HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2014 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 17, 2014
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order
by Council Chair Mel Rapozo at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201,
Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 9:28 a.m., after which the
following members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser (present at 9:33 a.m.)
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Just for the record, Mr. Hooser is
present. He is just in the building on his way up to the Chambers. Can I get a motion
to approve the agenda?
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Chock moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
The motion for approval of the agenda as circulated was then put, and
unanimously carried (Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of
the County of Kauai, Councilmember Hooser was noted as silent (not present),
but shall be recorded as an affirmative for the motion).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Just a little...we are going to
take up item C 2015-16 first. That is the Department of Land and Natural Resources
(DLNR) Koke`e Reforestation Project. Following that, because I anticipate a very
short presentation on that...
ALICE PARKER: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Alice Parker for the
record. I would like to request an installation of Rule 13(e) because I am very sickly.
There are two (2) issues I wanted to speak briefly on.
Council Chair Rapozo: What issues were you...can you have a seat
please?
Ms. Parker: I wanted to speak briefly on two (2) items...
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you have a seat? Just have a seat,
Ms. Parker.
Ms. Parker: Okay. May I?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Ms. Parker: Okay. First on Allan Parachini.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, I am sorry. What are the two (2) items?
You are asking to speak before the meeting...
Ms. Parker: Before the meeting on two (2) items.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Parker: One is the appointment of Allan Parachini
and the other is...what was the other one Scott? Where did Scott go? Oh, the General
Excise Tax.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. This is how the rules operate. I can
suspend the rules by a super majority vote here and we can allow you to testify
because you are sick.
Ms. Parker: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have a problem with that personally.
I do not.
Ms. Parker: And I will be brief.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there are no objections to that, then we will
go ahead and suspend the rules, Ms. Parker, and you may proceed.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Ms. Parker: Thank you Council. As far as Allan Parachini
goes, I think he is very qualified and he had written an article in the paper saying
that the anti-Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) people failed in their creation of
a petition or whatever it was to get enough votes. I think they needed twenty percent
(20%) votes and they got less. They went to the eight percent (8%) rule and I think
that is because it is easier to get the eight (8%) percent than twenty percent (20%),
but I do not feel that he is anti-GMO and I think he is very qualified. He is a fellow
New Yorker so after all.
Second, on the General Excise Tax, I do want to see funds approved for
transportation, but I really prefer a specific excise tax and not general on everything.
Us poor people are really overtaxed. So, if you could put it on specific items and not
a whole General Excise Tax. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Clarifying.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. Councilmember Yukimura has a
question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Alice, so are you saying that you are in favor
of an excise tax that is earmarked for public transportation?
Ms. Parker: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Get well, Alice.
Ms. Parker: Thank you. Do not catch this "Kaua`i crud."
COUNCIL MEETING 3 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Are you staying Alice? Just go get warm.
Okay. Thank you.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: As I was explaining, we will do the Koke`e
Reforestation Project and then at 10:00 a.m. we will go into Executive Session because
we have an attorney from off-island. Then following the Executive Session, we will
go into Communication C 2015-24 which is the release of the County Attorney's
opinions, and then following that, we will do the vote on the veto. Then, we will
resume after that. So, that is the order of the day. With that, can we have the first
item please?
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
October 22, 2014 Council Meeting
November 12, 2014 Special Council Meeting
December 1, 2014 Inaugural Meeting
Councilmember Chock moved to approve the Minutes as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I would like to ask that the December 1st
meeting be deferred because I have not had a chance to read it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The motion is to approve
October 22nd and November 12th. Mr. Chock is that...okay.
The motion to approve the Minutes of October 22, 2014 Council Meeting and
November 12, 2014 Special Council Meeting as circulated was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, a motion to defer.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to defer the Minutes of the December 1, 2014
Inaugural Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, Deputy County Clerk: Next item
would be the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2015-06 Communication (10/21/2014) from the County Engineer and the
Environmental Services Management Engineer, transmitting for Council
consideration, proposed amendments to Ordinance No. B-2014-781, as amended,
relating to the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i, for the Fiscal
COUNCIL MEETING 4 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Year 2014-2015, by establishing a budget line item for "Consultant Services," that
includes the following:
1. Consultant Services for Landfill Wildlife Hazard Assessment— $25,000;
2. Consultant Services for Landfill Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan —
$50,000; and
3. Design Electrical Upgrades to Hanalei and Kapa'a Refuse Transfer
Station — $20,000.
(Department of Public Works — Solid Waste Disposal, Consultant
Services — $95,000)
C 2015-07 Communication (11/12/2014) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council consideration, proposed amendments to Ordinance
No. B-2014-782, as amended, relating to the Capital Budget of the County of Kaua`i,
for the Fiscal Year 2014-2015, to create a mechanism to accept funds for the
Koloa/Po`ipu intersection improvements. (Koloa/Po`ipu Intersection Improvements —
$80,750).
C 2015-08 Communication (11/13/2014) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, the following Mayoral appointees to the
various Boards and Commissions for the County of Kaua`i:
Board of Review
• Donald G. Kolenda — Term ending 12/31/2017
• Julie A. Caspillo — Term ending 12/31/2017
Charter Review Commission
• Allan H. Parachini — Term ending 12/31/2017
Liquor Control Commission
• Gerald S. Matsunaga — Term ending 12/31/2017
C 2015-09 Communication (11/21/2014) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, Mayoral appointee Louis E. Abrams to the
Planning Commission for the County of Kaua`i (Business)— Term ending 12/31/2015.
C 2015-10 Communication (12/02/2014) from the Director of Economic
Development, transmitting for Council consideration, a proposed draft Bill to amend
Chapter 17, Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to public charging of
electric vehicles at County owned charging stations.
C 2015-11 Communication (12/04/2014) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, a proposed draft Bill to amend Section 21-9.1
of the Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to Integrated Solid Waste
Management, to amend the variable rates for the collection of residential refuse.
C 2015-12 Communication (12/08/2014) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution requesting the Legislature of the
State of Hawai`i to amend Chapter 92 of the Hawai`i Revised Statutes, to allow
members of a County Council to jointly attend community meetings.
C 2015-13 Communication (12/08/2014) from Councilmember Kaneshiro,
providing written disclosure of a possible conflict of interest and recusal, relating to
COUNCIL MEETING 5 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Bill No. 2546, Draft 3, Relating To Real Property Taxes (Agronomics / Agricultural
Use Definition / Reporting).
C 2015-14 Communication (12/09/2014) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration and confirmation, the reappointment of
Stephen W. Long to the Kaua`i Historic Preservation Review Commission
(Architecture) for the County of Kaua`i — Term ending 12/31/2017.
C 2015-15 Communication (12/10/2014) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration and confirmation, the reappointment of Ivory
K. McClintock to the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation
Fund Commission (At-Large) for the County of Kaua`i— Term ending 12/31/2017.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, if you could note item
C 2015-06 through C 2015-15 are items on the Consent Calendar. There was a
typographical error (typo) noted on C 2015-10 and C 2015-11 referencing Proposed
Draft Bills. Regarding C 2015-10, it should be Bill No. 2569 and for C 2015-11, it
should be Bill No. 2568. The Bills referenced for First Reading are correct. It was
just a typo on the Consent Calendar.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. So noted. I know there
was somebody that wanted to testify on the Consent Calendar item. Scott? Was there
someone that wanted to testify? I know Mr. Taylor, did you have comments on the
Consent Calendar? If you could come up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. I wanted to speak on this Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2568) I guess it is,
in reference to collection of fees for weekly pickup. I as much as anybody does not
want to see our charges go up, but the reality is we are faced with some major
expenses coming down the pipe in refuge trash collection and new landfill Materials
Recycling Facility (MRF), et cetera. I think as much as I hate to say it, we have to
bite the bullet and raise these fees to move forward in a proper manner to collect our
trash where we are community, and I talk about the whole nation, of over consuming
and when you over consume, you end up with a lot of extra trash. We, at some point
in time, have to face the facts that reality is reality and that now is the time. Do not
keep putting it off and let us start. Before it is all over, it is going to be considerably
higher than what it is today. We have to start someplace and it is very foolish to go
back and change these fees at this time. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Anyone else wishing
to testify on items within the Consent Calendar?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just wondering if the typo is not
substantive in referring people to the wrong Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: The Bill is correct on the agenda.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, but...
COUNCIL MEETING 6 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: This is just the communication that
accompanies the Bill, but the Bill is correct. So, the public does have an opportunity
because on the agenda, the Bills are properly posted.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, but the posting is referring to a wrong
Bill. I guess I would like to ask that we make a formal request to Office of Information
Practices (OIP) to confirm that it is not an issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Staff, if we could make the quick
call and we will take care of that before we get to the Bill. For items C 2015-10 and
C 2015-11, can I get a motion to take that out of the Consent Calendar so we can come
back to that after we get word?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to remove C 2015-10 and C 2015-11 off of the
Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion?
The motion to remove C 2015-10 and C 2015-11 off of the Consent Calendar
was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: So, C 2015-10 and C 2015-11 will be revisited
once we get the word back from OIP. C 2015-14 and C 2015-15 is proper.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, what did we just move?
Council Chair Rapozo: C 2015-10 and C 2015-11.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We need a motion to receive the Consent
Calendar.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, I am sorry. We need a motion to receive.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-06, C 2015-07, C 2015-08,
C 2015-09, C 2015-12, C 2015-13, C 2015-14, and C 2015-15 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: That was to receive all except C 2015-10 and
C 2015-11.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Because those were already deferred.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2015-16 Communication (09/29/2014) from then Council Chair Furfaro,
requesting the presence of the Kaua`i District Branch Manager and the Kaua`i
COUNCIL MEETING 7 DECEMBER 17, 2014
District Forestry Manager of the State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural
Resources, to provide the Council with a briefing on the Koke`e Restoration and
Reforestation Project, scheduled to begin in February 2015: Councilmember Kagawa
moved to receive C 2015-16 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. We have a motion and
a second. Today we have Galen Kawakami Branch Manager from DLNR, Amber
Mokiau-Lee, as well as Patrick Porter Forestry Manager. If you could all come up
and with no objections, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: I believe you have a presentation for us.
GALEN KAWAKAMI, Kauai District Branch Manager of the State of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources: Yes, we do, Mr. Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Could each of you state your name for our
captioner.
Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Galen Kawakami, Branch Manager,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife.
PATRICK PORTER, Kauai District Forestry Manager of the State of Hawai`i
Department of Land and Natural Resources: Pat Porter, Forestry
Manager.
AMBER MOKIAU-LEE, Education and Outreach Specialist: I am
the Education and Outreach Specialist.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you for the opportunity for the briefing
this morning. At this point, I am going to just have Patrick Porter do the PowerPoint
presentation and then after that, we can just briefly go over any further questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter: This is just an informative kind of meeting for
you folks. In this PowerPoint we have the overview of the 2012 Fire Season which is
pretty much what led us here, a brief history of the Burn Area, and our Reforestation
Plan. In the summer of 2012 we had three (3) fires. There was the Miloli`i Ridge
Fire, the Hikimoe Ridge Fire, and the Poki`i Ridge Fire. The first fire, the Miloli`i
Ridge Fire burned about two hundred forty-seven (247) acres. It started May 28th.
We called it controlled June 18th. We had a total of forty-six (46) firefighters. That
was between Forestry, Kaua`i Fire Department (KFD), Pacific Missile Range Facility
(PMRF), and County Public Works fighting that fire.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as not present.)
