HomeMy WebLinkAbout 08/14/2013 Council Meeting Minutes COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 14, 2013
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kaua'i was called to
order by the Council Chair Jay Furfaro at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street,
Room 201, Lihu'e, Kaua'i, on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 at 9:12 a.m., after which
the following members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura (Excused at 4:58 p.m.)
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Jay Furfaro
Excused: Honorable Tim Bynum
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Mr. Rapozo moved for approval of the agenda as circulated, seconded by
Mr. Kagawa, and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Pursuant to Council Rule 13(e), members of the public shall be allowed a total of
eighteen (18) minutes on a first come, first served basis to speak on any agenda
item. Each speaker shall be limited to three (3) minutes at the discretion of the
Chair to discuss the agenda item and shall not be allowed additional time to speak
during the meeting. This rule is designed to accommodate those who cannot be
present throughout the meeting to speak when the agenda items are heard. After
the conclusion of the eighteen (18) minutes, other members of the public shall be
allowed to speak pursuant to Council Rule 12(e).
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public comment.
AL LARDIZABAL: Good morning Chair Furfaro, Vice Chair
Nakamura, and Members of the County Council. Aloha and thank you for this
opportunity to speak at this moment to make a humble request at the pleasure of
the Council to move item Bill No. 2485, the last item on the agenda before your
Executive Session to an earlier part of the agenda, if it is possible. If it is not
possible and it causes some technical procedural problems then of course I will
withdraw my request. Thank you very much for listening.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Lardizabal, it will be almost impossible
for us to take that early as we have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) blessing
today and we have scheduled an audit review. I will take your note under
consideration but I think it might be impossible.
Mr. Lardizabal: Thank you very much.
Chair Furfaro: No questions during this period, JoAnn.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: That is right.
Chair Furfaro: We will try our best, sir.
ROY GOO: I am going to be speaking about the Kapaia
Bridge. I know you have heard many testimonies in the past about the cultural and
historical significance about that structure, so I am not really going into that. To
me, to be honest the bigger issue is the way that this problem has been handled. I
just wanted Council to consider the message that this is sending the public. The
last two (2) or three (3) years you have allocated money and promised to restore the
towers. In the last two (2) or three (3) years, nothing has been done. Not a single
nail has been moved. In the public's eye, you can only come to one (1) of two (2)
conclusions. Either first, it calls into question the capability and the efficiency in
which the County office operates if in two (2) or three (3) years nothing got done. I
am sure that we will hear that we are hearing on another study or
another...something permit... but if after two (2) or three (3) years that still is
considered an acceptable response, I really think that we are underestimating the
intelligence of the community. The second, in my opinion and the far worst
conclusion of what it can draw is that the intention of the County is to not fix the
bridge. In that case, it calls into the question of integrity of the County Office. If
they say that they are going to do something and they have no intention of doing so,
they kind of owe it to the public to be upfront and honest with their intentions. I
was in the military for a number of years and I think the public as a whole, we
understand that you have a lot of tough decisions to make. There are a lot of
requests that come across your desk and we do not expect that we will agree with
every decision you make, we do not need to agree with every decision that the
County makes but what we do need is we need to trust the Administration. When
the Administration say that they are going to do something, that indeed it will be
done. If their intention is otherwise, that they will be honest about that and
upfront. All I really want, all I am urging the Council to do is to hold the County
Office accountable to either follow through with their promises or at the minimum
be upfront and honest with what their true intentions are. That is all I have to say.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you for your comments. I hope the
Administration heard the message here because the Council for three (3) years has
put the money into this project. By Charter, we cannot direct the activities but we
can fund the activities. I hope that was a sincere directive towards the
Administrative in getting the update today. Is there anyone else that would like to
speak now on any item on today's agenda?
There being no one else to give public comment, the meeting was called back
to order and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Let me ask, because Mr. Lardizabal is here,
and we are talking about an item that may not be effectively time consuming, may
we see if we can address the vote on the Plumbing Code.
There being no objections, Bill No. 2485, Draft 1 was taken out order.
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2485, Draft 1 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 14, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
COUNCIL MEETING 3 AUGUST 14, 2013
THE PLUMBING CODE: Mr. Kagawa moved for adoption of Bill No. 2485, Draft 1,
on seconded and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his
approval, seconded by Ms. Yukimura.
Mr. Kagawa: This is one (1) instance where Public Works,
primarily Doug Haigh really came up huge. He negotiated with both sides who had
a few disagreements. He took his time and really came up with something that
everyone could agree on, was fair, that followed what the State law does. I just like
to thank Public Works for a job well done on that particular issue. I want to thank
people from the private sector, the unions, and Contractor's Associations for
speaking up. They saw a problem and they really let Doug Haigh know that it was
an important problem to fix. I hope that we have a unanimous vote.
Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion?
The motion to adopt Bill No. 2485, Draft 1 on second and final reading, that it
be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo, Nakamura
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Chair Furfaro: The Bill is passed. Mr. Lardizabal, you can
take the good news to Honolulu. Thank you. We will go to the next item please.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2013-275 Communication (07/16/2013) from the County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Establishing A School Zone
For King Kaumuali`i Elementary School, Lihu`e District, County Of Kauai:
Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2013-275 for the record, seconded by Ms. Nakamura,
and carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-276 Communication (07/16/2013) from the County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Establishing No Parking At
Any Time And Tow Away Zones Along Portions of Po`ipu Road, Koloa District,
County Of Kaua`i: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2013-276 for the record, seconded
by Ms. Nakamura, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-277 Communication (07/16/2013) from the County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Repealing An Existing
Crosswalk On Menehune Road Leading To The Wooden Footpath Staircase,
Waimea District, County of Kauai: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2013-277 for the
record, seconded by Ms. Nakamura, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was
excused).
C 2013-278 Communication (07/18/2013) from the County Engineer,
transmitting for Council information, the Administration's recommendation
regarding the proposed amendment to clarify the enforcement responsibilities
between County Ordinance and State Law as it applies to Bill No. 2485, Relating to
COUNCIL MEETING 4 AUGUST 14, 2013
the Plumbing Code: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2013-278 for the record,
seconded by Ms. Nakamura, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-279 Communication (07/23/2013) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, Mayoral appointee Richard J. Jose to the
Kaua`i Civil Service Commission for the County of Kaua`i (Designation —
Skilled/Unskilled Labor) — Term ending 12/31/2014: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive
C 2013-279 for the record, seconded by Ms. Nakamura, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote
(Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-283 Communication (08/07/2013) from Councilmember Rapozo,
requesting agenda time to discuss the potential closure of the Hanama`ulu Post
Office by the United States Postal Service (USPS): Mr. Rapozo moved to receive
C 2013-283 for the record, seconded by Ms. Nakamura, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote
(Mr. Bynum was excused).
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one to give testimony, the meeting was called back to order
and proceeded as follows:
Clerk: Mr. Chair, we are on communications. The
first item will be taken up at 10:30, so we are on C 2013-281.
There being no objections, C 2013-281 was taken out of order.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2013-281 Communication (07/16/2013) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Fourth Quarter Statement of
Equipment Purchases for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, pursuant to Section 17 of
Ordinance No. 2012-736, relating to the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i
for Fiscal Year 2012-2013: Ms. Nakamura moved to receive C 2013-281 for the
record, seconded by Mr. Kagawa.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Chair Furfaro: Steve as you know for the first six (6) years I
was on the Council, I was the Finance Chairman and I have a habit of doing these
things and going through various major accounts. I want to verify although we go to
a Period 13 to finalize our actual year, Period 12 tells us if I review this, we are
approximately two point four million (2,400,000) better in revenues than we had
projected. Of that, a million four is from Real Property taxes and we had one (1)
short fall in our investment accounts of about two hundred eleven thousand
(211,000)...
I am reminded I am out of line; I am going over the financials. Was there
anything to report on the equipment line?
STEVEN A HUNT, Director of Finance: Not at this time.
Chair Furfaro: Any questions on the equipment portion?
COUNCIL MEETING 5 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Kagawa: I am just looking at page four (4) of the
worksheet and one (1) thing glared out at me. The price of this Ford Expedition for
the Training Bureau, it is a 4x4 SUV on a five (5) year lease, so the amount is ten
thousand ($10,000), that is how much we owe the first year?
Mr. Hunt: That is the lease payment for that year,
correct.
Mr. Kagawa: The balance of sixty thousand ($60,000)...so
the Ford Expedition costs sixty thousand ($60,000)?
Mr. Hunt: I believe it is the total lease. Incorporated
into that is the costs of the financing of that as well.
Mr. Kagawa: Total costs is forty-six, zero, one, six (46,016)
so fourteen thousand ($14,000) is the interest for financing? The forty-six thousand
(46,000) on the comments side is the cost of the Expedition, is that correct?
Mr. Hunt: I would have to research but I believe that is
a correct statement.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay. I feel better about that because when I
looked at the balance I assumed that it was for a cost of an Expedition and I
thought it was rather high.
Mr. Hunt: With a straight purpose, it certainly would
have been high but with the lease financing, that is incorporated into that.
Mr. Kagawa: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions? If not, let me see if
there is anyone that wants to speak on this portion of the report. Is there anyone in
the audience? Seeing no one.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2013-281 for the record was then put, and carried by
a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-282 Communication (07/17/2013) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Period 12 Financial Report — Detailed
Budget Report, Statement of Revenues (Estimated and Actual), Statement of
Expenditures and Encumbrances, and Revenue Report as of June 30, 2013,
pursuant to Section 21 of Ordinance No. 2012-736, relating to the Operating Budget
of the County of Kaua`i for Fiscal Year 2012-2013: Ms. Nakamura moved to receive
C 2013-282 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Chair Furfaro: Steve, I will go back that we do a Period
thirteen (13) as I said. Ernie evidentially from all of our purchases and so forth
where we are getting close to getting the Period thirteen (13) to close the books. As
I read this preliminary financial for Period twelve (12), we have approximately one
COUNCIL MEETING 6 AUGUST 14, 2013
point four million (1,400,000) improvements in collections of taxes. We have
approximately five hundred forty-six thousand (546,000) better. We are almost two
million (2,000,000) total in these revenues in taxes. Under licenses and permits, we
are ninety thousand (90,000) better than budget, and on our investment accounts,
we are about two hundred eleven thousand (211,000) short. We have revenue from
our concessions and other items about ninety-eight thousand dollars ($98,000). So,
we are two point four million (2,400,000) better in revenue than projected which is
about one point five percent (1.5%) of our total hundred and fifty-eight million
dollars (58,000,000) operating budget. I am sure with the recent arbitration on the
SHOPO contracts and so forth; this amount will be put to good use because of those
contracts.
Mr. Hunt: Certainly we are still monitoring the
expenditure side too but if there is an excess that would be fund balance available
than...
Chair Furfaro: I am going expenses; I am just talking about
revenue first. Now, on the expenses, I do not know to congratulate the
Administration or not. I said the trend was getting us to about seventeen million
(17,000,000) under what we budgeted. This says we are seventeen million one
(17,100,000). That is a little more than what you projected at fourteen. How many
bills and do we have any large bills dragging to be booked for period thirteen (13)
that you know about?
Mr. Hunt: The Annual Retirement Contribution (ARC)
payment. I do not know if that is reflected in there or not. That was a little over
seven million (7,000,000) which is the Annual Retirement Contribution payment
and then there was an attempt to encumber funds for recycling program of about a
half million dollars that was not done time. Those were anticipated to be spent for a
contract but those did not get encumbered, those would be requested in a money bill
later when funds are available again in that certification. That certainly was an
unexpected bump to the expenditure side to the good but really it was not because
the contract did not get executed.
Chair Furfaro: With only one (1) large outstanding piece, we
are probably about eleven million (11,000,000) and we are about two million
(2,000,000) better in revenue. So, we are closer to what your forecast was?
Mr. Hunt: I am thinking twelve — twelve in a half
(12,500,000) will probably be about what the surplus will be at this point with the
information that I have.
Chair Furfaro: Well, whatever you are doing to polish your
crystal ball, my congratulations you are very close to what we anticipated. Again,
this is only period twelve (12) and this is to receive. We covered revenues, and
anticipated expenses. When will you finish period thirteen (13)? When can we see
it?
Mr. Hunt: The Accountants are working on that now. I
cannot give an exact date but hopefully we should have that information within the
next two (2) to three (3) weeks.
Chair Furfaro: Let us try to do it within three (3). We
appreciate your focus on that. Questions on this item to receive?
COUNCIL MEETING 7 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Nakamura: When will the Council see the revised
financial reporting format?
Mr. Hunt: The quarterly reporting will be done per
ordinance. It will be done for first quarter. The challenge in the first quarter is
because we are spending an enormous amount of time on the CAFR in preparation
and working with the Auditor's typically those are delivered late. We will work as
timely as possible and also employ some of the budget team in addition to the
Accountants to get that information timely but when we are able to provide that
first quarter, we will actually have the information and the format you requested
along with an executive summary explaining any differences as we see them.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. So, probably at the end of the year or
early next year?
Mr. Hunt: I would hope before the end of the year that
we should have the first quarter.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Steve, would you agree that my own Polaroid
is worth distributing to the members? Are we pretty close to that?
Mr. Hunt: It is a good benchmark for you to look at as
far as what we are doing. For upcoming budgets what we are also trying to
incorporate is seasonality. We are looking at when the revenues are received, when
the expenditures incurred, so rather than just straight lining and looking at how we
are performing on accrued basis month to month, we are looking at also factoring
the seasonality of those revenues and expenditures.
Chair Furfaro: Especially the TAT tax. Not that the State
purposely drags their payments schedule to us but they do put us in a difficult cash
flow position at times. Is there anything to note, I know we have a public hearing
coming up. Are we all squared away on CIP when it comes to understanding what
the Bond Counsel has agreed we can do with the allocation? I know that we have it
in a public hearing today but is there anything we should be aware of?
Mr. Hunt: Not that I am aware of.
Chair Furfaro: So, the March 8th letter that we got from
Mr. Hirai pretty much sums it up. Anymore questions on the financials? If not,
thank you. Anyone in the audience wants to speak on this item? Seeing none.
There being no one to testify, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2013-282 for the record was then put, and carried a
6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-284 Communication (07/17/2013) from Council Chair Furfaro,
requesting the presence of the County Engineer, to provide an update on the Kapaia
Swinging Bridge, to include, but not be limited to, the status of the Federal
Highway funding, status of the design contract, and the anticipated construction
COUNCIL MEETING 8 AUGUST 14, 2013
start date: Mr. Kagawa moved to receive C 2013-284 for the record, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: Good morning. I think the last time
we were here we had discussed the fact that...our initial scoping of this project was
done by a consultant who came up with a cost estimate of around four million
dollars ($4,000,000).
Chair Furfaro: Time out. I want the costs of the building of
the bridge, not the acquisition of the land.
Mr. Dill: I was going to provide a brief background of
the bridge. If you want me to just answer questions...
Chair Furfaro: I want to know about the bridge, Larry. I do
not want to know about the costs. Esthetically we want to complete the bridge first.
If we have to acquire land, we can do that through a bond later. We want to know
the costs. First, we are supposed to rebuild the towers, then the construction to
have costs presented, and then we would enter into negotiations for the land.
Mr. Dill: The Council request, I thought was for an
update on the project but I can focus it just on the items you have just said.
Chair Furfaro: Can you update it in phases for us?
Mr. Dill: I was attempting to do that.
Chair Furfaro: The replacement of the bridge.
Mr. Dill: If you are just looking at replacement of the
bridge, currently we are processing plans for approval for just replacement of the
two (2) towers as was discussed at Council the last time. Our initial preliminary
estimates was to do that for the budget of about a hundred thousand dollars
($100,000).
Chair Furfaro: Now, that replaces the two (2) towers. How
about the actual construction with the rest of the bridge?
Mr. Dill: The rest of the bridge, we had another
hundred thousand dollars appropriated by Council, as you know, for this Fiscal
Year and we believe that would cover the cost of the completion of the replacement
of the rest of the bridge.
Chair Furfaro: In the four million dollars ($4,000,000)
roughly about two hundred thousand ($200,000) would be for the actual bridge
construction, repair, and restoration. Whether it can be used to go back and forth,
is yet to be determined by acquisition of land but the repair of the bridge — two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)?
Mr. Dill: Approximately. That is our initial estimate
without having any bids. We are not looking at land acquisition. Our strategy that
we are trying to pursue, and having discussed this with the Kapaia Swinging
COUNCIL MEETING 9 AUGUST 14, 2013
Bridge Foundation is acquisition with easements from the private owners down
there at the bridge as well to provide access to the bridge.
Chair Furfaro: Rather than pursue a purchase of the land,
the discussion with the Kapaia Foundation is in fact a negotiation of leasing space
for access?
Mr. Dill: We have not even gotten to a point of
discussing leases. Our first choice would be a grant of easements from the various
landowners.
Chair Furfaro: Is the County Attorney involved in this?
Mr. Dill: Very much so.
Chair Furfaro: May I ask the County Attorney to come up?
MAUNA KEA TRASK, Deputy County Attorney: Good morning.
Chair Furfaro: Mauna Kea, at this point, I understand for
the reconstruction of the bridge, we are in the neighborhood of about two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000) in two (2) increments of a hundred thousand ($100,000)
each — one (1) is for the tower and one (1) is for reconnecting the bridge. The balance
of the project is either the purpose of the land, an easement negotiation, and/or the
possibility of lease/rent for access. What can you tell us that is going on between
yourselves and the Bridge Foundation?
Mr. Trask: Currently, the building...I guess the plans
have been circulated to the various State and County Agencies regarding the
reconstruction of the towers have been circulated. My understanding is that State
Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) in their review recommended that we
present to the Kaua`i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) for their
manao on the matter. That is to be done in the next couple weeks or so.
Chair Furfaro: So, tentatively the plans for the bridge itself
in the next few weeks — two (2) to three (3) weeks there will be a presentation to the
Historic Preservation Committee?
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Is that scheduled, Larry, at this time?
Mr. Dill: We have requested time on your
September 5 agenda.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Thank you for bringing us current on
that.
Mr. Trask: Again, the County Attorney's Office
involvement in this has more been related to the application of the historic law
application as well as ADA accessibly law — their application both State and
Federal. I am sure State and I also believe National. We had conversations with
Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) which is the State Agency
regarding accessibility as well as SHPD back in 2011. If you recall the discussions
COUNCIL MEETING 10 AUGUST 14, 2013
that we had at that point really were dependent upon what specifically the County
and the stakeholders envision the final project to look at and the reason why is
because it is historic property, there is certain parameters which we have to act
within to satisfy the historic registry requirements — the historic property
requirements. Also, dependent upon their input regarding the historical nature of
the bridge and what the project would in fact end up doing that would provide us or
may provide us certain exemptions under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and accessibility. This is a multipart project again currently there is no County
access on the west side of it. There is a west side and east side of it. If we just open
up one side — the west side, and it is categorized as specifically a route and the
intent is to make it a route versus a destination point than the parameters of the
ADA will apply a certain way. It would provide either more flexibility or less
flexibility depending on how that goes. If we only provide a thoroughfare, it is going
to be more requirements. Essentially, there are a lot of contingencies that are still
placed upon this project. In last speaking with DCAB, intent is everything. If the
County intends to make it a destination area than the County will need ADA
access. If the intent is for route than there is no need and the record must be clear.
