal Year 2014 improvements in order to address the congestion of our peak hour routes on the bus. Ms. Yukimura moved to add funding for "Transportation Baseyard Check-In Facility" in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Motion and second for the addition. The amount was forty thousand dollars ($40,000). Discussion members. If not, call for a vote please. The motion to add funding for "Transportation Baseyard Check-In Facility" in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Going around the table, Mr. Kagawa, Mr. Hooser, anymore? Mr. Hooser: I will pass for now. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, you just had a chance. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: My understanding that we need to allocate the funds in the Bond Fund and I would like to move to put the remaining total of four hundred fifty-nine thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($459,656) into a line item called Pouli Road Design. This was in the budget from 2008 until 2011. Nobody seems to remember under what circumstance as why it left the budget in 2011. But it was something that we did considerable work on and has considerable promise to mitigate traffic concerns and safety concerns on the East Side. Mr. Bynum moved to add funding for "Pouli Road Design" in the amount of four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($419,656), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: The motion is to move four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($419,656). I think I have got that correct or thereabouts. The last of the money in the Bond Fund to Pouli Road Design. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes, you have the floor. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 75 Mr. Rapozo: I think I heard enough from the Administration earlier discussion that I do not believe that they are prepared at all for that. I am not going to be supporting that. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Do not need to have any more dialogue. I am going to call for the vote. Roll call, please. The motion to add funding for "Pouli Road Design" in the amount of four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars ($419,656) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: Four (4) ayes, three (3) nos, it does not pass. Ms. Yukimura: It does pass. Chair Furfaro: You need five (5) votes for an addition, four (4) votes it does not go in. Around the table. Councilmember Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: I have a procedural question about the balance in the CIP Bond Fund. The four hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($419,000), we need to find a project to expend the funds on as part of this process. I would like to just throw out on the table another possibility and I have not prepared anything. But I have been thinking about it and this is the Pi`ikoi Building renovations. There are several Departments that are packed in there. We know. We heard during the budget presentation that Finance and Planning have very difficult time adding people to their Office because there is no space for them. A good chunk of funds were diverted to Hardy Street improvements that could have gone into the design of the empty space used for storage now at the Pi`ikoi Building. If we do not get the design process moving on that, those Departments are going to continue to be in very crowded conditions. I am just going to throw it out and see where the votes are. But I think that we have to look at the capacity of our workers. I really think that the conditions in some of those Offices are very tight and so we will just throw that out as a possible priority use of these funds. Chair Furfaro: You are making that motion? Ms. Nakamura: Yes, I am. Ms. Nakamura moved to increase funding for "Pi`ikoi Interior Renovation Phase IP" in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that, Mr. Rapozo. We have a second from Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Yes, I concur that we need — I see that there is some money in there for Pi`ikoi already. I have one other suggestion that I would like to see if Lenny can comment on and it is to put some moneys in for Hanapepe Stadium 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 76 improvements. The football stadium bleachers are very old and starting to fall apart and we do not have any moneys in there, I believe. But there are also some issues with repairing the food booth and there is a need for improved ADA accessibility including paved walkways to get to the restrooms around the facility. I would like to leave that as one of the options, maybe half-and-half or something like, that with the rest of the moneys. Thank you. Mr. Kagawa moved to add funding for "Hanapepe Stadium ADA Walkways and Food If Booth" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: I have got a procedural question for myself. I am going to need a (3) minute time out, three (3) minute recess. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:31 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 2:32 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Members we have a situation where we cannot necessarily entertain a new idea when we have a motion and second on the table. We have to dispose of that motion first. Now, if you would like to have the second withdraw it and the first, we can have a decision about the four hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($419,000) balance and you may come up with a compromise. But the reality is by Robert's Rules the first item has to be disposed of. If you do not want to remove the second on the proposed item, then I will call a vote and we will stand on what goes that way. I am going to do that at this point. Mr. Kagawa, I hope you understand the procedural in our rules. There is a motion on the table dealing with the four hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($419,656) which is the last of the bond money for the purpose of upgrading, modifying, and redesign of space in the Pi`ikoi Building for the purpose of providing the appropriate work areas for the Administration across the street. Now I am going to call for the vote on that item. Mr. Hooser: Just a little bit more discussion. Chair Furfaro: Absolutely, go ahead. Mr. Hooser: I understand the need to properly plan the space. I do have some concerns about the food hub and the fact that that has not been worked out. I would hate to spend money on planning space. Ms. Nakamura: Can I clarify? Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, I am going to let her respond to your question. r!: Ms. Nakamura: This has nothing do with the Big Save space. This is about the vacant space used for storage that is planned for the Planning Department and I believe the Department of Parks and Recreation. But it is a huge space ,I that is not improved, simply used for storage now. Mr. Hooser: Just a follow-up question. 'L� 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 77 Chair Furfaro: You still have a floor. Mr. Hooser: The four hundred nineteen thousand five hundred fifty-six dollars ($419,656), do you have any idea, is it all needed? Ms. Nakamura: I believe and maybe Larry Dill or maybe Gary could clarify. But the idea would be to begin the design process which there is no plan to even begin looking at design in this budget. We know that is going to take some time. We have got to start the process somewhere. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Heu, will you consider coming up to help us answer this? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Heu: Was there a specific question? Chair Furfaro: I will let the Vice Chair restate her question for you. Go ahead, Nadine. Ms. Nakamura: When Larry Dill came over here to give us an update on the office space needs for the County, it was clear that the focus was working on the Solid Waste Division, getting that area designed and improved and there was this area currently used for storage that was targeted in the office plan for Department of Planning and the Department of Parks and Recreation so that that space could be used by other Departments that need to expand into those areas. Mr. Heu: Right. Ms. Nakamura: I guess the question is, are you prepared to look at a design component of that storage area in this fiscal year? Mr. Heu: We just had a brief discussion because obviously if you folks are looking at allocating additional funds so use it in a timely manner. I think previously we have discussed having to finish an assessment plan. However, Larry and I were just talking and he feels that they can in fact, move ahead on the design of certain components based on the original plan. Ms. Nakamura: Can you clarify what you mean by certain components? Mr. Heu: Can we just have a five (5) minute recess? There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:37 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 2:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We are back and I think the way we left it, Administration, you requested a five (5) minute time-out to answer a question. You want to respond now after the time-out? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 78 Mr. Heu: Sure. I will let Larry answer any technical questions. But basically, I think the direction is that if we were provided an allocation of about say three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) and in addition to finishing off the Feasibility Study we would, as Larry had previously indicated, it was their desire to move ahead with the design for solid waste and wastewater and we would also include planning in that with the additional allocation. Mr. Dill: If I may, Chair? We would update the Office Space Master Plan. Also, we would look at the entire infrastructure in the building, the utilities, HACV, and make sure that would be able to support the master plan and any improvements necessary for that. Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize others, of the four hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($419,000) you are implying that you would encompass some of this work for an additional three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000)? Mr. Dill: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have the floor followed by JoAnn. Mr. Bynum: This would expedite when we actually had usable office space for our employees, correct? Mr.Dill: Yes. Mr. Bynum: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: You are updating the space study and let us not call it a Feasibility Study because I do not think it is about whether things are feasible you are just thinking about the next steps in providing space, right? Mr. Dill: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: When are you completing the space study? What is your timetable on this? When are you completing the space study? Mr. Dill: We planned to go out for this with Fiscal Year 2013 CIP funds already appropriated. We would have to revise that. I need to speak to our Procurement Officer about the best way to do that now since we are already part way down the road. We would be adding specifically to the scope and we may have to start the procurement process again. But having said all of that, it would probably take us... Ms. Yukimura: You already have somebody doing the space study update? rf Mr. Dill: Not started yet, close. Close to negotiating a contract with somebody. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 79 Ms. Yukimura: Well, good thing we caught it before you finalized a contract. Mr. Dill: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: The space study is for how many years? Mr. Dill: That is what we still have not negotiated that final point. We have not determined that final point as far as the planning horizon. I know the original plan horizon on the original one was only five (5) years and I do not know why it was that short. Ms. Yukimura: You would not spend any of this money until you finished that study? Mr. Dill: No. We already have identified as the high priority items among others, Solid Waste, Wastewater and the Planning Department. We would go ahead with all of that at the same time. We would take care of Planning, Solid Waste and Wastewater and the Office Space Planning Study would happen concurrently. Ms. Yukimura: Would what? Mr. Dill: Would happen concurrently. Ms. Yukimura: Would be doing concurrently? Mr. Dill: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: You would use the three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to design the expansion for Solid Waste, Wastewater and Planning? Mr. Dill: We already have some funds appropriated so with this, we would add the Planning Department and looking at the infrastructure in the building. Chair Furfaro: Water, air, electricity, all of those. Mr. Dill: Yes, air conditioning is a big one. Ms. Yukimura: This is the part of the building that is not the portion that Big Save was in, but adjacent to? Mr. Dill: Correct. Though the office space plan part would include all of it. Ms. Yukimura: Are you including parking in all of this, too? Mr. Dill: I do not believe we are, no, just the office space plan. Chair Furfaro: Larry, you are aware you are adding twenty-one (21) parking stalls with the closure of here, right? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 80 Mr. Dill: Right. Ms. Yukimura: I hope somebody is taking into account the total parking needs as well. Thank you. Mr. Dill: Thank you. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote here on this item. The amount is three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000). We had a motion, as well as a second. Let us go around the table and that will leave one hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($119,656). Start with Mr. Hooser, on the vote, please. Roll call. Ms. Nakamura: Chair, I need to state again my motion. Chair Furfaro: That is why I restated it. Ms. Nakamura: That is what I thought. That is what I had heard. The motion to increase funding for "Pi`ikoi Interior Renovation Phase II" in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars($300,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL- 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes, thank you. A quick update, Mr. Kagawa, you will have the floor. That leaves us one hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($119,656) in the bond adjustments. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, Mr. Rapozo has not asked for anything. He has done a lot of cutting so I will give him a chance to add one of his projects please. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Kagawa. I did not honestly did not prepare for any additions simply because I did not think we would have the resources and I appreciate all of the efforts to move around the moneys to free up some bond money. I had an opportunity to go down to Hanama`ulu Beach Park last week and take a look at that old restroom. I just had a real quick chat with Keith regarding demolition. I understand there is a bigger plan for that place and I can accept that. But to allow that structure to remain is an invitation to drug use, invitation to homelessness. I did not realize how beautiful Hanama`ulu Beach Park was until I went there last week and Lenny, compliments to whoever is taking care of the park because it is a fabulous location. I cannot speak to the water. But that is beyond our control. In fact, that day one of the 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 81 County workers was working the shoulders and edging the grass. I spoke to Keith and he is talking about seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to demolish. I was going to talk to you Lenny, but I ran into him first so I stopped at his place, with him first. But is that something that could be done, just to remove that structure so we can basically keep that area free from what is going on down there? Chair Furfaro: You can respond to Mr. Rapozo. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. L. Rapozo: Mel, we are in the permitting process. I have engaged the community. There is a community member that is willing to bring in his own machines to demolish the place on his own. Our commitment would be to get the permits and to help with the disposal fees for that particular facility. We are stuck at Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) because it is in a conservation district in terms of getting the demolition permit. We have gone through the County's reviews and we are at DLNR, I have a call into our representative that sits on the board. Once we get that permit, we will be coming here for that donation from the community member who is willing to go down there with his machines and demolish it and haul it away for us. Mr. M. Rapozo: I would assume this person is licensed? Mr. L. Rapozo: He is a licensed trucker who grew up in Hanama`ulu. Mr. M. Rapozo: No, that is fine. I appreciate that as well. I just want to make sure that it gets done. I understand the permitting and I appreciate the response. So, that is fine. That will save us seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). Thank you, Lenny. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. That allows myself and Councilmember Yukimura to try and split the difference of one hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($119,656) that is remaining. Lenny, I am going to ask that we use half of that amount. I do not have the exact figure here. But half of what is left up there, one hundred nineteen thousand six hundred fifty-six dollars ($119,656) and I want to use it for plans and design for a new food booth facility. Hopefully, we can at least begin the process. I believe that structure is about seventy (70) years old, maybe. It does not appear that we are going to move our football activities, soccer activities, et cetera any time soon. I would also like to provide at some point ADA walkways from the entrance of the stadium to the restroom and to the food booth. Our residents have gotten used to rolling with the wheelchairs on the grass and especially when it is rainy and wet, it is very, very difficult and messy. If you could start in that direction, I would greatly appreciate it. There is no sense doing the ADA walkway as around the food booth when we are going to break it down soon. I am going to rely on Lenny to try and plan this out accordingly. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 82 Ms. Yukimura: Just a question. Is that amount just to cover both the food booth and walkway and Lenny, you have one million dollars ($1,000,000) plus for ADA improvements is that not covered? Mr. Kagawa: Well, I figured we would leave it broad because there is a lot of need and he can best use it as we work towards at some point getting a new food booth. But leaving it broad to cover, if it is perhaps not enough to do a food booth design, we can do some walkways at least to cover the areas from the entrance to the restroom facility. I think that would be a good start, but let us give the Parks Director some leeway because I think all in all, we want to begin that process of being more responsive to the needs of accessibility. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, you have something to add? Mr. Bynum: The discussion we have had recently is really about us reprioritizing a significant amount and all of these things we are funding I think have a higher priority than what we removed. I can support this, but I just want to point out to Councilmembers a few minutes ago I talked about some funds that could be moved from General Fund CIP which would free up funds for General Fund adds that some of you may want to do. Another potential for these funds is to free up General Fund moneys because I think I have got this right, Steve or Ernie, if it is in General Fund CIP and we move it to Bond Fund, then those funds remain in the General Fund and can be used also for staffing and operations, right? I just do not want us to lose that opportunity. These are good proposals. I think it is very important that we do the ADA things as quickly and as adequately as possible. But it is going to constrain our options in the General Fund. I have mixed feelings. Chair Furfaro: Call for the vote on that note. The motion to add funding for "Hanapepe Stadium ADA Walkways and Food Booth" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: That leaves us with what in the CIP? Ms. Yukimura: The other half. Chair Furfaro: How much? Three (3) minute recess. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 2:58 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 2:59 p.m. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa ) Page 83 Chair Furfaro: Just for clarity for everybody, in the bond account that leaves fifty-nine thousand eight hundred y g ed twenty eight dollars ($59,828) and Councilwoman, you want the floor for the bond and you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I was going to suggest an additional using the remaining moneys for two (2) or three (3) additional bus stops. As you will recall there are eight (8) in the budget right now, but there are forty-one (41) that still need to be done. The Transportation Manager said she would apply for Tiger Moneys which are Federal moneys. She will be applying for one million dollars ($1,000,000) and there is no guarantee she will even get half of that. That is the proposal. Ms. Yukimura moved to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: The proposal is to use the balance of the moneys, fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828), to add additional upgrades to the bus stops. Second from Mr. Hooser. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: As much as I love the idea of building more bus stops than we planned, I think I am going to vote against this because we have the opportunity to move some of the General Fund CIP into the remaining fifty-nine thousand dollars ($59,000) and we are going to need that General Fund money. I assume some Councilmembers are look at some of the same adds that I am. They are not huge. But they are important and I do not want us to not have any funds available. Also, I am looking to try to find funds for the proposal that Councilmember Nakamura put forward. Rather than do the bus stops, I would rather free up money in the General Fund for some of these other things to make sure we can accomplish them. I will vote against these and if it does not go, I will move to free up more General Fund moneys for things that we may need to do before the end of this process. Chair Furfaro: Just a housekeeping item so the staff can be prepared. As we continue this dialogue, I want to make sure we are able to identify what we have left in the CIP funds, not the bond funds, but the CIP funds based on the fact that earlier we moved operational moneys to the CIP. Transportation that should have freed up more money for us on the regular CIP. Just wanted to make that housekeeping announcement. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: It is my understanding that we have how much money left? Mr. Bynum: Fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828). Mr. Hooser: We could only move that amount over? Mr. Bynum: That is correct. Mr. Hooser: So, we could not move that amount over? Mr. Bynum: Yes. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 84 Mr. Hooser: And the use that for General Funds? Mr. Bynum: Yes. Mr. Hooser: What item is that? Mr. Bynum: It would come from Kapa'a New Fire Station at forty-nine thousand seven hundred fifteen ($49,715) and then a portion of the security renovations at the Mayor's Office. So, it leave some in the Bond Fund, but take out the difference of that one item that would free up fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) in the General Fund for things that I think are essential. I will mention one, to fund the YWCA. Every year the proposal is to reduce it. Every year this Council puts the funds back. I assume we will do that again this year, but we have to have the funds to do it. That is one example. Ms. Nakamura: I have a procedural question and I think this is for Ernie or for the Finance Director. Procedurally, can we do that? We can move the CIP Bond Fund to the CIP General Fund. Mr. Bynum: No, from General Fund to Bond Fund. Chair Furfaro: Similar to what Mr. Hooser did. Mr. Bynum: That will free that money in the General Fund for things like technological centers that cannot use the Bond Fund. k Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Housekeeping item first. Jade, we did move with a motion and vote, we did move that money to CIP bond? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485)? Chair Furfaro: The five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485). Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: We voted on that, right? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We need to take a vote on that. Chair Furfaro: We need to still do that. I will call for that now which then will let us have the money in regular CIP? I want to do that first, so we do not get confused. As you know, what we did by moving operational items and the bus issues we were moving five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485), is that the correct item? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes, it is. Chair Furfaro: I need a motion and second on that first. rNRrF', 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 85 Ms. Yukimura: Question, Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: If you do not want to make the motion, you do not have the money to spend. Mr. Hooser moved to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) to the Operating Budget, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: Point of inquiry. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: I have proposals for the CIP Highway Fund to turn some of them into operating moneys for the bus. Are we now removing that? Chair Furfaro: Jade, would you take time to explain what we did? Let the Clerk explain what we did, so there is no confusion here. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred dollars ($565,485) came from the Operating Budget Transportation Agency, page eighty-five 207 salaries for bus drivers and the associated benefits. That was moved to the Highway Fund that is reflected there and that is what the Chair is asking for a vote. Chair Furfaro: That is what I am asking to vote upon. Mr. Bynum: I thought we did that already. Chair Furfaro: We did not vote. I am sorry, I am going to take five (5) minutes again. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:07 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 3:30 p.m. Chair Furfaro: Steve, I want to give this a little clarity so people understand what we are voting on. I would like you to either agree with my presentation or not right after I make it. We have a General Fund operating budget that we took from Transportation on page 207, five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) and we moved to the operating budget Highway Funds. Do you agree with that? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: We then took Highway Fund CIP and transferred five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) to Operating Budget leaving us with nine hundred eighty-two thousand dollars ($982,000) needed to cover the cost of revenue due to the Motor Vehicle Weight Tax Bill that did not pass. Nine hundred eighty-two thousand dollars ($982,000). I am sorry. I will give you all a copy of my notes here. Then from the transfers to the piece we got a credit of five 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 86 hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five ht -five dollars 565 485 as a transfer Y g Y ($ � ) against that nine hundred eighty-two thousand dollars ($982,000) leaving us chasing four hundred sixteen thousand dollars ($416,000) in the Highway Operating Fund. Mr. Hunt: I would say just in the General Fund operating fund. Chair Furfaro: General Fund,I am sorry. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Leaving us at the end of the day, as we stand right now, we have a shortfall to find in all funds actually seven hundred sixty-seven thousand nine hundred thirteen dollars ($767,913) in all funds reflected in the Operating Budget primarily due to the shortfalls in solid waste due to tipping fees. f Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree with that. Chair Furfaro: You would agree with what? So, you would agree with what I have here? I am going pass this out. Now just for everybody's general information, when we get an opportunity to talk about adds, I have a proposal here that would add, based on some reconciliation I did with you this morning and it is refined from my earlier memorandum and some revenue that needs to follow with a Bill for July 1, for the golf course, I will say we have the potential of adding nine hundred fifty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($952,868). I will say that again, nine hundred fifty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($952,868) which leads us approximately ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) worth of wiggle room if we took a photo like now. Based on that, that is what we are chasing. But we are close to having a balanced Operating Budget. Would you concur with that? FMr. Hunt: Yes, and I am assuming that nine hundred fifty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($952,868) includes the balance that i unassigned. we talked about in the unassi g Chair Furfaro: Yes, it includes the revisiting of seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) and one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000) for the golf course. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: That is where that nine (9) comes from. But we have not had that discussion yet. Now Steve, do you mind if I allow members to ask you questions since you have my worksheet in front of you and I am going to pass out my worksheet. Go ahead, JoAnn. It is handwritten and Xeroxed. Yes, you have the floor and you can direct the questions to Steve. Ms. Yukimura: This is all assuming that we would vote to move the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) from the Operating Budget? Chair Furfaro: That is right. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 87 Ms. Yukimura: To the Highway Fund. It is like a proposal, not something that is legal? Chair Furfaro: Well, let me clarify that. We have been acting as if we voted and what this thing started with, I wanted to say did we have a vote? We have not had a vote. I am saying that the first action that we do here, we will take a vote. If you want to vote"no" against it JoAnn, then vote "no" against it. Ms. Yukimura: I just want to say that because we were just working on CIP, I was not making the proposals for the operating additions and what I wanted to do was to take some of that five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty five dollars ($565,485) savings in CIP and move it into an operating add for the bus. Chair Furfaro: I understand that. What I am saying when I ( start to propose additional revenues, there will be a balance in the Operating Budget. Ms. Yukimura: But we have to agree on those additional revenues Chair Furfaro: I agree we have to agree. Ms. Yukimura: I am feeling a bit sort of like, we are making assumptions of what will happen subsequently that has not yet happened. Chair Furfaro: Let us make sure we understand it. You are making an assumption on what the Chair is presenting who is trying to get to a vote. I will say it again, if you do not want to vote on the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) the way it is lined up, you vote "no." But the reality is we cannot go on without taking a vote on that transferred. I am going to recognize Steve. Steve, go ahead. Mr. Hunt: Thank you, Chair. Just so you are all clear too, the money is currently cleared up in the Highway Fund. It is not available General Fund yet and unless you are supplanting dollar for dollar and moving moneys that are going to cover Transportation operations, then you get dollar for dollar opening up in General Fund. If you supplant less than that, then there is say balance in Highway Fund and can only be used for Transportation or roads. It cannot be used for general. If you are trying to get, as much as you can in the General fund, you would likely try to leverage that to get as much as you can in Transportation. Chair Furfaro: And that is how we started out with this whole transfer, so that we would have more money in General Fund Ms. Yukimura: Yes. But for some of us, we want to use, at least right now, the surplus or savings in the Highway Fund for some Highway Fund or transportation purposes. The reason why this discussion is important is because the alternative to not voting to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) to the General Fund from the Highway Fund is to pass a portion of it to the General Fund, but not all. I think that is what you were saying. Mr. Hunt: No. Well, my concern is if you do not move the operational expenses and transportation to be covered by the Highway Funds, the balance of whatever you left only in Highway Funds. You cannot use it for General Fund purposes. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 88 Ms. Yukimura: Understood. Mr. Hunt: You still have a running total of within the operating of four hundred sixteen thousand dollars ($416,000) that you need to carve out, if you will, to cover. Before you get to the adds, you still need to at least cover and Chair Furfaro's plan covers and potentially opens up about ninety thousand dollars ($90,000). Beyond that you are going to have to have other cuts or revenues to get more. There may be additional revenue proposals that I am not aware of. But you cannot start expanding and adding until you covered the existing obligations, if you will, in the operating. Ms. Yukimura: If you want to talk about revenues, I mean, one option is to reconsider the Motor Vehicle Weight Tax and raise it by twenty-five cents ($0.25) instead of one dollar ($1) that was proposed, get some revenue there, and then figure out how to make up the rest of the loss. The same thing with the solid waste fees that we need. We do not have to make that big a jump, but we can make a small increase. Chair Furfaro: That is the first I am hearing of that, Steve. You already reconciled and agree with what I have done so far? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: That discussion is amongst members. The Councilwoman can make a proposal to do that. All I want to do is get us to a point that we needed to realize on that transfer that we did earlier. Ms. Yukimura: Can I just ask one more question? Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead. Ms. Yukimura: In this sheet it says at the end, with all the 1, 2, 3, 4 steps we still have to find seven hundred sixty-seven thousand nine hundred thirteen dollars ($767,913) in all funds in the Operating Budget. Chair Furfaro: Unless you agree with what I will propose when we get to revenues which is nine hundred fifty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($952,868). Ms. Yukimura: Perhaps we should at least hear about that so we can at least begin to think in our own minds how feasible it is as an option. Chair Furfaro: I will give a real quick synopsis and then I will wait until it gets on the agenda. After going over the details that I covered in my memorandum today, I have identified an estimated remaining unassigned revenues of seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572). That piggy-backed with a modest increase in the golf course which is losing one million one hundred dollars ($1,100,000), I am asking that we consider, and I need the five (5) votes for this JoAnn because it is basically a two dollars ($2) round of golf increase and a marketing plan that adds about forty-nine thousand dollars ($49,000) in the year for picking up three (3) visitor guests a day at the rack-rate. That will give us one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000). The hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000) plus the seven hundred seven thousand dollars ($770,000) is what is going to give us nine hundred fifty-two thousand eight hundred sixty-eight dollars ($952,868). When that is done, we will 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 89 about nine thousand dollars ($90,000) or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) leftover still. Chair will recognize Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Thank you, Chair and I appreciate the work and all the effort. It is an arduous process, there is no doubt. And my main objective is to get us to the blackest end first. There was some discussion, I believe yesterday or recently, about the unappropriated surplus. I think the Administration may have mentioned there had been—it is called different names and I apologize. Chair Furfaro: It is called by Resolution, it is called an Emergency Fund which identifies two million six hundred thousand dollars ($2,600,000) which is held in reserve for four (4) types of emergencies. Mr. Hooser: Right. But I think above and beyond that there is expected to be ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) that comes from 2014 budget unspent, is that correct? Mr. Hunt: You are referring to the—I am sorry, I need to be recognized. Chair Furfaro: You can be recognized and that is money that you told us you were going to carry over for next year's budget? Mr. Hunt: Correct. What it is, is it is actually the Fiscal 2013 estimated lapse currently estimated at ten million four hundred thousand dollars ($10,400,000) and that had been termed as unappropriated surplus. Again, with our discussions with the external Auditors we were advised that we should not, but no cannot, but should not be budgeting that unless you have an actual fund balance to cover that. The fund balance that we are talking about is the unassigned fund balance which is actual money that we have on deposit which is being used for budgeting and the remainder is seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572). Chair Furfaro: Which is the amount I mentioned right now that we have agreed on? Mr. Hunt: Correct, which would be appropriate for the budget and there is an additional two million six hundred thousand dollars ($2,600,000) and change called Committed Reserve and that is for emergency disaster. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, I will give you the floor one more time. I want to get to the vote on this pieces and I also want to tell you, I think I have done my part finding nine hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($985,000). Go ahead. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura: Chair, it would probably be an alteration of our process. But I was wondering if it would be helpful for everybody to just put all of theirs adds on the table now so we can who is proposing what and how much they add up to. It would give me a little bit more comfort in knowing whether this process would cover all of our needs. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 90 Chair Furfaro: If you want to put a wish-list up, we will put a wish-list up. But that is what it is. I think it is better. The next step is to find out what revenues to add so you know how big the pot is versus here is the wish-list. I mean that is the way I set it up that way. Now I can tell you that I have, and I will put it over here, I have another thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000) that is in Contingency Funds from CIP that we can put on the side. I also have a challenge across the board, all Departments, I want a one percent (1%) decrease in energy, adds another forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000). I also want to ask you to consider lowering our Workers' Compensation Premium nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000) or challenge the Department Heads to three percent (3%) improvement over the premium. That is another eighty-one thousand dollars ($81,000) that I am proposing in addition to the nine hundred eighty-five thousand dollar ($985,000). I would like to discuss adding those revenues by one. The, only one I am cautious on is the bid for the insurance. But that is across the board. We have got to put some incentive out there for the Department Heads to start realizing how serious it is to improve our Workers' Compensation index rate and we do by committing to a lower premium. That is how I see it. That is the discussion. I will be coming up with about one million forty-five thousand dollars ($1,045,000) of moneys here when we get to that. Yes, Mel? Mr. Rapozo: I am not sure if I may have dozed off at some point, but is the motion not on the table on the bus stops? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Mr. Bynum: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: I believe, is that not what is on the table? Chair Furfaro: Here is what happened Mel. A motion was on the bus stop to put some more bus stops in, more than the fifty-nine thousand dollars ($59,000). But I put up the red-flag and said we spent that money except fifty-nine thousand dollars ($59,000). Mr. Rapozo: Right. It was fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) that left fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) in the CIP Bond Fund. There was a motion to put the remaining fifty- nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) towards bus stops. Chair Furfaro: Then I interceded by saying, "Folks we have not voted on the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) that we transferred and can we get that cleaned up before we start adding more," and that is where we are at. Mr. Rapozo: I guess I would just ask that we take care of that bus stop motion because I should have said this earlier, but I was just letting it go. We need to deal with that motion if whoever made the motion to withdraw it to go somewhere else. Chair Furfaro: The reason we got where we are at, JoAnn wanted more money that was left. So, I said let us vote on where we are at and if you do not want to vote for that JoAnn, you can vote "'no." Now we are into all of these other explanations. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 91 Mr. Rapozo: I think when we started this process, we were going to go into the cuts and then go to the CIP. Then at this point, we are still in the CIP. We can dispose of that item and get into the revenues. Chair Furfaro: That is my plan. Mr. Rapozo: Then hopefully get out of here because like you said, Mr. Chair, everyone has a right to vote the way they want to. But if not, we are not going to. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: I think the discussion about the fifty-nine thousand dollars ($59,000) began to raise the questions of the big-picture and our needs from the General Fund operating and that is why we moved to this to try to see the big picture. I do not mind if we formally defer this to seeing the big picture first and then going back to it. Mr. Rapozo: I will call for the question, Mr. Chair. I want to vote on the bus stop issue now. I want to vote on and let us get it over with and then we can get into your revenue enhance. Chair Furfaro: That is the next item. I have a second to call for the vote. The motion to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Kagawa, Nakamura TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: Hooser TOTAL— 1. Mr. Kagawa: Did it pass? Chair Furfaro: Let me get the call. { Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Councilmember Hooser was silent. Chair Furfaro: It fails, you need a fifth vote. Mr. Rapozo: Somebody has to reconsider. Mr. Rapozo moved to reconsider the motion to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred it twenty-eight dollars ($59,828), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Call for the vote again, please. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 92 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Councilmember Bynum? Mr. Bynum: I am sorry. I do not know what I am voting for. Chair Furfaro: Fifty-nine thousand nine hundred eleven dollars ($59,911) is the number that is out there. There is a vote to reconsider that vote. Do you want to reconsider? He is a "no." The motion to reconsider the motion to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty- eight dollars ($59,828) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR RECONSIDERATION: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Nakamura TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Chair Furfaro: We only need a 4:3 vote on the reconsideration, not on the item. I just want to make sure everybody understand that. Mr. Rapozo moved to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: I have a motion and second. Mr. Bynum, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: We already have funding for bus stops. This is to add a couple. I really would ask the Council to not accept this motion because we need these funds elsewhere. We can move this into General Fund by making the moves that I suggested and so do we want two (2) new bus stops or do we want to fund some of the proposals like the Technological Center that really has legs and has motion and the Administration is ready to move on or two (2) more bus stops? It does not make sense to me, so I am voting no. Chair Furfaro: Okay, you are voting"no." JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I recognize the frustration of Mr. Bynum and that is why I wanted to defer it to get the big picture and make sure that all of our priorities are first met. Ours meaning whatever gets five (5) votes. But because it was called to a vote I am voting for it. Chair Furfaro: Call for the vote. The motion to increase funding for "Sheltered Bus Stops Design & Construction" in the amount of fifty-nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($59,828) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 93 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: 5:2. There is no more allocation left for the CIP. But let us go back to the original piece here on the Highway Fund transfers. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is the five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485). Mr. Kagawa moved to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) from Highway Fund CIP to contribution To/From CIP, seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: Discussion? JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend the motion to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) from Highway Fund CIP to contribution To/From CIP to reduce the transfer amount by one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000) with a remaining balance of four hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($423,485), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Discussion on the amendment? Yes? We should get a discussion from the person who made it and then I will give you the floor, Mr. Kagawa. Rationale for the move? Ms. Yukimura: I would like to be able to fund the Fiscal Year 2015 proposal from the Transportation Agency which is a proposal to remove the congestion on peak hour routes. We were told that if there is a baseyard check-in facility and funding for additional mainline routes, the congestion could be removed by the end of this year. We are presently in such of a terrible bind in terms of providing needed services I see it almost as a crisis that needs to be addressed. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, I will not be supporting the amendment. I thank Councilmember Hooser for the brilliant move of finding these moneys to offset the money we are still in the red. Using Chair Furfaro's assumptions on the surplus, we now find ourselves in the black a little bit. We have some moneys to play with, but I think taking out one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000), it may hurt us in the long run as we try to end up with a balanced budget. Let us deal with the additions, her requests when the Transportation Department comes up in our additions. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: Gosh, this is complicated because we just spent sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) to add two (2) bus stops. This thing is much more important. I mean for us to know our buses are full and people are standing and not to move expeditiously to correct that is very short sighted. Half the people use the bus because they have to and other half are choosing to. We are going to lose those people who are choosing and it will undermine our whole transportation plan that we all voted on. As difficult as this is for me to support this, if this is the way we have to find the funds to make sure that those additional commuter routes get added this year, I am going support it. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 94 Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo? Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will not be supporting this. I do not think it is short sighted at all. I think that the transfers need to be made. I know Councilmember Yukimura has had a lot of discussions with the Transportation Department. I am not satisfied that I received the plan from them as far as expansion and additional routes. I did see the one (1) page spreadsheet that was submitted last week. But I have not yet been given a plan that I believe is substantially enough for me to approve funding at this time. We can address this again in the next fiscal year. Should the plan in my opinion be sufficient I will definitely support a Money Bill, but at this point I am not satisfied that that plan exists. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion, if not, I will ask for the vote. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is on the amendment. The motion to amend the motion to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) from Highway Fund CIP to contribution To/From CIP to reduce the transfer amount by one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000) with a remaining balance of four hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($423,485)was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL— 4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: I want to say that I had hoped to find enough money as I have already spilled my challenges out to you. I found one million thirty-seven thousand dollars ($1,037,000) and certainly if you folks had voted to support that, there would have left a little wiggle room. I am going to vote on this as "no." Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Chair Furfaro: The amendment passes. Go to the main motion as amended. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is now to transfer four hundred twenty- three thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($423,485). Ms. Yukimura: Point of order. Chair Furfaro: You want clarification. The motion to amend passed so we are going to the main motion. That is the net difference that is left to balance the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars (565,000). Ms. Yukimura: That is correct. I am sorry. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 95 Chair Furfaro: We will be out of balance again and we will start over. So, state the motion again so we all understand it, Jade, please. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is to reduce one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000), leaving four hundred twenty-three thousand eighty-five dollars ($423,485) as the transfer amount. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes, discussion. Mr. Rapozo: Is there a plan to bring that Highway Fund into balance? Chair Furfaro: It is a real question. Mr. Rapozo: Now we are out of balance and we that was the whole purpose of me trying to get through the CIP Bond Fund so that we can start locking down these funds. We cannot pursue or proceed with an unbalanced CIP Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: Understood, your comment is well taken. Mr. Rapozo: That is why I agreed with the transfer and I am assuming that you need five (5) votes to pass this transfer? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: If we do not, I would suggest that we... Ms. Yukimura: Can we ask for a five (5) minute recess? Chair Furfaro: We are in recess for five (5) minutes. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:59 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 4:04 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Back to the table, members. We have an amendment that passed. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Now we are to the support on the five hundred sixty-five thousand dollars ($565,000) transfer, right? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Which was four hundred twenty-three thousand dollars ($423,000). Chair Furfaro: The way it was proposed you would take that out and end up one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000) less, right? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 96 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes. Chair Furfaro: I am as I said not going to support that because I have other proposals for revenues to look at and where are we at on amendment? The amendment failed? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The amendment passed. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair wants to reconsider her vote. Ms. Nakamura moved to reconsider the amendment to transfer four hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($423,485) from the Highway Fund CIP, seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Yukimura: On the amendment, right? Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: On the amendment. Ms. Nakamura: Just so that we can just consider the full amount within the General Fund. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is a vote on the reconsideration? Chair Furfaro: Yes, please. The motion to reconsider the amendment to transfer four hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($423,485) from the Highway Fund CIP was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR RECONSIDERATION: Bynum, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST RECONSIDERATION: Hooser, Yukimura, TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: We have four (4) votes for the reconsideration. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: Oh, it is 5:2. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The original amount was five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485). Ms. Nakamura moved to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) from Highway Fund CIP, seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Bynum: Can you clarify the motion? F, 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 97 Ms. Nakamura: That the five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) gets transferred to the General Fund. Mr. Bynum: Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: That is already the motion on the floor. Chair Furfaro: I heard it from that corner. Excuse me, Nadine, restate the motion, please to the Clerk's Office. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) to the Operating Budget Highway Fund. Chair Furfaro: That is the motion and it has a second, call for the vote. The motion to transfer five hundred sixty-five thousand four hundred eighty-five dollars ($565,485) from Highway Fund CIP was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL—2. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1. Chair Furfaro: 6:1 is vote. So, that piece of business is behind us. I think we are done with CIP. Now I would like to go to the revenue cycle on adding revenues. JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura moved to add one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000) for the Bus. Chair Furfaro: This portion is adding revenues. Then we will add expenses, if we have moneys available. Ms. Yukimura: Oh, adding revenues? Chair Furfaro: Adding revenues. Ms. Yukimura: I am sorry. I do not need to do that. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her motion to add one hundred forty-two thousand dollars ($142,000) for the Bus. Chair Furfaro: I have several proposals that I would like to put on the floor. Do other members have proposals for revenues? Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 98 Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: May I suggest that you transfer the Chair to me so you can be the maker of the motion as opposed to try to get someone to understand your motion and explain your motion. I promise I will not run wild with the Chairmanship. But I am just trying to get through this day. Chair Furfaro: For the revenue cycle I would like to transfer the Committee of the Whole to Mr. Rapozo. I have four (4) proposals to put on the table for revenues. Chair Furfaro, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would suggest if you could explain your four proposals. I think we got the gist of it through the last several hours and then we can take it up one at a time. Before we start, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I just have a quick process question. I have a tax rate proposal. Chair Furfaro: We will go to tax rates after. Mr. Bynum: That will generate a little bit more revenue, not much more. Chair Furfaro: We are going to go to tax rates after this. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: The first one I would like to say is that you have a comparison sheet that I sent out earlier on the municipal golf courses comparing us we are conservative, if we add approximately two dollars ($2) to all of our rounds and we depend on the money in Economic Development with George to secure additional rack rates revenues from visitors approximately three (3) additional rounds a day, along with the increases on Kama`aina rate from fifteen dollars ($15) to seventeen dollars ($17) and seniors from twelve dollars ($12) to fourteen dollars ($14), that will generate an additional one hundred seventeen thousand fourhanded eighty-one dollars ($117,481). There may not be copies for everybody over here, but I am going to talk without mine. I thought I sent them out. Ms. Yukimura: Could we have a copy, please? Chair Furfaro: Yes, I will continue my discussion and make copies for everyone. Do we have copies for everyone? Down in this corner here, you see the total increases here, forty-nine thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($49,275) comes from new resident rounds of three (3) a day. I would like to make that motion, if I can get a second. Mr. Rapozo: What was the motion, Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: The proposed rates on the sheet here which average about two dollars ($2) a round. This is a blended rate that appears right now. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 99 Chair Furfaro moved to increase revenue for Wailua Golf Course by one hundred seventeen thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars ($117,481) and decrease contribution from General Fund by one hundred seventeen thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars ($117,481), seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Ms. Yukimura: Point of inquiry. Mr. Rapozo: Go ahead. Ms. Yukimura: Now can we raise... Mr. Rapozo: I think I have the same question you do. But I will let you ask. Ms. Yukimura: Can we just raise the rates by approving this? Chair Furfaro: No, I said earlier when I got into this that I would like the five (5) votes and know that I have them to introduce a new rate Ordinance that we would vote and discuss on. I would hope that if you vote to support this and help offset the one million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) loss. Your vote I can count on when we do the rate increases. Mr. Rapozo: Maybe Ricky can correct me. I do not think we can approve the rates. But I believe we can approve. Chair Furfaro: Approve the budget. Mr. Rapozo: Correct, of the revenue. Chair Furfaro: You can approve the revenue section and that is why I broke it down to one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000). Mr. Rapozo: Your motion is really to increase the revenue portion of Wailua Golf Course by one hundred seventeen thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars ($117,481)? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: That is the motion. Chair Furfaro: That is the motion. Mr. Rapozo: This sheet is really to show us the intent. The bottom line if we pass this, then we will have to push for revenue enhancements at the golf course. But keep in mind with the changes at the golf course and acceptance of credit cards, I think the rounds will increase. But we can discuss that at that time. Any other discussion or questions? Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: I see the rates all going up, while the daily rate — the place that we are really taking a big loss and I will probably get a lot of heat for this is the monthly rate, the monthly cards. For example, it is sixty dollars ($60) for a resident for the seniors it is I do not know twenty-five dollars ($25) and even if I played five (5) times a 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 100 round, that is five (5) divided by sixty dollars ($60) is twelve dollars ($12) a round. It is where it is really being used a lot because a lot of people play more than five (5) times a round. I would suggest that we look at the monthly rates helping a little bit, but I totally support Chair Furfaro and I appreciate his worksheet. I think we can play a round with the rates including the monthly cards and we can come out to the one hundred seventeen thousand dollars ($117,000) figure. I would like to put in my opinion later when we reach the Money Bill. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: May I clarify? Mr. Rapozo: Sure. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure because I have George and Lenny in the back. We have had a falloff in revenue, regardless of what the rates and all I am proposing here is when we have the restaurant operational, when we have the pro shop operational, when we have some amenities added to the shop for golf balls and so forth, when we have a credit card for easy charging and so forth, I do not see why we cannot at this time project another one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) worth of revenue. I have the history of this and you all have it from a piece that I did for you several years ago. Revenues are falling because we are lacking amenities. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions? If not, go ahead, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I think my main question got answered because we cannot put funds in the budget on a Bill that has not passed. But we are just estimating the revenues higher. Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Bynum: Which I think we can do. If we cannot get those revenues, the Administration will have to come back to deal with the shortfall in the fund. The challenge is on to find that revenue if we pass this. Mr. Rapozo: Correct, the challenge will be on this body as well as the Administration of coming to an agreement of how we will attain that. But I think it is a fair proposal. Like you said, Mr. Chair, the restaurant, the pro shop, and all of these amenities will be coming online. We should be in good shape. Any other questions for the Chair? If not... Chair Furfaro: You can also look at this schedule, and compare us to other municipals. For example, Ala Wai, on weekends the Kama`aina rate is twenty-eight dollars ($28) at the Ala Wai. We have a course that is five (5) times better than the Ala Wai and we are only asking for twenty dollars ($20). Mr. Rapozo: Roll call vote, please. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 101 The motion to increase revenue for Wailua Golf Course by one hundred seventeen thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars ($117,481) and decrease contribution from General Fund by one hundred seventeen thousand four hundred eighty-one dollars ($117,481) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Yes, I would like to, before I get to the reconciliation that we have on the fund balances, I want to talk about a couple other small ones. There is a need for to us have a reach and this is not new revenue. This is across the board tighter controls. I think we should set a goal to reduce our energy by one percent (1%). At least there is say a goal in the budget to give us forty-five thousand six hundred seventy-four dollars ($45,674) additional. Mr. Rapozo: Is that your motion? Chair Furfaro: That is the motion that I would like to make. Chair Furfaro moved to reduce electricity line items by one percent (1%), forty-five thousand six hundred seventy-four dollars ($45,674), seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Mr. Rapozo: The motion is to reduce all energy lines by one percent (1%). Seconded by Councilmember Nakamura. Any discussion? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: This would be a number of different line items throughout the budget? Chair Furfaro: Yes. It is not a line item, but across the board as a goal. Mr. Bynum: Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: It seems like it is not aggressive enough. I do not know if we could do a two percent (2%). Mr. Rapozo: You probably know this the actuals of energy this ear� the budgeted versus actuals. Y Chair Furfaro: I have it in my worksheet. It was a substantial amount especially covering the parks. But I want to amend my piece because I took out of savings at Kalepa in a housing permit. It should be forty-five thousand three hundred twenty-three dollars ($45,323) at one percent (1%). Obviously, if you do that, one percent 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 102 (1%) in algebra is ninety-nine percent (99%) of the number. I have the worksheet downstairs. Mr. Rapozo: I know Mr. Hooser still has the floor. But I thought I heard the Chair when he first talked about this last week at some point mention three percent (3%). I do not know if that is doable. Chair Furfaro: Clarification, the three percent (3%) I mentioned was Workers Compensation. One percent (1%) was always energy. Mr. Rapozo: I stand corrected. Mr. Hooser you still have the floor. Mr. Hooser: I was thinking possibly two percent (2%). I am not sure how aggressive the County has been in reducing its electricity usage. But I imagine lots of computers and some of us, I will admit, forgetting to turn it off because the screen goes blank and leave it on. I do not know if two percent (2%) is reasonable. But if others feel so, we could possibly amend it, but I will leave it at that. Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Let me do this real quick, Mr. Kagawa. Ricky, as the County Clerk is two percent (2%) for our Office doable? It can be done. There you go. Mr. Hooser moved to amend the motion from one percent (1%), forty-five thousand six hundred seventy-four dollars ($45,674), to reduce electricity by two percent (2%), ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Mr. Rapozo: Moved and seconded. The amendment is to double that to ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646). Any discussion on the amendment? I am sorry, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am not going to support the amendment and I am very reluctant to support these kinds of budget things. We may cut our energy one percent (1%). Energy is closely tied to the cost of oil. The cost of oil is going up. I think it is just as likely we will end up fixing this problem later. These are the kind of things that I generally do not support. But because they are modest and because I want to fund some of the priorities that I mentioned recently, and this may be a way to do it, I will break that rule. But generally doing much of this is not a good way to budget in my opinion. But these proposals are modest. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: I want to say something. In the private world, if you are going to set a goal for something, you reflect the goal in the budget. This is a modest reach. This is reasonable. We have got our own people going to Green Team studies and we are spending money on solar and so forth. Two percent (2%) might be a reach and maybe I will support it. But one percent (1%), you need the message in the budget, we are serious about energy. We have allocated energy by Department. Now it is time to put the food to the pedal and hold people accountable for their energy management. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 103 Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to support going up to two percent(2%). I think it is a modest cut. It just surprises me the double talk about the concern of fuel prices and tax all of our residents with higher cost of fuel. They are all grumbling to me. I do not know if you are getting the same complaints. But it is just amazing how we are so reluctant to assess the impact to our County and to our residents out there who are all now paying for all of your votes. We do not care about them. So, it is just amazing. Mr. Rapozo: Any other questions, comments? Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure people are clear. I will support the one percent (1%), not the amendment. The purpose of supporting the one percent(1%) is fact that we need to put some reach in the budget. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you very much. Roll call on the amendment the amendment is to two percent (2%) reduction, ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646). The motion to amend the motion from one percent (1%), forty-five thousand six hundred seventy-four dollars ($45,674), to reduce electricity by two percent (2%), ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL—4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Mr. Rapozo: Motion passes and that will take us to the main motion as amended which will be two percent (2%) reduction, ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646). Roll call. The motion as amended to reduce electricity by two percent (2%), ninety thousand six hundred forty-six dollars ($90,646) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED& NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your next item. Chair Furfaro: I would like to make specific notice to the Public Works people, there is no extra work in the budget for any capital budgets. Therefore, I suggest we take out the thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000) contingency. Mr. Rapozo: Is that a motion? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 104 Chair Furfaro moved to dollar fund "Project Contingency" & transfer to General Fund in Operating in the amount of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796), seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Mr. Rapozo: Moved and seconded. The motion is to remove the...thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796) contingency. Chair Furfaro: Thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796) contingency. Mr. Rapozo: From Operating Budget, the General Fund? General Fund CIP. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: General Fund CIP. Mr. Rapozo: Any discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: My question is, that contingency could be used, it is in the General Fund so it could be used for Bond Fund projects as well, correct? Mr. Rapozo: Steve or someone, I will suspend the rules. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: At this time we do not know specifically what project that is tied to. It is a Public Works project and we are going to have to research to see if it can be supplanted by bond. Mr. Bynum: May I? Mr. Rapozo: Go ahead. Mr. Bynum: My question Steve is, generally we have a line item for project contingency for CIP projects. Is there such an item in the bond fund? I do not think we can put a contingency in the bond, right? Mr. Hunt: I cannot answer that question. Mr. Bynum: I thought the contingency in the General Fund, even though we moved most things out of the other funds there are the two (2) we did not move. So, you probably do not need thirty-eight thousand dollars ($38,000) to contingent those two (2). But I thought that contingency fund in the general could be used for contingency for bond funded project, if it is needed. Mr. Hunt: According to Keith, it has to remain in the General Fund. Mr. Bynum: Well, I am going support the Chair's proposal. Mr. Rapozo: I was under the impression that in the Bond Fund, all these bond projects have a self-contained contingency built in. That is what I thought. Is that not true? 1 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 105 Mr. Hunt: You would have to speak — Larry can answer that. Chair Furfaro: I can answer that. Generally, they do. But they can only be specifically for materials and construction bids not anything else. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Thank you, Steve. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Rapozo: Any other discussion or questions for the Chair? If not the motion is to reduce project contingency by thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796). Roll call, please. The motion to dollar fund "Project Contingency" & transfer to General Fund in Operating in the amount of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars ($38,796) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. I am looking at the page 6. It is thirty-eight thousand seven hundred ninety-seven dollars ($38,797). But this could be the typo. Can you look up the actual budget line item for me? Chair Furfaro: Maybe I should clarify this and I am sorry they voted on. But maybe we should have dollar funded it. Mr. Rapozo: Well, I think we may have to redo it anyway. Chair Furfaro: I think that is the dollar floating around. Is that the dollars that is floating around? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes, it is. Mr. Rapozo: That is what the motion was, so we do not have to fix it. Next, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: This is my last one at this point. This is a large amount and we might want to have Finance come up and chat with us. I did some worksheets and Steve's folks had some sheets done as well. We have an estimate remaining in the unassigned fund balance of seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572). I would like to make that motion that remaining money get assigned by making it available. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 106 Chair Furfaro moved for the utilization of "Unassigned Fund Balance" in the amount of seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Ms. Yukimura: Excuse me, what exactly is the proposal? Chair Furfaro: It is from reconciling my worksheets and Steve's. There is seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) in an unassigned fund balance as of right now, today. Mr. Rapozo: This would be in the General Fund. Chair Furfaro: Yes, General Fund. Mr. Hunt? Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Hunt, Steve if you could come up, I will suspend the rules, please. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Chair Furfaro: You heard my proposal. I did not know if we got a second. Mr. Rapozo: There was a second and the rules are suspended Steve. If you could identify the line. Is there a line? Mr. Hunt: No, it actually is fund balance that would be on balance sheet that is remaining in what we call the reserve, if you will, that would be moved from the balance sheet back into the Operational Budget. On the Budget Ordinance itself, we have eleven million two thousand dollars ($11,002,000) and some change. That number would be altered to account for the seven hundred seventy thousand dollars ($770,000). Chair Furfaro: You have eleven million two thousand seven hundred forty-eight dollars ($11,002,748). Mr. Hunt: Right. You would seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) to that amount to zero it out the unassigned reserve. But just so you are all clear too, that means any Money Bill that comes between now and December we will not have fund balance, unless you want to address the two million six hundred thousand dollars ($2,600,000) and change in there for emergency that is committed. That is our only reserve left. Mr. Rapozo: Questions? Chair Furfaro: I want to say one more thing. Mr. Rapozo: Sure. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 107 Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure that we understand, I am saying moving that money because CIP projects, Public Works and so forth, they need to be sure that the numbers we have been talking about are real and realistic. Mr. Rapozo: Questions for Steve? If you have a comment, we can hold it until later. But if you have a question for Steve. Mr. Bynum: I think he answered my question. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa, question? Mr. Kagawa: I just got to talk to Mr. Honda who used work here. I was with Councilmember Rapozo and we got to talk to him a little bit this weekend. He has been watching the budget proceedings and he has indicated to us that in all of history, the same thing. When have we spent — Department by Department, up to every penny? Likely, there will be hundreds of thousands, if not close to one million dollars ($1,000,000) in every Department that will be left at the end unspent. I mean, I know that we are relying on this actual number here on the screen, but do you think that there will be substantially more at the end? Mr. Hunt: Again, I think when the CAFR is done and we have a balance that is certified, our current estimate is ten million four hundred thousand dollars ($10,400,000). But depending on the amount of spending that occurs between now and end of fiscal, that could change or be variations to that. Keep in mind, too, that moneys in that reserve are going into the current budget. For Fiscal 2015, you will be starting point ten million four hundred thousand dollars ($10,400,000) potentially less collective bargaining for units not accounted for in the budget. Mr. Kagawa: That leads to the next question saying that Auditor's recommendation is for us not to assume or use any portion of those types of moneys in balancing our budget. However, realistically, there will be more. I am saying that if we are short, we have a backup plan. It may be against the Auditor's recommendation, however, in tough times I am sure we are not the only Government Agency that assumes some portion of unassigned or reserve. Mr. Hunt: We are very mindful of that and I think the anticipation is not budgeting just for this year, but budgeting two (2) to three (3) years ahead of time and as that fund balance declines and if we are looking at utilizing against our Auditor's recommendation, any of that unappropriated surplus, we are kicking the can for things for Fiscal Year 2015 and then ultimately in 2016 as we are budget much closer to actual. Those surpluses that are now ten million dollars ($10,000,000) may only be two million dollars ($2,000,000) or three million dollars ($3,000,000), we do not know. Mr. Kagawa: I hate that term because kicking the can means the same size can. If we are dealing with a small amount under one million dollars ($1,000,000) or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), to me it is not kicking a large can down the road. It is kicking a realistic can that will be at the end. It is comparing apples and oranges sometimes when we refer to kicking the can. If you kick a can of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) down the road then that is really kicking the can down the road. But kicking two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), to me that is not really kicking the can down the road. I guess terminology can differ. Thank you. AMEffaSS 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 108 Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I just want to clarify. This means from July 1, we have no unappropriated surplus? We have no fund to go to? Mr. Hunt: Not unappropriated surplus, incorrect term. Mr. Bynum: I am sorry. I am the one who wants to get these terms right too. We have no unassigned fund balance? Mr. Hunt: If you decide to amend the budget to include the seven hundred seventy-five thousand seventy-two dollars ($775,072) that will zero out our fund balance and we will be left with committed reserve which could be addressed if you wanted to altered that, there is two million six hundred thousand dollars ($2,600,000) in that. Mr. Bynum: We decided that we were going to at least leave this two million dollars ($2,000,000) in case of a hurricane or national disaster. Mr. Hunt: Correct. Mr. Bynum: As of July 1st, we will have no uncommitted fund balance do a Money Bill with for any purpose other than looking into that fund and reducing it even lower? Mr. Hunt: Correct, until December at which time we get to the CAFR certified number, then we will have available fund balance. Mr. Bynum: Now that you have clarified that, I just wanted to make one comment. We would never do this if we had accepted the funding proposals that you gave us and we are taking away any operational cushion that we have at least for six (6) months. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Nakamura. Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to thank Councilmember Kagawa because I think that lays out pretty much the parameters that we are working under. The past budgets that I have gone through, we have started the year with that portion of unappropriated surplus. This is a process question really to the body about whether we should hold this seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) proposal on the side while we are looking at the additions to see what that starting number might be? It might be zero (0) which is what the Administration has proposed or it might be a different number based on what the agreed upon additions are. I am just wondering, am I looking at that correctly or is that two (2) separate decisions? Mr. Hunt: I think you cannot use the money twice. If you were looking at budgeting any portion of the unappropriated surplus, you have to have the cover and the seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) is the cover. If you wanted to leave the seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) in fund balance you could budget up to that amount in the unappropriated where you see the zero (0) now, you could put that. It is sort of passing the shell because you have the money to cover whether you are using it from unappropriated or 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 109 whether you are using it from the actual fund balance. It is more semantics. But when you take the fund balance, then the money is gone. You cannot go back and draw on it. But at the same time, if you have a Money Bill and we do not know what that number, we are kind of out on a limb because if you start tapping into it, it is like what the Chair brought up with the yes-check. At some point we do not have the coverage and now you are gambling. We are beyond what we have in coverage. If it is a small amount, it is a reasonable gamble. But it is still against what our Auditors say is against best practice. Ms. Nakamura: That has been our practice in past. Mr. Hunt: In past we have had very, very large fund balances to cover every check we have been writing. This is a different year when we do not have the coverage. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Any more questions for Steve? Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: I also want to make sure, if we do not do that here we are still chasing a significant amount of seven hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($767,000), right? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Any more question? If not, thank you very much Steve. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Mr. Rapozo: Any further discussion, if not, roll call, please. The motion for the utilization of"Unassigned Fund Balance" in the amount of seven hundred seventy thousand five hundred seventy-two dollars ($770,572) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL—0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Mr. Rapozo: Motion carried. Chair Furfaro: Committee Chair, I have one more item that I want to get some feedback from on the Finance Department. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 110 Mr. Rapozo: I just want to, Mr: Chair, really quick because we have been sitting for a while. I can tell because my butt is starting to hurt. I know we have taken a lot of five (5) minute breaks. Are we due for a captioner break? Carol, Cathy, Samantha? She is fine. Go ahead Mr. Chair. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Steve, I talked to you about the Workers' Compensation premium. There is about what I believe to set a goal. But we have to deal with this one as it is for all Departments and it is a premium. Do we have a firm sign deal or can we consider a nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000) savings here? Mr. Hunt: My understanding in talking to Gerald Estenzo on, that the only way to see realistic savings because it is an actual bid would be to increase the amount of our deductible. Chair Furfaro: So, the two hundred eighteen thousand dollars ($218,000) that I see in the budget, is actually the bid proposal? Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Then I have no more to add. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, very much Steve. Mr. Chair I will hand it back over to you. Thank you very much. Mr. Rapozo, the presiding officer, returned Chairmanship to Chair Furfaro. Chair Furfaro: Now we are at, let us take a moment, Scott or Jade, to get a recap of what is on the board. We have covered the seven hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($767,000) with these actions and we have an amount that we are positive now. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, your revenue measures added up to one million seventeen thousand four hundred ninety-five dollars ($1,017,495). Chair Furfaro: Do I still see the need the amount was seven hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($767,000) and we found it all with those revenue measures and we are positive how much, I cannot see the board? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred sixty-seven dollars ($328,267). Chair Furfaro: Three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred sixty-seven dollars ($328,267). Is there anyone wanting to add revenue? We are going to into Real Property Tax resolution separately here next. Is there anyone that would want to propose any new revenue opportunities in the Operating Budget before we go to Property Tax? I am going to take a break. I have got to get something to drink for my throat. Anymore? Ms. Yukimura: Just an inquiry about time. How long are we planning to go? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 111 Chair Furfaro: Well, actually we are going to go through the tax rates and we might actually be done today. Ms. Yukimura: And do additions sometime? Chair Furfaro: No, we are going to get to that point. But we are going to go to the Real Property Tax if there is anything on the board and then we will go to additions. I would like to get it done today. Ms. Yukimura: You are planning to go until? Chair Furfaro: We might go to 6:30 p.m. here. If we get it done today, that means we do not work tomorrow. Well, you know what I mean. Are there any other recommendations for revenues from the members? If not, I would like to take a ten (10) minute break before we go to Real Property Tax. h Committee recessed 4.4 There.being no objections, the Co ttee ecess d at 4:43 p.m. There being no objections, the Committee reconvened at 4:59 p.m. and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: We are back. Everybody understands where we go from here? There are no more revenue additions. We go to Real Property Tax. We have a Real Property Tax discussion. After we have the Real Property Tax discussion, we can see what our number is. The number we have is four hundred eighty-four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($484,544) and that is when the real negotiations start around the table, at that point, after we do Real Property Tax. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could suggest a starting point and I know Mr. Bynum is preparing an amendment to the amendment that • is proposed by the Administration. But I would like to see if we took a vote now, like a pre-vote and that would set that four hundred eighty-four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($484,544) as a solid number because if we can get five (5) to say that they agree to the Administration's recommendations for tax rate increases, then basically our budget was in effect approved. If we can take that vote, and see where we are, I think that would be a good starting point. Chair Furfaro: You can make that motion for Real Property Tax and if you have a second we will have that discussion. Mr. Kagawa moved to approve Real Property Tax rates as recommended by the Mayor in the budget submittal, seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: We have a motion on the real property tax as submitted for acceptance. What we would like to do now is on that note open discussions on Real Property Tax. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: So, I can move to amend and do the presentation I intend to do? Chair Furfaro: Sure. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 112 Mr. Bynum: I will move to amend as circulated and hopefully I have a second so I can discuss it. Mr. Bynum moved to amend the motion to decrease the Real Property Tax rate for Homestead ($2.25) and increase the Vacation Rental ($8.30) and Hotel & Resort ($9.71) tax Rate in the amount of two hundred four thousand seven hundred seventy-four dollars ($204,774), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Mr. Bynum: I printed out, I want to do a short presentation. I will make it as quick as I possibly can, but this is a major proposal and it has to be done in context. The machine printed five (5) copies and then stopped. But if the staff could bring up the PowerPoint that has these slides, and if I can give these... Chair Furfaro: I will give you ten (10) minutes to make your presentation. Mr. Bynum: I think I can do that. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Mr. Bynum: Give me a few seconds before I start. I do have a couple of copies, hard copies. If somebody could look at that, halfway through printing there was a jam. I was looking to get the PowerPoint up that I emailed Scott. For the sake of time I can start talking. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Mr. Bynum: Over the last few years I have made several proposals not related to — well, basically have not complained that County is spending too much money. I think we have been responding to the community's needs and their desires and the County government has grown. But I think it is important that it did because we have a lot of important work to do. But I have been concerned about who pays what portion of the Bill. This proposal is really about who pays what portion of the bill. I am still waiting for a PowerPoint to come up to show that. This is just to remind you in 2008, the Council considered reducing taxes for local homeowners by thirty-five percent (35%). Everybody agreed in that debate that we needed to lower taxes for local people and we just disagreed about how to do it. But we agreed that it was a need. This was the proposal. It was going to do it by increasing hotel and resort, apartment which was a visitor industry driven and improved residential. Now last year we did bump that improved residential rate some to make it more inline. But other proposals have not happened. If we could move to the next slide. I do not have a clicker. This is what we were told was the Homestead taxes percentage of taxes paid by the homestead group. Next slide. When we looked at the actual numbers, these were the actual numbers and the important thing to note here is since 2008 when we discussed reducing the taxes, they have gone up considerably and even with the rate reduction, the $3.05 last year, it had little impact on who paid what percentage. Rather than having an additional increasing, that $3.05 rate proposal leveled it off. In my opinion at a high rate. Next slide, please. It was considerably different than we thought. We did not have as big a reduction. But we did have a bigger increase than we thought. In terms of the percentage of taxes paid. Next one is all homeowners including those in other tax categories and what it shows us is that the cap initially had a fairly dramatic impact on what percentage of actual tax were paid by homeowners. But then ever since 2005, it has been going up. In 2008, again when it was 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa ) Page 113 fifteen percent (15%) of all taxes were paid by homeowners, we had contemplated lowering that back down into the ten percent (10%) to twelve percent (12%) range. That did not pass. But then it went up dramatically over the next few years since the economic downturn, the percentage of the bill being paid by local homeowners has increased dramatically. This is as of 2012. When the economic downturn came we have talked about how our revenues are down. I just showed you that the percentages paid by homeowners are up a lot and this is why because the tax relief that happened by not adjusting our rates as the assessed values were falling, meant that apartments less the homeowners with a seven million dollars ($7,000,000) decrease over a four (4) year period. Hotels and resorts had five million dollars ($5,000,000). Agriculture nine million dollars ($9,000,000). This is less revenue. This is where all of that revenue went and why we are chasing funds today. This is why we, instead of using our fund balance to address these problems of unfair taxation, we gave it up to these tax categories. This is a fact. If you combine the two (2) hotel and resort related line items here, it totals over ten million dollars ($10,000,000), seven (7) plus five (5) is twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) of lost revenue primarily from condominiums used for visitors and for hotel and resorts. Next slide, please. In addition, the State has capped our TAT. That is also revenue that came to the County to pay our bills. Who pays what portion of the bill? The revenue came from the Visitor Industry and the visitors who came here and that revenue is down estimated this fiscal year, by nine million dollars ($9,000,000). In a four (4) year period the total loss just from visitor industry related funding is over thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). This year, the fiscal year that we are trying to find those funds for, the Administration said we need to increase revenues by eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) to twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) and nine million dollars ($9,000,000) is because of the loss of TAT. Next slide, please. Last year we reduced the tax rate to three dollars and five cents ($3.05). You have all heard me talk about tax fairness. So, that red line is our current market taxes. Based on assessed value minus exemptions times the current rate of three dollars and five cents ($3.05). So, that means last year — this is homes valued at five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), right? Homes that are valued five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) last year, we made the new red line is the new market rates. The dips are because of seniors or else it would be straight red line across because these are all equally valued homes. But we had one taxpayer paying five hundred seventy-two dollars ($572) every year and another tax payer with an equally valued home paying one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700). What happened was when we went to three dollars and five cents ($3.05), these two (2) guys who were really getting gouged came down to the red line right here. So, this person taxes went from eighteen dollars ($18) to thirteen dollars ($13) last year. These people are paying less than the current market rate, all of these blue dots. But we have not dealt with this inequity. Does everybody understand, last year when we lowered the rate to three dollars and five cents ($3.05), eight thousand (8,000) or more taxpayers still had an increase? Four thousand (4,000) got a decrease and those were the ones who were paying the highest rate, the highest amount. If you go to the next slide. I thought a two dollars ($2.00) rate would help us eliminate the cap. This is what a two dollar ($2.00) rate would do, right? Virtually all of these folks would come down, but the people who had though pay increases were fairly moderate. But even at two dollars ($2.00) rate, there are taxpayers paying less than that and they have been paying less that. So, what the cap did is created winners and losers. Here are the winners, the lucky people that got capped low and stayed there and these are the losers, anybody who got capped high or had a turnover of housing. But two dollars 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 114 ($2.00) was too dramatic for the move and I am proposing a two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) rate. This moves us in the right direction. It makes the market rate down here so more people will have a decrease in taxes. These folks even at the two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) rate, about half the taxpayers, more than half of the taxpayers are still paying a rate lower than two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25). Is this clear to everyone? Now these are at homes valued at five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). It turns out that on Kaua`i the median price for the people who live and work here is not five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000). The median is about three hundred eighty thousand dollars ($380,000). I want to look at that real quick. Here is the three dollars and five cents ($3.05) tax rate. Last year we had and these are all equally valued homes, we had people paying from four hundred ten dollars ($410) to one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) for the same home. These people up here, this is our current tax rate at three dollars and five cents ($3.05), so their taxes came down. This person went from one thousand three hundred thirty-two dollars ($1,332) to one thousand thirteen dollars ($1,013). But even at three dollars and five cents ($3.05), the reduced rate, all of these folks are paying even less than that now. A two dollars ($2) rate would have eliminated almost all of that underage. But that is too much go right now because we have agreed, I think, we have finally come to consensus that next year we are going to eliminate the cap that is creating these inequities and huge problems. It was not intended to do that and at first it did not do that. Here is the rate I am proposing, two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25). If we had a two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) rate this year about four thousand (4,000) people, about eight thousand (8,000) taxpayers would be at market rates next year and another four thousand (4,000) would be lower than two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25), right? Then next year we are going to look at legislation to help these ease these folks back up to whatever the market rate is we set. But this is the year we should make this change in who pays what portion of the burden by reducing this market rate for resident homeowners. That is the new rate under our new great tax proposal that the Mayor gave us that we passed and we are implementing, who would pay the two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) rate? Resident homeowners and landlords who rent to local people at a reduced affordable rate. That is how you can get the Homestead rate now under our tax reform. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, that is ten (10) minutes. But I will give you a couple of minutes to summarize. Mr. Bynum: I am almost done. That is the proposal, is to reduce the Homestead tax rate to two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25). Now, in order to do that, I suggest bumping the resort rate from nine dollars and seventy-one cents ($9.71) from the current proposed nine dollars ($9) and bumping the vacation rental rate from current eight dollars ($8) proposed to an additional thirty cents ($0.30). Now put this in perspective, we will still have by far the lowest hotel rate in the State. Why is that? Because the other Counties have to deal with this TAT revenue loss as well. Maui County and Hawai`i County have bumped their hotel rate three (3) times in the last four (4) years while we were not doing any or very little. We did a small one last year for revenue neutral. The bottom line is that we have to fund the government. Ross just proposed that we accept the tax rates which mean that every taxpayer in this County, almost every taxpayer, will pay an addition. Even though we kept the three dollars and five cents ($3.05) rate that the Mayor proposed, that will mean that the majority of taxpayers pay an increase for the eighth year in a row. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 115 Ms. Yukimura: You mean homeowners. Mr. Bynum: Homeowners. The question to me is we need to get these funds. We have lost thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) from visitor industry related taxes, either property taxes on their properties or the TAT which is now been capped. Are we going to go to our residents to pay that for the seventh year in a row or are we going to let the industry take some of that hit? Is it unreasonable? It is unfortunate, but it is not unreasonable. Maui is going to ten dollars and twenty-five cents ($10.25). City and County is at twelve dollars and forty cents ($12.40). Big Island proposal is to go over ten dollars ($10.00). I do not have that exact number. I lost it again Steve. This proposal would generate basically revenue neutral but because we did not get the data all correct, I want to make sure it is enough, it is probably about an additional two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum I just want to let you know that was fifteen (15) minutes. Mr. Bynum: What I am proposing is to reduce the property taxes for the local people who live here into the Homestead rate and to make up that difference with some increases in hotel and resort and vacation rentals. That will leave us still with the lowest property taxes in the State for the hotel industry. It is an increase. But we are not getting all the funds that we used to get from the visitor industry. Should our people pay it or the industry step up more? That to me, is the fundamental question? Chair Furfaro: Discussion on Mr. Bynum's proposal? I want to get through this by 5:30 p.m. because we still have go through adds. Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Bynum for your proposal. I think what I have suggested we try to complete finishing the budget and closing our gap on the Operating Budget, we need to assume that Councilmembers are willing to accept some type of proposal and the obvious proposal is the one that Steve proposed to us. Steve is an expert in the Real Property Tax Division. He has been there a while. I think all of you heard his presentations. He made all of the comparisons and Mr. Bynum's proposal is a large deviation from that proposal. I think we need to spend more due diligence time in looking at what he is changing from Steve's proposal or the Mayor's proposal which we have had a lot of time to look at and we still probably need more time to look at. But what I am suggesting is that we just adopt the Mayor's proposal for now and see if we have support for that number so we can at least work off of finishing this budget in a balanced fashion. That is all I am suggesting. I think Mr. Bynum's proposal can be done and discussed in-depth at a later date as to when we actually adopt the tax rates. My suggestion is not to say the Mayor's proposal is better than Mr. Bynum's proposal. I am not ready to make that decision nor is it a Sunshine on our agenda today to discuss those. Please let us focus on finishing the budget and let us see if we can agree to at least accept the Mayor's proposal for tax rates and we can use that revenue figure for today. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes, I would like to ask the Finance Director a question, if he could. The question is, when we do have Mayor's proposal and the bottom line for that and we have Mr. Bynum's proposal and his suggested bottom line, I want to know if the Finance Director has had a chance to look at Mr. Bynum's and if he agrees with the bottom line? I think really what he is saying is that we move on and if they are both 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 116 similar, which I think they are or they are being compared as, then it does not really matter that much. I have to say that I hesitate from the beginning to support the tax increases period. But I am more attracted to lowering the resident rate and offsetting that with the visitor industry rate as Mr. Bynum suggests. If we could ask the Finance Director to come up. Chair Furfaro: We will ask the Finance Director to come up. There being no objections, the rules were suspend. Chair Furfaro: First of all I want to clarify a few things that the tax exhibits are part of the budget discussion. It is not a Sunshine issue. The schedule is on the agenda for today. Secondly, I would like to also see if you could comment on this proposal based on the fact that there are some major changes going to a single rate and maybe we do not know what the impacts are on house, land, resort, and so forth. I would like to hear some comments on that. Mr. Hunt: Sure, and Chair, this is an unusual time because it really is a clean slate in terms of setting rates. The proposals that got passed last year that essentially said we are not longer taxing on zoning, we are taxing on use has set into motion a number of changes. You heard from some taxpayers that are now in the vacation rental class that were formerly in the single-family class and it is a big increase to them and there are certainly movements within the hotel industry where not only are we looking at additional rates, but the values of the hotel units themselves have come up considerably and it varies depending on the type of inventory. The higher end has had much more success and higher occupancies this year. So, I know that the value in specific projects have had a value increase and on top of the value increase there is the rate increase. It is very difficult to compare one year to the next because the chairs have been rearranged so much within the room and to the different compartments based on use. Again, I view it as an opportunity to really look at a larger picture in terms of how you want to set policy in terms of rates. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: The specific question is comparing the two (2) proposals, if you would. The revenue impact on the budget, are they essentially the same? Mr. Hunt: The proposal, the rates before you, I believe the changes were reducing the Homestead to two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) and increasing the vacation rental from eight dollars ($8) to eight dollars and thirty cents ($8.30) and increasing the hotel and resort from nine dollars ($9) to nine dollars and seventy-one cents ($9.71). Have a net impact of increasing total revenue from Real Property Tax by about two hundred four thousand dollars ($204,000). Mr. Hooser: Above and beyond the Mayor's proposal of tax increases. Then Councilmember Bynum's proposal increased an additional two hundred four thousand dollars ($204,000). Mr. Hunt: Two hounded four thousand dollars ($204,000). Mr. Hooser: Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. Thank you. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 117 Chair Furfaro: You can ask him a question. Go ahead. Mr. Bynum: How much does it reduce the tax burden on resident homeowners? Mr. Hunt: Approximately one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000). Mr. Bynum: I wanted to make sure that it was at least revenue neutral and took it just a little bit above to pay for some General Fund adds which I will disclose one of them to increase the Kauai Visitors Bureau back to previous year's funding. That will come from me. I just want to be clear, this is about who pays what portion of the bill. Should visitors pay tenth year of increase when everyone else has had decreases or is this year like Steve said, to get this realigned properly? Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo and then JoAnn. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve, one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) reduction to the homeowner class is that what you said? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: If we are getting a net increase of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) that means it is a two million dollars ($2,000,000) hit to the other classes? Mr. Hunt: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Is that what you are saying? Mr. Hunt: I believe about a third to the vacation rental class and two-thirds of that increase to the hotel and resort. I do not have the exact breakdown. Mr. Rapozo: You do not have to answer it now. But what does that do to a property like the Hyatt or Marriott? What kind of increase are we talking about and that is fine. It is not a fair question for you right now thank you. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: No, I will pass this time. Chair Furfaro: Nadine, you have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: Steve, I thought in your budget presentation you talked about your interest in sometime this year working on proposals to look at the fairness issue. Mr. Hunt: Potential removal of the cap, correct. Ms. Nakamura: Is that still your intention for this year? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 118 Mr. Hunt: It would be. In fact, almost immediately after budget, I think we would have to start working on something because given the time period and filing of exemptions and everything, it would be compressed. But that would be the intent working towards Fiscal 2015 that we would address some of these issues that would deal with exemption, with rates, with circuit breaker, and probably time share class, vacant land class, a variety of things to be worked on. Ms. Nakamura: I think that is what I wanted to do, was to have that comprehensive look at how to address this issue and I know Councilmember Bynum, you wanted to address it right now. Mr. Bynum: Not completely. Ms. Nakamura: But I think that approach coming from the Administration, is a good one. I think I would feel more comfortable with that approach. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: Steve, is this proposal from Councilmember Bynum, does it contradict or complicate your intention to work on the cap in this year or is it aligned within it and takes you a step forward, but not quite dealing with the issue? Mr. Hunt: That is somewhat of a loaded question. Only in that I do not know what that particular rate for the Homestead category is going to be. Certainly, the fact that now we have long-term affordable rentals in there, my only concern, I guess as we address the correct amount of exemptions either for income and general exemptions, if those are significantly larger then we may not want to have as much reduction in rate and it makes it challenging if the rate were lower this year on the long-term affordable rentals to go back and address it again next year. Maybe it is not a problem, but I am always a little concerned about yo-yo rates and making the cuts would you tell us the full body of information as to where those proposals might be for next year, it is a little difficult to make that decision now. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Steve, let me ask a question. What prevents us six (6) months from now revisiting the rates by Ordinance? I think nothing, right? Mr. Hunt: You mean a mid-year adjustment? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Hunt: It would be unprecedented as far as I know. But I do not know if there is a... Chair Furfaro: Thank you, you answered my question. Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I would have liked a little bit more robust answer to JoAnn's thing. You are right. We lower this rate, we are allowing landlords who are willing to keep their rents affordable that favorable rate. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned. But changing this rate will make this task much easier, correct? . . y 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 119 Mr. Hunt: What tax? I am sorry. Mr. Bynum: To eliminate the cap. Mr. Hunt: Again, certainly if we lowered it to one dollar ($1), it depends on how you want to go. You could come to the farest/lowest common denominator where the cap numbers are now, but it does not really address mores holistic changes. We start looking at rates that are triple and I do not see that anywhere else in other County where you have one rate, with the exception of Maui and the timeshare rates, certainly there is some change there. I think maybe that is what affords them the ability to have such a low rate, is because they have such a high timeshare rate. Until we are able to look at all of the categories and where the rate structures need to be, I am a little hesitant to make had a commitment to a very low rate in this year when it may have a reversal next year when we do not necessarily want that rate and want to do more on the exemptions for those that are either afford at the income exemption, age, or use. It just depends on what we do between now and deliberation and when we start having workshops on this. But I think it restricts us by going to a low rate. There is likely going to be a hesitancy to raise that rate next year, if in fact, where it needs to be. Mr. Bynum: That is why I did not go to two dollars ($2) where I think it should be. I think we will have to come down a little more next year. But basically we have told our residents since 2008, you pay more, you pay more and all of these industries can pay less and that is okay. I have been saying for four (4) years, when are we going to fix it and every year it is we are going to do it next year, we are going to do it next year. This is the year where we are resetting these rates. Hotel rates are nine dollars and seventy-one cents ($9.71) and will be substantially lower than the rest of the Counties and the time share rate you mentioned seventeen dollars and seventy cents ($17.70) in Maui. Mr. Hunt: Seventeen dollars and fifty cents ($17.50). Mr. Bynum: We give them a sweetheart deal. I am going to introduce a Bill this year to get us back to rationale things with timeshares as well which will be in revenue enhancements. Chair Furfaro: We need to stay on. That is your intent. I hear it and certainly we will look at that then. But we need to look at proposal that is here, specifically. You have answered the questions. I also want to make certain that the answer on my question is the County Code prevents us have raising other than during budget time. It is not in the Charter. Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. I would just like to call for the question. We can discuss this, like I said, at a later date. Since we are pretty close. We are two hundred four thousand dollars ($204,000) away from adopting Mr. Bynum's proposal. I am pretty good either way, actually. But more likely to just stay with the conservative figure for now. Chair Furfaro: Last piece, Mr. Bynum and last piece, JoAnn. Mr. Bynum: My. Last piece and a question. Is Mr. Kagawa saying that I get two (2) bites the apple? I get to make this proposal now and then I get o make it again in a couple of weeks when we set the rates? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 120 Chair Furfaro: No, the decisions we make here are by Code. Again, the final pieces. Mr. Bynum: The bottom line of this is are we going to say to the local people, who live here, everybody else had tax decreases for the last four (4) years p p � Y Y ( ) Y while you have been struggling and we have given you tax increases, fee increase. Earlier in this budget session Councilmembers said no, we are not going to pass commercial tipping fee because we are worried about business. No, we are not going to pass the weight fees because we are worried about commercial businesses. But we did pass bus fees and I want everybody to understand, we do not change the rate, the vast majority of local taxpayers pay increases again next year. I just do not know why — I am just dismayed that we are even had this discussion. This is simple to me. Chair Furfaro: You have had your time, more than adequate. I think I want to get to the call for the vote. JoAnn and then Mr. Hooser. But let us get to where we need to be here. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to see slide 5, although they are not numbered. But it is entitled all homeowners-actual taxes percent. My question is to Councilmember Bynum, if we pass the proposed changes in the tax rate, where will the line go? You are showing that in 2012 homeowners were paying sixteen percent (16%) of all the taxes. Where will the line go if you adopt your rate? Mr. Bynum: Down. Ms. Yukimura: Do you know where though? Mr. Bynum: That could be calculated. We have had a very difficult time getting this data. Ms. Yukimura: Steve, do you know the answer? Mr. Hunt: No. In fact, Councilmember Bynum is correct. You would have to calculate this and you would have to run what the credits are and what the proposed rates are for the homeowners that live in classes other than the homestead as well which include additional rate increases. But they would be subject to the two point four percent (2.4%) current cap based on the CPI-U. Until you ran the scenarios,you would not know and the other thing you would have to look at because we expanded the homeowners' category, the homestead class to include LTLs. To be inclusive of that, you would only want to compare those that have the actual homeowners exemption. There are properties that are within the homestead class for taxation only that do not have exemptions because they are not occupied by primary residents, they are owner-occupants. It would be a task to run those scenarios and calculate what that tax percentage would be by all homeowners. Ms. Yukimura: That is what you got to get those dots, you all calculated that. But it is a pretty lengthy process to do so? Mr. Hunt: Actually, I believe this was prepared by Councilmember Bynum, not by us. Mr. Bynum: This is from the data you provided. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 121 Mr. Hunt: Correct. Chair Furfaro: You have the answer to your question, Mr. Hooser, you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Yes. Given the opportunity to vote to taxes for owner-occupants and people that long-term rent their homes and offset that by increasing taxes for the resort industry which is booming right now, I will without hesitation support lowering the taxes for residents. There is no question and whether it impacts the Administration's calculations for next year, I believe they with work around that. We have talked about increasing costs, increasing costs, increasing costs for local residents and here is an opportunity to balance our budget a little differently and lower those costs. I really want to encourage everyone to give it positive consideration and vote in support. Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote here shortly. Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, I will not be supporting the proposal. We went through a very long budget process and often times the argument was in Honolulu or in Maui, on the Big Island, it is up here and that is where we should be. In this case, we are not saying that. Well, we are not going to stay in line with the Big Island and O`ahu. Maui has the benefit of a very high timeshare rate and that is why they can basically subsidize the homestead rate to lower. But at this point, as Steve and the Finance Department and the Administration is looking at what I would call tax reform going forward, that I would give you the time to put some proposals together and the proposal that you have submitted that is being proposed by the Administration is one that I can live with right now. I will not be supporting the proposal. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, last time before I call the vote. Ms. Yukimura: We are in discussion, right? Chair Furfaro: Yes, last time before I call for the vote. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I will be voting in support of this proposal. It is a chance to help lower the costs of living for our taxpayers and it is basically revenue neutral. So, that we are not causing havoc to the budget or having to remove expenditures of sorts in the budget. I think it is due and I believe it will set us in the direction that the Administration is looking for next year. Chair Furfaro: Council Vice Chair? Ms. Nakamura: Just in looking at the rates of Hawaii County for Homestead class, five dollars and fifty-five cents ($5.55). The City and County does not have a homestead class, but they are residential rate is three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50). What we currently have is three dollars and five cents ($3.05) so this is bringing it down to two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50). The Statewide average is four dollars and fifteen dollars ($4.15) for the Homestead class. I am very comfortable for now, but I look forward to the Administration's proposals that look holistically at this issue and solve the problem of fairness. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 122 Chair Furfaro: I am going to call for the vote. Mr. Bynum, I will give you the floor one more time. Mr. Bynum: I just want to respond to the comment. If we had more time, we would look at the exemptions because we have to look at the exemptions and the rates. Our exemptions are very low. This is a very appropriate thing that is consistent with the plans that the Administration and I do not think they are opposed to it. I think they would say, if we asked the Mayor right now, he would say up to you folks, I hope. Does the Administration have a position on this, Steve? Mr. Hunt: I would have to confer with the Mayor and Gary Heu on that. But I know the concern is having rates drop for a particular category that may not stay down. It is often more politically challenging to get them back up if that is the end result of our analysis. If we decide that we think that the exemptions will take care of the homeowners, that the long-term that maybe three dollars ($3) is a correct rate to encourage, if we need to get back to that place, I know it is often more difficult. Our concern is to maybe holistically look at this before we address that rate. Mr. Bynum: We have to protect industry from one million dollars ($1,000,000) tipping fee increase. Chair Furfaro: He answered your question, Tim. He answered your question. Mr. Bynum: So, just interrupt me mid-sentence? Chair Furfaro: I gave you a question, Tim. I did not ask you to make dialogue about the industry and so forth because I am going to pose my question right now. How much with the reassessments of the hotels and resorts related to vacation rentals and so forth, have you made an assumption what is their total fees going up as a group? How much is going to be hitting the ones that recently got a new appraised value? Do you have that answer? Mr. Hunt: I do not have that answer because a lot of the properties that were not classified as vacation rental that are this year just be virtue of going into that class had a significant increase going into to rates going from four dollars ($4) to an eight dollars ($8) rate. Chair Furfaro: I see this a little different that if we start to charge these individuals based on the fact that they are now categorized in a resort category, we might also have some attrition that gets those individuals out at this point that they do not want to pursue it. I am going to tell you how I feel about Mr. Bynum's. I feel Mr. Bynum is on target, but with all the other variables I do not see us doing that now. There are too many unknowns until we actually see the tax roll. I want you to know that I will be pursuing with Mr. Bynum this discussion after we see the tax roll and I would like to be doing it in December when the CAFR comes out and all of those things so they can be implemented appropriately, more timely and we have of right information to come up to the analysis. I will not be supporting this now, but I will be supporting this probably in December as it gets re-entertained. Now I would like to call for the vote. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is on Councilmember Bynum's proposal. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 123 The motion to amend the motion to decrease Real Property Tax rate for Homestead ($2.25) and increase Vacation Rental ($8.30) and Hotel & Resort ($9.71) in the amount of two hundred four thousand seven hundred seventy-four dollars ($204,774) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING:None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4, fails. Mr. Rapozo: Call for the question on the main motion, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Question called for the main motion further discussion. If not, vote please. Ms. Yukimura: Point of inquiry. The main motion was on the proposed tax rate? Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The rate as proposed by the Administration. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. The motion to approve Real Property Tax rates as recommended by the Mayor in the budget submittal was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1. Chair Furfaro: 5:2. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Now we are going back to adds. Tax proposals are done. As I see this, to the staff, I want to make note we have four hundred eighty-four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($484,544). We have had earlier discussions on a few item for the adds. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: Can I go first? Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: I am proposing to restore the funding to the YWCA and Economic Development and there are two (2) line items and I would assume we 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 124 could take them both together. The first one is an add of forty-five thousand dollar s ($45,000) for increase in the other services line for the Family Violence Shelter and a thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) increase in the YWCA for the Sexual Assault Treatment Program. Mr. Rapozo moved to increase funding for "YWCA Family Violence Shelter" by forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" by thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in the total amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum; I intend to support this proposal, but I would like to propose an amendment. To increase that by an additional twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). In talking with Renee Hamilton, the target number I have is ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000) in order to make them whole compared to what their County funding was (inaudible) versus last year. Chair Furfaro: I understand your point. I just want to say just because we have the four hundred eighty-four thousand dollars ($484,000) does not mean we have to spend it all. That is my first comment. Secondly, it is a tough situation and I do believe some of this should be restored. It is very difficult for us to get back to one hundred percent (100%) of what was there. We have to have some recognition that these are tough times. We have Mr. Bynum's amendment now, so that is forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) plus thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) should be forty-five thousand dollars (45,000) plus fifty thousand dollars (50,000)? Is that how I understood it? I just want to get the motion correct. Mr. Bynum: There was a line item called other services. Chair Furfaro: Restate your amendment. Mr. Bynum: I will restate my amendment, that the line item for "YWCA Family Violence Shelter" would be amended to fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) and the one for "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" would be amended to forty thousand dollars ($40,000). This is in recognition of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) that was in the Prosecutor's budget last year, but is not in this year's. I was looking as I think we have always tried to do, what are all the sources that the County is using to fund the YWCA and they are experiencing cuts from the State and other sources. This does not keep them whole. It just keeps the County's contribution the same as last year's. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo you have the floor and then Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Rapozo: I was just going to say that I spoke to Renee and the seventy0five thousand dollars ($75,000) is what would have brought the amounts up to this year's funding. So, that is what their request to me was. I do not know how anybody else feels. Chair Furfaro: I want to make sure I get it clear, a one-time seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) amount for other services? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 125 Mr. Rapozo: No. It is broken down. The forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) for Family Violence Shelter and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for Sexual Assault Treatment Program. Chair Furfaro: For a total of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000)? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. That would bring their funding for next fiscal year to the same funding that they currently have this fiscal year. Chair Furfaro: Now, on that note, Mr. Bynum I will give you the floor again to see if you can get a second. Mr. Bynum: I am just trying to clarify. Chair Furfaro: Do you have a second on your motion? Mr. Bynum: I agree with Councilmember Rapozo. It brings this back to what was funded in the Council's budget. I am also trying to put in the additional twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) that is a reduction in the Prosecutor's budget. Chair Furfaro: Your motion is a total of how much? Mr. Bynum: Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), add ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to each line. Mr. Rapozo: This would bring it up to ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). Chair Furfaro: The total amount of ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). Do I have a second on Mr. Bynum's motion? Mr. Bynum moved to amend the motion to increase funding for "YWCA Family Violence Shelter" by forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment. Program" by thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in the total amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to increase the funding for "YWCA Family Violence Shelter" by fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" by forty-thousand dollars ($40,000) on the total amount of ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: What is that for the Prosecutor's Office? I do not know what that is and I would like to know what that is. I know there was grant money that came through the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, but I am not aware that County money for the Prosecutor was given to the YWCA. Mr. Bynum: I could answer that. Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 126 Mr. Bynum: The funds that come from the Prosecutor are Federal funds passed through. The Prosecutor can use those for his own budget or he can pass through. Every year on this Council we have always looked at what were all the sources that were coming and until it got difficult because —well, I will not go into it. But this year it is very clear to me there would be a twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) reduction that would have come from the Prosecutor's Office, that is what I am trying to make up. Chair Furfaro: Do I have a second for discussion? Do I have any more comments on that? Let us take a vote on the amendment as amended. But I want to caution you folks, this is not a typical year. We have less money. We have less money. If a family has less money, they take their kids out less. We have less money. Call for the vote on the ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, hang on real quick. This is an amendment for twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), not ninety-five thousand. Chair Furfaro: I am sorry. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: A total of ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). Chair Furfaro: Let me clarify it. We have a motion and a second for the seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) on the table and Mr. Bynum's addition is twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) which will bring it to ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000). That is the amendment and that is what we are voting on now. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, I just wanted to make sure. Chair Furfaro: Vote again, please. The motion to amend the motion to increase funding for "YWCA family Violence shelter" by forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" by thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in the total amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to increase the funding for "YWCA Family Violence Shelter" by fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" by forty-thousand dollars ($40,000) on the total amount of ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum TOTAL— 1, AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL—6, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Chair Furfaro: Now we are at the main motion to add seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to YWCA services. The motion to increase funding for "YWCA family Violence shelter" by forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) and "YWCA Sexual Assault Treatment Program" by thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in the total amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 127 FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL-0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. We add that seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). Nadine, you have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: Council Chair and members I would like to request seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000) for the Kauai Creative Technology. Center. It would be a line item in the Office of Economic Development. It would be targeted directly to Kauai Economic Development Board to continue the work of developing this Kauai Creative Technology Center. Ms. Nakamura moved to add funding for "Other Services — KEDB: Kauai Creative Technology Center" in the amount of seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura: Chair Furfaro: Discussion? We have ample discussion earlier. I would call for a vote on the seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000). The motion to add funding for "Other Services — KEDB: Kauai Creative Technology Center" in the amount of seventy-eight thousand dollars ($78,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL—0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. If my math is right we are down to three hundred thirty-one thousand dollars ($331,000)? Mr. Hooser you have the floor. Mr. Hooser: Yes, I would like to suggest adding one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to increase funding for the Kauai Humane Society. Mr. Hooser moved to increase funding for the "Kauai Humane Society" in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Adding one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) for the Kauai Humane Society. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: You have the floor. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 128 Mr. Kagawa: If Mr. Hooser, you want to clarify our motion for cats? Mr. Hooser: I see it as increasing the funding and they make it work. The contract with the County makes it work. But yes, the intent would be to include cats. Mr. Kagawa: May I? Let us leave it open. I think you are right. Let us give them more and hopefully they will cover both. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: One hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to the Humane Society. I have a motion and second that one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) will be coming out of the three hundred thirty-one thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($331,544), vote please. The motion to increase funding for the "Kaua`i Humane Society" in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Yukimura, TOTAL— 4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Yukimura moved to increase funding for the "Kaua`i Humane Society" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: The one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) died, now we are coming back with one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Further discussion? If not, roll call please. The motion to increase funding for the "Kaua`i Humane Society" in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Nakamura, Rapozo TOTAL— 2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: I have five (5) votes. It was one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) allocation to the Humane Society. Tim, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I may need some help from Councilmember Yukimura. But I had a list of six (6) things that I hope to add. My number one priority was the bus. I know JoAnn has proposals totaling one hundred forty thousand dollars seventy- one dollars ($140,071), was it? Ms. Yukimura: For half a year. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 129 Mr. Bynum: For half a year? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I talked to Celia. Mr. Bynum: I am going to propose adding seventy-one thousand dollars ($71,000) to the line item called... Mr. Bynum moved to add funding for "Additional Mainline Routes" in the amount of seventy-one thousand dollars ($71,000), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: It is to alleviate the congestion on the bus. It would be for buses and drivers to alleviate the congestion. Chair Furfaro: And the amount again, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Seventy-one thousand dollars ($71,000), half of the one hundred forty-two thousand ($142,000) that I suggested. Chair Furfaro: Got it. • Ms. Yukimura: But it turns out that they will be able to institute it mid-year. Chair Furfaro: We have seventy-one thousand dollars ($71,000) as motioned by Mr. Bynum, seconded by JoAnn. Discussion? Ms. Yukimura: It is called Additional Mainline Routes. Chair Furfaro: Discussion, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: We have beaten this dead horse call for the question. Chair Furfaro: Question is called, seventy-one thousand dollars ($71,000) for half a year for the bus expansion on key routes on the main line. The motion to add funding for "Additional Mainline Routes" in the amount of seventy-one thirty-two thousand dollars ($71,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Nakamura, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL—2, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2. Chair Furfaro: And that is 5:2, right? So, that passes. If my math is correct we are down to one hundred sixty thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($160,544). Who has not had a chance yet? Mr. Kagawa. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 130 Mr. Kagawa: I have two (2) relatively small requests. First one is I have been informed by Mark Ozaki who monitors the high schools and they are in charge of dealing with special operations regarding underage drinking rage parties, some of which can exceed three hundred (300) students or youth drinking and you name it. Chief Perry indicated that they try to address these things with normal Patrol Units. However, I have been informed that normal Patrol Units are very reluctant to step in when they are outnumbered by such numbers. You need to go in with those parties with twelve (12) or more Officers and I have been requested by Officer Ozaki to put in overtime moneys so that they may go and address these problems. I am proposing that we add fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) that should take care of at least once a month in monitoring of those parties so that they do not get out of hand. Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in overtime under Police budget for underage youth rage parties. Mr. Kagawa moved to add funding for "Regular Overtime — Underage Activities Investigations" in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), seconded by Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro: I have a motion and second, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: I just wondered about the possibility of using Liquor Division moneys because I believe they can be put under Prevention Programming and/or the Forfeiture Fund in the Police Department. Mr. Kagawa: I believe if I may respond? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: I believe Officer Ozaki has this year experienced a lack of funding from the current budget. He said the rage parties are going on and we are not carrying out what he would want to carry out in controlling these because of the lack of overtime. I guess overtime moneys in the normal Police account have disappeared as we speak. It is just taking the initiative, Councilmembers. If you feel it is important then you will vote for it. If you feel like we can look for other means then so be it. But I want to propose it right here and now. Chair Furfaro: First of all, I want to make sure that we understand, I do not have the budget in front of me. But I think we have one million four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000) in overtime in the Police Department. So far for this year, as I mentioned to the Chief, they have actually spent nine percent (9%) more than what they should have at this point. But I think the comment made about the need for Mr. Kagawa is an excellent one and I want the Finance Director to come up because it was countered by a suggestion from Councilwoman Yukimura that rather than refund money to the Liquor Commission licensees, we could use this money before the refund and make it available for specifically for rave party intervention/prevention. I am sorry. It is prevention and I think Councilwoman Yukimura made an excellent point. Your comments? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Hunt: As far as the Liquor Fund goes, I would probably have to confer with Gerald or someone in Liquor to find out exactly what they can be used for. There was some discussion of using ten percent (10%) of the fines to do prevention, but 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 131 the problem it almost becomes a quota system. If you cannot budget fines, you do not know what the fines are going to be I have given year, so it is difficult to budget fines. Chair Furfaro: We do know what we refund over the past several years on the general license refunds. I am just saying at this point, can we not put a footnote if, nor that for that money to be used from Liquor fees? That is a legal question. We have a legal person next to you, "yay" or "nay." I thought it was an excellent idea from Councilmember Yukimura for an excellent point brought up for Councilmember Kagawa. ALFRED B. CASTILLO, JR., County Attorney: I am sorry this evening the answer is "Nay" for two (2) reasons. One the moneys can be used for Liquor purposes and number two is that the Commission controls that endeavor. Chair Furfaro: Understood. Mr. Castillo: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: But it is okay for the Chairman to go to the. Liquor Commission and lobby them. Mr. Castillo: Yes. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: Which I will be doing because I think what Mr. Kagawa brought up is an excellent idea and it is a form of prevention. Joann, you have the floor and then Mr. Kagawa. Ms. Yukimura: I believe part of the law allows some expenditure and if it is only the fines, so it is a fine line whatever that definition is in the law. But there is some expenditure for prevention and other uses. I hope that you are really clear about that. The other thing is if we can only take from fines, maybe we need to create a fines account that accumulates. I do not know how that works. But like we have with Planning, create a Special Fund. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Kagawa, you have the floor. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, it relates to the Police so I just want to put up my other one. I believe they are tied hand in hand. The second one is for six thousand dollars ($6,000). It will go under actually under the Mayor's budget. It will be two thousand dollars ($2,000) allocated to each high school. I have been informed by all three (3) high schools that next year's project graduation is in jeopardy and if we do not help these high schools with at least bus transportation to and from the event, that all three (3) may be in jeopardy of not happening next year. O`ahu, City and County, the Police. Department supports each public high school in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for transportation under the Criminal Asset Forfeiture Fund. However, the Committee Members from each project grant have asked the Police Department for the same thing and they were told that KPD's Criminal Asset Forfeiture Fund is being used for their operations and that the six thousand dollars ($6,000) cannot be given out of that amount. As you know, the project graduation has saved our Police have from spending a 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 132 lot of overtime on graduation night because without the project graduation, it would be very hectic out there in the community. Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Like I said before, we need to take and dispose of one item at a time. I will come back to that as a second item. The item that is on the table is of our one hundred sixty thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($160,544) that is left, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the Police Department for this additional overtime for staffing for enforcement of the Liquor Law as it relates to the rave parties. Ms. Yukimura: Question. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, have you the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I agree that the rave parties really need to be monitored. The question, if I may of Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: We have a question come over for you Kagawa. Ms. Yukimura: The twelve (12) bodies, do they include DLNR Officers or other ancillary? Mr. Kagawa: No, they do not. This is primarily for two (2) areas, behind the golf course, that is a major area where they hold some huge parties and the other one is Polihale and I believe our KPD Officers, even though it is a State Park, they do go down there and arrest of whatever. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: I guess I would like some discussion with the Police here about joint actions and other things that they have explored. Is there no money in the Forfeiture Funds? Mr. Rapozo: It I can just clarify on the Forfeiture Fund. You cannot use Forfeiture Fund moneys to supplement overtime or salaries. Chair Furfaro: It cannot be used for staffing guides period. Mr. Rapozo: It is for nonrecurring uses so Asset Forfeiture Fund is not accessible. Chair Furfaro: But staffing guides, whether it is overtime or straight time cannot be used either. I would like to see if any more discussion before we call for the vote here. Mr. Rapozo: I will just call for the question. Chair Furfaro: We have twenty-five (25) minutes left, Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I really want to support this, but I never heard from the Police Chief that this was a priority. I feel kids are congregating no matter what. If not these places, they will find others. It is their social prerogative. I have had four (4) proposals over the last few years to deal with this and I will try again next year. If the Chief was saying we need this and we say we could do it, it would be a no brainer. But I do 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 133 not know if we can get that kind of thing. I am concerned even for Mark that generally requests for overtime do not come from Police Officers. They come from the Administration. I am torn. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo? Mr. Rapozo: I think we heard from the Chief during the budget session that they believe this budget was already short whether the overtime is used for this project or any other project. The bottom line is the Police Department will be reducing the services to the public. That is going to happen based on the budget, unfortunately. I really do not need the Chief here. I did speak to Mark and I also spoke to the Administration as well, the Police Administration. I did ask them to end over in writing last week when they were here at Council Meeting I said send me the list and he did. I cannot even propose anything because we just do not have the funds. But I will support this action. I can tell you that these parties need to stop. The only way it is going to be stopped is by the Officers going out and doing proactive enforcement and they cannot do right now because they do not have the overtime funds. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, this will be the third time I have recognized you and the last to get through this. Ms. Yukimura: Yes. I am aware that the Police Department gets grants and that parts of their grants are supposed to be used for prevention and other drug is and I would prefer that they get the moneys from those grants. Chair Furfaro: I am going to say that I will support this around the table the first time. But I also want you to know, whatever the outcome is, I do plan to make a presentation to the Police Commission and be pursuing with the County Attorney some clear definition on how we can use some of those funds from the licensees. Let us call for the vote on the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) first and then we will come back to the second item for the six thousand dollars ($6,000) for the schools The motion to add funding for "Regular Overtime — Underage Activities Investigations" in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 5, AGAINST APPROVAL: Yukimura TOTAL— 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, SILENT: Bynum TOTAL— 1. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1. Chair Furfaro: We have 5:2 is the vote? 6:1. 6:1 is the vote. Now, quickly and I am going to make a comment here. I would hope when we got all the way down to one hundred ten thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($110,544) that the members would let the Chairman with something on the table for consideration since I found one million dollars ($1,000,000). We have the floor the six thousand dollars ($6,000). Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, within reason, I would like us to add whatever the body and the voting members feel. Like I said, I am comfortable using a fund balance line item adjustment, but not a big one. I think we are coming up with some 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 134 reasonable requests for adjustments. I think it will lead to some healthy things in the community. I move to approve six thousand dollars ($6,000) under Mayor's budget for Project Graduation, two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each school. It will be for transportation, bus rides only and they will show receipts, et cetera to verify their request. Mr. Kagawa moved to add funding for "Special Projects —Project graduation (two thousand dollars ($2,000) each for Kapa`a/Kaua`i/Waimea High Schools)" in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), seconded by Ms. Nakamura. Chair Furfaro: A motion and second on this. Councilwoman Yukimura, you have the floor. Ms. Yukimura: I move to amend by taking this money and getting it from the Forfeiture Fund. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend the motion by taking the six thousand dollars from the Forfeiture Fund instead of the General Fund. Mr. Rapozo: I do not believe that is allowed. Chair Furfaro: I do not have a second either. Mr. Rapozo: I will second for discussion. Mr. Rapozo seconded the motion to amend the motion by taking the six thousand dollars from the Forfeiture Fund instead of the General Fund. Mr. Rapozo: But again, the focus of the Forfeiture Fund is not used for... Chair Furfaro: I give will give JoAnn the floor to try and solicit a second. Ms. Yukimura: I thought that Councilmember Kagawa said they do it in other Counties. Mr. Rapozo: He also said that they do not do it here. Our opinion is that we cannot use it, we cannot use it. Ms. Yukimura: Well, it is not recurring. Mr. Rapozo: I call for the question. Ms. Yukimura: Can I get that clarification? Chair Furfaro: Let us get a second first. Do we have a second? Ms. Yukimura: Yes, Mel seconded it. Mr. Rapozo: I have the second, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Clarification please, somebody please come up. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 135 There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Castillo: Is this an endeavor to get moneys from the Asset Forfeiture? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Castillo: I am sorry, I do not have the answer for that. It is specific and I know there are conditions. I do not have an answer for you right now. I am sorry. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn, go ahead. Ms. Yukimura: I mean, if you can use it for gym equipment, certainly you can use it for high school. Mr. Castillo: I do not want to speculate. I am sorry. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Nakamura: Call for the question. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, just real quick. The reason the gym equipment is all right because it benefits the Police Department. The transportation to Project Graduation does not benefit the Police Department. The Asset Forfeiture Fund is the Police Department, to afford the Police Department that opportunity to buy helicopters. They can buy whatever they want. They cannot use it for non-law enforcement matters. I will call for the question. Chair Furfaro: We will call for the vote, please. Ms. Yukimura: I will withdraw my amendment. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her motion to amend the motion by taking the six thousand dollars from the Forfeiture Fund instead of the General Fund. Mr. Rapozo withdrew his second. Chair Furfaro: We are back to the main motion which is three (3) times thousand dollars ($2,000) for each of the high schools for the — what do they call that? Ms. Nakamura: Project Graduation. The motion to add funding for "Special Projects —Project graduation (two thousand dollars ($2,000) each for Kapa`a/Kaua`i/Waimea High Schools)" in the amount of six thousand dollars($6,000) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0, Sit 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 136 SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: We have one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) left on the table. I mean I did get my Kapa'a Pool money so I am okay. But I would like to say that we should hold that money perhaps for contract services that might be needed for securing third party involvement in the Transient Vacation Rental issues of whether they are legal and/or enforcement. I would like to put that out there. That is my feeling. I wanted to just have some discussion it as we go forward because it sounds like something we should have in a way of a reserve. If they do not need it, there is nothing wrong with us keeping a reserve item in the Operating Budget. Ms. Yukimura: What is your proposal? Chair Furfaro: To earmark that for contracted services for legal services, inspection services, anything related to the Transient Vacation Rental piece, just to earmark it. The one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) so we get to zero (0). It would be something that I would put in Planning even though they said no. I rethought it was the hour got later. I do not have a second. Chair Furfaro: I have a second. Mr. Rapozo: I do not think you can make the motion, sir. Chair Furfaro: Oh, I cannot make the motion either. That is right. Can I transfer the Chair to you to make so I can make a motion to put the one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) earmarked in the Planning Department for the purpose of support, professional, legal inspections for the TVRs? Mr. Rapozo: Sure. Chair Furfaro, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to Mr. Rapozo. Chair Furfaro moved to increase Consultant Services — TVR Enforcement (Professional, Legal, Inspection, Etc.) in the amount of one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544), seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Rapozo, I gave you the floor. Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry. There was a second. Mr. Bynum. I p Y Y apologize. Mr. Bynum: Addressing TVRs is left on my list but there are several proposals out there. I really would like to support Justin Kollar in keeping the full staffing that he inherited. That is one area. Chair Furfaro: Just a reminder on that, if I can clarify? If he is doing that, all fines collected goes to the State. I said that about a week and a half ago. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 137 Mr. Bynum: If he gets a Deputy? Chair Furfaro: No, if he uses that to do that enforcement, all of what he collects goes to the state. Mr. Bynum: Can I just continue? Chair Furfaro: Sure, you have the floor. Mr. Bynum: I do not understand what you just said. It is a different issue. Chair Furfaro: I can say it in French if you would like. Mr. Bynum: Last year this Council voted at this level of funding for the Prosecutor's Office, Mr. Kollar did get stuck in the transition. His position was dollar funded because he had not filled it yet during his transition and he was not consulted by the Mayor. That just happened and he said that he wants to use some of that Deputy that was there last year. This is not a new position. He wants to use some of that do not Deputy's time to address criminal matters that might come out of this investigation. I also intend to support the Resolution that will be on our agenda that I think — and so I was contemplating putting about twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in the Council Services Budget... Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Bynum, right now we have his motion. Mr. Bynum: I know. Chair Furfaro: We have to vote on it. Mr. Rapozo: Let us deal with his motion which is the one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) that would go into Planning for consultant services. Let us deal with that one first because if that passes, there is nothing left. Mr. Bynum: I had the floor and I was in the middle of a rationale of why and I would not support that and again I got interrupted in the middle. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Bynum, you use that all of the time. Mr. Bynum: Well, call a point of order. Mr. Rapozo: Hang on. I am just trying to say... Mr. Bynum: Can I finish please? Mr. Rapozo: Yes. I am just trying to say that the item on the agenda, the item being voted on is Mr. Furfaro's motion for one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544). If you do not want to vote for that, then you vote "no" and then propose what you wanted. That is how this process has been all day. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 138 Mr. Bynum: I waited patiently until I was recognized. I was in the middle of a statement. Mr. Rapozo: Talking about a Resolution. Mr. Bynum: If you want to interrupt me, call a point of order. Mr. Rapozo: No. Mr. Bynum: Do you not agree that the point of process? Mr. Rapozo: No, I do not agree. I believe as the Chair, if people start to stray, I bring them back. That is the process. Mr. Bynum: May I finish? Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry. Mr. Bynum: May I finish? Mr. Rapozo: Please, but again, keep it to the Planning Department consultant services, one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544). Mr. Bynum: trying num: That is what I am tr in to do. There are a number of ways we can address the TVR issue in the choices that we have. This is not my personal choice of where the funds should go. I am not going to support the motion, but I will have subsequent motions to try to address these concerns. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Furfaro. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I applaud the Chair for wanting to support a Resolution and support dealing with the TVR issue. But I hesitate to provide the Planning Department with additional funds. I am also going to have a difficult time supporting the motion. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember Nakamura. Chair Furfaro: May I say something? I am prepared to withdraw it, if somebody could withdraw their second. I can see it will not get the five (5) votes necessary. I just wanted to put it out there based on what is coming up on our agenda Wednesday. Chair Furfaro withdrew his motion to increase Consultant Services — TVR Enforcement (Professional, Legal, Inspection, Etc.) in the amount of one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544). Ms. Yukimura withdrew her second. Chair Furfaro: I will take the meeting back. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 139 Mr. Rapozo: Go ahead. Mr. Rapozo, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to Chair Furfaro. Chair Furfaro: We still have one hundred ten thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($110,544). I do not know if you folks want Jan Ken Po or what do you want? Do you want to go around the table and hear some general information? Let us go around the table and see who has what hanging out there. Let us keep it within brevity because we have twelve (12) minutes before dinner time. Mr. Rapozo: Can we start this way? Chair Furfaro: Sure. Mr. Rapozo: I was the first one. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: This is a big one, ninety-four thousand nine hundred forty-eight dollars ($94,948) to restore the home delivered meals, Meals on Wheels, that was reduced. This would replace or restore the weekend meals and the caregiver meals back to what we had this year. So that would be my motion to restore ninety-four thousand nine hundred forty-eight dollars ($94,948) to the elderly affairs consultant services. Mr. Rapozo moved to add funding for "Consultant Services —Home Delivered Meals and In-Home Services" back to Fiscal Year 2013 in the amount of ninety-four thousand nine hundred forty-eight dollars ($94,948), seconded by Mr. Kagawa. Chair Furfaro: Mel, we are going to go around the table. I am not look for seconds, I am looking for discussion. Mr. Kagawa: Sorry. I withdraw the second. Mr. Kagawa withdrew his second to add funding for "Consultant Services —Home Delivered Meals and In-Home Services" back to Fiscal Year 2013 in the amount of ninety-four thousand nine hundred forty-eight dollars ($94,948). Chair Furfaro: So, can you value what people have out there. Mr. Kagawa, do you have something? Mr. Kagawa: No more. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Mine was exactly the same as Councilmember Rapozo's. Chair Furfaro: JoAnn. Ms. Yukimura: I have forty-six thousand two hundred seventy-two dollars ($46,272) for a Transit Plan Coordinator in the Transportation Agency. liMENNEI VMS= 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 140 It is a three quarter time position to help manage all of the projects that are going to be in Transportation from the Transit Corridor Studies to the bus shelters and to other needs as part of the three (3) plans that was given to us by Celia Mahikoa for Fiscal Year 2014. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: We are supposed to say what is left on our wish list? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Bynum: What is left if keeping the position that the Prosecutor had? I had hoped to refund KVB ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) to keep them at last year's level. But I guess I will have a hard time with that seeing how we are going to let local people pay the difference not the Visitor Industry. Chair Furfaro: That was not real fair for that comment. That was not fair. Mr. Bynum: Comments are okay when they come from this side of the table, but not this side? Chair Furfaro: Come on. We have ten (10) minutes. Mr. Bynum: I think if we are going to invoke upcoming Resolution for the Council, we are going to need some consultant money for that. So, that is all I had left. Chair Furfaro: Give me your two (2) again, KVB? Mr. Bynum: I am not going to make that proposal. But Prosecutor's position and some funds for the Council. Ms. Nakamura: How much is the Prosecutor's? Mr. Bynum: I believe to fully do that is one hundred thirty-two thousand dollars ($132,000). Chair Furfaro: We do not have one hundred thirty-two thousand dollars ($132,000) so let us partial, maybe six (60) months or something of that nature, three fourth time. Mr. Bynum: Well, I do not think we are limited just to these funds. Chair Furfaro: I am not going back to find money. The adds are done, everybody had time. I explained those rules at the beginning. Mr. Bynum: I think Scott could probably g ive us something here, three quarter. That actually makes sense because it would take some time to recruit. Chair Furfaro: That is yours on your list. Nadine, your list? III 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 141 Ms. Nakamura: Councilmember Yukimura and I have been working on a proposal to bring together different stakeholders in our community around Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) issue. We are proposing fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to hire a facilitator to have a GMO roundtable. Maybe Councilmember Yukimura can, do you want to... Chair Furfaro: I am not going to get into a lot of discussion on it. We just want to know what is out there. Ms. Nakamura: I would pass around a description of what is envisioned. Chair Furfaro: That you can do. Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I think yours got eliminated and I would like to see what else you have and I would like do my best to support you. I think you deserve an add after putting up with this budget and finding those extra moneys. Chair Furfaro: Thank you. But I think my role is also to be a team builder here and I withdrew my item and leave it at that. I want to go around the table and summarize real quick what our choices are. We have Meals on Wheels. First thing to make sure that you folks understand that the budget was not cut by us. For those of you that did not know this, the budget was cut by the money that we got from the State previously. I want to make sure we are really clear on that. Our contract was for five (5) day meal and the State gave us extra money to do the Saturday and Sundays. I want to make sure we are all clear out there this is not something that County is reducing. This is something when we were given money by the State to apply that, but they did notice give us additional money. That is one item. Item two is restoring in the Prosecutor's Office a three quarter position which will come out to about that amount and from JoAnn, we have forty-six thousand two hundred seventy-two dollars ($46,272) Transportation Planner, is that right, JoAnn? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Chair Furfaro: And Nadine and JoAnn have talked about facilitating a GMO roundtable for fifty thousand dollars 50 000 . If we end up with the g Y $ , ( ) p roundtable along with the planner, those two (2) items together would have taken us to a bottom line zero (0). Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: What is the figure that we are putting in for the Prosecutor Attorney three quarter time? Mr. Bynum: It would be one hundred nine thousand four hundred ninety three dollars ($109,493) Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I have one (1) small figure. Chair Furfaro: You have one (1) small figure? 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 142 Ms. Yukimura: One (1)other small figure. Chair Furfaro: Put it on the table for now. Ms. Yukimura: It is three thousand dollars ($3,000) support for a Housing Advisory Committee which we are already developing. I have a sheet. But I am thinking we can encumber six thousand dollars ($6,000) this year and then we have about three thousand dollars ($3,000) that I would like to be able to add to the next year's budget. Chair Furfaro: Well, if Planning would move quickly, we could encumber the whole twelve thousand dollars (12,000) and not have to visit that. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to try that. I just want a fallback position. But then I am wondering, for these amounts, can we not just make a small shift in the estimate the amount that over what we think the balance will be? Chair Furfaro: You folks can come up with more money, that is great. I came up with one million ninety-two thousand dollars ($1,092,000). I have not other adds for money to find it, to research the financial statement, and to look at the balance sheet. If you can find it fine. If not, here is the other solution. We can leave, Scott, we can leave a balance in this for miscellaneous and took the seven hundred seventy thousand dollars ($770,000) from, we put the one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) back. Ms. Yukimura: What is that? Chair Furfaro: When I went through the financials I found the unassigned balance of seven hundred seventy thousand four hundred thirteen dollars ($770,413). What I am saying is we do not reach any agreement until somebody comes up with something more firm, we can keep the one hundred ten thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($110,544) in that contingency, in that Unassigned Fund until you folks work a little quicker to finalize what your needs are. That is another option, too. Mr. Kagawa Mr. Kagawa: Mr. Chair, I think we have four (4) pretty good proposals. Maybe we just go around and see if any of those have five (5) votes. Just, do a roll call. Chair Furfaro: I do not want to do a roll call, I want to do a show of hands. I do not want anything formal. Ms. Nakamura: I have another one to add. If we are going to do that all around voting, I am going to throw... Mr. Rapozo: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe we have to do a motion and second. We cannot be doing polls. Ms. Yukimura: Well, we are doing a straw vote. Mr. Rapozo: We cannot do that. We have to go with the motion. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 143 Chair Furfaro: We are not doing a straw poll. What we are doing is what is left on the table that people want and this can be rationalized based on the fact that we only have one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000). I would suggest that we put this into a contingency, an unappropriated fund, that sits there until we see what comes to the table first. At first glance myself, I would like to see the GMO piece. I would like to see the forty-six thousand dollars ($46,000) for the bus. But I do not want to push this as an idea right now. I mean, people have got to come back to us with wanting to use that money. I have said where I am at. Mr. Rapozo: Mr. Chair, does it just go back into? Chair Furfaro: Unassigned Fund Balance. Mr. Rapozo: Back into the Administration budget though, right? Chair Furfaro: Yes. Mr. Rapozo: So for that matter, we would have balanced our budget? We would have balanced out our budget? It would not be available for Council to use is what I am trying to say. It would go back into the unassigned and so for our work tonight, we are done. I am motion that we do that. Mr. Rapozo moved to add funding to "Unassigned Fund Balance" in the amount of one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544), seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: A motion and second. Ms. Yukimura: What is the motion? Chair Furfaro: Restate the motion, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: The motion is to take that one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) and put it back into the unappropriated surplus. But that is not in the Council's budget is what I am trying to say. Chair Furfaro: Unassigned. Mr. Rapozo: Unassigned. It goes back into the Unassigned in the Administration's budget. So, for our purposes, we have a balanced budget. It is over and the discussions are over and there are no more opportunities to propose more projects. That is what we would do. We cannot put the money on the side and say, if any of you come up later with five (5) votes that we are going to take the money back. It goes back to the Unassigned and we are done tonight. That is what my motion is. Chair Furfaro: Second by Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 144 Mr. Bynum: In essence, all of the things we just talked about, none of them will happen and the only way to access those funds is with a Money Bill? Mr. Rapozo: Correct. Chair Furfaro: Yes, and a good plan that can be justified to the whole body. Mr. Bynum: I am not going to support that. I think we should finish the budget process and if we vote more funds than currently available, then we revisit looking at revenue. It is not going to be a huge amount of money even if we voted all of these things and we can find it. There are ways. We could revisit the one percent (1%) we put in energy as a two percent (2%), for instance. Chair Furfaro: We did put two percent (2%). Mr. Bynum: No, I thought we did one percent (1%). Mr. Rapozo: Call for the question, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Let us call for the vote on this going to the Unassigned Fund. Mr. Rapozo: We only need four (4) votes. The motion to add funding to "Unassigned Fund Balance" in the amount of one hundred four thousand five hundred forty-four dollars ($104,544) was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL—4, AGAINST APPROVAL: Bynum, Nakamura, Yukimura TOTAL- 3, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL- 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3. Chair Furfaro: You come up with a plan amongst things that were discussed and we will look at a Money Bill for that. Now we need to go to provisos. Does anybody have any provisos on the items that we have identified? Councilwoman Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: I have to find my paper. Chair Furfaro: If it is an add, it is five (5) votes. JoAnn, you have the floor for provisos. Ms. Yukimura: I would like to put a proviso in regarding the Food Production Center Feasibility Study and Business Plan which is Account No. 001-0901-512.30. It would read as follows: No moneys shall be expended related to the Lihu`e Civic Center site until a ten (10) year Space Plan Needs Study for the County is discussed with the County Council and the Office of Economic Development and the Kauai 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 145 Economic Development board have conducted and completed a site selection process. I would appreciate a second for discussion. Ms. Yukimura moved to add a new proviso Kaua`i Economic Development Board — Food Production Center — Feasibility Study and Business Plan (Account No. 001-0901.512.30-00): No moneys shall be expended related to the Lihu`e Civic Center site until a 10-year space needs study for the County is completed and discussed with the County Council and the Office of Economic Development and the Kaua`i Economic Development Board (KEDB) has conducted and completed a site selection process, seconded by Mr. Bynum. Chair Furfaro: We have a second for discussion. Ms. Yukimura: I see it is up there posted and if I might explain, Chair? Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead. Ms. Yukimura: It is very targeted. It says no moneys shall be expended related to the Civic Center site. So, anything that has to do just with the concept and the business plan and everything would continue or would be expended. But to the extent that there would be construction or design plans for that specific site based on measurements, space, and all of that of the center, that would not be allowed to be expended until there is a complete site selection process and the Council is briefed on that in terms of what the criteria are that were used to find a site and the fact that various sites were looked at in this Lihu`e area to see what was the best site. Chair Furfaro: I had a second for discussion. Further discussion members? Go ahead. Mr. Bynum: I have been a big supporter of these CEDS programs and I think I will continue to be. Although on this one, I was pretty uncomfortable about how quickly it became this site and none others. I do not know that a whole evaluation has been done. I do not want to slow down progress too much either though. But I do think that it is premature to say it is that site and spend money on a particular site. I do not think that was the original intent either. I do not know. I want to hear more from Councilmember Nakamura on how she feels about this. Chair Furfaro: Let me give Councilwoman Nakamura the floor then. Ms. Nakamura: I have no problem with this language. Mr. Bynum: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Further discussion here? Go ahead. Mr. Rapozo: JoAnn, I know we discussed this. But the ten (10) year Space Needs Study, when was that anticipated, do we know? We do not need to bring them up. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 146 Ms. Yukimura: No, well I was not even clear whether it is going to be a ten (10) year study. Mr. Rapozo: Right. Ms. Yukimura: I think Mr. Dill said he thought five (5) years was far too short. I know that as you go farther, it is harder to do projections. I thought ten (10) year at least would be logical. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Ms. Nakamura: Now that you bring this up Councilmember Rapozo, I think my understanding now from today's discussion is that the consultant's scope will need to be expanded so forth and then they are going to initiate the study from that point on. I think we might want to take a look at this language because I am wondering if there can be some parallel tracks going on. Ms. Yukimura: Well that is why I said related to the Civic Center site because I want to allow them to do the other work. I do not want to stop the work on the basic concept and the management plans. I want to point out the... Chair Furfaro: Let me make a note here, we are passing 6:30 p.m. If we cannot finish this by 7:00 p.m. your choices are to come back tomorrow or have to send the staff to do the provisos. Let us be real clear what we are presenting here to get out of here by 7:00 p.m. Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: You still have the floor, it was a housekeeping. Ms. Yukimura; Well, procedurally I would like to suggest that we come back and finish up tomorrow. Chair Furfaro: We are only five (5) members tomorrow. Ms. Yukimura: Well, I think it is better than really closing the budget with us feeling sort of incomplete. Chair Furfaro: I do not feel incomplete at all, JoAnn. I want to make sure that you understand. After seventeen (17) days that I feel incomplete at all. In fact, where I am at is I have been very generous allowing the dialogue and I also want to say to you that I would like to give the staff free day tomorrow to make absolutely sure that we are in balance. What we are talking about now is narrative for the provisos. We are not talking about money. There is no more money. Ms. Yukimura: Then Chair, I want to just continue on this issue then. Chair Furfaro: Go ahead. Ms. Yukimura: If you look at the Kaua`i Creative Technology Center, I really like the process where the last page talks about the implementation phase 1 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 147 and it shows formation of a Charter Board, formation of a new Non-Profit Organization, and site selection because I think the people who are going to be managing the project need to be part of the site selection process and that has not happened with this center. I also want to say that if you skip an essential step, that can be a major mistake and I feel the site selection process has been skipped in this. Somebody just said we can do it here because when I have asked for what are the criteria for a site, no one has been able —actually Susan Tai sent me a list of criteria about three (3) days ago that she had though scramble and ask the consultant for and it did not even have the length of tenure that is required for this. Chair Furfaro: The item that is on is the narrative. Ms. Yukimura: Yes and I am explaining Chair, why it is important. Chair Furfaro: Let me tell you what I got out of your piece. You should have voted"no" on the item, if that is how you felt. Ms. Yukimura: But I supported the concept. Chair Furfaro: Let us find verbiage that you happy with, that we can put in the proviso, in the narrative. Ms. Yukimura: I just want to say that when the YMCA was looking for a pool site they wanted to do it with the Kaiakea Fire Station is and that was there place. They were very angry when I questioned is as Mayor. But then this other site came up and because they had not gone through a real clear selection process. Chair Furfaro: We can look back on that, that might be one of the reasons that we let the Kapa'a pool go to pot because we thought it would be by the fire station. Work on the narrative if you want in this proviso piece. Ms. Yukimura: Well, that is explaining the reason for my narrative. Ms. Nakamura: Rather than—sorry. Chair Furfaro: Nakamura, you have the floor. Ms. Nakamura: Rather than say "no moneys shall be expended" can we just say that the Office of Economic Development and Kaua`i Economic Development Board will conduct and complete a site selection process and present this information to the Kaua`i County Council before undertaking the subsequent steps? Chair Furfaro: The County Attorney wanted to speak. I am going to suspend the rules, Al. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. Mr. Castillo: I understand what you are trying to do with the provisos, but then we are dealing with the invasion of the separation of powers. When you do an appropriation, you cannot tie in or put in instructions so to speak and there is a case law on that. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 148 Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Al. Mr. Castillo: You are welcome. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Ms. Nakamura: Maybe just to give you some assurance too, that when the consultant worked on the scope of work for the next phase, doing a site selection process was part of the scope of work. It may have been dropped. That portion may have come out in the process, but that was the intent based on Council feedback. Ms. Yukimura: My concern is that I am concerned that the site selection process will be just nominal, going through the process rather than really looking at this issue. This is a way, I felt without stopping the projects which I do not want to do, but I am very, very concerned that skipping this process will almost lead to a not successful project or create great conflicts that we will later regret. Chair Furfaro: Let us find any further comments on the piece that was recommended by Ms. Yukimura? Mr. Bynum. Mr. Bynum: I am just going to throw out the suggestion after reading this six (6) times. That we eliminate the portion related to the Space Plan and simply say no moneys shall be expended related to Lihu`e Civic Center site until the Office of Economic Development and Kaua`i Economic Development Board have conducted and completed a site selection process because that is what we really want, right? We want them to have objective look at all potential sites. Chair Furfaro: That is what is out on the table right now and I am thinking that I am going to call for the vote on the narrative for the proviso. Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: That is fine. I just wanted to make sure I heard Al correctly. Based on Al's comments, cannot do it. I will call for the question. Chair Furfaro: Let us call for the vote. The motion to add a new proviso Kaua`i Economic Development Board — Food Production Center — Feasibility Study and Business Plan (Account No. 001-0901.512.30-00): No moneys shall be expended related to the Lihu`e Civic Center site until a 10-year space needs study for the County is completed and discussed with the County Council and the Office of Economic Development and the Kaua`i Economic Development Board (KEDB) has conducted and completed a site selection process was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3, AGAINST APPROVAL: Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Furfaro TOTAL— 4, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 149 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4. Chair Furfaro: Four (4) noes. Mr. Bynum: Can I just make a comment? Chair Furfaro: Yes, sure. Mr. Bynum: I want to strongly encourage the Administration to do a site selection and not just line everything up to go to this site before we go to others, please. Chair Furfaro: I would like to second that that is the message. Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: Just another brief comment. I believe the County Attorney is correct, but I also believe that the Council can express its desires and show direction and give direction even if we cannot enforce it. So, I support the proviso process. Chair Furfaro: Understood. The statement does not necessarily mean compliance, but it shows direction. Well said, Mr. Hooser. Any other provisos here? Ms. Nakamura: I have one? Chair Furfaro: We have fifteen (15) minutes. Ms. Nakamura: Hopefully this will go quickly. This is to get quarterly statements from the Director of Finance that includes the summary report of revenues for each fund showing for each month the cash receipts and unrealized balance of revenues compared to budgeted revenues and then the second quarter part is the summary report of expenditures for each fund, Department, and elements showing for each month the cash disbursements, current encumbrances, unencumbered balance, and percent of budget remaining. When these quarterly summary reports are on our agenda, to have the Director of Finance really, our Chief Financial Officer, to address the body to highlight some of the key points, the key variances, and any irregularities and to be here to answer any questions related to this. This idea is just to move us away from this huge document that is very difficult to read and understand to something that is much more user friendly to the public as well and to have the Chief Financial Officer present that to the corporate body on a quarterly basis. Ms. Nakamura moved to remove Section 21 of the Operating Budget Proviso which states: "SECTION 21. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each quarter, the Director of Finance shall submit to the Council a Combined Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements ("Combined Statement") showing for each month for each individual account and fund the cash balance at the start of the accounting period. Upon receipt of each quarterly Combined Statement, the Council may hold hearings for purposes of 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 150 reviewing each Combined Statement. All information submitted pursuant to this Section shall be provided in an electronic soft copy format." and add new language as follows: "SECTION 21. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each quarter, the Director of Finance shall submit to the Council the following: a) Summary Report of Revenues for each fund showing for each month the cash receipts and unrealized balance of revenues compared to the budgeted revenues. b) Summary Report of Expenditures for each fund, department, and element showing for each month the cash disbursements, current encumbrances, unencumbered balance, and percent of budget remaining. Each quarterly Summary Report of Revenues and Expenditures shall also include a summary from the Director of Finance which highlights key variances in revenues and expenditures or any other notices of financial irregularities that the Council should be aware of. Upon receipt of each quarterly Summary Report of Revenues and Expenditures, the Council may hold hearings for purposes of reviewing each report with the Director of Finance. All information submitted pursuant to this Section shall be provided in an electronic soft copy format." seconded by Mr. Hooser. Chair Furfaro: Let me tell you folks, and Steve I want you to know, that is something that we have been working for so many years. It is really unfortunate that we have to put it in the way of a proviso. We go six (6) months and we do not see the quarterly reports. I want sure that you understand, it is not the quarterly reports that are in this proviso, it is a summary sheet showing balances, cash collections, those particular things. Please, please pay very particular attention to the comments made in this proviso. Steve, did you want the floor? There being no objections, the rules are suspended. Mr. Hunt: During the first six (6) months, the Accounting Office is working on the CAFR so there is a delay for the first two (2) quarters and then it comes in bulk after that. In terms of getting the quarterlies, we will work on a summary format that is more readable, more intelligible that you can make more broad decision on. But in terms of the first two (2) quarters, again in a timely basis that may still present us with challenges. Chair Furfaro: That is why I brought it up. The problem is not getting it. The problem is how long we wait for it because of all the other things that are paling. You are closing the year month thirteen (13). You are still look for cash receipts and so forth. Then we go half a year and I have to do my own analysis. That is s a problem. So, make sure you understand that if we pass this, which I think we will, you 4 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 151 have to figure out that solution. It is a tough one, but you have to figure out that solution because we are flying blind for six (6) months. Chair Furfaro: Questions for Mr. Hunt? Comments on the proposal? Go ahead, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Steve, that proviso is acceptable for you is it reasonable, the thirty (30) days? Mr. Hunt: We are looking at quarterly reports? Mr. Kagawa: Yes. But thirty (30) days after the quarter. Mr. Hunt: Again, I am going to see what I can do about the first two (20 quarters because that is always challenging and with limited staff resources, it has to be deployed for the auditors that come in for the CAFR. It is going to be a challenge. Mr. Kagawa: This is why I asked, I do not want to put something basically in law that you have to abide by that it is not fair to you to get to us in a reasonable time. If we should make it forty-five (45) then I want to do it now. Mr. Hunt: The thirty (30) days after the quarter is not the challenge, it is just the first two (2) quarters and that has always been the challenge. Once where we getting through the year and the CAFR is done, then we certainly can deploy our resources in and get those timely. But while we are spending thin during the period that we use resources for both, then we have the challenges. Frankly, I am not sure how will we get over that, but we will do our best. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, you have answered my question. Chair Furfaro: I will give Mr. Bynum the floor, but what I also want to say is that we are current now. I have the eight (8) month report. So, it is the upfront that is where we get hurt. Mr. Hunt: Yes. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum. Mr. Hunt: I think this proviso is great and well needed. But I do understand exactly what you are talking about. I still think that we can put this up there and your first quarter report might be here is the difficulties we have and why. It will give us an opportunity to understand that and maybe come up with solutions for the future. I think it is good the way it is worded. I just say that I know Councilmember Furfaro ever since I have been on Council has done these analyses. A few years ago, I started doing it and it was difficult because compared to other budgets that I have looked at, government budgets and certainly compared to non-profits where I was responsible, it is really complex and to have the Director of Finance do that for all Councilmembers and present it, I do not think is an unreasonable request and puts us on the same page. Mr.Hunt: I think to some degree with the interaction between the Accounting and the Budget Team, Ken and Ann have done a great job to assembling a lot of that financial information to compare budget to actuals as we go by on a 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 152 fund basis as well. So, some of the bones of preparing that summary are already in place. But again, from the first two (2) quarters it is just a matter of getting the Accountants to do both and CAFR and we are stretched. Mr. Bynum: I think we would understand that and give a lot of latitude in the first and second quarters. Your report might be currently we are at this state and we anticipate by this date we can give you more what you ask for kind of thing. Chair Furfaro: I am going to go back to Vice Chair Nakamura. Thank you for pointing that out our mutual concern. Ms. Nakamura: I do not mind making a modification to this, making an exception for the first two (2) quarters of the year to recognize your staffs constraint. Mr. Hunt: That would be helpful and again, we will do everything we can to get you useful information as timely as possible without interfering with our primary goal too which is getting the CAFR and getting you fund balances. Ms. Nakamura: It would read with the exception of the first two (2) quarters of the year. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as follows: Chair Furfaro: I am holding you on your message of Kokua because the other way is we can think about the new Kentucky Fried Chicken piece. I ate the bones, but nobody told me there were no bones in the chicken. Are you going to offer a verbal change? While that is being changed, are there any other provisos? Any other provisos? Okay going once, going twice, we are going vote on this item here. You folks have had it changed for us because we do not want to vote on something that we do not have in writing. Is the change coming? It is up on the board. Clerk, make note that we are voting on what is on the board. Ms. Yukimura: With the exception of the first two (2) quarters? I see where it is. Chair Furfaro: Is that acceptable to you, Vice Chair? Call for a roll call vote, please. Ms. Nakamura: With the exception of the first two (2) quarters of the fiscal year. Chair Furfaro: Roll call vote please. The motion to remove Section 21 of the Operating Budget Proviso which states: "SECTION 21. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each quarter, the Director of Finance shall submit to the Council a Combined Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements ("Combined Statement") showing for each month for each individual account and fund the cash balance at the start of the accounting period. Upon receipt of each quarterly 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 153 Combined Statement, the Council may hold hearings for purposes of reviewing each Combined Statement. All information submitted pursuant to this Section shall be provided in an electronic soft copy format." and add new language as follows: "SECTION 21. No later than thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each quarter (with the exception of the first two (2) quarters of the fiscal year), the Director of Finance shall submit to the Council the following: a) Summary Report of Revenues for each fund showing for each month the cash receipts and unrealized balance of revenues compared to the budgeted revenues. b) Summary Report of Expenditures for each fund, department, and element showing for each month the cash disbursements, current encumbrances, unencumbered balance, and percent of budget remaining. Each quarterly Summary Report of Revenues and Expenditures shall also include a summary from the Director of Finance which highlights key variances in revenues and expenditures or any other notices of financial irregularities that the Council should be aware of. Upon receipt of each quarterly Summary Report of Revenues and Expenditures, the Council may hold hearings for purposes of reviewing each report with the Director of Finance. All information submitted pursuant to this Section shall be provided in an electronic soft copy format." was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR APPROVAL: Bynum, Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 7, AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0, SILENT: None TOTAL— 0. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes. Chair Furfaro: Seven (7) ayes. I believe we have no more provisos. On that note I want to share to all of you folks a couple of housekeeping items. This gives the staff all day tomorrow for the purpose of allowing any corrections on the exact amounts we were looking at today and also provides them that little buffer in the amount that we put on the side, that one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000), in case there is an addition problem and so forth. Now this would go into Committee on the 15th. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The amendments will be posted on the 15th and it will be in Committee on the 21St. The Operating Budget, the CIP, the plus/minus sheet and Real Property Tax Resolutions, on the 21st and second and final reading on the 28th. Chair Furfaro: Full Council? ownsw 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 154 Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Full Council. Chair Furfaro: What gets posted and so forth, does not mean we get to the 21st and start managing changes. There are no changes. You either vote "yay" or "nay" and we are moving on. I want to say to the staff, thank you so much. I want to say to my colleagues here at the table, there was healthy discussion in this budget and it was very meaningful. We keep refining, at least this is the third year I have been Chair, we keep refining the process which at the end of the day, I think we get better and better at. But it is very important that we do practice patience with one another. I want to thank the Administration as well for being with us for this time. But we are now going to put this to bed. Before I go to bed in four (4) minutes, I will go around the table for comments. You have a comment? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Well, I just wanted to thank you, Chair, since you were thanking everybody else. Chair Furfaro: It is a team effort. Ms. Yukimura: Yes, and you are the leader and we appreciate all that you did especially your finding of revenues. But guiding us throughout the session and I do want to say thank you to our incredible staff and also to the Administration for their constant presence and also to the Mayor for sitting in on the hearings. Chair Furfaro: He was here for a number of the sessions. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for pointing that out. Any other comments? Mr. Hooser. Mr. Hooser: I just wanted to echo Chair, you did a great job. I know it is very difficult and challenging process and a lot of personality in the room and not just at this table. It is difficult. (Inaudible). You did a great job and I really want to echo the staff and just amazing to watch the papers generated within seconds and not miss a beat all around. They did a great job. Chair Furfaro: Thank you for sharing that. Mr. Bynum, you wanted the floor? Mr. Bynum: Sure. Thank you Chair for your leadership in this. The public will not know how much more organized this was than last year and that is a learning process. Some of the issues that I talked to staff about because we do differently, they were way ahead of me. They had it wired already. We are going to now within in a day or two (2), have a really complete synopsis of the votes for instance. The staff is really is unsung. They work so hard to make this budget process and it went much smoother because of a lot of the behind-the-scenes things that were happening. Thank you all. Chair Furfaro: I do agree that the one (1) addition we made this year, as we constantly make additions to make improvements, each member having private time with the Budget Staff to review kind of where each other — that was a nice new addition and we will continue on that next year. Mr. Kagawa. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 155 Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I want to thank members, our staff, my first budget was very exciting. I did not get all I wanted. But I got some of what I wanted and that is the result of having only one (1) vote out of seven (7). I think all in all, very satisfied with the outcome. I think collectively we came up with a very responsible budget and we have yet more challenges to come. Just wanted to thank the Administration and the Mayor. My comments though at times may have seemed negative are questions that we as Councilmembers must ask. We must ask the tough questions. We must ask for tough results and that is only because we have a duty to do our jobs as well. No personal hard feelings and we will move forward, mahalo. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for running a great budget session. This is my, I think it is my tenth budget and probably one of the most organized. One of the good things that I think helped was the one-on-one time with the Administrative staff. I told this to Steve and Ernie the other day and I will say it here publicly that the organization of your Budget Team, Gary, and the Mayor, I wish he was here. I am sure he will get the message. This year was probably the best I have seen with Ken and what do they call you folks? Budget Analysts. The way you folks explained to us months ago that led to the one-on-ones that we had was invaluable and I just want to thank you for that publicly because that was great. Then the one-on-ones with our staff. I do not how our staff does it. We always change things. Their heads are spinning right now, have to be. But it is amazing what they do with the little resources they have as well. To our staff, thank you so much. It is just incredible what you folks do. Whatever we ask for, we get right away as Ross said and like Ross said, sometimes during the budget session emotions get high and we say things. It is because we got to ask those tough questions and we should never take it personal because it never is. It never is and often times words do not come out the way it was intended to, but just understood that we have to ask the tough questions and just ask for your patience and understanding at times. Finally, I feel good this year because the last two (2) years I did not support the budget. I could not support the budget. This year, if all goes well, unless something crazy really happens, I will be supporting the budget. I think it is a budget that we can all work with. It is so much easier when you do not have money, believe it or not. Believe it or not, it is so much easier when you do not have money and some tough decisions had to be made. One of the things that I had in my add sheet was another Accountant for your accounting. As you were talking about the proviso, I was thinking my gosh, now would have been the time. But we just do not have the money. So, we all have to do more with less. I appreciate everyone that participated and looking forward to actually voting for this budget this year. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Furfaro: Vice Chair. Ms. Nakamura: I think everything has been said. Again I want to thank all of you around the table. A lot of give, a lot of take and heard a lot of different perspectives around this table which is, I think, the value of our democracy. I just want to thank you all. Thank you Chair for all you put into this process while everything else is going on around us and to our staff, thank you again for all of your hard work because they stay after we leave to follow-up and then to the Administration for again, just your professionalism this year and to just keep us up-to-date and transparent about our process. Thank you very much for all you did. 05-13-2013 Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making (aa) Page 156 Chair Furfaro: On that note, I would like to say I would like to get to a point that we can adjourn the budget discussions. The vote on the budget will be the Committee of the Whole on May 21st and followed by a successful exit from Committee, it will go to the full Council on May 28th for final vote. On that note, staff, very, very pleased with all you do for us all the time. Administration, mahalo for the Kokua and we are now adjourned. There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, u Allison S. Arakaki Council Services Assistant I OC(AAW- V ead eitki Darrellyne . Caldeira Council Services Assistant II Natio 0,41C---- Laurie Chow Se for Cl rk T 'st Michal Nakashima Senior Clerk Typist i gile Codie K. ir auchi Council Services Assistant I APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on July 10, 2013: JAY .�=s Chair, COW Nate