Mr. Porter: Here are some pictures of it, some crew
working. That is the Miloli`i Ridge burning. That is the crew mobilizing. The second
fire is the Hikimoe Ridge Fire. It burned about seven hundred sixty-five (765) acres.
Polihale Ridge, the Hikimoe Ridge, and the Haielele Ridge. It started June 25th. We
called it controlled on August 2nd. We had a couple of flare ups after that in October
and November. This fire, we had sixty-nine (69) firefighters, three (3) enforcement
officers, and that was all Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), Fire
COUNCIL MEETING 8 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Department, Public Works, and Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement
(DOCARE). Then we contracted heavy equipment and water tenders too for this one.
Here are some pictures of the crew that worked that fire.
The last fire of that summer was the biggest one. It burned two thousand six
hundred (2,600) acres. It started August 17th. We called it controlled on August 23rd.
We had sixty-one (61) firefighters working this fire, four (4) enforcement officers, and
that was all Forestry, DOFAW, KFD, and Public Works. Then we also contracted
heavy equipment and water tenders for that one too. Here are some pictures of that
fire. This is the one right behind Kekaha Town, if you folks remember.
Fire suppression costs between the three (3) fires, it was about one million
three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000),just under that for the total suppression
cost for that summer. A brief history of the project area. This is a picture of Polihale
Ridge if you folks are familiar with the area, in 1938. The fires burned in two (2)
forest reserves, the Na Pali Kona Forest Reserve and the Pu`u Ka Pele Forest
Reserve. There are some dates up there when they were established. The main
reason for establishing these forest reserves was to improve watershed of degraded
areas that were caused by overgrazing of cattle and goats. It was mostly initiated by
the sugar companies at that time. The planting dates of this area was 1960s and
1970s, and the species that were planted were two (2) types of Eucalyptus and two
(2) types of Pines.
This area is part of a Timber Management Area which is also Unit "A" hunting
area. Here is a map of all of the species. Our Reforestation Plan, this is a map of the
project areas. The red checkered areas are the project areas. So, the top one, the
most north one is Miloli`i Ridge and then the lower one is Hikimore, Polihale, and
Haielele Ridge up in Unit A. We broke down this project into three (3) phases. The
first phase is the hazard mitigation of the area, Phase 2 is the actual logging and
hauling operations, and then Phase 3 is the out-planting and reforestation.
Phase 1, roadside hazard tree removal. All of the hazard trees along roadsides
up there, we got rid of. That was approximately six (6) miles that we cleared. We did
erosion control of the area because it had a lot of areas that were bare after the fire.
We did aerial grass seeding about seven hundred (700) acres of the area. Then we
just fixed the roads and trails in the area. The main goal of Phase 1 was to get it open
back up to the public. So, that is pau. It is done and we are able to open it. Here are
some pictures of Pine Plantations and Eucalyptus that burned. They kind of look the
same, right? All burnt.
Phase 2. This is what we are getting into now and the reason why we wanted
to do a lot of outreach, is the logging operations. A minimum of fifteen thousand
(15,000) green tons will be harvested within those burn areas. It is going to start in
February. So, we are looking at the week of February 16th and then it will run to
about the end of May. Then, during that time, they will be hauling these logs down
to the Green Energy Power Plant by Knudsen Gap. The hauling is going to start a
little bit after the cutting starts, and then the hauling will last until we are looking
to probably six (6) to eight (8) months from when it starts. So, around October. Then
the last part of Phase 2 is the site prep for when we go out-plant of reforest the area.
Here is the route that the logging trucks are going to take. So, up at the top
left corner of the slide, it is the loading area. You are going to come out on the
highway, they are going to take the Kekaha way down the highway, the Koke`e Road
side. Then once they hit down Kekaha, they are going to take the old cane road,
bypass Kekaha Town, come out on the highway between Kekaha and Waimea, and
COUNCIL MEETING 9 DECEMBER 17, 2014
then they will be on the highway all the way to Knudsen Gap all the way to power
plant from there.
This is kind of what people can expect to see, this picture. We are going to
have the logging trucks coming down. This is pretty much what it is going to look
like. Then Phase 3 of the project is the out-planting. We are looking at native
hardwoods, Koa, and other hardwoods above the two thousand four hundred (2,400)
foot elevation mark. Then in the drier areas below, we will go with some non-native
high value timber species that will do better in that harsher environment. The
out-planting, we are looking at it for Fall 2015 to tie it up with the rainy season.
Then, there is going to be weed control and ungulate control for the new plants we
put in the ground.
Here is a map that we came up with. I think everybody got this map. It is just
a map of the project area. I think that is it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. I appreciate the
brevity. Mr. Chock, any questions?
Councilmember Chock: Mahalo Chair. Regarding the cost of the fires,
was the just the State's cost or is that inclusive of the County as well.
Mr. Porter: That was just the State.
Councilmember Chock: That was just the State?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Do we have a record of—you folks do not have
record of the County's participation?
Mr. Porter: No. We got a record of their man-hours.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Councilmember Chock: Is that what you folks do, record the
man-hours? In Phase 2 on slide 25, you talk about logger will leave eighty percent
(80%) ground cover. So, that is the space needed to lay the species out?
Mr. Porter: No. So, that is all of the branches and all of
that, they are going to crush it and leave it as ground cover.
Councilmember Chock: I got it. Thank you.
Mr. Porter: For the erosion.
Councilmember Chock: I was not sure what that meant. Thank you,
Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura and then
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Following up on Councilmember
Chock's question about County costs. Oh, I guess I would like to ask our staff to make
a request to our Fire Department to get that cost. I just want to thank you for the
presentation. It is very informative and it is sort of out of our purview unless you are
COUNCIL MEETING 10 DECEMBER 17, 2014
there, but it was a huge effort and I want to thank DLNR Forestry and our
Firefighters, and all of the people who responded.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: My question is what was the cause of the
fires?
Mr. Porter: Well, pretty much all fires on Kaua`i are
human caused whether it is intentional or not, but we do not really know. We know
where it started, but we do not know the actual cause.
Councilmember Yukimura: Could you speak a little louder because I
think not everybody can hear you? Oh, is that not on?
Mr. Kawakami: It is off?
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, maybe just a little louder and closer.
Mr. Porter: We do not know the cause. We know where
they started, but not the cause of it. They are all human caused.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is human caused to the extent...I mean, it
is human caused, but you do not specifically?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is a huge cost to have caused. Is there
any thought about how to prevent it?
Mr. Porter: Well, we have a prevention program through
Forestry and we work closely with KFD on that prevention program. That is pretty
much what we would do about that.
Councilmember Yukimura: These were three (3) fires in the same year?
Mr. Porter: In the same summer.
Councilmember Yukimura: In the same summer?
Mr. Porter: Between May to August.
Councilmember Yukimura: Was it also due to conditions?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I mean, was it not extremely dry? It was
2012. What year?
Mr. Porter: Yes, 2012. Summer of 2012.
Councilmember Yukimura: Was that extremely dry conditions?
Mr. Porter: It was. It was more of a drought condition
that summer, yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 11 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: If it was intentional, was it copycat? I mean,
you have no idea?
Mr. Porter: Yes, I do not...
Councilmember Yukimura: I mean, I am just asking about prevention
because the cost is so great to everybody.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Then, I just have this concern about
the trucking. I really appreciate that you are giving all of us notice. How many trucks
per day?
Mr. Porter: We are looking at a maximum of ten (10).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Porter: But we are not sure. We are still working
with Department of Transportation (DOT) and the times that the trucks can be on
the road.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that would...
Mr. Porter: Because of traffic issues.
Councilmember Yukimura: That would be a good thing.
Mr. Porter: Yes. We are in close contact with them and
we are working with them closely.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. If we can see slide 26 where you show
the map. The turnoff, can we put that up, please? The turnoff is before the tree
tunnel coming from Lihu`e?
Mr. Porter: Yes. There will be a left turn off of the
highway.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that is going to be a left turn, which is a
tricky one.
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are there any plans to address that potential
problem?
Mr. Porter: Yes. We have already met with Ray
McCormick from DOT about that and we are coming up with a plan right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Alright, thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anymore questions for DLNR?
Mr. Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for the
presentation. You went pretty quickly, but I had a couple of follow-up questions along
COUNCIL MEETING 12 DECEMBER 17, 2014
the lines of what Councilmember Yukimura asked. You said ten (10) trips per day.
How long a period like when approximately will it start, what month, and how many
days or months will it last?
Mr. Porter: For the hauling?
Councilmember Kuali`i: For the hauling.
Mr. Porter: It will probably the ending of February is
when we are looking to start hauling, and it will be six (6) to eight (8) months
depending how many truck loads they can get a day. We are looking to be ending in
about October.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on real quick. I am sorry. It is the
ending of February, right?
Mr. Porter: This February, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Six (6) to eight (8) months. What you are
hauling is the trees that have been burnt?
Mr. Porter: Yes, it is only in the burn area.
Councilmember Kuali`i: In the burn area, there are that many trees
that need to be hauled away?
Mr. Porter: Yes, it is over seven hundred (700) acres.
Councilmember Kuali`i: In slide number 24 when you say, "Pine
Plantation" and "Eucalyptus Plantation," I am curious as to the word "plantation."
This is all State lands?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is it operated by some private operator that
have grown those trees for a particular purpose?
Mr. Porter: No, it is all State land.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just the word "plantation" has nothing to do
with...
Mr. Kawakami: It is just basically a forestry kind of term...
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Mr. Kawakami: ...when regarding just doing any kind of
planting operation on our lands. It is kind of a national standard. When you plant
trees in the mainland, they call them "plantations." It is just a forestry kind of term.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. The primary purpose is to remove
those trees some of which are not native, and to replace them with the Koa. So, that
is why reforestation. When you talked about hauling to the Green Energy Power
Plant, basically, these are just trees that we need to get rid of and green energy is
COUNCIL MEETING 13 DECEMBER 17, 2014
going to take it off of our hands as a State. So, we just have to get it to them. Are
they playing a role in any way contributing other than accepting the dead trees?
Mr. Porter: Well, we are selling it to them.
Councilmember Kuali`i: You are selling it to them?
Mr. Porter: We are going to make a little bit back on what
we are putting into this project.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. That is good to know. You talked about
all of the costs, but now there is some revenue coming too.
Mr. Porter: Yes, a little bit.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But not much.
Mr. Porter: Not much, but a little bit.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Then I guess the other piece is on slide 21, you
talked about the restoration project area, but I do not know if you talked about how
many acres that entails as far as what will be replanted and how many trees that will
entail.
Mr. Porter: The total acreage is over seven hundred (700)
acres, but the actual planting sites is just the tops of the ridges. It cuts is down to
about maybe, for out-planting purposes, just a little more than four hundred (400)
acres.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Do you have any idea how many trees? Are
they all Koa?
Mr. Porter: That we are going to put back? We are going
to do mixed natives.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Mixed natives.
Mr. Porter: Yes, but mostly hardwood because this is a
Timber Management Area. We are going to put back hardwood timber species.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. Then, the last question has to do with
slide 19 where you talked about something management area. I did not catch it.
Then, I think you said "Unit A Hunting Area."
Mr. Porter: Yes. This area is considered a Timber
Management Area within a forest reserve, and it is also Hunting Unit "A".