Currently, our position is that we should go to KHPRC and find out what that
County Agency has to say. After we get their input, we recommend meeting
with...because up to this point, it is all about plans going through the review
process. We meet with the community stakeholders — the community group and
there was a stewardship agreement that was circulated from them and returned to
Public Works earlier this year. That was modeled after our Kaneiolouma
stewardship agreement. There are technical differences between this project and
Kaneiolouma. The main difference being that Kaneiolouma sits clearly within the
boundaries of the Po`ipu Beach Park under the Parks Department. The Parks
stewardship agreement could be used clearly but this is not a park. This is a
different type of property. Certain amendments need to be made to accommodate
that. It is very important to include the community stakeholders and their vision
within this project without their buying and without their concurrence...
Chair Furfaro: I do not think you have to convince this
Council of that, Mauna Kea.
Mr. Trask: I understand that. It just has to be said.
The benefit of that stewardship document, it will clearly lay out the intent of this
project and therefore provide the guidance to SHPD and DCAB as far as what the
applicable State and Federal laws would be. The community group, they do not
want essentially to be left with the bag. They do not want County to give it to them
and run and so our discussions with them need to be clear. That clarity will help
both sides in delineating the rights, duties, and responsibilities. That discussion
needs to be open. Once that stewardship agreement is finalized and we understand
what the project is, then we can take that product to SHPD and DCAB and get
whatever exemptions we are entitled to and/or find out whatever accessibility or
further programs we need to provide in order to satisfy our requirements. Right
now we are waiting for KHPRC piece to finish and then we can really start moving
forward with this project as far as scoping it and meeting with the community to...I
hate using these corporate terms but, "nail it down," and stuff related to that.
Chair Furfaro: Well I will use this term, "we just got nailed
by somebody who is talking over here that there is no plan." Who in the
Administration is putting together the critical path that you just explained to us?
COUNCIL MEETING 11 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Dill: Chair, we are working with the Attorney's
Office on this and if I am given a chance to speak here, we updated the Council
earlier this year that we had met with the Foundation and agreed that the first task
to do is to secure the bridge by rebuilding the two (2) towers. We had our
consultant onboard; he produced those plans pretty quickly, and got them
submitted in January. He submitted them to all the various agencies. We got
comments from all the agencies in March except from SHPD as was pointed out.
We inquired with SHPD as to the status of their and you may be aware that SHPD
has its own challenges these days. Their response finally was to let us know they
wanted us to appear before the Historic Preservation Review Commission after
having submitted several months to go to them. We got on the agenda, as soon as
we can in September. I apologize that things take that long but unfortunately that
is the nature of the beast.
Chair Furfaro: Let me throw my question back out to you
because it has been three (3) years, where is the piece and who is responsible for the
critical path that Mauna Kea and yourself have just so eloquently explained to us?
Where is that document that all of these steps need to take place so that the
community has it and they understand. Hundred thousand ($100,000) for the
tower, hundred thousand ($100,000) for the bridge, these options on the leases or
the purchase, what kind of fundraising the Foundation could help us with to acquire
land, and what is the SHPD people telling us we need to do with critical path
especially if we are trying to get an exemption on the ADA. Where is that piece?
Mr. Dill: There is no document that has been created.
Chair Furfaro: When will we have something like that?
Mr. Dill: We can prepare something like for you,
Chair, but it depends on when Preservation Review Commission has their review
that will introduce new information that will affect what is happening.
Chair Furfaro: Understood.
Mr. Dill: We can produce something like that.
Chair Furfaro: Being as current as we can with information,
I mean, we did our part with the money, Larry, it is here.
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: If I can give you guys the heads-up that
criticism was directed to the County but the reality is that criticism is really
directed to the Administration. Everything is in your ballpark now and I think
having a critical path that you just laid out, understanding that there will be
variables, and understanding that there will be new requests made of us to be
inclusive of some other plans, it would be really nice for the community to have
something like that. Would you agree?
Mr. Dill: Certainly.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. What kind of timeline can you tell us
for this critical path that you would be able to share it with us - a month from now?
COUNCIL MEETING 12 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Dill: We can do that, yes.
Chair Furfaro: And that is reasonable?
Mr. Dill: Yes. That will give us time to have met with
the Historic Preservation Review Commission and incorporating information that
comes out of that.
Chair Furfaro: Larry and other members, I understand
there are variables that are yet to come out but I think the fact that we do not have
this critical path lined out for the community leaves us and the Administration to
some criticism. I think I would encourage you to do this and I would look forward to
seeing you at the end of September with this...that is a month in a half even if we
have to go into October but gives us that commitment and then let us try to live
with it.
Mr. Dill: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: We know all the other options are clear
about the land because there are other ways to raise money — through fundraising,
through bond float, and so forth.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you for your presentation. It is clear
to me that the Administration has been working on this. I think the Chair is right
in saying that if there were some actual diagram of the current plan knowing that
there would be changes, it would be helpful. Mauna Kea, you said that according to
SHPD's rule or framework or maybe it is Federal law, if the bridge is a destination
then ADA requirements would apply but if it is a route than it will not apply?
Mr. Trask: It was a Department — it was DCAB and I
forget specifically it was called. Again, DCAB and SHPD have a...because both
their regulations have a potential to be opposed to each other. Protecting historic
sites that were constructed at a time were ADA laws did not apply until now.
Essentially what DCAB said if the County intends to make it a destination area
then they will need ADA access. If the intent is for a route then there is no need.
The determination regarding route and/or destination also touched upon the
acquisition of easements, it touches upon the whole area because again there is no
public access to there and it was built when there was no County access...or
territorial access at the time. When we identified all these issues and when
KHPRC gives their input, we need to sit down with the community group and really
lay everything on the table. Everyone is very willing to do this but we need to have
that detailed conversation that if we make this...if we are only giving access one (1)
side and not the other what is that going to look like? What type of easements are
we going to have? To what extend is it going to be improved? These are all
technical considerations that we rely upon the State agencies to provide us guidance
on because again...
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, but I think you are right in saying that
the County and the community need to be clear and united in their end in mind or
end project because if you go in with conflicting visions, that will really confused the
administrative process. It appears to me if it is that route would give some option
of not having to comply with ADA that you are going to have to address the issue of
access to and from the bridge.
COUNCIL MEETING 13 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Trask: Yes. One (1) of the things that was told to us
is for example, if the County just decides to restore the bridge and there is no need
for accessibility, assuming that SHPD request County to exclude ADA access
because it would be a route within a site and it is not considered a building or a
facility. For example, DCAB says there is no need for a parking lot under any rules
however if a parking lot is created by the County then it would require an ADA
accessible route from the parking lot to the bridge. The community, themselves,
has said that they do not want a parking a lot where people can congregate and
make trouble at night.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Trask: So these are the kinds of things that we need
to lay out. Also, the larger community of Kaua`i understands that what we are
doing here is specific so it is not to create...it is not to encourage people to do
something to violate the intent of that project.
Ms. Yukimura: Historically this bridge has been part of a
route. It has been a route for people to get back and forth across the river. It has
been the route from Hanama`ulu to Lihu`e. It has been part of a route from one (1)
part of the valley to the other part of the valley. It also has an appeal because it is
an alternative to a very dangerous route - the route of walking along the highway
and across that bridge that is part of the highway which is so narrow and
dangerous. Certainly my preference and the historical...and it fits with the history
and I think the community but they have to speak for themselves is that this would
be a route and not a destination. It then triggers these issues of parking lots and
so forth. So, I hope you would be able to work with that community because I think
that also goes to the whole viability to the restoration because I think having to
have wheelchair access does not make sense from a historical preservation view
point or from the cost arena. If that fits within the guidelines of historic
preservation then it seems like that is the way to go. Larry, the processing of the
replacement of the two (2) towers, what kind of timeline are we looking at for that?
Mr. Dill: It is difficult for me to give you a timeline
for the approvals until after we have met with the Preservation Review Commission
but assuming we get our permits, I would estimate that we would probably be able
to get all the work...we would have to bid the job out and then write a contract and
then get the construction done, all of that should be able to be done within six (6) to
nine (9) months after we get all the permits.
Ms. Yukimura: And then the additional repairs?
Mr. Dill: The additional repairs...
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, Larry, we are going to get this in
a critical path as we already said, right?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: You are going to sit there and guess and I
am going to hold you to that, if we continue with this discussion. Are you able to get
back to us on September 25 with a critical path?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 14 AUGUST 14, 2013
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: Chair, I am just wanting for the community's
sake to know rough...
Chair Furfaro: I understand where you are going but I want
to make sure we understand that if you say something on the floor, I am going to
hold you to it. If you give me a plan on detail...because we have talked about
towers and repairs for three (3) years. I want a critical path in writing and if you
are going to give us some estimates now then I am going to hold you to it. That is
all I am saying.
Mr. Dill: Obviously any estimates that I give you
today, I appreciate what you are saying Chair, I will have to put a caveat on it.
Those things are a subject to change base on new information that arises.
Ms. Yukimura: I certainly understand that. I am only asking
for ballpark figures whether it is six (6) months or five (5) years just because of the
longevity of this issue. I just want a general idea. I understand that caveat.
Mr. Dill: Okay. Well I have to put a huge caveat on
this because the second phase may be well affected by what comes out of Kaua`i
Historic Preservation Review Commission and then that will also bring the ADA
questions to light one way or the other.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Dill: So, right now that is a total guess. I am
reluctant to give you it today. I prefer to give it to you when I have that information
more readily available.
Ms. Yukimura: That is understandable and I thank you for
your answer.
Ms. Nakamura: When you come back in September, can you
also just give us a brief summary of the budget for this line item and what has been
spent and what is leftover, and how you plan to spend the remaining funding?
Mr. Dill: (Inaudible.)
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, we will ask Staff to include that in the
memorandum sending it over to you. Thank you.
Mr. Kagawa: The Hanapepe Swinging Bridge, we recently
did work on that, right?
Mr. Dill: Some minor repairs, yes.
Mr. Kagawa: Is that ADA accessible?
Mr. Dill: No.
Mr. Kagawa: And there is a parking lot.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Dill: Is there a parking lot? There is.
Mr. Kagawa: We do have a parking lot, right? Waimea
Swinging Bridge, what is the status on that?
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, let me qualify something here.
Mr. Kagawa since those bridges are not on the agenda today, I want to qualify that
because there is an ADA component that we had a variance on, I am allowing Mr.
Kagawa to ask the question.
Mr. Dill: The status of it as far as ADA compliance?
Mr. Kagawa: Yes.
Mr. Dill: I am not really familiar with that one but I
would guess that it is probably not ADA compliant.
Mr. Kagawa: Are there any other Swinging Bridges we
have?
Mr. Dill: Keapana in Kealia.
Mr. Kagawa: Are those ADA?
Mr. Dill: Again, I am not familiar with the bridge but
I venture to say no.
Mr. Kagawa: I guess you see where I am going with this. If
we have all of our Swinging Bridges that are not ADA accessible I think we would
be actually going beyond the call to make that one ADA accessible.
Mr. Trask: Exactly. We do not think that...say
hypothetically eventually we are going to restore the bridge to the integrity that it
was before, that we can, it would not need to be ADA accessible. The process we
would have to go through — SHPD would give us essentially a cover letter that we
could present to DCAB and they would say for these historic reasons this does not
need to be ADA accessible. It is just getting to that point and that takes a while.
Mr. Kagawa: Understood. I guess where I am going with
that is that in order to keep it historic and to keep it in line with the way it was, it
is almost impossible to make it ADA accessible. It would have that concrete wide
bridge with ramps that would no longer have that swinging bridge feeling. I guess
that is where we need to make the decision and move forward. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions before I take public
comment? Larry, we want to understand that the communication, we will put you
on the calendar for September 25. We are looking for a critical path that identifies
some hurtles that might be ongoing variances, we will get a subcategory about
options on land as Mauna Kea will be participating in that with us, I am sure, and
then a summary of budget cost as to what was spent and also going forward
whether it is actually the R&M of the bridge or it is money needed for a partnership
on the land acquisition. September 25 actually gives you a month in a half.
COUNCIL MEETING 16 AUGUST 14, 2013
LORRAINE MORIGUCHI: Good morning. We have heard all of this
time and time again. It is just a simple historic foot bridge that has the potential of
again allowing people a safe pedestrian path necessary for walking to and from
work, church, and medical appointments. The Kapaia Swinging Bridge Restoration
Project is a classic example of political shibai. Shibai is one of many local words
introduced to Hawai`i by the Sugar Plantation immigrants. The word is used to
describe a situation when someone is merely pretending or being insincere. As if
performing a stage role — it is all just an act. Sadly through the process of the
Kapaia Swinging Bridge Shibai Project tens of thousands of taxpayer's dollars have
been freely wasted and citizens who were once excited about doing good for their
community have become wary and disheartened. For the last seven (7) years false
information, false hope, and chronic stalling by County leaders has irreparably
damaged to save the Kapaia Swinging Bridge. It is not my loss. It is not Kapaia's
loss. It is Kaua`i's loss. Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: I totally understand what you said but it
appears that there is now a process that might come to the...end up with the
restoration of the bridge. You remember that we were at a place where the
Administration was going to abandon the project, they were just recommending
that we not do anything. Would there be a chance that the community can still at
least see to the end this ongoing project? In terms of consulting with the County in
terms of what the end result is going to be that is proposed before the State Historic
Preservation Division in order to get the permits to actually rebuild the bridge.
Ms. Moriguchi: We have always been open to assisting the
Administration but we do not believe anymore that it is going to happen.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, well...
Ms. Moriguchi: We still will assist but...
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I think you will see that it will
happen if it is on the agenda of the State Historic Preservation Division or I guess it
is the County Historic Preservation Committee and I think they are going to need
your help to show a united vision so that we can get the proper approvals.
Otherwise, there will not be the permission to actually construct. I think we all
want to see that. I know it is hard to believe but it is still possible, I think and we
have to keep working until either it gets done or it is totally not possible. I am
holding out for every possibility because it is such an incredible vision that you folks
have held for so long. It is kind of still possible.
Ms. Moriguchi: Well the last time I brought up another word
— (Inaudible) "never ever give up." So that still stands but it has just been very
difficult.
Ms. Yukimura: I totally understand. I apologize but yes, I
think your help is essential so I am glad that you will be available to the County.
Thank you.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you for being here again. Was it not
you folks that got that bridge listed on the historical registry? How long ago was
that?
Ms. Moriguchi: 2008, I believe.
COUNCIL MEETING 17 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Rapozo: When it got finally registered?
Ms. Moriguchi: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: But the process did not start in 2008, the
process started long before that. When did you folks start?
Ms. Moriguchi: Maybe about a year before. It took about a
year.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I will have some comments for later
but I will just say that sadly I agree with you. After today's meeting, I really agree
with you. Councilmember Yukimura is an optimist and I would like to be an
optimist but I do not think this thing is going to happen. I am not saying that to
discouraging you to try because I think you still need to be active and we will do
what we can on the Council to keep this moving but this is just a bridge. A very
inexpensive structure that has not been worked on for years, like you said, and the
delay has caused further damage. I share your settlement. I am sad and I hope I
am proven wrong, I really do. I hope this is taken as a challenge by the
Administration to move on this bridge because it is taken too long. We went down
this road years ago. We spoke of SHPD, we spoke of historical...everything we
talked about today, and it is almost like déjà vu. I think for you too. I am hearing it
and saying, "We just went over this." So, I am not convinced that in fact it is going
to happen in my lifetime anyway. I apologize for being the bear of bad news and I
am hoping again that the Administration takes this as a challenge to prove me
wrong. I really hope that because that bridge needs to be restored.
Mr. Hooser: Thank you for coming once again. We often
speak in code at Council Meetings. "The Administration" is kind of code in some
ways that we use and really it is the Mayor who is in charge of the County
Administrative Offices. He is Mr. Dill's boss and I understand that a lot of people
come to us because it is the only forum that they have. Have you met with the
Mayor or has your group recently met with the Mayor?
Ms. Moriguchi: Not recently but we met many times with
the Mayor.
Mr. Hooser: Okay, because it is my understanding that if
the Head of the County of Kaua`i — the Chief Administrator, if you will, if the Mayor
wants something to happen, it will happen. Especially if he has the Council to
support it financially because that is where priorities are set, that is where
Department Heads are given their direction. Again, I share the disappointment
and frustration that others have expressed and that you have expressed. I would
just hope that the Mayor would hear this message and would make this a priority to
support the efforts of you and the community. I encourage you folks to talk to the
Mayor more, I guess, and find out. You are welcome to come here also of course but
really the rubber meets the road there. We see other projects that move along quite
nicely and that are complicated also and so just because it is complicated, to me, is
not a sufficient excuse for years of inaction.
Chair Furfaro: You did make note that September 25 we are
going to get a critical path and I want you to know that once we have that in front of
us, for me, I will be reminding them constantly as it was their commitment and we
COUNCIL MEETING 18 AUGUST 14, 2013
will hold them accountable for we have in paper. That is the best this Council can
do at this time.
Ms. Moriguchi: Thank you very much.
JOE ROSA: Good morning. Again, like what Mel say,
"the same old song, the same old tune, and the same characters." It has been too
long. A lot of the things here have been mentioned time and time again. We had a
meeting, the Kapaia Advisory Committee that I was invited to attend that meeting
with the Mayor and Ms. Moriguchi and her Staff. We had a good talk with the
Mayor and he had a clear understanding that all the Committee wanted was to
restore that bridge as a memorial. He agreed to it. The Committee said, we want
to restore so it can be a living memorial for the village, people, and former citizens
of Kapaia. Simple as that but yet it has been dragging and dragging. Like Gary
said it is up to the Mayor and it seems like he is just sitting on his stool there and
not doing anything. He has been out in the public, more with the school children to
go on his program — "we can make it happen" and nothing is happening. It is only
talk. Another thing, JoAnn, I do not know if you ever went on that swinging bridge
and you can never get a wheelchair on a swinging bridge, so get the ADA out of your
mind.
Chair Furfaro: Joe. Please speak with a little bit more
respect in your testimony.
Mr. Rosa: Yes, I have respect but...
Chair Furfaro: I am just asking.