Councilmember Kuali`i: Based on this hunting area, what do you
anticipate all of this operations for the six (6) to eight (8) month period, what kind of
impact will it have on the hunters and the hunting in that area?
Mr. Porter: Hunting is only on weekends and holidays
already. So, we are just going to keep it the same, weekends and holidays.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The operations will happen Monday through
Friday and hunting can still happen on weekends?
COUNCIL MEETING 14 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Mr. Porter: Yes, hunting will still be open.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just to get back on looking at the impact of
the possible traffic during that time of hauling. These ten (10) trucks will make
two (2) trips per day?
Mr. Porter: There probably is going to be five (5) trucks
that do it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Oh, five (5) trucks doing it?
Mr. Porter: Doing two (2) runs.
Councilmember Kagawa: So, ten (10) total?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Did we ever have a large fire of this
magnitude because you were there for quite a while?
Mr. Kawakami: Well, the last big fire we had was in 1967 that
burned Hanalei Valley, the whole backside of Hanalei Valley. That was about two
thousand nine hundred (2,900) acres. That was in June of 1967. So, that was the
largest fire we ever had on island until the summer of 2012 as far as total acreage. It
has been forty-five (45) years from the Hanalei fire to the Koke`e fires. It has never
been that big before on Kaua`i, and for a lot of the audience and a lot of people do not
remember the 1967 fire. Because of the whole acreage and our ability to respond to
it in 2012, we had to pull our off-island firefighters within our Division to come and
assist Patrick as well as the County Fire Department and PMRF. It was a really big
fire season for us. Thankfully the past two (2) summers, we really have not had that
many fire pop up again.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else with any
questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: On your slide 28 where you talk about your
out-planting and doing the tops of the ridges, four hundred (400) acres. Who will be
doing that work?
Mr. Porter: We will contract a lot of it out and then Amber
is going to work on a volunteer program that we are going to get going to try to get
the community involved too.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I suggest the possibility of some of the
Kaua`i Community Correctional Center (KCCC) people, the correctional facility?
Mr. Porter: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Those who are light security of whatever it is,
because it might be for some of them, good to get out in the open.
Mr. Porter: Yes, that is a good idea. Our counterparts on
the other islands use inmate crews.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions? If not,
thank you very much.
Mr. Porter: Thank you very much.
Ms. Mokiau-Lee: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: You covered it all in your presentation. I
appreciate that. Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just one (1) last question. I have to have —I
wrote her name down.
Mr. Kawakami: Amber.
Councilmember Kagawa: Amber Mokiau-Lee. Amber, I just have to ask
this question. Is there any Shearwaters up there in that forest reserve? I am
wondering if any Shearwater habitats were up there that may have been affected.
Ms. Mokiau-Lee: I do not...yes, I do not think in this area. They
are a little higher.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just needed you to talk.
Council Chair Rapozo: She has the toughest job. She has outreach.
Once those trucks start running, you know.
Ms. Mokiau-Lee: I know, you will be seeing us. Thank you.
Happy Holidays.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone in the audience wishing
to testify? Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Mel. For the record, Glenn
Mickens. Thank you, BC. Since we are talking about fires and proliferation of some
of these invasive species, and I really appreciate the work these people are doing.
Why are we not talking about the Guinea Grass that is proliferating around this
island? I walked around everyday miles long of roads. I see our crews, they can use
backpacks to spray Roundup to kill it, but they cannot use tanks on their trucks. That
is kind of ridiculous to me. Either you can or you cannot use it. It is a fire hazard
when this Guinea Grass dries up. It is a big fire hazard. Somebody come and drops
a match in there, it is going to take off. I am sure all of you folks have seen this every
place you go on this island, the Guinea Grass gets worse and worse. It grows like, I
COUNCIL MEETING 16 DECEMBER 17, 2014
do not know, two (2) or three (3) inches a night. You can watch them crawl along and
cut it. A week later, it is back up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Mickens: It is a real problem. I am just wondering why
we are not doing more for it. We get our crews to go around. Well, two (2) weeks
later it is back up and they are going back the same thing. You have to go by fence
lines and it is a real bear for them to go along the fence lines and try and take these
sickle cutters to be able to get around the fence and things. It is a real job. I think
they should be allowed to go ahead and spray it, kill it, and do what they can to
eradicate it. Anyway, that is my...
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Mel.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: There is a motion and a second to receive. Is
there any further discussion?
The motion to receive C 2015-16 for the record was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next is the Executive
Session. Can we have the Executive Session item read, please?
There being no objections, ES-775 was taken out of order.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-775 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4,
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide a briefing and
request for authority to settle the case of Ernesto G. Pasion vs. County of Kaua`i, et
al., Civil No. 13-1-0340 (Fifth Circuit Court), 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.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion please?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-775,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Anyone in the audience
wishing to testify? Please come up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you again, Mel. Thank you, BC. I
know I am going to sound repetitive in some of the things I am going to say, but this
is a very, very serious matter as far as I am concerned. You have a copy of my
COUNCIL MEETING 17 DECEMBER 17, 2014
testimony. Let me read it for the viewing public. Many members of the public who
have appreciated an supported the great work that our County Auditor Ernie Pasion
has done in his four (4) years in office sit here in disbelief as an unprecedented thirty
second Executive Session (ES) is being held regarding his work. Hard clear facts
show by the eight (8) audits he finished what a superlative job he has done. Even
those who were audited agree with the false that need correcting and are in the
process of changing them. The only huge caveat that has caused this unjust lawsuit
litigation, physical, and mental harm to our Auditor to continue was his "by the book"
audit and uncover of the illegal use of a County gas card by our Mayor. Along with
this audit discovery came a thirty-two percent (32%) cut to his operating budget by
the Administration and approved by Furfaro chaired Council, in essence making the
operation of his job impossible, a vindictive move that was clearly based on the
outcome of an audit that was going after the issue and not the party. Ironically, none
of Mr. Pasion's audits were meant to point the finger at any one person, but to simply
find out where our government operations can be improved. Nobody would argue
with that. The chips had to fall where they had to fall. If a person or persons were
found to be guilty, then the audit was the fault, not the Auditor. Let us hope that
this is the final ES and that a fair settlement can be reached eliminating our need to
have a court battle that will only cost the taxpayers more money. Let Ernie get back
to being the people's champion by putting efficiency back in our government
operation. Kaipo read you two (2) statements here, I think two (2) weeks ago or last
week from Councilmembers who applauded Ernie when he was hired. Let us not
forget what a fine person we have and need for this job.
I just hope the members of this Council take these things into serious
consideration. Again, the honesty and integrity of this person is beyond doubt, one
of the best that I have seen in my twenty-five (25) years of coming to Kaua`i. He is
honest. He did his job. He did it by the book without prejudice. He was not after
anybody, but he did the job he was hired to do. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Mr. Mickens. Anyone
else wishing to testify?
JOE ROSA: For the record, Joe Rosa. Number
thirty-two (32) Executive Session. I think it is going on too long. We got a new
Administration. Hopefully, that will put an end to it and get this thing settled. You
talk about people being affected physically. So, does Mr. Pasion. It is a strenuous
thing for him. How would you like to be with something hanging over your head for
years? Thirty-two (32) Executive Sessions, nothing accomplished. In a court of law,
if there is a hung jury, people go free. Now, if he has done his job and he has ruffled
some people's feathers, that is his job. He was hired to do that. What more can you
expect from a person who went ahead and has done seven (7) audits and only as to
which the public knows about two (2) of them? The Kiilauea Gym and the so called
controversial "gas card." There are five (5) other audits that the public is waiting to
be told about. What is the delay? If people's jobs were going to be affected, well, let
it be because the law is the law. I remember the Federal auditors when they come
down and do our job on State jobs, they say, "Do not try to hide anything because you
will be just as guilty as the one that is trying to put it under the rug." Those are the
things you can think about. If heads have to fall, it will have to be. You cannot be
using all of our taxpayer's money for continuous Executive Sessions and things as
such. It is high time that this things is settled. We have a new Administration, new
bodies, and like I just said, it is just as strenuous for Mr. Pasion as anybody else that
is involved in it on this audits. I will leave you with that thought. Put an end to it
and get this thing done once and for all. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 18 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Rosa. Hang on, we have a
question from...hand on, Mr. Rosa. Question from Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi, Joe. Are you aware that it takes two (2) to
settle?
Mr. Rosa: Yes, I am aware of it. I know law. I served on
jury panels, JoAnn.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Rosa: I am a little ahead of you. I served on eight (8)
jury panels and Federal jury panels also.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, you do not want...
Mr. Rosa: I served my Country.
Councilmember Yukimura: You do not want us to go to court though,
right?
Mr. Rosa: Well, hey, the audits were for a reason to
expose irregularities in government operations. There were seven (7) of it that were
completed and the public only knows two (2).
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Rosa.
Mr. Rosa: Why is it "hush hush"?
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Rosa, the question was just if you agreed
that it takes two (2) settle and I think you answered that.
Mr. Rosa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rosa: Yes, okay. Thank you, Mel.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions? Thank you
very much. Anyone else wishing to testify? Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. Thirty-two (32) audits. I do not know how much time and money has
been spent on thirty-two (32) audits, but it would be very nice for the public to have
an accounting of what those closed sessions consumed in time and money.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think you mean thirty-two (32) Executive
Sessions.
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think you mean thirty-two (32) Executive
Sessions.
Mr. Taylor: Right. I am sorry.
COUNCIL MEETING 19 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Not audits.
Mr. Taylor: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, you had Councilmember Yukimura
jerking. You see when the light blinks like that, that means we stopped your time.
So, you are not getting charged.
Mr. Taylor: It is time for this item to be settled. Yes, it
takes two (2) people to settle a situation, but if the party trying to settle does not
make a legitimate offer, it is not going to happen and we will go onto to court. In lieu
of time, I will just say that I agree with the comments that Mr. Mickens made and I
will leave it at that. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Anyone
else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Hearing none, can
we get a roll call, please?
The motion to convene in Executive Session for ES-775 was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa,
Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Yukimura,
Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. We will recess this portion of the
meeting. We will go into Executive Session. I anticipate about a forty-five (45)
minute Executive Session. We will come out of Executive Session and do the release
of the County Attorney's opinions, and then go to the audit vote. With that, we stand
at...I am sorry. Veto. What did I say? Audit. See Mr. Taylor, you got me thinking
audits. Veto vote. Thank you, Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:12 a.m. to concenve in
Executive Session.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:41 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The meeting is now called back to
order. Next up will be...can you read C 2015-24, please?
There being no obejctions, C 2015-24 was taken out of order.
C 2015-24 Communication (12/10/2014) from Councilmember Yukimura,
requesting Council consideration, for the public release of the following County
Attorney opinions relating to Bill No. 2546, Draft 3:
COUNCIL MEETING 20 DECEMBER 17, 2014
1. County Attorney Opinion dated August 1, 2014
(Tracking No. 14-1504)
2. County Attorney Opinion dated September 4, 2014
(Tracking No. 14-1883)
3. County Attorney Opinion dated October 10, 2014
(Tracking No. 14-2012)
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion? Oh, sorry. Hang on real
quick.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just to err on the side of caution, I am going
to recuse myself from this issue. I have a letter that is going to Board of Ethics, but
unfortunately it is not going to get ruled on by today. I am going to recuse myself.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you very much. Let the record
reflect Mr. Kaneshiro will be leaving the meeting and recusing himself.