Mr. Rosa: Jay, you always seem to say...we have
rights, you want public information and we are the public.
Chair Furfaro: I want public information, Joe, I do not want
you to call out a Councilmember for their opinion as it is their opinion.
Mr. Rosa: Yes, I understand that too.
Chair Furfaro: If you continue, I will take a short recess.
Ms. Yukimura: Also, Joe, I think you misunderstand me. I
want exemptions to ADA.
Mr. Rosa: Because there are a lot of things JoAnn that
you are not aware of and I am aware. I have shoveled the trail back and forth. A lot
of the things you want for ADA will not be accessible because it will be a costly
thing. Another thing, accessibility — you can save the County big money if the
County Attorney go and look into Ms. Moriguchi and some other people who own
land over there — they are in land lock access. They have no access to their lands
from the main highway because the landowners sold the property upfront on the
Laukini Road to the Lihu`e Hongwanji Church making all the other land in the back
— land lock. That is the thing that Mauna Kea Trask can look into and see how come
the bridge is in a land lock area. You own land in an area, you have to have access,
that is a State law and yet Ms. Moriguchi and her neighbors who live in that valley
there, landowners, do not have access because that access was sold. That is a
private road owned by the Hongwanji now. If they lock it one (1) day a year, that
COUNCIL MEETING 19 AUGUST 14, 2013
becomes a private road. Those are the things and I am not a lawyer but I am aware
of it because of my work with Department of Transportation (DOT). That access
can save the State a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of whatever the cost is
going to be for access because that access used to go from the main highway right
up to the bridge. It tells you that the County owns that road and maintained it up
to sometime in the 80s. Like I said before, somebody paved it in the 80s and
somebody paid for it, and it was the County. You people say it is up to the Mayor.
You are the Council here, you sit down and you hear this time and time again but
all they are asking for is a bridge to be rebuilt as a memorial for the people of
Kaua`i. Forget about ADA because nobody on a wheelchair can ride a swinging
bridge, if you know how a swinging bridge is and you need three (3) feet plus for a
wheelchair. I do not know what the Engineering staff that there is that cannot
visualize what the swinging bridge is or looks like. I also gave a testimony for them
to go on record on the historic value of Kapaia and the swinging bridge and it is on
the media. I have some idea as to what it is and all they want to do is have it
simply restore. The initial costs was something like two hundred forty thousand
($240,000) and then when they looked into it, they said five hundred thousand
($500,000), so what gives? What do you want to make, a regular ten (10) foot wide
bikepath to come down that road there? That is the way it is, I smell a rat already
coming around. All the Kapaia Bridge Swinging Bridge Restoration Committee
want is a living memorial. Simple as that. Gary, I see where you are coming from
and I agree with you. It is up to our Mayor. It should not be a problem because
money has been allocated time and time again like Mel said.
Chair Furfaro: That is your time, Joe.
Mr. Rosa: Anyway, I hope that the Engineers and
Mr. Trask go back and look into some other things that can save the County money
and taxpayer's money. Thank you.
KEN TAYLOR: Good morning. Here we have a situation that
by rebuilding this bridge not only benefits today's community but it also benefits the
County in general. We spend millions of dollars every year inviting guest from the
mainland and other parts of the world to come visit Kaua`i. Historic Preservation is
always a big draw for tourists and when they have an opportunity to see activities
and structures and functions of the past, I think it is money well spent to get this
bridge rebuilt. As I say it not only benefits the community today which often times
historic preservation does not do and so we are getting a benefit for today's
community as well as the preservation and the benefits that will come forth with
our tourist industry. I hope that asking for a critical path is certainly a step in the
right direction but again, three (3) years on this, yes, it is a little complicated and so
on but for some reason or another the County seems to get bogged down in issues
are somewhat complicated or just do not pay a lot of attention to. I just hope that as
we move forward things will pick up and we will see the end product real soon.
Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Ken, for your comments. Is there
anyone else wish to speak on this item?
There being no one else to speak, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: For those of you in the audience again,
please keep your commentary directed at the body. We make decisions as a body.
COUNCIL MEETING 20 AUGUST 14, 2013
It is important that we do not latch out at one (1) individual member and be
respectful to the style that we have here. The comments should be directed at the
body. This item will come back on September 25.
Mr. Rapozo: I just wanted to make some comments. It is
frustrating as you can tell by my earlier comments but this has been a topic of
discussion for many years. It started with us putting in the money when Donald
Fujimoto was the County Engineer. Donald Fujimoto came up and did a
PowerPoint that it would cost two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to get this
done, the Council approved the funds, and we were given whatever critical path —
the timeline that was never done. The Mayor came out later and said that he was
not going to get it done and the community rallied and the community came up and
did what they needed to do and there was a changed in the tone of the
Administration and all of a sudden we are moving forward. That came out with a
four million dollar ($4,000,000) price tag which raised the other communities
concern, "how dare we spend that kind of money on a swinging bridge." Four point
two million ($4,200,000), of course that number was completely exaggerated to
generate, in my opinion, to generate that response from the community so that the
community would tell the Council not to do it because it is too much money. Now
we find out that it is not that much money. It was completely false. The
community is sitting by all this time still meeting and I have been to a couple of
their meetings and they are very active and sincere in making this happen. Every
time they show up here we are telling them the same thing — we are going to check
with SHPD, the State, do this and do that but the reality is this bridge should have
been fixed a long time ago. It should have been restored a long time ago. Let us get
that bridge fix. In our delay a storm comes and washes out the bridge, now, it is
even in worse condition because of our delay. We can work on any future
transportation, routes, whatever you guys want to do ADA, but at this point all we
wanted was the bridge restored. That is what we wanted. It does not come down to
any other issue except priority of the Administration or the Mayor's priority. It is
not a money issue. We heard today from Mauna Kea that it is not necessarily an
ADA issue. It can be done without ADA improvements. We knew that years ago and
here we are today again saying that we just found out that we do not need...but we
got to go before SHPD, we still got to go before the Historical Commission. All of
these things that we talked about years ago, poor Lorraine, I am surprised that you
are here today. Mr. Goo, I do not know him, he showed up today. I do not where he
is from but he spoke well and he gave us, based on his perception two (2) possible
conclusions that anyone could come to. Number one (1) incompetence and number
two (2) was that the County simply does not want to do it and they do not have the
courage to tell the community that we do not want to do it. I will say that I think it
is the second. I believe that it is not the incompetence because I think if these guys
wanted to do it, I think it would be done very quickly. I believe it is the ladder. I
believe that if the Administration does not want to get this done but they do not
have the courage to tell the community that they do not want to get this done. If
you look at the bikepath and I am going to compare it to the bikepath project. The
Kawaihau spur which was not part of the original plan that was done just like that.
Done and completed at a very huge cost. The Wailua Beach segment — community
opposition, legal challenges, all kinds of opposition — the Mayor wanted it done and
it got done to the tune of one point eight million dollars ($1,800,000). The Kealia
bikepath where the bathroom is there is a walkway that goes to the beach — we got
an ADA exemption for that. The County went out and said, "No, because we want
this done, we are going to get the exemptions," so they got it. We have the money,
and we do not have any opposition from the community. In fact, we have the
community forward saying that they will even fundraise to help this get done. You
COUNCIL MEETING 21 AUGUST 14, 2013
have the totaled Council support and you have the overall, what I believe is the
benefit that this will have on the community and this island, not just in the
historical cultural part but in the actual route that people could take to get from
Hanamd'ulu to Lihu`e. It is a safe route. Everything is in line to make this happen
and for three (3) or four (4) years, the community keeps being told why we cannot
get it done. Now, we got to back to what we talked about three (3) years ago, I hope
you forgot Lorraine, we hope you forgot that we told you this three (3) years ago, but
darn, she is here and she did not forget. Well, I did not forget either, Mr. Chair and
I am very frustrated as you can tell. I know you are too. For Gary and Ross, they
are new, they have not been here. They did not see the original discussions, they did
not see the fancy PowerPoint's, and they did not see the community pleading for
this here from numerous hours. I apologize, Lorraine and to your community, I
apologize but this I believe can be done relatively quickly. As Gary said, if the
Mayor told Larry today to get this done, it would get done. That is another
challenge I issue to the Mayor. Let us just make this happen because it needs to be
done. The planets have been lined up for quite some time now and I do not know
why but there has to be a reason. Maybe when I find out that reason, I can share it
with you. Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: I am among those who have been working
with the Committee. I think Councilmember Rapozo and myself, from the
beginning, I want to thank the Chair. The Council has not forgotten and our Chair
has put this on the agenda regularly so that we could get reports. There has been a
real commitment on the part of this Council to see that bridge restored and
preserved as a wonderful historic/present day facility for us all. I do think the
Administration have the courage of saying that they did not want to do this bridge.
They said that way upfront and we all did not except that decision and we went
back to the Mayor. With Public Works, the Mayor changed his mind and they have
started working with us and I would say in the last six (6) months or so, they really
tired to make this bridge come to...and they had a plan. They had to get the
drawings done and once that was done, they had to circulate it for approval and
comments, which they did but they said that the one office that did not make the
deadline was SHPD, and we have seen in the newspaper, in the headlines the
problem that office has had. Some of the things have been beyond the
Administration's control and to a certain extent it is easy for us who sit here at this
table, "it is easy to do," because we do not have to do all the details of getting this
done. I do think that in the last...since the beginning of the year, there has been a
really concerted effort on the part of the Administration to move this bridge
forward. We need to support and work with them. If we see any failure, we need to
address that. Right now, I think we need to support the efforts and see it through
fruition.
Mr. Kagawa: There seems to be two (2) possible hurdles as
to why this project has not moved forward. The first one being the possible ADA
problems which would basically cancel the project or if the Administration maybe
wondering if it is really something that is valuable to the community and something
that the community wants. I have not heard any opposition to this project from the
community but only support, therefore I feel like the community wants it. It is
important to them. Historically, it is obvious that we have four (4) other swinging
bridges that are working and important to the community. I grew up in Hanapepe,
my grandfather was in Waimea Valley, and so I grew up just enjoying those days
where we would go over the swinging bridge. It was like a carnival ride for us.
Being young, we do not have a Disneyland here on Kaua`i but I remember those
moments being very important to our growing up. I just hope we can get this project
COUNCIL MEETING 22 AUGUST 14, 2013
done so that kids of Hanamd'ulu and Lihu`e can enjoy those times growing up and
using that bridge. I hope that this really moves forward. I hope the Administration
can find a way to avoid the ADA requirements and make this project happen once
and for all. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore comments? If not, the motion is to
receive. We have September 25 as the calendar item, the correspondence going up
the details, the increments as well as the acquisition and critical path. We will keep
the Repair and Maintenance (R&M) separate from any lease acquisitions or
purchase. On that note, I will continue Lorraine, as this is my correspondence to put
it on the agenda, I will continue to stay as close as I possibly can with getting a
critical path for you.
The motion to receive C 2013-284 for the record was then put, and carried a
6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
Chair Furfaro: Because we have to leave at 11:30, I am
going to allow public testimony up to three (3) minutes on the audit items that are
coming up. That is my privilege as the Chair. I want to remind you that are
speaking, the items that are on the agenda are the three (3) audits. The item that is
not on the agenda that I am seeing testimony from is about the Auditor's
performance; that is a separate item. The agenda item is the audit on the three (3)
specifics — Roads, Building, and Kilauea Gym. That is what is on the agenda.
C 2013-280 Communication (07/02/2013) from Council Chair Furfaro,
requesting the presence of the Managing Director and the County Auditor, to
discuss the following:
• Follow-up Audit of the County of Kaua`i, Building Division,
Department of Public Works,
• Audit of the County Capital Project Management (Kaiakea Fire
Station),
• Audit of the County Capital Project Management (Road
Maintenance Program, Fiscal Year 2006-2007, Phase I).
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
GLENN MICKENS: You have a copy of my testimony, and I
would like to read it for the viewing public. I did hear what you said, Jay. I think in
our testimonies, I think Ernie is a huge part of this agenda item. He was the one
that...
Chair Furfaro: He is not on the agenda. The agenda are
three (3) specific audits. He will be on the agenda at a later date if you would like to
give testimony then, you are more than welcome.
Mr. Mickens: Was he coming today with his consultant?
Chair Furfaro: They agenda item as specified, his
consultant is here and that consultant would also give us an executive summary of
these three (3) items of which I spoke to Ernie and asked him to do that. We are
consolidated on time, so please, I know you want to talk about Roads and so forth
but two (2) of these items have never appeared and this is the final report. I would
like to get to the consultant that you asked about.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Mickens: So, Ernie and his consultant will not be here
but in Executive Session, is that the way I understand it?
Chair Furfaro: No, they will be on the floor here.
Mr. Mickens: What time will that be?
Chair Furfaro: Right after I take testimony.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Please start your testimony.
Mr. Mickens: Communication 2013-280 brings up three (3)
of these audits and my hope is that the viewing public and our local newspaper are
fully informed about the superb job that Ernie and his Staff have done. Since the
Roads Maintenance Audit is one of those on the agenda, I will address that one in
particular. The Audit Report for the Roads Maintenance Program and I have a copy
here and I am sure that you guys also have copies of all these audits. Finalized on
September 5, 2012, so it has taken one (1) year for it to come before the Council and
the public, why? Are the people that we elect afraid of letting the public know how
our government is being improperly run just as four (4) members of this Council
blocked the immediate use of Section 3.17 of our Charter to thoroughly investigate
the illegal operations of many of our Transient Vacation Rentals (TVR)? You have
heard me testify many times over eighteen (18) years about our roads being illegally
paved and no one in authority wanted to find out if my concerns were valid. Yes,
many people included the Mayor, and Councilmembers were all part of checking
these things out. The Deputy County Engineer has met with me at these illegally
paved sites but nothing was done to correct whatever or whoever was causing the
problem.
Basically my concerns were ignored and this inaction has cost the taxpayers
millions of dollars over the years. The Roads Maintenance Audit confirmed what I
have been complaining about all the eighteen (18) years. It is outstanding, I am
sure you all have read it but there are so many things that has to be taken care of.
We, taxpayers were being charged for 1 1/2 inches of AC at finished grade. I
physically showed those in charge where we were getting half that amount. I can
show any of you today where a section of Hauiki Road was resurfaced about seven
(7) ago with about 3/ inches of AC — not the 1 % inches that was paid for.
The Shadow has pictures documenting this. Jay, you met me at the top of the
road one time to show you where we were not getting the proper amount of asphalt
put on. Our bid specs showed where we were paying for one (1) tone of AC for ninety
(90) square feet which should have given us about a 1 3/ inches final overlay so the
discrepancy was even more. Since one (1) ton per one hundred eight (108) square
feet gives a final 1 1/2 inches overlay and the specs showed one (1) ton per ninety (90)
square feet, we were paying for even more...
Chair Furfaro: Glenn, that is your three (3) minutes, could
you summarize, please?
Mr. Mickens: We only get three (3) minutes, Jay?
COUNCIL MEETING 24 AUGUST 14, 2013
Chair Furfaro: That is all I am giving you because we are on
a time schedule.
Mr. Mickens: Okay, Jay. The public knows why these
problems keep arising and all of you, Councilmembers, know even better what is
wrong. Unlike Ernie Pasion who is extremely qualified for his job, people are hired
and appointed positions that are not qualified for unless the system is changed, the
problems will remain and keep getting worse. I urge all of you to take appropriate
steps to rectify these mistakes even if it means initiating a Charter Amendment to
do it. Political appointments must stops unless that appointee has the strict
qualifications for the job. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Ken?
KEN TAYLOR: This agenda item raises some questions in
my mind as to what is an internal audit and I believe the internal audit is an
independent and I would like to emphasize independent appraisal activity that
evaluates whether management has effectively and efficiently carried out its
responsibilities. Those responsibilities include adopting and following a system of
internal controls, compliance with laws, rules, and regulations, and contractual
agreements in responding to the needs of the citizens of Kaua`i County. Through
this evaluation activity recommendations are made to improve operations. This
brings up the question as to what does internal audit do for activities under the
control of the County Administration and the County Council? Internal conduct
independent limited scope of audits that may include determining the activities,
efficiency, and effectiveness. Determining the activities compliance with laws,
regulations, policies, procedures, contracts, grants, and agreements evaluates the
adequacy and efficiency of the activities internal control. Reviews matter related to
fraud, waste, abuse, theft, or other irregularities detected during the internal audit
examination or reported from citizens, vendors, or employees. The question I have
today is, "why have you decided to bring these audits now a year or more past the
time they were finished?" What, if anything, has been done to correct the many
inaccuracies that these Departments were advised to do by the audit? What has the
Council done to see if the measures has been taken to correct the faults and if so,
why have not the public been told? I just see what has been happening and we got
six (6) audits out there and they all make recommendations and in some cases a few
of the recommendations have been dealt with but many of them have not. This is
strictly a situation that makes the government operation work better, more
efficient, saves money, and so I just do not understand why it has been so long in
getting these audits to the floor for discussion and moving forward with correcting
the problems that have been bought forth within these audits. You folks keep telling
us that...
Chair Furfaro: Ken, your time has been up a little while
ago, so, I am asking you to summarize.
Mr. Taylor: You tell us that you are in control of the first
strings, well, making the operation of County government more efficient is a big
step in the right direction of saving money and it should be a priority and your
activities to make sure that these recommendations bought forth in the audits are
implemented and moved forward with. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Chair Furfaro: Ken, first of all, you asked about an internal
audit and you are correct. It is an independent, objective assurance that things are
COUNCIL MEETING 25 AUGUST 14, 2013
done incompliance within the standards of an organization as set in their policies
and guidelines. It should be an effective evaluation and it should help us lead to
better controls, you are correct. I think if you went into an accounting book; that is
exactly what it does. These are not the first time these items have been on here and
I want to correct you on that. We have had Kilauea Gym on and so forth but we get
draft reports and we get progress reports. Those progress reports subsequently can
end up in the Committee's as ongoing items. I just want to say that our final intent
now is to bring the contracted Auditor here to give us the final summary. Often the
audits are Auditor done and there done and supported with documentation and
draft forms and so forth but this is the final summary. If it shows up again for
corrective action in a Committee, like Roads Committee and so forth, last year we
got praised because Larry Dill was following the AASHTO layering and
subsequently that inch and a half standard got a lot of praise. Then, to stretch the
dollars, Larry decided it would be better for them to get more bang for the buck by
paving every two (2) years. Those will be ongoing things in the Committee. I just
wanted to make sure that you heard from me that your comments about the final
internal audit is exactly that — it is independent, objective, and it raises questions
about assuring the best practices. Thank you.
JOE ROSA: Good morning. Again, I am here to testify on
the audits that I have seen so far. The six (6) that went out for...
Chair Furfaro: There are only three (3) on the agenda.
Mr. Rosa: Altogether there are six (6), I want to make
the public be aware of it. There are six (6) but today is three (3) that are on the
agenda. I am aware of it, Jay. Kilauea Gym — do the County not have a standard
specifications on buildings, highways, and bridges? They should have standard
specifications. That is the bible that they have besides the standard specs for a job.
You do not need those consultants to reroof a gym, reroof your own home...when
you reroof your home, you do not see a consultant and ask him, "What do I have to
do with reroofing my house?" That is the same thing that goes for the gym out
there. All they had to do is go to the standard specifications. Department of
Transportation (DOT), we had all of that until DAGs took it over and they took care
of the building side and all we had to do is maintain our roads and bridges to those
standard specifications. Where is the County's bible of standard specifications? We
do not even have a Traffic Code book printed anymore. They give it out in paper
form. Those are the kinds of things that they are spending money foolishly but not
doing things that are needed that the public can have access to. Think about
it...every little thing you have to go see a consultant? You have Staff members, you
have Engineers, you have Electrical Inspectors, Building Inspectors, you name it...I
think the County have a good...which should better their paving with Michael
Lingaton. He knows paving. At least he has some knowledge about paving but they
also should get him equipment, get him a thermometer so he can check
temperatures. If he has a problem, it is usually on the machine that they have.
Those are the kinds of things that can do better things on the roads. We have lack of
Inspectors knowledge. I used to go to seminars and I never did see any County
inspectors here for the roads maintenance in Honolulu. How can people qualify?
You have Engineers that know nothing about paving. You do not take a test scoring
in a failure in an area. It is done by eye inspection. Why they say that they have to
take a test score of a failure sample?
Chair Furfaro: Three (3) minutes.
COUNCIL MEETING 26 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Rosa: A lot of it is money being spent foolishly and
the roads system has been spending it foolishly because they are paving asphalt on
nothing and they get nothing in the end. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Joe, let me ask you something. Are you
saying in this particular case that the internal Auditor does not need to hire an
outside contractor to review the audit standards being compared with roads?
Mr. Rosa: From what I seen, Jay, from the articles that
he carry was fault of the Inspectors not knowing their job.
Chair Furfaro: My question is, are you saying that the
Auditor does not need to hire outside contracted experts to do this?
Mr. Rosa: Well, you have Department Heads.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Rosa: But you do not have Department Heads that
know their job, they cannot give you the answers that you want.
Chair Furfaro: I do want to give credit to Mr. Dill where
credit is due. He set the standard of one (1) ton of AC to pave a hundred and eight
(108) square feet...
Mr. Rosa: That is what we use when I was at DOT.
Chair Furfaro: This is the audit issue and I just wanted to
get clear that you do not believe that the internal Auditor should not be hiring
outside audit experts to check on that and you have answered my question. Thank
you.
Mr. Rosa: Yes, if you have capable Staff members, Jay.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Joe.
Mr. Rosa: That is where it counts and you can save a
lot of money. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you for your testimony. Ernie, may I
ask you to come up with Pericles and give us the three (3) executive summaries on
these audit pieces?
Ernie, in our discussion on Monday, are you able to get us three (3) quick
summaries of what the findings were?
ERNESTO G. PASION, County Auditor: I did and I talked to Perry and
we discussed that when we issued the audits a year ago, the audits have the
executive summaries.
Chair Furfaro: I understood. I wanted something shorter
than that — the key points or bullet points.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Pasion: There really very short, Chair. I can provide
you another set if you want.
Chair Furfaro: No, we all have a set. I wanted to provide it
to the public. That is what I was looking for. I am going to ask if you could give
your copies to Scott and in case any of the gentlemen want to look at the executive
summary, they each have a copy. Did you hear what I am saying, Glenn? We will
give you the whole executive summary. Thank you, Ernie. So, we will start. You
tell us which one you are going through with us first.
PERICLES MANTHOS: I think since we were just talking about road
maintenance, it would probably be the most appropriate one to talk about first. I
want to read the executive summary that we have first.
Chair Furfaro: We have to depart at 11:30.
Mr. Manthos: I can read fast and skip over, if you like.
Chair Furfaro: Very good.
Mr. Manthos: Our concern in the selection process was that
it was not an independent type process you could look at. I am just going to talk
about rather than read about it, so we can speed it up. There was an independent
process for how the roads were pick but there usually a scientific type process where
you do an analysis of defects which can be done by complaints that are logged. So,
you can determined which road is...the schedule for road surfacing so it is a
transparent type of decision making that the public can understand. Basically,
these are done in what is called "road maintenance programs," there are software
involved and they have been developed by AASHTO, a lot of times or in concert with
AASHTO in the various States. AASHTO being the American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and I would like to get right to the
chase, we discussed this with the Agency and they have already implemented this,
to my knowledge. It takes away a lot of the uncertainty as members of the public
have testified today. People are very concerned by how these decisions are made
and it there transparent and can be seen and explained, a lot of that uncertainty
and distrust goes away. From my understanding that has already been put in place.
Some of the key findings we saw and I am just going from memory here and it
might be a little rusty, was that there certain contingent items were not included in
the plans. They are doing a resurfacing job but they went into an area that is
severely potholed and so if you just resurfaced over that, the cracks reflect up
through it. We asked them to put in contingencies in their plans to do additional
rework where they run into those areas. So, it is already in the bid for those
amounts and quantities and then they can be directed by the field personnel with
the proper training to go out and take care of those areas so you do not surface over
an area that is cracked and the crack is going to come back through very quickly.
Those are the principle findings that we found. I actually drove the entire area
everywhere that was paved, and I have looked for areas that may have been
someone's driveway that was paved or something like that; I did not find any
indication of that. I looked for that very carefully because that is always an issue
when you have large quantities of things that are directed in remote areas by field
personnel to make sure someone did not pave someone's driveway and I could not
see any of that. I used a GPS and followed all the routes of the drawings. What they
did, I think it was a 2006/2007 year; the work that was put in the drawings was out
there in place.
COUNCIL MEETING 28 AUGUST 14, 2013
Chair Furfaro: You are satisfied that the Engineering
Department is now complying to the AASHTO standards?
Mr. Manthos: The AASHTO standard on the maintenance
of paving is not really that well defined. It is not something that you can say, 'A'
plus `B' equals `C"' but yes, they are following the intent, to my understanding, of
what I saw in our follow on discussions. They are following the intent and that they
are improving their maintenance program through a better planning process. That
was our key finding, really, was the planning process more than anything else. I am
seeing that already. I do know that there are new technologies being developed for
the island especially out here where you have great distance between the asphalt
plants and where you are placing the asphalt. If the asphalt gets cold, it does not
compact as well and things of that nature. The technologies are improving for places
like Kaua`i that does not have heavy industry with asphalt plants all over the island
and so I think things are improving. From what I can determined, I think they have
implemented most of our suggestions until there is a follow on audit where you go
piece by piece, I cannot say exactly how many were implemented but I think the
intent of the pavement audit have been met. I think the suggestions have been
incorporated in their program. As a former State Highways Chief and a District
Engineer for O`ahu before that, I am pretty pleased that they have made good
progress.
Chair Furfaro: Are you aware of their intent now of doing
the repaving strategy over two (2) years increments? That came up in this recent
budget piece and it dealt with the fact that they felt they could stretch the volume
that they can purchase which would actually give them more road miles. Are you
aware of what they were thinking in this last budget cycle?
Mr. Manthos: I have not discussed that with anyone here. I
think that might be related to getting large contracts out for better competition
rather than every year having a small contract. You get economy as a scale with
the larger contracts because the equipment is very expensive here on the islands.
We lead the Country in maintenance costs for these kinds of equipment, plus it is
not like you can move a piece of equipment from one island to the next. It takes
some work. Sometimes when they have a larger job, they can bring in equipment
that can work more efficiently and faster. If it is a smaller job, it is usually more
hand work and not as efficient. With the large spreaders and things of that nature
and pavement buggies are called where they mix the pavement up all the time
before it goes into the paving machine, they can keep a constant temperature so it is
easy to keep a constant compression on the asphalt to know how many rolls you
need to do in order to get it compressed. So, they can bring in better equipment if
they do it less often because there are only so many companies here and they share
equipment. I had the same issue with paving on Lanai because we tried to time it
whenever they were doing airport work so we could bring over all the paving
equipment at the same time. I understand even in Kaua`i, there is a shortage of
aggregate which sometimes have to be shipped in. If it is on a biannual schedule it
is a lot easier for the contractors moving larger supplies to get some discounts than
it would be to do smaller jobs.
Chair Furfaro: Do you think there is merit to their plan?
Mr. Manthos: I think it is a good idea and I have seen it. I
experienced the same thing with highways.
COUNCIL MEETING 29 AUGUST 14, 2013
Chair Furfaro: Explain to us a little bit more your
recommendation this contingency of having some extra batch work available for
items that were not covered in the scope. Is that a contingency of ten percent (10%)
more product?
Mr. Manthos: It depends of how often you pave. If you
think of paving, you think of it like replacing your shoe soles. If you do it on a
systematic basis, you just have to do the covering but if you wait too long, you have
to do a complete replacement. What happens is if you wait too long to
resurface...you have a large surface and you are always changing the top wearing
course but if you wait too long the cracks get too deep and then you have to go
deeper. Ideally what you want is enough Staff before you do a paving job to actually
go out and identify the areas that have to be cut out and reconstructed and put
those in your actual plans. If you cannot do that...and the concern we had was that
there was a delay back then and when they did the plans and when the actual work
got done — sometimes a couple years. This would mean that other areas would
deteriorate. If you cannot do that because you do not have the Staff to go out there
and do that or in other cases pay consultants to do that, a cheaper way is just to go
ahead and say, "go from point "A" to point "B," recalculate the layer, and then we
are going to put in a contingency in for areas that we know that need to be
reconstructed, and rely on our field engineers and inspectors to direct the contractor
to tear out this area and go full depth or half depth depending how deep the cracks
are." We made that suggestion. Now, they could go either way. They could do that
or they could go ahead and just mark out the areas as they go to be reconstructed.
The only concern is if you get a big storm say a month before the job all of a sudden
the area is bigger and you might not have enough material for it. We made a
suggestion if they cannot actually go out there and do these super accurate plans,
and you typically see it on O`ahu where there is much larger Staff available...then
they will be need to set up some contingencies so they can reconstruct areas that
may need reconstruction more than just resurfacing.
Chair Furfaro: While we are still on roads and this review
here, let me ask members, any additional questions on the road portion of the
audit?
Ms. Yukimura: I wonder if it would be useful to have Public
Works come forward as well, you had in your wisdom asked the Mayor to have
them.
Chair Furfaro: I asked them for all the audits being covered
but Larry, would you like to come and join us here? Ian, can you be available when
we get to the Kilauea Gym, I would appreciate that.
Ms. Yukimura: I want to thank the Auditor and you, Mr.
Manthos for the audit. I think you did identified many of the issues that we had to
address. I also want to thank Larry Dill because I think a lot of them are in the
process of being addressed and I was pleased with the report at budget time about
how we inventoried our roads. I am eagerly awaiting the proposed repaving
schedule and the budget for it in our next budget...am I correct in understanding
that is the timetable? That question is for Larry.
LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: Are you asking for the timetable for
the next island-wide resurfacing project?
COUNCIL MEETING 30 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Dill: As was mentioned earlier, discussed a
moment ago, we plan to go every other year.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, but...
Mr. Dill: Our plan was to do it in Fiscal Year 2015
with the next procurement follow-up resurfacing.
Ms. Yukimura: Which would be our next budget, right?
Mr. Dill: Yes, correct.
Ms. Yukimura: And so we did not authorize any repaving
money's in this past budget because we were still using the money's from a prior
budget?
Mr. Dill: I believe that the Council did set aside some
monies but because it is O&M monies there are also change made that...because it
was not appropriate to fund it with CIP. We are going to have to...because those
monies lapse every year, we set aside money because it has to be re-appropriated
the same funding again together with the new appropriation to achieve the same
goal, yes.
Ms. Yukimura: In the Operating Budget but using Highway
monies?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Ms. Yukimura: I am concerned that with this new process in
place that is of objectively evaluating our road conditions and then proposing a
repaving program with the kind of contingencies that Mr. Manthos explained that
the budget demands are going to be tremendous. I just do not know exactly what to
expect but I am glad that we are on an objective system of evaluation and
scheduling of repair and maintenance.
Mr. Dill: You spoke about the contingencies a little
bit.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Dill: The strategy that we followed was the first
one that Pericles spoke about, was that when we released our most recent island-
wide resurfacing, we had inspectors go out and inspect the road to identify the areas
that required more than a simple resurfacing. So, we are reconstructing the base or
more than just the inch and a half resurfacing that we were looking at. We did
identify in advance in the field. We do allow for contingencies on top of that because
in evidently things happen in the field where you discover more, something not
quite as you expected. By identifying those in advance, we feel we can get tighter
bids because the contractors know what to expect. We can scope the work a lot
better for them but we still have plenty contingencies available on top of that
because evidently things come up on the field.
COUNCIL MEETING 31 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: So, you are using both approaches described
by Mr. Manthos and both the contractor...our expectations of the contractor are
made clear and our inspectors are following up with inspections to make sure that
those steps are followed.
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. That is all for now.
Mr. Kagawa: Pericles, you have a wonderful name; I must
say. This is for 2006 and 2007 road projects that Public Works have done. Do you
have work papers to verify how much miles you have observed or which specific
roads were covered in your sample?
Mr. Pasion: The reason that was selected is because it
was the last project that they did when we were doing the audit. The 2006-2007
was the last...first phase was the one that was completed at the time. The second
phase was supposed to be Westside — Waimea. So, we had to do what was available
at the time.
Mr. Manthos: The work was completed. That was the most
current completed work when we did our field investigation which is basically
pulling all the paperwork to see if the paperwork was there. Now, we followed up
with field investigations, pulling the paperwork...I personally follow-up with
driving the roads, myself, to look at it. That is why it was picked. It was the most
current one that was done.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay. You drove out not on all of them but
some of them to verify that there was no visible cracks and so forth?
Mr. Manthos: Yes, I was looking for that. I was looking to
see if the work extended past, the County right-of-way, and that kind of stuff. I did
not see any of that.
Mr. Kagawa: On all of them?
Mr. Manthos: The projects that we reviewed, the 2006-
2007.
Mr. Kagawa: So, you drove all the projects...
Mr. Manthos: I spent the whole day driving. It was fun. I
had a good time.
Mr. Kagawa: Alright.
Mr. Manthos: I had GPS now so I did not get too lost.
Mr. Kagawa: Do you have a list of those roads?
Mr. Manthos: The roads are in the audit. If you look at the
2006-2007, it is identified... you would have to go back to the Department. I do not
COUNCIL MEETING 32 AUGUST 14, 2013
actually have the construction drawings in here but that project is identified and
then the drawing shows exactly where the roads are.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Dill: If I could add to that. The 2006-2007 was
obviously prior to me coming onboard. We did a subsequent one which is...and that
is where we are implementing some of these new things that we have been talking
about at Council. Council approves the list of roads every time we do a resurfacing,
so those records would be available to Council as to which roads were done in 2006
and 2007.
Mr. Kagawa: Were all of those roads or all of that work
done...audits at time look at a sample of it, a portion, or sometimes it looks at the
whole thing. My question is, did you physically drive on all of the areas that were
done on that list?
Mr. Manthos: Yes. I got down to look at the batch tickets,
the tickets the trucks have, how many tons were brought because they had various
streets, and they estimated on the drawings or how much tonnage would be used? I
then back to check the actual records of the asphalt company to see if those tickets
came in and does the tonnage match up? In other words, if they said so much
tonnage was placed here and it has to be three (3) inches thick then I know there is
a problem. They did asphalt somewhere else. We look for that. I look for that. That
is why we were brought onboard because we are Engineers, we are not Auditors per
say. If that happened, it may be suspicious if I saw too much asphalt placed in an
area that is actually an inch and a half thick would be so much tonnage, so, I went
looking for that. I did not see any of that. There was some overruns and issues and
so we recommended a better job of the design where they had to...because every one
of these...you can never do it exact. At the end, you count up what the contractor
put down and you pay him for what he put down but you want to maintain that he
does not make it...some contractors try to make it thicker because they get paid by
the ton. Some contracts are by the square yard to try to make it thinner — they try
to cheat. You compared it against the tickets and we did that. It was pretty good. It
was not that bad. I was surprised. I actually recommended for another County that
they consider doing a design like this just to get some projects out. The better way is
to do what they are doing which is go in and front and quantify especially the areas
where you have to do more than just the top inch and a half because you will not see
that after its done.
Mr. Kagawa: Based on your observations, they did a pretty
good job as far as following guidelines. Was that one (1) company or a number of
different companies?
Mr. Manthos: I did not look at the companies. I just looked
at the inspector's notes, the drawings, and such. I did not see any indication that
any asphalt went anywhere else beyond the roads.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: I just wanted to say that we had pretty
detailed discussions about road maintenance during the budget process including
the new software system, the strategies they were imploring, and the preliminary
findings based on their analysis. I feel that it may not have been noted as a follow
COUNCIL MEETING 33 AUGUST 14, 2013
up to this audit but we already seen the draft audit and we were asking those
questions at that time. I just wanted to bring that up. Just on the staffing side, I
just wanted to ask Larry about whether, at the time the audit was written the
division manpower shortages, those issues have been addressed?
Mr. Dill: We have addressed some as far as filling the
vacancies. We were fortunate to bring somebody on with a lot of experience who is
managing our island-wide resurfacing paving project that has been very beneficial
to us.
Ms. Nakamura: Who is that?
Mr. Dill: Michael Lingaton.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Mr. Dill: It remains a challenge for us as we
implement many of these new things for us. It requires a lot more help; Pericles
mentioned the software packages that are out there. What we are using is micro
paving. You may have heard us mention that in the past. That in itself requires
more bodies to manage that process. It is a matter of getting the information into
the machine and interpreting the information, making sure it is properly applied
and maintaining it. Once you get all the information, it has to be updated on a
regular basis, regular inspections have to occur. All this is more effort, more work,
and more guidance in order to maintain a proper program; it is what is necessary.
That is a challenge doing with our existing Staff and you may see it at budget time
with a request for some support.
Ms. Nakamura: That is what it takes sometimes when you
update software, getting the right data into the system, and then how to manage it.
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: It is a different level of expertise as well.
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: I am not sure that it exist within the
Department or not.
Mr. Dill: I believe we have the expertise within the
Department right now and we getting this week, we have someone over giving us
training on the micropaver to make sure that it is used appropriately and properly.
We are getting the training where we need it but it is again having the necessary
manpower to keep up with the need.