(Councilmember Kaneshiro was noted as recused.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Are you going to state a motion?
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve C 2015-24, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the County Attorney has told me
verbally that he has no objections. I do not know that I have seen a signed...
Council Chair Rapozo: It has come back.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: They have signed that they do not have an
objection to the release of the opinions.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion before I ask for public
testimony? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-24 was then put and carried by a vote of 5:1:0:1
(Councilmember Kagawa voting no, Councilmember Kaneshiro recused).
Council Chair Rapozo: 5:1. Next item.
COUNCIL MEETING 21 DECEMBER 17, 2014
MAYORAL VETO:
Bill No. 2546, Draft 3 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 5A, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
REAL PROPERTY TAXES (Agronomics / Agricultural Use Definition / Reporting)
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Can I get a motion? Nobody
wants to make a motion?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to sustain the Mayoral veto; Pursuant to
Section 4.03 of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, seconded by
Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded for discussion purposes.
Discussion? If not, anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we get a roll call, please? The motion is
to sustain the Mayor's veto.
Councilmember Hooser: I do have discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, thank you, Chair. Clearly there was
not any rush to make motions on this issue. I think that those of us that know how
to count, which is all of us, understand that there are not sufficient votes to override
the veto, number one. While I appreciate the recusal and the consideration of
Councilmember Kaneshiro and his concern about perception, that effectively is a"no"
vote. An absence is a "no" vote also. The opportunity to override, I would personally
like to override the veto, but I know there is not enough votes, but I would like to
speak on this. Before I speak, I had questions for the Administration. I am gathering
my thought here if you would bear with me for a second.
Council Chair Rapozo: The Administration is here?
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Hooser: My questions initially pertain to the policy
decision. Good morning, Managing Director. Right now, our existing County tax
policy allows different treatment for different types of agriculture. We treat
pasture/grazing one way, we treat diversified agriculture one way, we treat tree
farming another way, and we treat vacant land still another way. This policy
proposal essentially proposed to treat research agriculture in another way. Is the
Administration opposed to that policy? Is it just the language in this particular Bill
or is the underlying policy itself that the Administration is opposed to?
COUNCIL MEETING 22 DECEMBER 17, 2014
NADINE K. NAKAMURA, Managing Director: Nadine Nakamura,
Managing Director for the record. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity
to speak and to answer your questions. I think the answer to your question is, yes,
we are opposed to both the Bill and the underlying policy.
(Council Chair Rapozo was noted as not present.)
Ms. Nakamura: As outlined in the Mayor's letter dated
December 3, 2014, the three (3) main points are that we believe that there are
concerns in the way the Bill was written. We believe that it disincentives forms of
agricultural production and most important, and this is I think something that is
really driving this decision, is that the difficulty to implement and enforce given the
current staffing situation in the Real Property Tax Division.
Councilmember Hooser: If I could focus for a second on the policy part.
The Administration, the Mayor poses the policy of treating separate forms of
agriculture separately, but yet we already do that.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Would the Administration want to get rid of
the other separations?
Ms. Nakamura: No, and I think the other point is that even
within the diversified agricultural category, if there is a building, an industrial
warehouse that is taxed at that Industrial rate. If there are office space, it is taxed
at that Industrial rate.
(Council Chair Rapozo was noted as present.)
Ms. Nakamura: So, that is where we receive additional tax
revenues from this diversified agriculture because of the structures that are building
to support that use. We think that is the way we should pursue the discussion.
Councilmember Hooser: That is actually my next question, but back to
the first question. Right now we tax different forms of agriculture in different ways.
The Administration does not support taxing different forms of agriculture in different
ways, is that what you are saying?
Ms. Nakamura: No, I think that we support the current
system and we believe this current system is how we should proceed.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. My next question would then be on the
tax on the highest and best use. I think what you just said was if there is a warehouse
on one thousand (1,000) acres, it should be taxed at the Commercial rate.
Ms. Nakamura: That is how it is currently.
Councilmember Hooser: The full one thousand (1,000) acres.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. No, if it is one thousand (1,000) square
foot office space.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ammar Aammmmamamammaw
COUNCIL MEETING 23 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Nakamura: That land area is taxed at the Commercial
rate.
Councilmember Hooser: I do not know if the Tax Director is here, but
I do not believe that is the current policy.
Ms. Nakamura: I believe...
Councilmember Hooser: I think it is highest and best use. If I have a
home and I am renting out a little space for commercial use, my entire property is
taxed at the Commercial rate, not just the percentage. It is my understanding if you
have an agricultural parcel and there is a commercial use fruit stand or whatever,
the entire parcel is taxed at that rate.
Ms. Nakamura: We can clarify that for you.
Councilmember Hooser: My other question, I have a few questions,
Chair, if I may continue?
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: Back to the ease of implementation, it is my
understanding that every other classification of land, the Tax Department provides
a form and the property owner checks the box, and that is how it is taxed. I am not
clear why that has to be different from these other parcels. Why could the property
owners just indicate the use that they have on their property and the Tax Office tax
it according to that statement which is that they do for every other classification of
land? They ask property owners, "Do you use it for your home? Is it a rental? Is it
commercial? You tell us," and then that is what the Tax Office uses to tax their
property.
Ms. Nakamura: Right. I think the tricky part about this too is
that some of these lease lands are then subleased to other ranchers and smaller
farmers, then crops are rotated, and so forth.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Nakamura: Really, tracking all of this is going to require
additional resources. We are currently losing our Agricultural Appraiser Specialist
who leaves on January 2nd of next year. We are undertaking the agriculture
dedication review process and trying to fix that piece, trying to get staffing on board.
So, adding another level of review, but we believe the timing is not good.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: We believe we need to fix the current big
situation, the staffing issues, deal with some of the problems that we now are on the
table, and that this does not help us to get our house in order.
Councilmember Hooser: The timing is not good. So, another time
would be better?
Ms. Nakamura: Perhaps.
COUNCIL MEETING 24 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Hooser: Perhaps. Okay. Why did the Administration
never oppose this Bill? It has been discussed for seven (7) months and I do not recall
the Administration ever saying, "This is a bad idea. Do not do it."
Ms. Nakamura: I believe that our Finance Director attended
all of the meetings where discussions were held. I think he answered all of the
questions posed. I think he raised concerns along the way.
Councilmember Hooser: Right, but I do not believe the Administration
ever opposed the measure. They have expressed concerns and actually at the end of
the day, they suggested ways to make it better.
Ms. Nakamura: If it was going to be moving in that direction
and to try to improve upon the proposed Bill, I believe suggestions were made. I do
not think that any time the representation was made that the Administration fully
supported this Bill.
Councilmember Hooser: Right, but as a matter of policy that you
stated, the Mayor does not support the policy change. It would have been helpful if
we would have had that information along the way and it would also have been
helpful if we would have had suggestions...the Mayor has also stated in his message
the concerns about constitutionality of the Bill. I do not believe any of those concerns
were raised by the County Attorney's opinions. Did the County Attorney consult with
the Mayor and say, "This may not be Constitutional?"
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: Objection, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Trask: Aloha Honorable Chair and Councilmembers.
For the record, County Attorney, Mauna Kea Trask. Just as a matter of caution, like
the earlier motion to release the County Attorney opinions to the body of the Council
which were the Council's privilege, any discussions that the County Attorney's Office
had with the Mayor relating to this matter pertaining legality or constitutionality are
his privilege. He holds the privilege under Hawaii Rules of Evidence 503. It is
something that the Mayor holds, not the Managing Director. It just puts
Ms. Nakamura in an unfair situation. That is all. Thank you.
Councilmember Hooser: That is fine.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for the clarification.
Councilmember Hooser: I will restate. I am assuming that you and the
Mayor are aware that the County Attorney did not advise us. Have you seen the legal
opinions that we are talking about?
Ms. Nakamura: No I have not.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: Only because they were not made public.
Councilmember Hooser: In terms of the process, we had a seven (7)
month process to pass the Bill and the Administration was here every step of the way.
The process for the veto decision, did the Mayor make that himself? Was he lobbied?
COUNCIL MEETING 25 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Did he consult with the industry? Did he consult with other Councilmembers in
terms of making the decision?
Ms. Nakamura: I think with every Bill that comes across to
the Administration, there is a process that is used so that the Mayor can have the
best information on which to base his decision. He takes every signature on every
Bill seriously. I think he used a very similar process as most other Bills that come
across his desk, is to consult with the appropriate Department Heads, the appropriate
stakeholders, and then arrive at a decision that he is comfortable with.
Councilmember Hooser: Representatives from the industry consulted
with the Mayor of this decision?
Ms. Nakamura: This and every decision that he makes.
Councilmember Hooser: I did not want it so broad that I wanted to
know specifically, and the answer is yes. Did Councilmembers encourage the Mayor
to veto?
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, I think that would be a question for the
Mayor.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, I did ask the Mayor to be here.
Ms. Nakamura: I do need to just specify that during this time
of deliberation, I was out due to a family death. I was not here during that portion of
the deliberation.
Councilmember Hooser: Do you know if Councilmembers encouraged
the Mayor to veto the Bill?
Ms. Nakamura: I have no idea.
Councilmember Hooser: I did ask the Mayor to be here today, but I
know he is a busy man.
Ms. Nakamura: And that is why he sent me.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Could we have that question
answered? I mean, we could put that question in writing.
Ms. Nakamura: I think he was aware of the deliberations that
took place leading up to the Council's decision on that Bill. I am sure he was aware
of the vote that took place.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Nakamura: I do not think if Councilmembers had talked
to him like they do. Most Councilmembers are welcomed to express their opinions.
The Mayor's door is always open to hear concerns, to listen to different points of view.
I would not be surprised if...
Councilmember Hooser: I am just wondering if Councilmembers
encouraged the Mayor or lobbied the Mayor to veto the Bill or they did not. I know I
did not speak to the Mayor about the Bill. Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 26 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Nakamura: But he was very aware of the vote that was
taken and positions.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. That is all I have for now. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Aloha Managing Director. Thank
you for being here.
Ms. Nakamura: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: There was just one (1) thing in terms of the
implementation of the Bill that I think is somewhat misunderstood. I just wanting
to ask a question about it. The way the Bill is written, and I agree with the Mayor
that there are some parts of it that may not be workable, but the way it is written it
says if any part of the parcel is used for regulated crops, then it takes on this new
valuation, the third category of valuation. That valuation, according to Finance
Director Hunt was going to be based not on a parcel by parcel basis, but on a study of
the industry. Just like with diversified crops, we do not go to each lot that has
diversified crops and figure out a value. It was just going to be a per acre value. So,
that would not have required tracking the uses of any parcel. I am not sure there
would be an upfront cost in setting that standard, but after that, the administration
should be pretty simple. Was that you understanding of how the Bill would be
administered or did you see it as hinging on tracking the uses of each parcel?
Ms. Nakamura: It was my understanding that yes, we would
be needing to look at some of the unintended consequences of applying a standard
rate for research related work that might negatively impact smaller ranchers and
smaller farmers.
Councilmember Yukimura: The one thing about the regulated industry
was that it was not going to affect small farmers.
Ms. Nakamura: But if you are looking at one (1) standard rate
applied to the entire acreage, then...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, I would not apply to small farmers
because they are not engaging...
Ms. Nakamura: Even though they are subleasing from the
regulated industry.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, because that would be already
incorporated in the lease rents, the total lease rents of the prime lessee because the
subleases would likely be interim use for fallow lands and so forth or non-productive
lands. Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: Maybe that is one area if there are further...
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, more work.
Ms. Nakamura: ...work done, that would be one of the areas
we would want to clarify.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I think so. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Thank you, Nadine, for being
here. One of the questions that kept coming for me, I think there was a statement
made about it, the Bill being legally flawed. I wanted to just clarify what the
Administration's stand on that was.
Ms. Nakamura: Maybe it might be best if the County Attorney
answered the question.
Councilmember Chock: Sure.
Mr. Trask: For the record, County Attorney, Mauna Kea
Trask. My understanding of the issue and it was stated before this body at the last
Council Meeting, was that the Mayor's veto message really speaks for itself. It says
what it says. My interpretation of it was similar to what Chair Rapozo stated, which
it did not look like it. Although Article 11 Section 3 of the Constitution was sited, as
far as the State's stated policy in regards to agriculture which is essentially to
promote diversified agriculture et cetera. It is not to be characterized as a legal issue.
It is to be characterized as a policy one. As elected officials, given you are in the legal
business, I mean the legislature passes laws, it is what you do. Everything you do
pertains to the law, but you are elected to make those policy calls and relation thereto.
I do not think it was to be characterized as legal flaws. I am not aware of any legal
flaws as to it as stated in the released opinions. I believe it was a policy call based
upon the Mayor's elected right to look at the issues and how he felt about them.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I
think it needed to be said.
Mr. Trask: Okay.
Councilmember Chock: I appreciate it.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Councilmember Chock: Just one (1) more.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Chock: I just wanted to touch upon kind of what the
discussion is here in terms of the process that we are going through. Not being the
introducer, I am not sure what had occurred in terms of support or non-support from
the very beginning. All of our time is very precious and I feel like in retrospect that
a lot of this process could have been streamlined had we worked a little closer in
collaboration with the intent of the Administration throughout the process because I
think it was characterized throughout the process that there was some support in the
direction that we are moving from the original submission to some of the amendments
that later occurred. It is a little bit discerning. It is more of a request that moving
forward, I would like to see that we do not have to end up in this position right now.
While I do agree with some of the findings in terms of policy and the issues that have
been brought up by the Mayor, my hope is that we can move forward much more
expediently together on something that we could work on and find the best solutions
moving forward. I just wanted to state that for the record as well. That is all.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions for
Managing Director? You have one? Go ahead, Mr. Kuali`i.
COUNCIL MEETING 28 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kuali`i: Aloha. Nice to see you here, Nadine. I
support the Mayor's decision and I am satisfied with the Administration's answer to
the questions and the information provided, especially by Steve Hunt. When I look
at this, I am looking at all of real property taxes and we are dealing with the rates
and there has been some changes from 2013 to 2014. This seems to jump out of the
system. I mean, the system is filled with assessments and the rates by the land, but
this one now is singling out a sub-industry of diversified agriculture and is utilizing
lease rents. I do not see how it fits into the whole equitable way to the whole tax
system. Do you think that going forward perhaps in the future, if there is another
attempt at proposing some changes to the tax system that if it did not necessarily
single out a sub-industry of diversified agriculture and looked more maybe at the
differences between perhaps small, independent, organic, and sustainable farming
versus corporate mono-crop farming? I mean, agriculture in that distinction where
it is more about size and impact on the lands as opposed to sub-industries of
diversified agriculture. Do you think perhaps the Administration may be more open
to that?
Ms. Nakamura: Again, to make a differentiation between
maybe organic or non-organic farmers or size and so forth, that creates possibly
another classification. Again, it goes back to resources. It is really a further policy
discussion that we should have around the table hopefully during goal setting and
when we work on our budget, about how much of our resources. At this point, we are
looking at not trying to increase new positions within the County and yet, there are
needs that Councilmembers have identified. I think that is a policy discussion that
we need to have on our agenda moving forward.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you. I just want to say again, thank
you to Steve Hunt and all of the information that he provided with real property tax.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions for
Councilmember Nakamura? I mean I am sorry, Managing Director Nakamura.
Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone in the audience wishing to testify on
this matter?
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion. Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify my
opposition to releasing the County Attorney opinion. It is just my belief that when
we get an opinion, we do not release it as much as possible. I understand if I were
Mayor and I had Bill No. 2491, Draft 2 and I had to justify my decision, releasing in
such a monumental decision may have been necessary. But for me, I will be very
hesitant to consider releasing County Attorney opinions that I receive that I asked
for because many times, the attorney's decision or what he opines on does not
necessarily reflect exactly what would happen should it go to court. For both reasons
to protect the County as well as to protect the County Attorney, I think I would rather
COUNCIL MEETING 29 DECEMBER 17, 2014
keep it to myself. As for this vote for itself, when I asked the question to the Finance
Director, "Does any County in Hawai`i use lease rents to determine appraised values
or assessed values for taxation purposes," and the answer is "no." Again, that is
breaking new ground. When you break new ground, you open yourself up. People
who are going to have large increase in taxes of course they are going to challenge it
when you are breaking new ground. That is why I am very hesitant to break new
ground in areas such as this, huge area such as this. That is why I will be supporting
the Mayor's veto. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more comments or
discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will not be opposing the motion to sustain
even though the basic intent of the Bill, I believe, is sound. I think it could be better
written and I take responsibility for that as the proposer of the amendment that was
adopted. I think we have learned a lot in this process about the agriculture dedication
process and about regulated versus deregulated crops. Throughout this process, my
goal has not been to shut down or target the seed companies, but to reflect actual
agricultural value of the land used for large biotech agriculture because I believe they
are a quantum level higher than conventional or traditional agriculture. Since real
property taxes represent value, I think it is reasonable to tax them based on a
reasonable reflection of their agricultural value. According to our Finance Director,
it would have been approximately fifty dollars ($50) to sixty dollars ($60) per acre
more in taxes, which I do not believe will adversely affect these companies. They will
be arguably paying their fair share in taxes. The estimates range from two hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to five hundred dollars ($500,000) from thirteen
thousand (13,000) to twenty thousand (20,000) acres. The Bill was intended to not
affect small farmers that may be growing GMO crops. I think all of that was good
policy. I do not think we have arrived yet at how to do that and it is something I am
willing to continue to work on because I think it is a reasonable and fair approach.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. I will not be opposing the motion
here as well. I think that there is more work to be done here. So, I am looking forward
to us coming back to the drawing board and also looking at it maybe from broader in
how we might be able to look at how to serve our small farmers as well as all farming
activity on our island. I do have some concerns just about the potential for
displacement to occur. I am wanting to look for ways that we can encourage small
farming, but I think that some things that were pointed out such as those crops
regulated and unregulated, I think, is an issue that needs to be addressed among
other things in the current Bill. I am looking forward to again, working on these
things. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, I will be opposing it just as a matter of
principle. I know it is not going to change anything. In retrospect, the motion to
receive would have been easier to support, but the motion is on the table. It is
frustrating because the underlying policy, I believe, is a very, very valid one, that
different types of activity deserve different types of treatment. That is the way the
County operates now. Hotels get treated one way, timeshares get treated another
way, condominiums get treated another way, if you live in your house you get treated
one way, if you rent it out you get treated one way, and if it is commercial or it is
industrial you get treated differently. So, that is the tax policy that we have today.
In our agriculture tax policy, if you are planting trees you get treated on way, if you
COUNCIL MEETING 30 DECEMBER 17, 2014
are grazing cattle you get treated one way, and if you are doing diversified crops you
get treated otherwise. The policy is the existing policy. I find it rather troubling that
the Administration says they do not support that policy. I think it is very clear that
different actions have different impacts, different types of farming activity has
positive and negative impacts on the environment. There is no question organic
farming has better environmental impacts. There is no question. It treats the soil
better, it is less pesticides, and it is better for the world. There is also no question
industrial agriculture and factory farming that uses high levels of pesticides has more
impacts. It is reasonable. It is a reasonable and valid public policy to treat these
industries and these activities differently. That is what we attempted to do here. I
would much have preferred the Administration to acknowledge the policy that is in
existence right now for every other activity. Acknowledge that and say, "Yes, this is
different industry, different activity, and different impacts. How are we going to do
it and let us do it together, and do it properly?" Instead, we had seven (7) months of
process and we end up with the Administration saying, "No, we do not like it. We are
going to veto it." Instead of having seven (7) months and coming up with a successful
implementation of a valid public policy.
Grove Farm has no trouble charging these companies, these activities three (3)
times, four (4) times, or five (5) times the lease rent they would charge other tenants.
They charge them this three (3) times, four (4) times, or five (5) times the lease rents
because number one, they can get it because the market is there and number two,
they recognize the impacts and the value of the land, and they are getting it, but the
County is too shy or too passive or too whatever to be bold enough to take some steps
along the same lines. I find that frustrating to say the least. We are talking about
companies like BASF which earned ninety-five billion dollars ($95,000,000,000) last
year. Their Chief Executive Officer earns eight million dollars ($8,000,000) a year
and we are charging them nothing, peanuts to make all of that money. Well, let us
not us hyperbole or exaggerate too much. Charging them peanuts though to run these
very lucrative international multi-billion dollar operations here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hooser, that was your five (5) minutes.
Councilmember Hooser: That was my five (5) minutes?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, that was your five (5).
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Is there any remaining minutes from
any other Councilmembers who have already spoken that might have some time?
Council Chair Rapozo: How much time do you need, Mr. Hooser?
Councilmember Hooser: Another two (2) minutes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead. Mr. Kagawa has yielded his two (2)
minutes.
Councilmember Hooser: You would do that for me? I take back
everything —no. I lost my train of thought. Anyway, we got zillion dollar companies
and we are afraid to ruffle feathers. It just bothers me. The Bill is not poorly crafted.
Could it have been better? Yes, it would have been a lot better if we would have had
the support of the Administration along the way. Does it disincentive certain forms
of agriculture? Absolutely not. Again, we charge people different rates now. We
should be incentivizing the good and positive by lowering the rates as suggested by,
I believe, Councilmember KipuKai Kuali`i. Is it difficult and costly to implement?
Absolutely not. Right now, the Tax Department sends homeowners a form and you
COUNCIL MEETING 31 DECEMBER 17, 2014
check a box to tell you what that use is. Why could we not do the same thing for these
companies? It does not have to be bad, but for us, to me, it is a passive/aggressive
response from the Administration to the Council. So, no matter what we do, it is not
going to be good enough right now. I am not supporting it because of the language of
the motion, but I understand there are not the votes to pass this. If I thought the
Administration supported this policy, the policy principle, then I would say, "Let us
look at it again. Let us look at it again. Let us try to come up with some new
language," but I am afraid that is a fruitless endeavor until the Administration steps
up and says, "Yes, I think we should do this." Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember
Kagawa for you allowing me the extra time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I think we should just, for the record also
acknowledge that these high priced leases in agriculture are pushing other more
traditional conventional lessees off because of the competition as Councilmember
Hooser stated. That is of concern, but the way is not to force the landowners to lease
to somebody they do not want to, but to reflect in the real property taxes, the value
of the process that is doing that. There are these implications and I just wanted to
put that on the record.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more discussion? If not, I
agree with the Mayor's veto message. I think I made myself clear at the last meeting.