Ms. Nakamura: Is that to implement the repairs or to direct
where it needs to happen?
Mr. Dill: The repair work that is done, the big stuff is
island-wide resurfacing, so we out service the big repairs. We do a lot of minor
repairs in-house, and we have done some reorganization in our roads to be more
effective in how we pursue those repairs. The implementation of some of these like
the micropaver requires somebody spending a lot of time at the computer as well as
COUNCIL MEETING 34 AUGUST 14, 2013
doing inspections in the field to keep up to date on finishing the roadways. So, it is
not the roadwork per say, it is the necessary work that we have done in advance of
that.
Mr. Manthos: I have mentioned in the study and audit that
pretty much any city has implemented this as seeing overall savings. The cost for
manpower is a lot less than the cost of the construction. So, you are focusing your
repairs where you need them and letting pavement where does not need to be
replace does not necessarily get replaced just because it is on a cycle. It is based on
the deterioration of the road and not just a cycle. Some roads last longer depending
on the traffic. Intersections tend to wear out faster because they get stops. This
gives you the opportunity to direct your horses the most efficiently possible. Face it;
a person with a computer is a lot cheaper than a construction crew.
Chair Furfaro: Anymore questions as it relates to roads?
Okay. Ernie, let me ask because I do not know...Pericles, what time is your flight
back?
Mr. Manthos: It is 6:00.
Chair Furfaro: We have time. I am wondering if I should
ask the Clerk, I see a number of people here from Po`ipu and I believe they are here
for Resolution No. 2013-62. Am I correct? I assume you are here to support the
Resolution? Well, I need to know because we have to break in fifteen (15) minutes,
if you are not, I will leave it at its regular time. So, I guess we will continue with
the audit. Okay. Let us go to the next audit.
Mr. Manthos: We can discuss either the fire station or the
gym.
Chair Furfaro: Let us go to the fire station. This is focused
on new construction and contract management procedures, so, let us go to the
Kaiakea Fire Station.
Mr. Manthos: The biggest issue here is the cost. There are
various issues on cost. We looked at the cost and compared it to the best
comparisons we could find which of course are fire stations on other island in the
Hawaiian chain, preferably not O`ahu, where construction cost are higher. This is
the most expensive fire station we have seen constructed so we tried to find out
why. Part of the problem is that you do not have that many bidders here in Kaua`i
for these kinds of things, so the costs are pretty high. There may have been only
one (1) bidder for this job. I do not remember. In looking for that reason, we saw
some procurement issues. Principally sole source procurement without the backup
documentation required...
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, those in the audience, if you are
talking, we are picking up your conversations on the mics. Please take your
conversations outside, if you would like. Go ahead, Pericles.
Mr. Manthos: The principle issue was that...I do not want
to say a violation but basically not in accordance with procurement regulation is
buying name brand things without going through the process of asking for release of
the procurement board. Basically, it is a State policy. If you want to pick a brand
name issue then you will need to say why you need that brand name and get a
COUNCIL MEETING 35 AUGUST 14, 2013
release, and nothing happened. Now, our specs are performance based throughout
the State. We basically say, "That we want this thing to do this thing." We do not
say, "We need this brand," unless there is a clear reason then you should not be
doing that. That was our principle issue. We looked at the procurement act/law that
was passed in 1993 and 1995 and the issue is that it is not so much to punish the
people that do that, it is just to provide the training so they do not do it again. That
is the idea. Sometimes in our procurement, it is not always the cheapest for the
government but it is the fairest. In this case, vendors that could have provided the
equipment would not be able to because a brand name was specified for a piece of
equipment. That is an issue. I ran into this issue myself in procurements that I
have done in the past, so I am very aware of it. That is the biggest thing we saw.
Saying the project came in under budget is fine but if the budget is huge, any
project will come under budget. The issue is, "was the budget appropriate to begin
with?" We think the budget was high. The costs were high. It was higher than
anywhere else and the issues where that there may have been a good planning
process in the beginning to price it. Some explanation was given to us that the
grading cost so much but the reality was, I think it was a lump sum bid and then
afterwards it came in with a schedule of values and then they can make grading
whenever they wanted. If you are a contractor, you are going to make the grading
expensive because that is the first thing you do. So, you get all your money upfront.
So, saying that the grading costs were so high was why the bid was so high might
not really...that good of a statement. Since it was a lump sum bid, it was not
broken down by items where the contractor had to supply all these breakdowns in
the bids in his bid proposal. So, the contractors are going to frontend load the
contract that they can and do the stuff upfront first but they get paid for it first. So,
we just thought that it could have been better done in the planning process as far as
the estimation. The Sole Source Procurement has a policy as a procedure that
needs to be followed that was not followed. That was really the gist of the whole
thing.
Chair Furfaro: What is subject to suspicion here? The
budget for the project was four point nine (4.9) million. The project came in at four,
eight, sixty (4,860,000), so they came in forty thousand dollars ($40,000) under
budget but of these items was consideration given to like...we know the location, the
ground preparation, the grading...I mean there was quite a unique topographic area
there which then addressed some of the things like solar power that were elevated
because the Mahelona hill blocks the southern sunlight. Were those contributions to
the location being difficult actually added to these costs that were unacceptable?
Mr. Manthos: I think the cost is going to be high on Kaua`i.
It is always high. In fact, when I was here for hurricane Iniki, I got permission
from the guys...I forgot their name, but I got permission for them not to disclose
who was picking up bid documents. I did not want the bidders to know that they
were the only ones getting the bid document for that work. The problem here is
that the island is so small and it is pretty easy to read the meeting minutes to find
out what the budget is, so you know what your top bid can be. If you know that you
are the only contractor, I mean, your duty is to your stockholders, you are going to
bid it as high as you can; if you have a chance to win it. I cannot say that it
happened but I would have felt more comfortable if there were five (5) or six (6) bids
on the job.
Chair Furfaro: Clearly it is a challenge for government in
general to me because you are always disclosing the amount budgeted for. It is not
difficult to get the document and then further complicated by the fact that we had
COUNCIL MEETING 36 AUGUST 14, 2013
limited bidders, the land that had steep cliffs, grades to it, and so forth. I can see
your concern and that concern may actually be occurring at bid and budget time.
Although the project came in a small amount under budget, it was at budget with a
difficult location, limited builders, and a lot of ground preparation that may have all
contributed to that.
Mr. Manthos: I agree. It would have been a very expensive
fire station to build, there is no question but then perhaps we questioned the
planning side maybe a different site should have been selected. Somewhere that did
not cost so much. It goes back to the planning side initially for the cost and then
the other issue is specific to the procurement issue and that is something that can
be corrected that goes amongst multiple jobs because we were trying to find out why
it cost so much. We just stumble upon that issue and we included it in there. It
goes back to planning. I think more site selection criteria when you are looking at
the cost, you might have avoided that.
Chair Furfaro: The other one that I am still courteous about
is this mandate of brand names for equipment. Was it more untypical than the
standard when they specified very specific brands?
Mr. Manthos: You do not see it as often but you see it with
fire stations and things like that with specialized equipment. Say that the
equipment used to clean the clothing that the firemen wear, you know some of that
stuff is really important, it is critical but it still has to go through the process with
the State Procurement Office. That did not happen. That is what we are saying. It
is a process that needs to be followed because it could hurt your job. You could have
a vendor that sells a different piece of equipment complain before the bid goes out
and slow down your bid process. We are saying that you need to dot the "I" and
cross the "T" on the procurement issue. It is not necessarily designed to protect the
State but to protect the vendors.
Chair Furfaro: Is there a procedure when they do identify
brand specific that they get this variance, right?
Mr. Manthos: You can do it and you see it a lot in regular
purchasing but it gets missed a lot in the construction side because those things are
so big and it is usually not handled by your accounting groups. Usually there is a
purchasing person that you probably work with when you want something and you
specify a brand name, they can write it — it is just a one (1) page form that goes to
the State Procurement Office that says why you need this brand name. You have
similar equipment in the office or it has certain features that other equipment does
not have and we certainly think some of the equipment that they ordered for the
fire station had those features but they just did not do the exercise that needed to
be done. That was our criticism there.
Ms. Yukimura: It seems that this report was directed to the
County Engineer but it seems like Finance and Procurement should have been
identified in terms of being part of the process. I am concerned of the planning
process particularly when they are done by the specialized Departments in Fire or
Police because they do not do this often. They do not plan facilities. It is not
firefighter work or police work but you have these police or fire personnel who are
sometimes defining the standards or the brands. It seems to me that there is an
interface between Procurement, Public Works, and the Department that is going to
use the facility. There is some kind of a planning process that is missing here. It is
COUNCIL MEETING 37 AUGUST 14, 2013
suggested by your findings but it is not clear to me that you have determined where
those lapse is or disconnects has occurred.
Chair Furfaro: I am hoping that is we why had the CIP
Manager now in our Staff, that this person is kind of facilitating this discussion
about site location, prep cost, and things as well. I am not saying that is the answer,
JoAnn, I am just saying it is part of the solution too, I think, that we have a CIP
Manager.
Ms. Yukimura: You say here that the square foot cost of this
Kaiakea Fire Station was seven hundred forty dollars ($740) per square foot and the
average cost based on RS means data of what a similar fire station would cost in
Honolulu is a hundred forty-six dollars ($146) per square foot. That is a huge cost
differential. You do show that in Kona there was one that cost six hundred dollars
($600) square feet but it apparently had a lot more features. That is a huge cost
differential and I think it is the proper question to ask why?
Mr. Manthos: In Kona, I remember some of the
numbers still. We looked at Kona and we tried to find as close as we can to Kaua`i.
The means is an industry standard but really has a time applying in Hawai`i
towards the costs. So, we looked at Kona which was the closes we could find. O`ahu
being the second closes but O`ahu of course has much more competition and cheaper
shipping cost so their costs are less. In the case of the Kona one, I think it was even
larger or smaller, I do not remember but there is a size variation as well that goes
into it. The numbers were so much bigger that we thought it was an issue. It was
the most expensive by twenty percent (20%) or so.
Ms. Yukimura: Kona was almost twice as big as the Kaua`i's
Fire Station.
Mr. Manthos: It should have been a lot less. Basically, it is
twice as big and so we just wanted to show that basically it was expensive and we
felt that if it was a geotechnical issue because of the site then more work should
have been done on the site as far as site selection. I could make a suggestion but it
is outside of the scope of this thing and that is something that we incorporated over
at the Highways Division was a formal scoping program for these projects. Where
basically there is a program put together and the Planning Department would
handle it and the Planning Department could not send the project over the design
until the scoping process was approved which listed alternatives, maybe a better
cost estimate with existing plans and utilities are affected and the scoping grew. It
was composed of the user, the applicant, the construction manager, and the
designer, so basically everybody that was going to be involved in the project kind of
like an internal customer chain was involved in determining the scope, then the
Agency Head that is running it; would approve it. You would not have this issue of
throwing the plans over the wall as your problem. Everyone works together for a
solution and there is not a bunch of accusations afterwards because they all missed
it or they all corrected it. This would be something that you would want to
incorporate for your larger jobs where it worthwhile doing it by putting a little bit
more into the planning side so you get more savings. It is cheaper to do it with
pencil, like I said earlier then a bulldozer.
Ms. Yukimura: Totally.
COUNCIL MEETING 38 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Manthos: That happens with these projects like this. It
is just in the project. There is no established process so it is a little bit more
difficult. I hate to say that these things happen but we wanted to bring attention to
them so next time when we have a big thing like this it is an individual, unique
thing to put more time in the planning side.
Chair Furfaro: On that note, Mr. Rapozo already left with
our recognition certificate for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Office but we
need to leave now and come back at 12:30. When we come back, Councilmember
Yukimura, you will have the floor. We would like you to summarize that
recommendation at the end of today's discussion as well. We promised OHA that
we would be there for their blessing. We are going to take recess which will be
lunch.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.
The Council reconvened at 12:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: We will continue where we left off at lunch
time and thank you for your understanding. JoAnn, you had the floor.
Ms. Yukimura: When we left off before the lunch break, Mr.
Manthos was talking about a formal scoping program which you said was sort of
outside the scope of this audit but actually I find it very helpful. I believe Larry
that is what you folks are doing with the Police Substation in Kawaihau. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Dill: We were just discussing that as a matter of
fact. It is along those lines so prior to proceeding towards the design we are doing a
user need assessment to establish the ground work, basis for the need, and how to
address it so taking a step back and doing more of a planning effort before getting
into design.
Ms. Yukimura: I think that is very well taken. Pericles, you
mentioned the planning process and the site selection process. What was it about
the site that made for more expensive building costs?
Mr. Manthos: My understanding is that the elevation was
on a terrain that had to be leveled and it is lava rock that had to be leveled. It was
not on a flat ideal site with good drainage, so it needed a lot of earth work which is
probably what drove the cost up more than anything else.
Ms. Yukimura: I know when the Chief was proposing this
site I asked him also about the ocean spray and whether that would be a problem
for both the equipment and the building in terms of rust and deterioration. Was any
of that an additional cost?
Mr. Manthos: Yes, I think they (inaudible) some kind of
real extreme roof shingle for the property to that extend and probably it was
reflected in the choice of stainless steel appliances which I have in my own home
because I have the same problem. Like I said, it is not matter that they got those
appliances, it was a matter that they did not go through the paperwork to justify
that.
COUNCIL MEETING 39 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: But it still is a site related expense?
Mr. Manthos: Yes, it is a site related expense. Of course
when you get to the shore with wind...we will talk about that in the next audit; you
have to deal with those issues of the salt air, and spray. The structure was built
heavier than it maybe need to be for some aspects with roof shingles as I recall and
then the stainless steel appliances to prevent that otherwise you would have these
things rust out in ten (10) years. It doe contribute to the cost. On the scoping thing,
I think it might be a benefit, is if you set up as an internal client/customer
relationship within the organization. The Planners had to scope the project out but
the team consisted of construction people, design people, and users. They would all
agree together on the scope of the job presented to the Director or to the Chief, in
my case, and then I would approve it or I would bring up questions. They could
provide a couple alternatives and their recommended alternatives. Ninety-five
percent (95%) of the time I went with the recommended alternative with that
discussion but then they became a team later because as the job went to design, this
scoping document would be something you can give to a design consultant and they
could come back with a price in thirty (30) days because what he has to do is all laid
out. What permits are required? What we are building? Instead of a big year long
discussion back and forth, basically what they are doing now but they are doing
before the design which is what you want. That way the scope of work is not
constantly changing or being added to after construction via change orders. It is
usually a funding issue so I set up a small funding (inaudible) in planning to handle
it so they could be a charge codes because you need charge codes working for the
government. So, they would handle it then it would go to design once the scoping
documents was complete, and then I would not allow the designers to start
construction until the Construction Manager signed off that it is ready for
construction. I would not allow the construction go in to say that the job was done
until the maintenance people accepted it. This made Agencies work together more
so then work apart. There is a formal process that was facilitated by the Federal
Highways Administration.
Ms. Yukimura: Does that apply to roads or buildings?
Mr. Manthos: It was set up for roads but it applies for any
project that involves construction.
Ms. Yukimura: We could apply it in terms of any County
facilities, it would be a centralized process that whether it is a park pavilion for
parks or a Police Station or a road that...it is a process that we go through wherein
the central Department or the position you were in would treat the other
Department's as internal customers?
Mr. Manthos: Right. The process would change. The need
assessment study is more appropriate for a police facility. A road is more judged by
standards. It still needs because you are still justifying the work based on the users
— the people driving the road but you would need a more involved process obviously
with the Police Department, the Fire Department and even roadway.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Manthos: It is the same process.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: In our desire to go from road expansion only
to a more multi-modal approach, it might apply too. I would really like to see this
written up either as an addendum to the audit or just as a separate kind of
possibility that we could take and I am glad Larry is here listening to it. I do not
know that it would have to be exactly like it was for your Highways but some kind
of process that would standardize the process for planning and designing facilities
across Agencies. It would then make for a better end product.
Mr. Manthos: The only thing I suggest or caution is the
timing for these processes for building is usually...you only get a few years after the
budget to go and build it. So, you need a little more time upfront and then you this
planning thing first before you determine the budget because most times if you set a
budget, they are going to scope that budget.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Manthos: In this case, the scope is going to determine
the budget, not the other way around.
Ms. Yukimura: That would seem appropriate and also would
guard against this kind of situation where the budget seemed pretty inflated
without a careful look.
Mr. Manthos: When you do a single off job like this; this is
what happens. You do not have a big history of what...I think the last fire station
was thirty (30) years ago. So, you really did not have relative cost but if a more
formal scoping was done like the audit where you looked at other fire stations
across of the State, it might have been a lot easier to come up with the price.
Normally, someone presents an amount and you guys authorize it.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, it seems like in Police and Fire — they
just go ahead and build theirs and then it is used as a model for the next fire
station. I do not know where you get in this careful planning ever if it is just to copy
what has happened before which was not in a good planning and design mode.
Mr. Manthos: You would look at the other station to see
what had in there.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Manthos: If those are the similar features that you
want then that is going to be roughly the price. Now, you may decide that we do not
need these features and then there will be an analysis of the terrain and the
location, but I will get a copy over to him, what we have and it is very simple
because it is for roads. It is kind of a model to use for your process. I would suggest
that you wait for the larger jobs. It is not cost effective if you do every small job like
that.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Would it be something useful
with our CIP Coordinator?
Mr. Dill: Absolutely, yes. That would be a good
discussion to have with Mr. Suga as well.
COUNCIL MEETING 41 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Larry that is why I brought it up. I think
that is where the discussion needs to happen since we have that Manager as part of
your normal staff.
Mr. Kagawa: I follow the same lines as Councilmember
Yukimura in that it would have been nice with we had dug a little deeper to find the
source of where the County overpaid for this project. I think one of the glaring
things that you pointed out very well was that we obviously paid way too much per
square foot for this facility. At seven hundred and forty dollars ($740) per square
foot compared to Kona's which we also said was pretty high, that was at six
hundred and thirty-six dollars ($636) per square foot. We still paid a hundred
dollars ($100) more per square foot for the Kaiakea Fire Station. I would have liked
to have seen where those costs went for example, ground work, towards the
building, and a comparison to the Kona facility or another facility. To see really
where we went wrong so that we can give the Finance Department, CIP Manager,
or whoever is doing these future bids, some guidance as to what to watch for and
what mistakes we should not repeat.
Mr. Manthos: I thought that too but I was not able to
determine that because as I recall with this project the bid was a lump sum bid and
the units were broken up afterwards. In other words some bids you would actually
list "site work," "roof," "sidewalk work," instead it was a lump sum. So the schedule
of value was provided afterwards which broke it up and like I said, that is a natural
tendency for a contractor. It is not illegal or anything but it is frown upon
(inaudible) is to front and load the bid which means they put their...they want their
biggest amount of money at the beginning of the project so the first thing they do is
grading. The grading is going to be really high if they are setting how much it is.
Now, if you have multiple bids, a wide variety bids and that information was not
available, then you can see if one person bid high. I changed the specifications on
DLNR when I was there to the instruction on bidders to say before warned any
particular item could be dropped. So, spread you overhead and profit amongst all
items so they do not do that but that happens and I think in this case, that may
have happened. It was difficult for me to say yes the earth work costs so much
because they set that amount and there was no other comparison. What I suspect, a
lot of the costs were in the earth work and the other issue was reduce competition in
Kaua`i. One of the things that you could probably do is advertise more but the
problem is it cost so much to ship equipment here. It is just the nature of the
business. When you do a runoff kind of thing here, it is going to be cost a lot in the
Big Island, Kaua`i, and then cost less on O`ahu.
Mr. Dill: If you take a look at my response when I
responded to the audit, I do not know if you have it in front of you, I do not have it
with me but I did take a look at the other fire stations against which it was
compared and I compared the site work cost. What is being said, the contractor will
often front load their bids in order to offset some of their additional cost, and get
that in the bank to fund the project. I assume that whether that is in a lump sum
situation or when somebody bids the job upfront, it shows that they are going to put
those costs upfront in the project. When you compare the projects and you delete
the site work from it, the projects is still some variation in the unit cost but the
variation is a lot tighter when it is compared against the other fire stations. No
doubt that the Kaiakea site that was chosen and it was before my time, so I do not
know why we chose that site. The County might have been limited in the options for
COUNCIL MEETING 42 AUGUST 14, 2013
selecting the site. I do not know how that happened but I think we do agree that it
was an expensive site.
Mr. Kagawa: Thank you for this report. Larry, it is easy
to be couch coach, after the fact but just from those numbers alone — the site work,
can give us some direction that maybe next time, that kind of site where there are
lava rock and big slope might not be our best use of County money.
Mr. Dill: I completely agree with you.
Mr. Kagawa: We could have saved two million
($2,000,000) right there, if we had a flat piece of land. Not to say that we can do
anything about it but like Councilmember Yukimura, I have talked to people in the
Building Division and they told me that not even a year into the completion of that
project, they were fixing things like the garage door which became totally rusted,
light fixtures which were totally rusted, and wires that were totally rusted. The
wind salt damage to that building is quite ridiculous. I would not be surprised if
the fire trucks are all rusted.
Mr. Dill: That is an aggressive environment and
always will be.
Mr. Kagawa: Next time let us say that it is not a good site
for a fire station or police station.
Mr. Dill: I completely agree with you on that and
again I was not around so I do not know why that decision was made. I was going
to ask if anyone was on Council at that time.
Ms. Yukimura: I was.
Mr. Dill: Was there any reason why that site was
chosen?
Ms. Yukimura: It is easily assessable to the main highway
and close to the...they wanted to cover Anahola and up Kawaihau, so they were
moving more North so that...but I remember distinctly asking the Chief when he
came before us, "what about the salt problem?" His answer was, "it will be handled,
and it is not hard to handle it." I was not convinced but...
Mr. Kagawa: Well, I guess I am not going there as to why
we picked it in the past but if the audit can clearly point that out that subsequent to
the completion of the building even though we paid a higher building cost because
we went with quality materials and whatnot, that did not work because the salt
damage just made those choices now. The salt is damaging a lot of the steel and
whatnot that we put into the building and so for the future that it is highly
recommended by the Auditor that we need to be more careful about picking a site
for our County facility that is in that kind of clearly bad spot as far as salt and wind
damage. I think other than that I think the Auditor did a good job on the Kaiakea
by pointing out the comparisons. I am happy with the rest of it. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Larry, let us all remember too that
geographically, the population on Kaua`i is on the Eastside and the fact of the
matter is we did not want to have a North Shore Fire Station that served the
COUNCIL MEETING 43 AUGUST 14, 2013
Eastside community. We were told and I was on the Council with JoAnn that the
upgrade in products and material we were going to use were going to help detour
the long-term problems with repair and maintenance. I mean, we needed a
Eastside Fire Station. There is no way you can change the geographic. Kaua`i is
the only island that has its resorts on the Eastside of the island. All those resorts
battle salt and they go to vinyl windows rather than the metal windows and so
forth. Some of these additional costs to be able to re-tar that aggressive salt was
part of the thinking of the cost factor but geographically the additional fire station
was needed on the Eastside and we were supposed to have high end building
materials that would help defer the long-term maintenance. Anyway, great report.
Anymore questions on Kaiakea?
Mr. Pasion: Here is a flyer for our conferences in
designing fire stations and I would recommend and suggest to Public Works and the
Fire Department to attend such workshops or conferences because they do not have
to reinvent the wheel. It is valuable. I can give this to Larry.
Mr. Dill: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, may I ask you also, could you send
over copies of that over to the Fire Commission?
Mr. Pasion: Okay, I can do that.
Mr. Dill: I wanted to address something that was
brought up earlier regarding use of brand name specifications. When I saw that
come up in the audit that certainly caught my eye in terms of what appeared to be a
procurement violation. I immediately forwarded that to our Attorney's Office as well
as our Procurement Officer for his review. The response that I got back was that the
Hawai`i Revised Statutes explicitly allow for brand name specifications when you
identify the brand name or equal. Now, having established that, my next response
is, "okay, we are legal so I was glad of that but are we discouraging competition by
using this as a practice?" So, we have reviewed that and we have not set up
anything formal to review those particular instances because a lot of the times it
makes sense to specify that because...and part of that is expediency in establishing
specifications. There are times when it does not make sense to do that and we are
reviewing when and if we use that sort of specification in our procurements. I just
wanted to make sure that we have reviewed that legally to make sure there was no
violation.
Mr. Manthos: I have to respond to that again. In some of
the cases there was no phrase or equal, it just specified the brand. We actually
tabulated them. I do not know what the number is but there was a good few that...I
forget the percentage but probably thirty-three percent (33%) or maybe more are
the ones that specified the brand name did not give...oh, the number is here? I
looked at that too.
Ms. Yukimura: What page is that?
Mr. Pasion: Page seventeen (17).
Mr. Manthos: I am not sure how many but forty-one (41) of
the specifications did have several brand names and allowed approve equals. The
problem is this, I have had decisions that go both ways with the procurement office
COUNCIL MEETING 44 AUGUST 14, 2013
and there was a big decision on the police radios, I think, on O`ahu where they
specified Motorola and they were struck done for specifying the brand. (Inaudible)
has been pretty standard as for Agency's to use and I have written specs that way.
One of the things that I have found that has eased off the pressure on that issue
was to list three (3) brands and say "or equal." So, there are selections and there is
competition with the vendors for the lowest price to supply it than it is a lot less of
an issue but if you just list one (1) brand than there is really...and it is up to them
to provide it or equal and a lot of times it is done before bidding with only so many
days, and then the vendors try to get in the picture. I find if you list three (3)
brands although it is not real cut in procurement law usually that is not a problem
but with just one (1) then it becomes an issue. Sometimes there was one listed here
with no "or equal" either and that is why we brought it up.
Mr. Dill: Was that listed in your report?
Mr. Manthos: Yes.
Mr. Dill: I do not see that point in here.
Mr. Manthos: These were all the ones that...
Chair Furfaro: Address the body here, gentlemen, you
should not have your own conversation there.
Mr. Dill: Okay. I will research that.
Mr. Manthos: Right here. These are the ones without "or
and equal."
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Manthos: And there is a few. I would say there is
maybe fifteen percent (15%) have no "and or equal," but like I said it is split decision
with the Procurement Office on that.
Ms. Yukimura: Why was that not signaled as a possible
violation?
Mr. Manthos: It was. It is in there.
Ms. Yukimura: Of the Procurement Code?
Mr. Manthos: Yes, it was listed. We put it in here but to me
when I see procurement issues, the solution is more training. That is written in
Procurement Law for first offense.
Ms. Yukimura: How do you know that it was an issue of
training? How do you know that they did not have the training but just did not
follow it?
Mr. Manthos: I did not.
Ms. Yukimura: Did you do interviews that determined that?
COUNCIL MEETING 45 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Manthos: I could not determine that they had people
that have been trained through the Procurement Office. I did not ask that question.
Ms. Yukimura: Maybe they were already trained. To me
that is an issue and I do not think it is a question for you; it is a question for the
Auditor why that determination was not made and why potential violations were
not raised as a finding or whatever.
Mr. Manthos: It is in here. It was listed as a...the big part
of the report.
Ms. Nakamura: What page?
Mr. Manthos: Well, it starts on thirteen (13). The
restriction specification starts on page twelve (12) and then we covered thirteen (13)
and we actually list the specifications the Procurement Code, we put it on page
thirteen (13). When you get over to page fifteen (15) and sixteen (16); you have
tables. These tables show where there were specifications with...
Ms. Yukimura: The conclusion regarding the fifteen percent
(15%) that were not "and/or equal," and Larry had the initiative to check with the
County Attorney but I am not...it just seems like auditing protocol require that
something be recognized as a potential violation.
Mr. Manthos: We have at least ten (10) or fifteen (15) pages
of the audit decided to this issue. To me, my understanding with Procurement Law,
unless there is personal benefit, it is not a criminal issue. As far as when I read the
Procurement Law, that is what I see there. Now, if there is a personal gain or
something like that, now you are talking about a criminal issue but my
understanding is a remedy for procurement violations is administrative and the
first recommendation I made to cover the change since I last read it in the 90's but
the first recommendation was to provide additional training for the people making
the decision. After that, it is an administrative issue like bad performance but
unless there is personal gain, to my knowledge, there is no criminality involved
under the Procurement Code. Once there is personal gain, it is a different issue.
That is my understanding as an Engineer but I have been in charge of pretty large
procurements, so you got to be careful. So, that is my understanding. Our audit is
about performance, following the procurement code...we talked about it at length
and went through and actually analyzed every single item that was in the
specifications.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Pasion: This thing was also covered in the Executive
Summary on page two (2) of the audit report. We said that we recommended that
the County provide additional procurement law training for all personnel involved
in capital projects especially concerning the use and reuse of restrictive
specifications. As in our follow up audit of the Public Works Department, we also
recommend that the County review and adopt standards specifications, policies, and
procedures for construction projects. That is where we covered that part because
when we followed up with the Purchasing, we could not get definitive answers on
why it was done.
COUNCIL MEETING 46 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: You could not get definitive answer from
Purchasing?
Mr. Pasion: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Did you say that in your report?
Mr. Pasion: No, we did not.
Mr. Manthos: We were looking for the paperwork to say
that we did the sole source procurement and they did not exist.
Ms. Yukimura: I am not sure how you...
Mr. Manthos: The sole source procurement are handled by
your (inaudible) now. Like I said, I think there handled typically when the Agencies
buy things and when it is a large construction contract, they do not get involved
with the nitty-gritty of the purchases within that construction contract without
seeing that. Typically that is what I see with all State Agencies. When you are
ordering something for the Council, say a computer system or something, they are
going to go through the sole source procurement forms if you want to specify brand.
Chair Furfaro: That is a bad example because the Council —
we are our own procurement office.
Mr. Manthos: Government when they buy for themselves,
they do a pretty good job of looking at it, I have seen, across the State but when
these construction contracts slides by because the offices do not get into the nitty-
gritty of what is in the specifications usually.
Ms. Yukimura: The "what" do not know?
Mr. Manthos: Usually they do not get into the nitty-gritty
of what is being purchased by these CIP contracts. As far as what has been brought
by the Agencies...
Ms. Yukimura: That would mean that is an area of potential
more abuse.
Mr. Manthos: That is why we are saying that people should
be trained to handle the use in that area so they understand it. That was our
recommendation.
Ms. Yukimura: I just feel like there is a missing piece here
determining that there was no training given or that people were not trained. You
never made that determination. You assumed it — that more training was needed.
You did not determine whether they had in fact been trained.
Mr. Manthos: We were not doing a personal evaluation.
We needed indication that people were going through those classes that are doing
these specifications. That is where we are concentrating on, and we are saying
people that do these specifications need training. With the trainings in
procurement, it almost does not matter because they are not reviewing these specs.
Somebody that is...
COUNCIL MEETING 47 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura: No. I am guessing somebody in the Fire
Department put these specs together. Do you know? Did you guys determine that?
Who put the specs together? Why actually made the decision to ask for brands?
No?
Mr. Manthos: That was not in the scope of my work. I know
there were memo's going back and forth on deciding what to purchase.
Mr. Dill: As a Public Works project, ultimately it is
Public Works that makes the decisions about this. Where the recommendations
have come from, I cannot say.
Ms. Yukimura: Probably from the Fire Department.
Mr. Dill: Possibly.
Ms. Yukimura: You have to talk to the people who actually
involved to know.
Mr. Dill: Right.
Ms. Yukimura: How come this thing was a lump sum
contract?
Mr. Manthos: That is pretty often in architectural type
work that you will see contracts like that versus the engineering contracts where it
is broken down. I think this was more modeled on an architectural type contract.
Engineers are more unit priced based. You will see that in utilities infrastructure
and buildings...
Ms. Yukimura: But why did our County policies allow for
it...does the itemize specs not lessen the possibly for abuse?
Mr. Manthos: It can but it is not a requirement, per say. In
procurement, in a construction bid, you can do it like this.
Ms. Yukimura: I know it is not a requirement but would it
be a good policy for the County to protect against potential abuse?
Mr. Manthos: That would be better and the best would
be...when you have bids like this where you think you may have change orders or
extensive change orders, that you have the contractor submit his bid estimate and it
gets put in a bank, sealed up, and then if you have a dispute later, you could open
that up together and see what the basis of his bid was to understand whether he
has a legitimate claim or not. You escrow the bid documents. The best thing to do
is have the contractor submit to bid documents which are his basis of his estimate
and then if you have a claim later, you can go back and see whether or not he had
already calculated this thing or he forgot it or whether it is a legitimate claim. To
me, the best jobs were...for a handling from the prospective is to have the escrow
bid documents and to have it as detailed as possible as far as the breakdown.
Ms. Yukimura: Does any governmental Division or
Department do this?
COUNCIL MEETING 48 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Manthos: Wastewater on O`ahu does it a lot for the
larger jobs because there are so many unforeseen conditions when you are going
underground.
Ms. Yukimura: Would this be considered a best practice?
Mr. Manthos: I think it would be a good practice but not
necessarily for smaller jobs. I think it is good for the big jobs with a lot of potential
unforeseen conditions but for a straight job like an asphalt paving job, that is pretty
basic. If you are doing a tunnel or major sewer work and you do not know the
conditions that exists in sewer, it is not bad that escrow bid documents so later
when you have a dispute, you can go back to the documents and see whether the
contractor has any merits to explain. They have been used effectively for that
reason. I would not make it across the board because you are going to have costs.
Ms. Yukimura: That makes sense.
Mr. Manthos: With larger jobs, especially the complex jobs,
it is not a bad thing to have.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, you know it is a larger job that we are
discussing here and that is where...if there is abuse, that is where the amount of
money at stake is significant. I guess I would request that Larry look into that...I
mean you have made two (2) good, very interesting suggestions about how to deal
with large projects and I would hope that Public Works at least look into it and see
if there might be something's applicable to setting up better processes.
Mr. Dill: That is certainly good suggestions and we
hear that.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Let me wrap this up a little bit here so we
can go on to the Kilauea Gym because this requires some thinking skills in the bid
process. First of all, as reported by Pericles, we had an exceptional amount which
are referred to as sole source procurement. These are items that we said were in the
bid that were supplier selected or Department and selections and somewhere along
the lines some red flags should be going off about why do we have such a large
amount of sole source procurement. Especially when we deal with things like
rubber for walkways or Teflon coded doors on the Eastside, or things of that nature.
Some red flags need to go up because this project was driven — a hundred seventy-
five dollars ($175) more per square foot then a compatible product on the Big Island.
Those things need to show up on the specs and then through the bid opening
process, I think what I am hearing, is that we should ask for the support of the bid
documents to be locked up somewhere in some escrow detail as to why these
products are being identified so that if we get an excessive amount of change orders
that come in, we can refer to the escrow account that shows the specific rationale
behind that kind of detail. Especially when it comes to the grading and the building
pieces, it seems more refine detail in engineering specs than there are in the
aesthetics in architectural specs and we have to be able to weigh out the two (2). I
think that is what we are learning from this process Larry and it is not going to be
solved now. It should be red flag items that the Audit Department and Pericles has
brought to our attention.
COUNCIL MEETING 49 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Dill: My memory is coming back. When we looked
or approved equal spec for the brand specifications, there is a general statement
made in the procurement document that when the specifications are referenced it is
understood that they are to be treated as brand name or equal. Even instances
where it is not specifically stated we had our Attorney's looked at that and they said
it was acceptable by the HRS. I just wanted to make clear that my understanding
is no procurement violation happened but again the issue still remains that we are
doing discourage competition.
Chair Furfaro: I think what Pericles is saying is brand
name or equal and what we are saying is only fifteen percent (15%) of these
numbers actually had something that was a jeep brand equivalent rather than
saying, "buy the jeep." I think that is what we are worried about. We do not need
to refine this down to that. What we need to say is, "the Audit Department has
brought up a red flag on sole source purchasing and it merits some attention."
Mr. Manthos: I think the majority had the "or equal" in it.
Chair Furfaro: Oh, I had it backwards.
Mr. Manthos: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: So, you got off the hook, Larry.
Mr. Manthos: The one thing I have to caution though is
that the State code is one thing but the Feds do not want to see the brand names.
They make exceptions on traffic but for the most part the Feds do not want to see it
at all.
Chair Furfaro: Good point especially if we are getting money
from the Feds on some of these projects. Good point. Thank you. Moving along with
that discussion, can we go to the Kilauea Gym because we got public hearings
coming up here.
Mr. Manthos: I will give a brief overview on it. We basically
looked at an audit that was done several years back to see its implementation and
there is a...we look at the original audit and of the original audit, there were items
in the original audit that really should not be ever implemented. We looked at
them. My position is that the Auditor's were looking at it from a model of the
private architecture and they had things in here like, you take five (5) bids and you
throw out the highest bid and you pick the second bidder. Well, you cannot do that
in the State of Hawaii.
Chair Furfaro: Let me get some clarity, are you referring to
the audit that was done?
Mr. Manthos: The original one.
Chair Furfaro: The original one by KMP?
Mr. Manthos: Right.
Mr. Pasion: KMH.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 AUGUST 14, 2013
Chair Furfaro: KMH, okay, you are referring to that one.