Real property tax reform is sorely needed. We talked about this overtime. We need
to do it in a very comprehensive manner. We need to take a look at the entire tax
system. When we try to do this piecemeal methods, it does not serve the people well
at all. It comes with unintended consequences that we cannot envision because we
are in a rush to pass these things. Legislation that would incite litigation is not very
smart. We have seen that before. We have seen the cost of that, as opposed to looking
at again, a much more comprehensive tax system. This is what this is. It is a tax
bill. It is not an environmental bill. This is a tax bill. It is a taxation bill. Mr. Hooser
is correct that we tax different classes in different ways and that is what we should
do. If the policy decision is that we should tax these companies more because they
create a bigger problem or environmental issues, then we set the rate like we do for
the other classes as opposed to tie it to a lease. That is where I am having a very
tough concern is when you tie it into a lease agreement of the amount or value of a
lease because that can be manipulated. A value of a lease can be manipulated by a
landlord. Any landowner could adjust the lease and say, "Okay, our lease rent will
be x amount," but there will be these additional fees that they can charge whether it
is for common area maintenance or whatever the case may be. They can mutually
agree on a very low lease rate which would in turn create a very low tax bill. I mean,
that is what this Bill would allow to happen.
I had a very small business and I wanted to operate out of the professional
buildings at Kukui Grove because I felt that would be perfect. It is a great place, but
they were willing to charge me a ridiculous amount of money per square foot because
they can because they have a prime location. They should not be punished for that.
That is what this society is all about, right? Supply and demand, economics. You
have a prime location, guess what? You can charge more. Unfortunately, the small
businesses like M&P LLC Legal Support Service Group will never be able to operate
out of the Kukui Grove Professional Center because their lease rent is too high. Do
•
we not go after Kukui Grove and say, "You know what? Because of that, we are doing
to tax you more because you are not letting the small person operate?" That is just
the business of this. That is how this system works. You have the good side and then
you go the rough side. I ended up opening my office behind the Lihu`e Shell Station
hidden from public view for many years where I had to spend more money in
COUNCIL MEETING 32 DECEMBER 17, 2014
advertising, signage, and so forth, but that is just how it works. I do not have a
problem. I think when you analyze the impacts to society and to the community as
we do with other classifications you come up with an agreed upon tax rate, that is
how you set the tax rate. I do not think we should be providing an opportunity for
any landowner to manipulate the process so they get a better tax rate. That is what
this Bill would provide for them. I agree with the Mayor. I think that we should
incentivize small farmers. I sure do, but the County has to put up the incentives, not
private landowners. We have to incentivize. We have to make land available. We
have to make water cheaper. We have to reduce taxes for the small farmer. We
cannot expect the private sector to do that. I wish I could lease property of buildings
to people that are willing to pay a lot of money. I mean, I wish I could do that, but I
do not have that. Obviously, I will be supporting the motion to sustain the veto. I
again, look to the Administration as well as this Council to start the process of real
property tax reform very, very soon. As we have seen in the last few months, when
we act quickly, there are some unintended consequences that we have to fix up. That
is what I want to avoid. With that, my I go the yellow light. Can we have a roll call,
please? The motion is to sustain the veto.
The motion to sustain the Mayoral veto of Bill No. 2546, Draft 3; Pursuant to
Section 4.03 of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR SUSTAINMENT: Chock, Kagawa, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 5*,
AGAINST SUSTAINMENT: Hooser TOTAL — 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Kaneshiro TOTAL— 1.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Yukimura was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative
for the motion).
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry. 5:1, motion is carried. We will
recess here. It is 12:25 p.m. We will take a lunch break and be back at 1:30 p.m. for
public hearing. Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 1:32 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going to take the next item which is
Resolution No. 2014-46.
There being no objections, Resolution No. 2014-46 was taken out of order.
SCOTT K. SATO, Council Services Review Officer: We are on the
bottom of page 6.
RESOLUTION:
Resolution No. 2014-46—RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII TO AMEND HAWAII REVISED STATUTES
CHAPTER 46 TO GIVE THE COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO ENACT A
GENERAL EXCISE TAX SURCHARGE TO FUND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION:
Councilmember Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-46, seconded
by Councilmember Chock.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Anybody in the
audience wishing to testify on this matter.
Mr. Sato: We have three (3) registered speakers. The
first speaker is Jackson Gamby, followed by Zeke Gamby.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: You can come up. Welcome, and before you
get started with your testimony,just state your name so our captioner can get it right,
and you can proceed.
JACKSON GAMBY: I am Jackson Gamby. I am here to testify in
support of Resolution No. 2014-46. People do not get it, but even this kind of little
thing on a tiny island is important so I support it. By improving the bus system, we
will also be improving traffic conditions, fossil fuel emissions, our carbon footprint,
and the health and fitness of the people who live here. More importantly, we will be
improving the world for when all of the children grow up, for their children and their
children and their children's children. The ice caps are melting, the Amazon is dying,
and endangered species are dying faster than they ever have before. This is
important. Some people are putting this off saying, "It is not happening yet." That
is not true. The Earth has been dying for a while now slowly but surely, and it is not
going to stop unless we do something about it. So, we need to change. I am here
today to convince everyone in this room that this is happening and that by improving
the bus system, we will be helping in our own way. So, let us start saving the world.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Jackson.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next speaker is Zeke Gamby.
ZEKE GAMBY: I am Zeke Gamby and I am testifying in
support of Resolution No. 2014-46. I am ten (10) years old and I am testifying for this
Resolution because I am scared about our future. I am worried for the next
generation and the next and the next because climate change is a big threat. The
night I read on National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) website
that ninety-eight percent (98%) of the scientist are worried about climate change, I
could not sleep. Our oceans are warming and acidifying. Kaua`i's coral is bleaching
and dying, species migration patterns are changing, and ice caps are melting which
are making the ocean rise. If we do not do anything, all of Kapa'a Town will be under
water. I care about my future because I want to do something good with my future.
The emission from all of the cars are making climate change worse. If we expand the
bus, it will cut our emissions and improve transportation and traffic on Kaua`i. I am
asking you to please hear me because it is important that we solve this problem.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Zeke.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, Zeke, we have a question. Go ahead,
Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Actually Zeke, I want to say thank you to you
and your sister, Jackson, for coming today. Earlier in the year you invited the Council
to go to your Connect 5 program which is a program where you are asking fellow
students to join you on important issues, and now you have demonstrated what it
means to be involved. I just want to say thank you very much to you. I am reading
your thank you card, which has an important message. It says, "You created a ripple
with endless possibility," and that is what you just did. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gamby: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The last registered speaker is Luke Evslin.
LUKE EVSLIN: Hi, Luke Evslin. I was not planning on
speaking. I was just here to support my niece and nephew, but I figured if they were
brave enough to come up, then I should too. There are two (2) quick things. One, I
think the only people that are qualified to speak about climate change in here are
them at ten (10) and twelve (12) years old. It is not some sort of hypothetical future
for them. It is their reality. I hope that we can take it as seriously as they do. The
second thing real quick, is that it just so happened that last night I was reading online
the Sea Grant report on climate change and the Multimodal Transportation Plan.
Both, I think, paid for by you folks and commissioned by you folks. I am sure you are
familiar with it. Just a couple of quick things that stood out for me from reading it.
One, the Sea Grant reported that climate change speaks about the dire effects of
climate change on Kaua`i. It mentions the adaption and mitigation strategies that
we can employ to avoid the worst of it. Most importantly, the mitigation strategy,
the primary one, is mode shifting in there which is getting out a lot of the cars and
into public transportation, and then sort of moving onto the Multimodal
Transportation Plan, sort of this clear blue print for how we do it. I think there is a
clear "why," which is climate change, bus, traffic, gas prices, and the cost of cars.
There is a clear, "how," which is you have the Multimodal Transportation Plan. I
think the last step is just hopefully the political will and the funding for it. So,
whether it is this Resolution or something else, I hope that you folks can support
public transportation because we need it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any questions for Luke? If not,
than you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We will have discussion. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I have a PowerPoint presentation that I
would like to do right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: If the staff would put it on the screen and I
think, pass out. I do not think there is a lot of question about the need to expand the
bus. I think all of us understand that it is a very important thing, but how is the
question. Oh, I need a little control. Thank you. I wanted to address two (2)
questions here. Why is it urgent? I mean, people think oh, yes, expanding the bus.
It is a good thing, but actually, it is an urgent thing. Jackson and Zeke have explained
COUNCIL MEETING 35 DECEMBER 17, 2014
from their point of view, why it is urgent. We can talk a lot, but the actual doing is
the important thing. Then, why the excise tax earmarked.
The bus expansion is essential for it is not just for bus riders. It is for our
economy, it is for our health, and it is for our sustainability, essential. It is absolutely
necessary. It is essential for a strong economy. There is no way we can have an
economy without people getting to jobs and the bus has a key role in that because it
does support workers and students daily. A good economy needs workers and
students. The visitor's experience is enhanced with less road congestion and
customers and services are enabled.
Expansion of the bus creates jobs, actually green jobs. When we expanded the
bus system from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on weekends, we created fourteen (14)
full-time jobs in the Transportation Agency. Also, bus riding families will have more
discretionary income to spend in the local economy because families can save a lot of
money. I do not know if people understand, and I do not see Mr. Mickens here, that
the bus is actually really instrumental in solving our traffic congestion. This picture
sort of shows it. It shows the road space needed by sixty (60) people when they are
on bikes, that is the left picture, when they are in cars, and when they are in a bus
for sixty (60) people. Busses will take cars off the road. It is not forcing people to ride
the bus. There is not a lack of demand for bus services. Every time we have expanded
the bus, the ridership has expanded dramatically which means there was a pent up
demand that was stopped only because of lack of service. As our young speakers said
today, the bus is essential for a sustainable Kaua`i. Expanding the bus per our Kaua`i
Multimodal Land Transportation Plan will reduce Kaua`i's projected fossil fuel usage
by twenty-seven percent (27%) or eight million (8,000,000) gallons of fossil fuels
annually, and it will also reduce Kaua`i's projected climate change, our greenhouse
gases by seventy-four million kilograms (74,000,000 kg) of greenhouse gasses each
year.
This is a reduction from the projected if we do nothing or if we just do business
as usual. It is our County's policy. I do not know if you know, but we have a
Resolution supporting the Kyoto Protocol and United States Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement. This was past during the time of Mayor Baptiste, but you will
see that the County Council took a stand supporting the County of Kaua`i's
participation to live by the standards of the Kyoto Protocol and to fight global
warming. It urged Mayor Baptiste at that time, to take the lead in fighting global
warming. So, by funding our bus and expanding it, we will be actually implementing
our policy and making good on our words.
To further expand on how we are not being sustainable, I think those of you
saw the energy report card from Blue Planet, the State of Hawai`i's 2014 report card.
In the sector of transportation, we are doing much better in the sector of electricity,
but in the sector of transportation, Hawai`i gets a "D-" down from "D" last year. That
is because vehicle miles traveled, which is the goal of our multimodal plan to keep
vehicle miles not growing. The target trend is shown in the blue line. For a while we
were meeting the target trend you will see, but since 2010 vehicle miles travelled has
been increasing and our goal was to decrease it.
The bus is also essential for a high quality of life. My goal was to have pictures
of people who are using the bus to show you the human face of the bus. Yesterday, I
walked to Vim N Vigor for lunch and there was a whole family waiting at the bus
stop. Kainoa was the young man's name from Elise H. Wilcox Elementary School.