Mr. Manthos: There are fifteen (15) or sixteen (16) that you
just threw out, so, it should never be done, we are not going to require you to do
them, and then we looked at all the remaining ones. Now, there is a big number on
them but do not get confused on it because some of them are so similar. They listed
them at a hundred and fifteen (115) items originally, there were ninety-six (96) or
so that were applicable...let me get you the number. Fifty-six (56) of the ninety-
seven (97) of the recommendations that were left in the audit that we thought were
applicable have been implemented. The remaining ones are yet to be implemented.
A lot of these issues involved training, additional personnel, and cross personnel
training. The thing that is consistent throughout is the lack of personnel in certain
areas and the lack of training. I think that some of the issues that were in this
audit are still here in the County and it is by nature that you are a small agency.
You just cannot have a million experts, you cannot afford them. I think some better
training and getting better people, and I think it has been in place for awhile. I
think things are changing for the better. We see a lot of people retiring with a lot of
experience in the County and you are going to have some big holes to fill. It is an
issue that you have people that know what they are doing in those positions. That
is what we saw in this Kilauea audit as far as what it was physically about. The
audit was not so much of the construction of the gym project but it was an audit of
the processes.
Chair Furfaro: Processes in the Building Department.
Mr. Manthos: Right. That is what the audit really was
about. Now, I went out and looked at the gym and to me the big issue that is similar
to the fire station. You got windblown rain entering the building all over the place
and while that gym is a pretty standard design in the place that is dry, that does
not have trees at thirty (30) degrees outside the place from the wind, it is not
applicable for where it was, and maybe some special treatments should have been
done over the doors and windows to prevent the moisture from entering the
building. The moisture is what is causing the damage from in the building, from
what I can see.
Chair Furfaro: We had that discussion especially since the
exhibit doors face the Ko`olau side or the windward side of the building and that
starts with a design flaw without having some kind of a shield, flashing, or casing
over the doors. I want to go back on the numbers of the ninety-six (96) that you said
fifty-seven (57)...
Mr. Manthos: Fifty-six (56) and that was at the time we did
the study. I would assume that some of these have been done.
Chair Furfaro: That is good for me.
Ms. Nakamura: Since we spent more than a year ago,
February 15, we had a whole session on this audit. I was hoping today that we
would just find out from Public Works about their implementation of the audit
recommendations and maybe Larry if you can respond to that.
Mr. Dill: As Pericles mentioned, I think at the time
the estimate of the Auditor was that fifty-six (56) out of ninety-seven (97) have been
COUNCIL MEETING 51 AUGUST 14, 2013
implemented. We did our own review of the ninety-seven (97) and we felt that more
than fifty-six (56) were either implemented or in the process of being implemented.
I do not have a number to present to you today of the ninety-seven (97) but I can tell
you in our estimation significantly more have been implemented or underway. Some
of those, I think it was mentioned, he mentioned fifteen (15) or the fifteen (15) part
of the ninety-seven (97)?
Mr. Manthos: No.
Mr. Dill: Okay. There were some of the ninety-seven
(97) at least, if I am looking at the same list, we felt were not applicable. For
instance, secure a minimum of five (5) bids per major building projects, that is
really beyond our control to...you know, we advertise our projects and according to
the State Procurement Law, if we get one (1) bid, we get one (1) bit, and that is the
way it goes. Something's are beyond our control. Some of those recommendations
are, from our standpoint, not implementable. I wish we could get five (5) bids in
every project; that would be a wonderful thing. As Pericles has noted, we are a
small island and we got limited number of bidders out there bidding on our projects.
Mr. Manthos: Throughout the audit, there were a lot of
nice to haves that were there and the ones that were basically against the wall, I
could throw out. The other ones, I do not know if it was my role to go through the
audit and say...to act like the Auditee and say, "well, we should not do that." We
were very careful on our recommendations to say, "there were four (4) of these left
and we recommend you pushed these ones out because there more important." In
our report, we boxed them and bought attention to the important ones but we had to
report factually because we were reviewing the implementation of this audit but we
drew special attention inside the audit the ones that we felt that they need to do.
Based on my conversations and what I hear happening on Kaua`i is underway and
is happening. So, it is just a matter of progressing forward. Like I said before, this
audit was written more from an architectural standpoint, from a private
architectural standpoint where you have a lot more freedom but you just do not
have the government service.
Mr. Kagawa: Pericles, why did the audit not focus on the
malfunctions of the roof replacement? Although your observation says that you only
saw water coming in through the doors, it was stated many times that during heavy
rains there are puddles of water in the middle of the gym. That leaves Public
Works and Parks to have determined that the roof needed to be replaced or fixed.
Instead of fixing it or replacing it, we put a second roof on top of the existing roof.
To me, that should had been maybe looked at from the audit standpoint as to why
we decided to go with another roof on top of a licking roof which makes really no
sense to me and a lot of people...
Mr. Manthos: The answer I am going to give you, I do not
want to give...and that is because it sounds so bureaucratic and that is that my
scope is to check and see if the audit limitations were done, not to see if the building
was designed properly to begin with. I went and looked at it because I wanted to
see the problems. I heard there were a lot of problems but that was not what we
was assigned to do.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Manthos: That was not the intent of the scope. The
intent of the scope was to check the audit which is really a system audit of the
Building Department, not the building. They just used the building as the kickoff
point to do the audit but we were not tasked to do a forensic study of what went
wrong with the building design.
Mr. Kagawa: Not a forensic study but why we did not have
a clause in our bid to that contractor that if there is a leak within a year or so that
you go and fix your work. I thought maybe that is perhaps some direction that could
help the County in the future and making this mistake because now we are going
through our third (3rd) roof in twelve (12) years or so. That is just outrageous.
Mr. Manthos: I think the County and the State has a wait
and defect law that as a government agency, I think it is eight (8) years but I am
not exactly sure now, to go back to the contractor for defect that is in the building. It
is his responsibility and he has a legal responsibility that you can go after with a
lawsuit or whatever but after eight (8) years, I think, you guys are stuck if he has
already passed eight (8) years. Now, a private person, I think can sue forever, there
is some issue but I think the government agencies are restricted for eight (8) years
and I am not a lawyer but I have read enough of these things. It is under the wait
and defect clause and that is where you would go after a contractor. Now, it gets
confusing with these kinds of suits because you got to determine whether it is a
design error and the designer designed it wrong or the contractor installed it wrong.
Usually you have a forensic investigation where a guy looks at the plans, building,
structure, and comes up with a report which then is used as a hammer to go after
the responsible party. I am pretty sure that under State Law you only have eight
(8) years, I think, it might be ten (10) but it is ten (10) or less to go after someone.
Mr. Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Manthos: After that, you time is up.
Mr. Kagawa: My only point is that if we were truly trying
to teach our County and ourselves as to how to improve on the situation like the
I'ilauea Gym, I do not think we need to look at the audit findings and determine
that it is because we have a lot of inexperience, new hires in Buildings recently.
That does not help us to not repeat the Kilauea roof problem. The way you cure that
roof problem is to see what we did wrong in the past that relates to the roof, not
relating to... because Doug Haigh has worked on that roof project and he has been
in the Building Division for years.
Mr. Manthos: Believe me, if they had the roof in that audit,
I would have looked at it.
Mr. Kagawa: Thank you.
Mr. Manthos: I hate making bureaucratic statements like
that but I have limited confines in my contract to what I was going to do. I wanted
to look at it to see if I could see an easy fix problem. As far as water in the middle of
the floor, I did not get enough information to make a comment on that. I definitely
can see an issue of the doors and water is migrating under that floor and coming up
in other areas. So, that whole floor is...
Mr. Kagawa: It is a mystery. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 53 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Manthos: I would probably suggest that wind driven
rain same as the door. That it is getting up under the eaves of the roof.
Mr. Kagawa: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: I want to share with you. We have a
standing item that keeps coming back giving us an update on it. The life of the floor
goes back to the hurricane and the fact of the matter that it has a life expectancy of
twenty (20) years with the soft woods being used. I think we are working on what
you pointed out was the flashing of the door covers showing on the windward side.
We still have solutions coming up and for better understanding of the floor
themselves and the water that is getting under the floors. So, that will be an
ongoing item. I want to keep this discussion more towards your audit but this will
keep coming up in Ross's Committee in Parks. Any other questions regarding the
audits? Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much. As we move forward on the
Parks issue with the gym, are you available to us should questions come up about
the gym as it shows up in the sub-committee?
Mr. Manthos: Any day that I can get out of crowded O`ahu
and come out to Kaua`i is a good day for me.
Chair Furfaro: Ernie, thank you very much. Larry, thank
you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Ms. Yukimura moved to receive C 2013-280 for the record, seconded by
Mr. Kagawa, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 1:45 p.m.
There being no objections, Resolution No. 2013-62 was taken out of order.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2013-62 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NO PARKING AT
ANY TIME AND TOW AWAY ZONES ALONG PORTIONS OF PO`IPU ROAD,
KOLOA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF KAUAI: Mr. Rapozo moved to adopt Resolution
No. 2013-62, seconded by Mr. Kagawa.
Mr. Kagawa: Can we get Lyle to quickly come up?
Ms. Nakamura: That would be fine.
Mr. Kagawa: Lyle, do you have a presentation? Staff, can
you put up the map so that the public knows?
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for being here, Lyle. We do have
a map.
Mr. Kagawa: Lyle, can you give us a brief history of what
has happened. Remember the last time we had a Resolution and we sent it off to
COUNCIL MEETING 54 AUGUST 14, 2013
the Police Department and they gave us a recommendation back saying that they
did not see a dangerous hazard pulling out however we then went to the multimodal
transportation meeting with Councilmember Yukimura, yourself, and
Councilmember Hooser was there. We had great discussion in groups and we heard
a lot of different points of view as to whose fault it is regarding the parking along
that Po`ipu Road but at some point we asked that they work the Po`ipu Beach
Resort Association and come up with a plan that everybody could agree on. I guess
this is the first phase in our plan of trying to address safety issues for walk-ability,
pedestrian, vehicles, etc.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LYLE TABATA, Deputy County Engineer: You are exactly right. Our
solution is not a solution for parking. Our solution is safety related with the premise
of having enough safe sight distance for vehicular traffic coming out of driveways
and the intersection - Kiahuna Drive, also the driveway going to the Waiohai and
then the driveway coming out of...next to Po`ipu Kai. The change that we made was
to reduce the amount of No-parking zoned to reflect engineering standards for sight
distance for vehicles traveling on that roadway at the posted speed limits. So that
in an event that we have wet road conditions, we have enough sight distance that a
person exiting the driveway or intersection will have enough reaction time to stop.
Mr. Kagawa: Lyle, what we see here is one (1) of four (4)
areas?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Mr. Kagawa: This first one is by the entrance of Kiahuna
Plantation Drive?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. If you look at the map the distance is a
hundred and thirty (130) feet. The opposite side — eighty-five (85) feet based on the
posted speed limits and the sight distance as was calculated by our Engineering
Division.
Mr. Kagawa: Can we go to the next slide? Why would
they not put the same...because it is right across the street, right?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Mr. Kagawa: Why did they not put those two (2) on the
same map? Anyway, go ahead.
Mr. Tabata: This is the driveway entrance. As you see
that one (1) side is a hundred and twenty-five (125) feet and then the other side is a
eighty (80) feet.
Mr. Kagawa: They will be installing poles with signs?
Mr. Tabata: At the limits.
Mr. Kagawa: Alright. Next slide.
COUNCIL MEETING 55 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Tabata: This is the entrance, the driveway to the
Marriott Waiohai, a hundred twenty-five (125) feet and eighty (80) feet. Kaleka
Street subdivision is seventy-five (75) feet and a hundred ten (110) feet to the west.
Each one is different based on the sight distance as calculated and the posted speed
limits.
Mr. Kagawa: My question is, have the community, the
Po`ipu Beach Association, or anybody approved of just this or did they want more or
less?
Mr. Tabata: They have been communications to us to
wanting more but in our discussions with the Police Department and us coming out
with an engineered solution based solely on safety, this is our recommendation at
this time. The larger issue is being worked on through our Transportation Planner
and we are looking at various other options that I am not in liberty to discuss right
now. I do not have enough information.
Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Lyle.
Ms. Yukimura: On this map, where is the entrance from the
Hyatt employee parking?
Mr. Tabata: It is a little bit further down to the right.
Ms. Yukimura: There is no parking already along there so
that the exit and entry way from Po`ipu Road incorporates the safety
considerations?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Ms. Yukimura: This proposed Resolution is basically for
public safety as a short-term solution, that is the critical priority, and
Transportation is working on some longer range solutions. What you did for the
Po`ipu Road that may produce some other more long range plan for that corridor?
Mr. Tabata: In our summary report which will be coming
forth but it did produce preliminary plans and designs for which we will then turn
over to a consultant who will be hired to begin the formal design process.
Ms. Yukimura: At the same time the Council did fund a
corridor study looking at the potential for a shuttle in the Po`ipu area so that would
also be ongoing this year which should help to address not parking supply but
parking demand.
Mr. Tabata: As well as the South Shore plan update that
Planning is working on.
Ms. Yukimura: Right. There are a lot of planning efforts
coming together.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: So, some of the long-term solutions still
remain unspecified but there is work that is going on for them.
COUNCIL MEETING 56 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hooser: Thank you very much for your explanation.
So, safety is the primary concern and it looks like vehicular safety was the primary
concern as opposed to pedestrian safety.
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Mr. Hooser: So, that is my concern. Pedestrian safety
along that...
Mr. Tabata: That was vetted and solutions for pedestrian
safety is part of the package that we will then...we have several goals for short-
term, medium, and long-term. Some of the short-term goals, we will be working in-
house on for pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Mr. Hooser: But this solution does not offer for
consideration for pedestrian safety only vehicular safety?
Mr. Tabata: At this time, yes.
Mr. Hooser: Why did you choose vehicular safety over
pedestrian safety?
Mr. Tabata: That was the primary focus of the complaints
we had been receiving and the premise for our engineering calculations. It was
primary for vehicular safety which was the largest concern, the sight distance going
in and out of the driveways and the streets for oncoming traffic.
Mr. Hooser: Is the consideration given to eliminate
parking entirely on the mauka side?
Mr. Tabata: Not based on what we were tasked to do.
Mr. Hooser: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: Any further questions for Lyle? Do we have
people who would like to testify?
CHRIS GAMPON: I am the General Manager of Outrigger
Kiahuna Plantation. I am also the President of the PBRA (Po`ipu Beach Resort
Association).
STELLA BURGESS: I am the Manager of Hawaiian Culture and
Community Relations at the Grand Hyatt, Kaua`i.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for being here.
Mr. Gampon: I would like to first make a contrary
statement to what Mr. Tabata had just shared. Just for the portion of the proposal
that is in front Kiahuna Plantation, I think I have probably been, at least for that
COUNCIL MEETING 57 AUGUST 14, 2013
area, one of the more vocal proponents for having set-backs for the no parking. One
of the driving forces for me to continue to campaign for that was the fact the line of
sight not only solves the problems for vehicles but it does allow for pedestrians to be
seen. I submitted some pictures previously when this came up, I think it was
Council...some number of that sort but there are daily issues with pedestrian safety
outside of the west and east entrances at Kiahuna Plantation. The east entrance
serving also the Koakea and the Waiohai Resort. The set-back in my estimation will
allow for cars coming through Po`ipu Road and being able to see the pedestrians
coming out of either of those intersections. There is only a small walkway area that
the people who are walking through either side of the resort can walk on and it is
close to the road. They are pushed up to the road side because of the way the cars
are parking. Even more dangerous is the fact that the cars currently park all the
way up to the curb, or up to the corner, and as they are walking out, they have to
walk outside of those vehicles. Cars coming down towards them do not have an
opportunity to even see that they are coming around the corner especially in the
dark because it is not a very well lit area. It is lit but the lighting is low dim. As far
as this proposal as it stands, I am very much in favor of having this past of having
no parking signs put in. As far as PBRA's concern, we have additional Po`ipu Road
concerns that we would like to address but this is a great first step. I benefit two (2)
ways. One (1) with the Po`ipu Beach Resort Association but more directly as the
General Manager of the Kiahuna Plantation. The safety of the guest and the owners
there is paramount for me.
Ms. Burgess: Everything that Chris said works for all of
us. The lighting coming out of Kaleka is not very great and we were looking at
Kaleka as putting in all of these no parking signs as a great options for not only the
vehicles but for the walking pedestrians along that way. Having a side (inaudible)
on the road to be able to walk and to put their strollers, so, we do agree with this
right now. We know that this is only the first step in looking at major overhauls as
to parking and how to take care of access parking on the road. I do agree. The
Grand Hyatt agrees with this being the first proposal in many more in order to take
care of the solution in the South Shore.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you both for being here. Chris, if we
can put on a map — Exhibit "B." That driveway entrance where you talked about it
being...that this proposal would make it safer for pedestrians? Pedestrians cross
here to get from Kiahuna Plantation to Kiahuna Shopping Center too, right?
Mr. Gampon: Correct.
Ms. Yukimura: It is not just the lateral pedestrian activity
along Po`ipu Road but it is also going across Po`ipu Road that is an issue.
Mr. Gampon: Right, you have people trying to get to the
Shopping Center so they will be coming either from the entrance that is directly...
which we call the west entrance which says "driveway entrance" on the exhibit.
They either coming right from there to cross the road or they are coming from the
Koakea Waiohai entrance, our east entrance, and walking along the road side till
they get there and then cross the street at that location. So, it is a very difficult
situation for some of the people that cross there because there is multiple lanes and
then there is a turning lane as well. Without that extra line of sight especially in
COUNCIL MEETING 58 AUGUST 14, 2013
the dark, and if it is raining, the likelihood of the person crossing the road there
becomes less.
Ms. Yukimura: Is there a crosswalk there?
Mr. Gampon: There is a crosswalk in that location.
Ms. Yukimura: I see. Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: Maybe in the future, with these maps that
are presented, it would be good to see some of those details of crosswalks so we can
see the bigger picture of the traffic flow. Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: Congratulations on being President of Po`ipu
Beach Resort Association because the County has appreciated the partnership to
work on these issues because we know there are a lot more issues to work on, we
are happy that you are in that position. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. Gampon: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: Any further questions?
Mr. Gampon: Can I make a quick statement. I would like
to thank Lyle Tabata and Lee Steinmetz for being diligent in their work. It has
helped us out greatly. This is a fantastic first step and we look forward to being
proactive to finding a solution that we can work with because no parking displaces
people who are parking there now. Some of them or most of them in one side, are
trying to earn a living and we realize that. So, we are trying to find a real solution
along with these safety measures that we are taking.
Ms. Burgess: Lee has been very proactive in his E-mails,
letting us know when this Resolution will come here which helps all of us on the
South Shore to be more proactive in what we are doing and have more discussions.