He had just finished school, but his whole family was there waiting for the bus. I do
not know if they came to pick him up or what. Our elderly, our elderly population is
scheduled to double in the next thirty (30) years. We have the largest percentage of
COUNCIL MEETING 36 DECEMBER 17, 2014
elderly as of the total population anywhere in the State and people with disabilities
too. So, they need a bus. When they want to find a job, that is usually the problem.
Having access to jobs is about having transportation to get to jobs. Also, families and
commutes save money. I have cite Erik Nordmeyer many times, but he lives in
Hanapepe and commutes every day to work in Lihu`e, which by gas prices up to now
have been a saving about five dollars ($5) a trip, so ten dollars ($10) a day savings,
times a year is about over two thousand dollars ($2,000) a year that he saves by riding
the bus. It enables people to go where they need to go.
This brings me again to Donna Sholtz, an elderly person in Kilauea, she says
that the only way she is able to interact with the rest of the world is because she has
the bus. She can go shopping, she can go to a Wiseman's meeting, and she can see
the doctors by bus. It is also protection against rising fuel prices. In Britain, they
are paying twelve dollars ($12) a gallon where gas is not subsidized. Even though
gas prices are going down now, we have not seen it that much in Hawai`i, but even if
it does go down, we know it is not going to stay that way. Lastly, it is a protection
against six (6) lane highways on Kaua`i. That graphic showed you. It is also good for
a healthy community. Studies have shown that bus riders are healthy than the
average system because they have to walk every day to and from the bus. This is
called "active transportation." As Bev Brody will tell you, we need to make more
active transportation options available. Actually, the main goal of the Multimodal
Land Transportation Plan is to protect Kaua`i's rural character. They took it from
the General Plan and the parking problems at Ke`e and Po`ipu suggest that those
areas could ultimately turn into one (1) big parking lot. I mean, look at O`ahu. We
can avoid a lot of that very expensive infrastructure if people can get to and from
work without cars and visitors can get from one part of the resort to another without
cars. Six (6) to eight (8) lane highways, which I believe are still in the State's DOT
plan even though we will never be able to afford it, will ruin our rural character.
Expansion of the bus is the most affordable and quickest way to expand the capacity
of our roads without hurting our rural character.
I have already told you all of that. So, the second question. Why earmarked
excise tax? We have a good plan. We have good leadership and management. We
are lacking funding, and without funding, we cannot expand. We cannot implement
the plan. This excise tax earmark will not only help our bus, it will give us more
money to work with in our budget because the bus presently runs on four million
dollars ($4,000,000) from the General Fund and three million dollars ($3,000,000)
from the Highway Fund. Assuming we need two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bus
expansion each year, the present operating cost is seven million dollars ($7,000,000).
So, two million dollars ($2,000,000) means we need nine million dollars ($9,000,000).
The half percent (0.5%) tax will yield seven million dollars ($7,000,000).
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Ten (10) minutes.
Councilmember Yukimura: We only need two million dollars ($2,000,000)
from the General Fund or the Highway Fund instead of seven million dollars
($7,000,000), which means it will free up five million dollars ($5,000,000) for General
Fund and/or Highway Fund, depending on how we want to work the budget. There
is a lot of agreement that we need to expand the bus and we need to earmark some
moneys. That is the only way you can expand the bus. To have a reliable source of
funding for it that nobody else can compete for. In doing that, we are also giving
ourselves money for our General Fund. We are going to get the best of both worlds
that way.
Lastly, others have suggested that the fuel taxes, and as you know, I have tried
to raise the fuel taxes for the bus, but I actually want to leave it for roads because as
COUNCIL MEETING 37 DECEMBER 17, 2014
we were told at our last budget, we have one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000)...oh sorry, that is a typographical error (typo). One hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) backlog to bring our County roads up to good repair. I know
that our Highway Fund will be in great demand for a very good cause. I do not want
to rely on the fuel tax for that. The Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), we have
absolutely good grounds for asking for TAT in addition to the General Excise Tax
(GET) because we have many visitor-related costs. The County services support the
visitor industry here. Twenty percent (20%) of our population everyday are visitors
and twenty percent (20%) of our County budget at minimum, are visitors. Actually,
our rescue budget is over fifty percent (50%) for visitors. We need to really speak for
the TAT for TAT related needs. I believe we can do that and I believe the public will
support us in that. I do not think they will support us for a half percent (0.5%) excise
tax for tourist related because the tax is regressive. It hurts our poor families the
most. If you earmark it for the bus, then those families will be the greatest
beneficiary of the excise tax. To use it for visitor related expense is not right. We
need the TAT which comes from visitors to pay for their costs.
Expansion of the bus is one of the most critical things Kaua`i could do to help
our families survive and thrive, to support economic growth, to ensure a high quality
of life for residents, and to ensure a satisfying experience for visitors. They do not
want to be caught in gridlock either, and that just takes them home to Los
Angeles (LA) immediately, and to create a sustainable future. In conclusion, an
excise tax surcharge earmarked for public transportation will be wise investment. It
is not just a tax. It is an investment. It is a tax, it is a burden, but it will be so that
we can make life better now and for the future. To me, that is the best purpose for a
tax.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. I think we have been down
this road before about the General Excise Tax and it kind of goes against the strategy
that we have had. I think Chair Furfaro has pushed us to really recover from the
recession that our County has suffered having that fifty million dollars ($50,000,000)
disappear over a period of the past four (4) years or so is to get the full TAT back from
the Legislature. That would amount to ten million dollars ($10,000,000)
approximately, additionally to our budget. I think some of the comments that our
last Council had regarding the GET was that, does that makes sense that we
authorize using the half percent (0.5%) of GET while at the same time we are asking
the State to reinstitute what we had prior with that additional ten million dollars
($10,000,000) that they have taken away for the past...what has it been? Three (3)
years. I think the message would be clear from Kaua`i I think to our legislative
representatives that okay, we are no longer pursuing the ten million dollars
($10,000,000) in TAT and we are going to just instead use the half percent (0.5%)
GET to help subsidize our budget. I think at least for me, I am hesitant because it is
almost like giving up five million dollars ($5,000,000) up front that we could get if we
get that full TAT back. On the other hand, I am concerned that the GET tax is going
to really hurt our people when they are struggling out there. We have raised an awful
lot of things over the past two (2) years including the fuel tax, the car registration
fees, the vehicle weight tax, our tipping fees, half of the people suffered increase to
their real property taxes, and now to further place a half percent (0.5%) General
Excise Tax, I think, sends a poor message from this body at this time when people
are telling us that they are struggling. Once again, I think just strategy wise, let us
make sure that the Legislature says, "You will not get that ten million dollars
($10,000,000) additionally," and then I think it would be appropriate for us to consider
alternative means of getting revenue via whatever method be it the GET or what
4 1
COUNCIL MEETING 38 DECEMBER 17, 2014
have you. At this time, I am hesitant and will not be supporting the half percent
(0.5%) increase. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Hang on. Anyone
else before we go for the second round?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have a question for?
Councilmember Kuali`i: For the introducer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Sure.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Two (2) things that I thought about is, were
you able to run this by any of our four (4) Kaua`i Legislators, our three (3)
Representatives and our Senator? Are any of them able to support this at this time
that have come forward?
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for your question. I have run it by
two (2) of the four (4). They have told me that they need to see a united County in
order for them to support it. They need to see the Mayor and the Council support
this. One of them has told me that they will support it and one of them has said that
it was very good that we lifted the cap on real property taxes because it was very
difficult to go before the Legislature to ask for more funding when we were not
properly using the source that they had given us long ago, our real property taxes. If
we were asking for State money just to keep real property taxes low, that would not
be a very compelling argument. They said now that we have lifted the cap, it is much
easier to advocate for new revenue sources or additional revenues, but they are
waiting for the Mayor and the County to take a position. That is logical and
reasonable that they want to see a united County. We have the opportunity to be
leaders in this and to take the first step and say, "We want to do this."
Council Chair Rapozo: I think you answered his question. Thank
you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and I want to speak as a response.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, you will have a second time.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Maybe you should let the public know who
those two (2) people are, the two (2) Representative because I think for them to expect
a united Council is like us expecting a united State House or State Senate, and I think
it is a ridiculous thing. I mean, to expect that. I mean, we serve the same
constituents.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry. I guess I misspoke. When they
said "united," they mean a majority of the Council untied with the Mayor.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, they are not saying every vote on the
Council.
COUNCIL MEETING 39 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: But they want the majority that is the only
way the Council is able to act officially.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have another one.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Then my second question along those lines as
far as support is, were you able to pursue this matter with the Hawai`i State
Association of Counties (HSAC) or the Council of Mayors with the other Counties?
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Kuali`i: I know that the County of Honolulu currently
has an excise in place for the rail and that at the time, that they had instituted that,
it was an opportunity for the other Counties to do the same, and it was passed. Now
coming forward, have you attempted at Maui, Big Island, and Kaua`i working
together to approach the Legislature in that manner?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have appeared at HSAC Executive Meetings
when the Council of Mayors was present. I have also spoken to individual
Councilmembers on the other islands, but I tried to get it proposed as an HSAC
package item, but it did not make it past the last Council. I found a lot of support
among Councilmembers in other Counties and I understand that while the Council
of Mayors originally wanted to wait until after 2016, Mayor Caldwell is saying that
the City really needs to remove the sunset date on the authorization that they
presently have for the City and County's half percent (0.5%) because they need the
moneys, and I think he is going for this session. So, if we were to go forward too, that
would be two (2) Counties and we would have to work with the other Counties, but I
could not go to the other Counties until we, as Kaua`i County, found a position
together. So, that is why this measure is before us because we need to take the first
step, then work with Mayor Carvalho, and then in a united way, go and talk to the
other Counties and Mayors.
Councilmember Kuali`i: That is it for now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Chair. We have had a discussion
on this previously. The Mayors made a request through a resolution for us to support
a GET tax increase, and that did not pass I do not believe. I still have some similar
sentiments in terms of utilizing GET, but I am much more favorable for this
Resolution because of its purpose which is to be earmarked for something that we
constantly every year talk about the need for. The question about whether we should
be asking for one or the other, to me, is there a third option?
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Councilmember Chock: Can we ask for both and why should we not be
asking for support for transportation as well as what we believe is important for us
for TAT? My understanding is that the TAT, while we can make that request, it is
not going to be within our purview for this next year. So, let us look at both. Let us
consider both because our budget needs our before us now. I am more inclined this
time around to vote in favor of this Resolution. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Mr. Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I just had a question for Councilmember
Yukimura. I know a lot of this was focusing around expanding the Kaua`i Bus, and I
am sorry if I have not been around much, but is there a need to expand the bus would
the moneys go to improve the current system, or is there a real big need to be
expanding service? The bus system is subsidized, right? If we expanded it, it will
probably cost us more money. I am just trying to go through the cost and benefit
analysis of if we do this and we do get the money, then we would have money to
expand it, but how much is it going to cost us expanding the bus system?
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for the question. When we
expanded the hours from 6:00 p.m. and the bus now operates till 10:00 p.m. and we
added weekend service, it cost us one million dollars ($1,000,000) a year more. That
was to subsidize the fares. We have also been raising the fares; however, to make
sure that the riders are paying a fair proportion. This is a service like police and fire.