We are very grateful for the County for doing that with us and all of you listening to
us today because as Chris says there are so many issues happening — not enough
parking lots and people parking all over the road. We need to work together in order
to solve this for the South Shore because this may be coming up in many other
places and not only on the South Shore which is very evident at this time.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you very much for being here. Thank
you, Lee and Lyle for working together with the community. The next registered
speaker is Jeff Kruger. Is Jeff here? It looks like he is not here. Is there anyone
else here who would like to testify on this matter? Seeing no one else, we will then
return to the Council discussion.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Mr. Kagawa: I would also like to commend Public Works,
Lee for your work. Like I said when we had those meetings quite a while ago early
this year, we saw how difficult it was to come to an agreement. As we all know on
Kaua`i, we are not used to be restricted to parking on shoulders but going forward
and meeting the needs of more people exercising, using bikes, and so forth, we need
to think forward about our future, our children, and the safety of our tourist. It is a
COUNCIL MEETING 59 AUGUST 14, 2013
little different that maybe needed to sacrifice how we use to the "Kaua`i way" of just
parking on any shoulder at anytime. Thank you to the people from the visitor
industry for working with our County officials. That is how good legislation comes
out. I look forward to more of that where both sides can agree. Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: I too really appreciate the work that Public
Works have done. The work and input that we received from the Po`ipu Resort
entities there and we all know that this is just the beginning and that we have a lot
of work to do. I think there are so much possibly in terms of keeping the Po`ipu
Resort area a world class designation area because this effects its functionality and
also its attractiveness. We really have to pay attention and we know that there is a
lot more growth projected for the area and if it is only one (1) mode i.e., only the car,
the place will be inundated and pretty dysfunctional. I am grateful for the proactive
planning that is going on and look forward to the continued work. I want those who
wanted more out of this Resolution to know that this is only the beginning too so we
are sorry that we cannot address everything now but no parking is a limited
solution and we want to look at whole cluster of solutions that work together.
Chair Furfaro: I want to echo what JoAnn has said about
the fact that this is the beginning. The fact of the matter is that these are the things
that we can agree on and we can consistently make improvements as we go forward
making improvements along the way as we address establishing these no parking
zones in the Po`ipu Resort area. I think the fact of the matter is our resort area
there is extremely important for us. I want to thank everyone in the resort group,
Larry Dill and his group, Building, and the Planning Department for getting us
started here. I will be supporting this Resolution wholeheartedly.
Ms. Nakamura: Again, thank you all for your work and
collaboration on this because we have had several meetings on this topic from the
first time that it was introduced. I know that there have been a lot of discussions.
Thank you, Stella for the tour that you provided to see firsthand what the concerns
were and I just want to again thank Public Works. Thank you, Lee for getting us to
this point.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-62 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Clerk: The next three (3) items are requesting
additional funds for Special Counsel. Did you want to put that to the end of the
agenda?
Chair Furfaro: Let us put that to the end of today's agenda.
LEGAL DOCUMENTS:
C 2013-288 Communication (06/28/2013) from the Mayor, recommending for
Council approval, the following:
COUNCIL MEETING 60 AUGUST 14, 2013
• Dedication Deed by Isabel M. Parraga, conveying to the
County of Kauai Remnant Lot "A," Kalaheo Homesteads,
Kalaheo, Koloa, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, for roadway widening
purposes.
Mr. Kagawa moved to approve C 2013-288, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and carried by
6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
C 2013-289 Communication (07/12/2013) from the Mayor,
recommending for Council approval, the following:
• Dedication Deed by KMN LLC, conveying to the County of
Kaua`i Lot 19-B-10, Wailua, Puna, Kauai, Hawai`i for utility
and roadway purposes.
Mr. Kagawa moved to approve C 2013-289, seconded by Ms. Yukimura.
Chair Furfaro: Members, any discussion? If not, I would like
a follow-up from the County Attorney's Office as we often refer to this district as
Kawaihau. I had this question before. It is legally described as the Puna District. I
want to make sure that we are on the same page for this Wailua area as the Puna
District.
The motion to approve C 2013-289 was then put, and carried by a 6:0:1 vote
(Mr. Bynum was excused).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PL 2013-07) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PL 2013-02 Communication (07/24/2013) from Committee Chair
Nakamura, requesting the presence of the Director of Planning to provide a
status report on the renewal of Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) Certificates
and a briefing on any administrative or court proceeding(s) involving TVR
applications, certificates, or operations,"
Mr. Rapozo moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Kagawa, and carried
by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES / PUBLIC SAFETY / COMMUNITY
ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-EPR 2013-10) submitted by the Environmental Services /
Public Safety / Community Assistance Committee, recommending that the following
be Approved.
"C 2013-269 Communication (07/17/2013) from the Prosecuting
Attorney, requesting Council approval to establish and hire one (1) fifty
percent (.50) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Office of the Prosecuting Attorney
(OPA) Special Investigator position on an 89-day contractual basis utilizing
funding currently budgeted in OPA,"
COUNCIL MEETING 61 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Kagawa.
Mr. Rapozo: I have a question and it is more of a process
question. This item was to create a new position. Does that not require a Council
action and not a Committee? This was approved in the Committee.
Chair Furfaro: Actually, this is a very interesting point of
view. The fact of the matter is although this was not splitting a position into two (2)
half times...
Mr. Rapozo: It is creating a new position.
Chair Furfaro: This is creating a new position regardless of
the fact that the position that was previously established was reduced to half time.
Al, can you research that first and we will come back to this item. Thank you for an
excellent question.
Mr. Rapozo: It just seems like anytime the creation of a
position whether it is half-time, full-time, we are creating a new number would
require a full Council vote and not a Committee vote.
Chair Furfaro: We will come back to this Committee
Meeting item. Next item. Al, you are going to look at that with some urgency?
Thank you.
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. PWPR 2013-22) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2013-12 Communication (05/21/2013) from Committee
Chair Kagawa, requesting the presence of the County Attorney to provide an
update on the status of the "Roads in Limbo,"
Mr. Rapozo moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Kagawa, and carried
by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2013-61 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL
ZONE FOR KING KAUMUALI`I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LIHU`E DISTRICT,
COUNTY OF KAUAI: Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2013-
61, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Ms. Nakamura: I think this is a good plan. I have received
some concerns from residents in that area about the speed of cars. This helps to
address some of the resident concerns especially right around that school area.
Thank you very much.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-61 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 62 AUGUST 14, 2013
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Resolution No. 2013-63 — RESOLUTION REPEALING AN EXISTING
CROSSWALK ON MENEHUNE ROAD, WAIMEA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF
KAUAI Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2013-61, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo.
Ms. Yukimura: I have a question of Public Works.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Yukimura: Is there a safe alternative way for the
students to walk and I see there is an existing crosswalk too, the fire station, but
are there sidewalks there?
Mr. Dill: The crosswalk that we are proposing for
removing here today is at the bottom of the wooden staircase that goes up that slope
that has been neglected, abandoned, and to be removed by the State because it is
State property. So, since that crosswalk leads to nowhere after that staircase is
gone, we are proposing to remove the crosswalk. The other crosswalk leads to a path
on the west side of Menehune Road that climbs the slope and arrives at the same
location, so it serves as the same purpose that this one did.
Ms. Yukimura: So people can actually...they do not have to
go to Kaumuali`i Highway, they can actually get up there around where the social
hall is?
Mr. Dill: It is just mauka of the fire station but on top
you are talking about the social hall?
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Dill: Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Yukimura: That is what we called "goat trails."
Mr. Dill: I would characterize after you get off the
wooden staircase is a goat trail but the other crosswalk leads to actually a paved
path with a handrail.
Ms. Yukimura: I see. That sounds like the good alternative.
There was certain logic for that pathway behind the fire station, it seemed, and so
there is actually an alternative?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: Did you get any community feedback or had
the chance to talk to anyone in the community?
COUNCIL MEETING 63 AUGUST 14, 2013
Mr. Dill: Yes, we did speak to the West Kaua`i
Business Association and they have been requesting removal of the stairs and also
the crosswalk.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-63 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Resolution No. 2013-64 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Richard J. Jose):
Mr. Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2013-64, seconded by Ms.
Yukimura, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Resolution No. 2013-65 — RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE CLOSURE OF
THE HANAMA`ULU POST OFFICE: Mr. Rapozo moved for adoption of Resolution
No. 2013-65, seconded by Ms. Yukimura.
Mr. Rapozo: This issue came up years ago when the
Federal Government was thinking about doing away with the Hanama`ulu Post
Office and we heard the community concerns back then. The concerns have not
changed. Subsequent to the fire, I guess, there is talk again of not rebuilding the
Post Office and if you read the Resolution it is quite clear that the community really
needs that Post Office. I think it is a great location for the Hanama`ulu community
and not only the Hanama`ulu community believe it or not, others will utilize that
facility simply because they do not want to go into Lihu`e. Especially with the mess
the is in Lihu`e right now, I think that will serve as an alternate location. This is a
message to the postal department saying to keep Hanama`ulu there. It serves a
purpose at this point and I think the community...lead by Mr. Eddie Sarita, the
spearhead from that community asking us to help them out. This is what this is
about and I am asking for your support. Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: I first want to thank Councilmember Rapozo
for introducing this Resolution because I think it is good for this local governmental
body to speak. I realized as I was thinking about the whole situation that this is a
smart growth issue to have services in a town that basically within walking and
biking distances. I just wanted to add to the "whereas" in the Resolution.
COUNCIL MEETING 64 AUGUST 14, 2013
Ms. Yukimura moved to amend Resolution No. 2013-65 as circulated, as
shown in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as Attachment 1,
seconded by Ms. Nakamura.
Chair Furfaro: Do you want to read the addition of the
"whereas" for the public?
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. "Whereas, the elimination of the
Hanamd'ulu Post Office is contrary to the "smart growth" principle of providing, in
towns, essential services within walking and biking distances of residences; now,
therefore."
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I would like to now take a vote
on the Floor Amendment.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2013-65 was then put and carried by a
6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
Ms. Nakamura: I am going to support the Resolution but I
think really the underline issue of concern is a permanent community meeting
facility gathering place. The Post Office recently posted a six (6) months loss of
three point one (3.1) billion dollars and a nineteen billion dollars loss in eighteen
(18) months. Realistically, I think they have to make cuts just to survive in the area
of internet and social media. They just cannot compete. I think that our long-term
goal or medium-term goal as a County should be to look at the social
meeting/gathering place community center for the Hanamd'ulu community.
Ms. Yukimura: I totally agree. One of the reasons the smart
growth principles would be interesting to apply to the Post Office and to even our
services is the idea of removing rural routes because it is trying to service a really
sparsely inhabited area and putting Post Offices in more urban areas. The idea of a
community center has been something that the Hanamd'ulu community has been
working on for quite a while and I think we even have a Council Resolution
supporting that. I think that idea is a very good and viable one.
Chair Furfaro: I too would like to say that the postal service
is in a very difficult position financially. I also want to say that in the last five (5)
years the North Shore have added home delivery and it is kind of contrary to the
thinking of having a central post office that you can walk to. I will certainly be
supporting this but I am not really clear on the postal service strategic thinking
where you are closing post offices on one (1) hand and then you are adding rural
route delivery on the other. I will be supporting this, Mr. Rapozo and we will take it
from there.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-65 as amended to Draft 1 was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
COUNCIL MEETING 65 AUGUST 14, 2013
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2464, Draft 1 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 8, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE: Ms. Yukimura moved for
adoption of Bill No. 2464, Draft 1, on second and final reading, and that it be
transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Nakamura, Rapozo
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
There being no objections the rules were suspended.
JENNIFER S. WINN, Deputy County Attorney: Good afternoon. Chair, should
I read all the Executive Sessions?
Chair Furfaro: Yes, go ahead.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-663 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Section 92-4, 92-
5(a)(4) and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney, on behalf of the Council, requests an Executive Session to allow the
Council to consult with the County Attorney and Kaua`i Police Department on the
Kaua`i Police Department's protocol and procedures for the handling of drug crimes
and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the
powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the
County as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-664 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Section 92-4
and 92-5(a)(4), (6) and (8), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the purpose
of this Executive Session is to provide the Council with a briefing on Kathleen M.
Ah Quin v. County of Kaua`i, Department of Transportation, et al., Civil No. 08-
00507 JMS BMK, U.S. District Court, and related matters. This briefing and
consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities
and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-665 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4, 92-
5(a)(4), and Section 3.07(e) of the Kauai County Charter, the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide the Council
with a briefing on the retention of special counsel to represent the Planning
Department in TVR appeals and related matters. The briefing and consultation
involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or
liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-666 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4
and 92-5(a)(4) and (8), and Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of
this Executive Session is to provide the Council with a briefing in Lynell Tokuda, et
al. vs. Chris Calio, et al., Civil No. 13-1-0049 JRV (Fifth Circuit Court), and related
matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties,
COUNCIL MEETING 66 AUGUST 14, 2013
privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate
to this agenda item.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Castillo, do you have something for us so
we can close out some other business. I am going to excuse you for now, Ms. Winn.
Mr. Rapozo posed us a question about a conversion of a position into two (2) half
time positions versus actually showing it as a new position number. Have you been
able to research that?
ALFRED B. CASTILLO, JR., County Attorney: Yes, I have.
Chair Furfaro: Where should we be at?
Mr. Castillo: My understanding is that this matter went
to Committee under 2013-269 and it is before the Council now as CR-EPC 2013-10.
The manner in which this matter is agenda is what I would call "form of a
substance" and the Committee approved this endeavor and it is before the full
Council now. The full Council is not prohibited from voting on this matter as its
form, it has been done before, and I do not see any prohibition for this Council to
vote on this matter as it is agenda today.
Chair Furfaro: Okay, let us say I voted on this item, can I
post for next week an item that actually has a position number attached to it?
Mr. Castillo: Chair, I guess, yes. You could also take it
off, defer it, put it on... do a different agenda and do it that way too.
Chair Furfaro: We have three (3) options in front of us.
Mr. Castillo: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Vote as it came from the Committee, put a
new item next week with a position number, or do both?
Mr. Castillo: It is up to you, Chair.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Mr. Rapozo: I am under the impression that if we are
going to create a position that it needs to be posted as such with the Council. This
is a Committee Report. We are approving the report.
Chair Furfaro: I am suggesting that we do both.
Mr. Rapozo: I guess my point is approving the Committee
Report...
Chair Furfaro: Does not create the position number.
Mr. Rapozo: That is my understanding. That it needed to
go through the full Council. This is not...basically, we are just approving the
Committee Report. I would have much rather seen it go...come through the Council
COUNCIL MEETING 67 AUGUST 14, 2013
versus a Committee because if this is the way we do things then it requires only
three (3) votes to create a position.
Chair Furfaro: Your point is well taken. Let us vote on
approving this with the fact that in two (2) weeks, I am going to have a position
number here.
Clerk: Instead of a position number, we could list
C 2013-269 again for Council approval?
Mr. Rapozo: I have a suggestion that the Committee
Report needs to be approved.
Chair Furfaro: That is what I just said and then we have it
again for the Council with... I want a position number.
Mr. Rapozo: Right, but this would be approved today.
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: So, we would not see this again?
Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: And if in fact that...I do not remember doing
this in the past in a Committee. I think it was always on the Council but if the
research shows it then that is fine.
Chair Furfaro: I am going to make a leadership decision
here. We are going to approve the Committee Report, and we are going to post it for
the full Council to approve one (1) more time. So, we will vote on both. Your point is
well taken. That shakes out any question because we have done it both ways
before, we are going to do it again twice.
The motion to approve Committee Report No. CR-EPR 2013-10 was then put, and
carried by a 6:0:1 vote (Mr. Bynum was excused).
Chair Furfaro: To the Clerk, special attention to posting this
in the next meeting as a new position.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Mr. Rapozo moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-663, ES-664,
ES-665, and ES-666, seconded by Mr. Kagawa, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR CONVENING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION: Hooser, Kagawa,
Nakamura, Rapozo, Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST CONVENING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum TOTAL — 1.
COUNCIL MEETING 68 AUGUST 14, 2013
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:38 p.m.
The Council reconvened at 4:58 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Ms. Nakamura was excused from the Council Meeting.
C 2013-285 Communication (08/02/2013) from the County Attorney,
requesting authorization to expend additional funds up to $10,000 to enable Special
Counsel's continued representation in Kathleen M. Ah Quin vs. County of Kaua`i,
Department of Transportation, et al., Civil No. CV08-00507 JMS BMK, U.S. District
Court, and related matters: Ms. Yukimura moved to approve C 2013-285, seconded
by Mr. Kagawa.
Chair Furfaro: There is no one in the audience for public
testimony.
The motion to approve C 2013-285 was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum, Nakamura TOTAL — 2,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
C 2013-286 Communication (08/02/2013) from the County Attorney,
requesting authorization to expend funds up to $15,000 for Special Counsel's
continued services provided for the County of Kaua`i in Lynell Tokuda, et al. vs.
Chris Calio, et al., Civil No. 13-1-0049 JRV (Fifth Circuit Court), and related
matters: Ms. Yukimura moved to approve C 2013-286, seconded by Mr. Kagawa,
and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum, Nakamura TOTAL — 2,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
C 2013-287 Communication (08/02/2013) from the County Attorney,
requesting authorization to expend funds up to $50,000 to retain Special Counsel to
represent the Planning Department in Transient Vacation Rentals (TVR) appeals
and related matters: Ms. Yukimura moved to approve C 2013-287, seconded by
Mr. Kagawa.
Mr. Kagawa: Back when we had the decision for the 3.17, I
voted "no" but I wanted to see some improvement and I need to see more and hope
that the Planning Department will step up their game even further. The
Councilmembers that did put off the investigation wanted some sincere effort to try
and correct themselves. When the movement of progress is at a snail's pace it does
not feel good to have given them that confidence. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 69 AUGUST 14, 2013
The motion to approve C 2013-287 was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Furfaro TOTAL — 5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Bynum, Nakamura TOTAL — 2,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
Resp ctf 11 •ub itted,
JA 1 D: . ` 0 NTAIN-TA 1 ' A WA
Dep 7 County Clerk
:dmc
ATTACHMENT 1
(August 14, 2013)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2013-65, Relating to Opposing the closure of the Hanamafulu Post
Office
Introduced by: JoAnn A. Yukimura
1. Amend Resolution No. 2013-65 by amending the 7th WHEREAS paragraph to
read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the elimination of the Hanama'u1u Post Office would result in
no post office being within walking distance for the residents of Hanamaculu and
alternate means of travel would be required; and"
2. Amend Resolution No. 2013-65 by adding an 8th WHEREAS paragraph to
read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the elimination of the Hanama4ulu Post Office is contrary to the
"smart growth" principle of providing, in towns, essential services within
walking and biking distances of residences; now, therefore,
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)