It is not meant to be a "for profit" operation. It is a service. I do not think there is
any public bus system in the Country that is making a profit or breaking even. It is
a service that is needed. It is a service that is needed to run the economy. Without
workers getting to work, without people having clear roads to...businessmen to go or
delivery services, the economy would not function. So, that is why it is a service.
That is why we need the moneys. When we did that expansion in time, the ridership
skyrocketed, I think almost doubled which showed that we were really meeting a
need. This plan which is urge you to read, I know you are new, has an intermediate
and an immediate plan for what the needs are. One of the needs is for more frequent
service. I think it is not as often, but sometimes, people are turned away from the
bus. They are waiting for the bus, the door opens, and they are told "You have to wait
for the next bus. We are too crowded" or somebody with a bike will come and there
is already two (2) or three (3) bikes on the racks, and they have to wait another hour.
By having busses come more often like every half an hour, you will have six (6) bike
racks an hour and two (2) busses an hour. That is the kind of expansion that is
needed. We have huge requests for bus shelters and that is what we also need to
build, especially the elderly. They need a place to sit. They need a place out of the
hot sun. Those are the things that are needed to make the service work for our people
and that is what the money would be used for.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, thank you for the presentation,
Councilmember Yukimura. I think the presentation was a very strong presentation
on the value of the bus and I support the expansion of the bus and the value of public
transportation. I understand the need to subsidize the service. I am not in support
of this Resolution for a number of reasons. Right before lunch, we failed to support
increasing taxes for multibillion dollar companies. I mean, what was it? Ninety
something billion dollars a year. I mean, they are paying their Executives ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) a year and the Mayor does not want to increase their taxes, this
Council does not want to increase their taxes, and yet we are considering a GET tax
increase which affects the very poorest people the most. For me, the timing is very
bad to even think about putting these two (2) issues side-by-side. I would support
taxing the richest companies on our island to pay for public transportation. I would
support raising the hotel tax to pay for public transportation. I would support
charging a toll to visitors for driving on the roads, which I think we are legally entitled
to do to pay for public transportation. There is different ways to do this, but this
vehicle, for me at this particular point and time, is not the right vehicle to do it.
Furthermore, as was demonstrated, this proposal would raise seven million dollars
($7,000,000) in round numbers and that is what it cost to operate the system now if I
COUNCIL MEETING 41 DECEMBER 17, 2014
remember my numbers correctly. There is no assurances at all that any of this money
will be used to expand services. It depends on the Council at the time and it depends
on the Mayor at the time. We could be in place where we raise taxes to pay for the
bus expansion and the bus is not expanded, and that money gets spent for other
things. There is no assurances that they...yes, because the seven million dollars
($7,000,000) generated could be used entirely for the bus and all of that General Fund
money be taken to spend elsewhere. It could be supplanted is the word. So, that is
just part of it. The bigger part of it for me, is that the vehicle that we are talking
about, the GE tax, is not the right vehicle. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember
Yukimura. How much time does Councilmember Yukimura have?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) minutes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to respond to Councilmember
Kagawa's concerns about waiting for the TAT because in fact, I do not know that we
could get ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of the TAT moneys. That is our goal, but
if we get five million dollars ($5,000,000) from the GET or seven million dollars
($7,000,000), a half percent (0.5%) tax, as I showed you, it could release five million
dollars ($5,000,000) for other purposes. If we get a GET earmarked for transportation
and we could go in and ask for five million dollars ($5,000,000) from the TAT, that
will get us the ten million dollars ($10,000,000) that we are looking for. To answer
Councilmember Hooser's point, if this Council passes a GET, I am sure we will use
the money to support the bus. You will note that it is up to three-quarters percent
(0.75%), is what I am asking for because this was meant to be good for another ten
(10), fifteen (15) years as a source of money. I did not want to have to go back to the
Legislature to get more, but we can get three-quarter percent (0.75%), we can levy
what we think we need, and we can mix it with other moneys. It gives us more money
to work with. It leaves the decisions to us and it give us a core amount of money that
is earmarked for the bus. It assures the bus some money. Yes, we will have to make
some other decisions, but the draw for the bus from the General Fund and from the
Highway Fund, that will not be main source of funding for the bus as it is now. So,
we could actually meet our goals in both ways. I think we have more chance of getting
five million dollars ($5,000,000) than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) and I think if
we get the Resolutions and the support from the Mayor, we can get hat half percent
(0.5%) excise tax earmarked for the bus. It is a way to solve many problems, not just
the problem of expanding the bus.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Kagawa, your
second time.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. I will try to keep really
brief. At least on the bright side we had some good news last week with the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) release. We have, I think fourteen
million nine hundred thousand dollars ($14,900,000) in fund balance that will help
to deal with next year's increase in salaries. If you go fourteen million nine hundred
thousand dollars ($14,900,000) minus the nine million dollars ($9,000,000) in
projected salary increase, you have five million dollars ($5,000,000) right there. If we
hit budget and the Council feels like they want to increase the bus one million dollars
($1,000,000) of what have you, that could be a source. I think for me, it is premature.
Even given the good news that we had last week with the CAFR, it is premature to
go and tax the GET. I feel that is a last resort if we are really broke and we just need
to get funding. We do not know any specific areas how to tax. The GET taxes
COUNCIL MEETING 42 DECEMBER 17, 2014
everybody. So, I think I am not at that point right now and I feel like we can do some
expansion and what have you when we hit the budget, but we need to see the whole
gamut of our County budget. Some say the bus is the most important. For me right
now, I think the roads and parks are just as important not saying more important,
but we all have I guess, priority issues in this County. I think when the budget comes,
at least we are not dealing in the red right now with the good news that we had last
week. I do not know how much of that good news will be offset by bad news that
funds are needed through the time from now until the budget, but at least for now I
feel it is premature to tax the GET another half percent (0.5%). Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember,
you already had your two (2) times. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I do want to say that I appreciate the
testimony received and that practically one hundred percent (100%) of what was
shared I agree with. I do want to say that I do have concern about the Legislators
not actually stepping forward with us at this time and asking for a united County.
To me, that means we need the support of the Mayor and I do think that with O`ahu
having to approach the Legislature to prevent the coming sunset of their excise tax,
that matter is going to have to be decided before the Legislature and they potentially
could lose that as well, but if they were to be successful, then it leaves us more
argument for the rest of our Counties, Maui, Big Island, and ourselves to unite with
the Mayors as well and go forward. I think that is the only way we really can be
effective and this seems like we are just going alone. The way the Resolution is
written, once passed, it would be sent to the Legislature. I would rather see a
Resolution that was going to the Council of Mayors and going to HSAC asking for
everyone to get on board and for us to do this jointly perhaps next year. Maybe right
now we need to be, as Councilmember Kagawa was mentioning, focusing on the TAT
and not mixing the message up with what we are trying to accomplish. I think for
those reasons, even though I support all of the good things about improving our
transportation and the Multimodal Land Transportation Plan and all of that, and I
so appreciate the testimony of our young people, that this is not the right time and
not the right vehicle. I cannot support this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember,
you had your two (2) times already.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know. I would like to ask for your discretion
to speak again.
Council Chair Rapozo: What in regards to?
Councilmember Yukimura: In regards to what Councilmember Kuali`i
has said. I feel like I have some answers.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I think you had twenty-five (25)
minutes, Councilmember Yukimura, and...
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, this is to allow free flowing
discussion. I have some things that have not been said before and this is substantive.
This is an important issue. A few more minutes, please.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not about the minutes. It is about the
times. You had two (2) opportunities. My ruling is "no," JoAnn. If you want to
challenge it, go ahead and let us take a vote.
COUNCIL MEETING 43 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I challenge the decision of the Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Make a motion.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to appeal the decision of the Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me just state, the ruling is no member can
speak more than twice on the same item. We agreed on this although a couple of
Councilmembers voted against it. The whole purpose of that rule is to expedite the
meetings and move it down. Councilmember Yukimura had twenty (20) minutes. She
used up sixteen (16) minutes of her time in her dialogue. She spoke a second time. I
am glad this came up today because we need to clear it up. The rule was in place for
that purpose otherwise we will go on all day long. I think Councilmember Yukimura's
presentation was complete. This is the second time we have been down this road in
a few months. It was here for the HSAC agenda as well. So, that is my ruling and
roll call.
Councilmember Yukimura: No. Mr. Chair, we are able to argue the point
so we can have a vote before that, I believe.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. I rule on the matter, you made the
challenge, and now we take the vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to get a parliamentary rule on
that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Let us take a three (3) minute recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 2:17 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:21 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Chock was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: For the members of the Council and the
public, the Council Rule regarding the point of order. Anytime any member or the
Chair believes that a rule is being violated or has been violated, they can raise a point.
In essence, that is what I did. The rules clearly state each member has two (2)
opportunities to speak, not to exceed five (5) minutes. In the case of the Resolution
which was introduced by Councilmember Yukimura, she was twenty (20) minutes.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the rules. She has requested to speak
a third time and I have made the ruling that is not in accordance with the rules. She
has the right to appeal any ruling which is what she has done, and they rule
specifically states that "whenever a point of order has been made whether it is by a
Councilmember or the Chair, the question shall be decided by the Chair without
debate subject to an appeal to the Council. In addition, the Chair may call for the
sense of the body at any point of order." I have made the ruling. Now, Rule 7 grants
the authority or the right to appeal which is what Councilmember Yukimura has
done. She needs to file a motion to appeal the ruling, which should get a second, and
then we will take a vote. So, that is where we are at right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
COUNCIL MEETING 44 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes?
Councilmember Yukimura: Where does it say that there is no debate on
an appeal of a ruling?
Council Chair Rapozo: It does not say that there is no debate.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, then Robert's applies and Robert's says
that it is debatable.
Council Chair Rapozo: Why do you not make your motion to appeal?
Councilmember Yukimura moved to appeal the decision of the Chair, seconded
by Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion.
Councilmember Yukimura: First of all, if I had been allowed to speak, I
would be done by now and the meeting would have been much shorter. Just cutting
off debate for the sake of expediency is not right. If I am repeating myself or saying
things that are not relevant, that is good cause for cutting off debate, but to not allow
full debate on a very important issue is wrong. The Chair has the discretion to not
follow the rules and that is all I am asking for. I have not been long winded I do not
believe, in my responses or I have been relevant. To me, it is a violation of the main
principle of democracy that we have adequate time to speak on this issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that it?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, Chair. I understand that need for
expediency and the need to manage the meeting appropriately, but I have to say I
think if we were going to err, we should err on the side of debate. As a
Councilmember, I think I will take as much time as I need whether we have to have
two (2) meetings a week or three (3) meetings a week. I think we should thoroughly
discuss these issues, especially the maker of a motion or the introducer of a measure
is the only person really, the primary person certainly, to address the issues and
questions that are raised. When they are raised by other members, I think the
introducer of the measure needs to have the opportunity respond, and that is separate
from the two (2) speaking rule, that if we are summarizing our remarks and we do it
twice, but with other members raise questions that need addressing, I think the
maker of the motion is entitled to do that. I would encourage you to use your
discretion as the Chair to allow Councilmember Yukimura to continue. I do not know,
I cannot remember if I have spoken twice or not other than this moment right now,
and I am allowed to defer my second time to another member, I would like to do so
and if I have any minutes left on my speaking time, I would like to also allocate that
to Councilmember Yukimura. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember
Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Why I support the rule
is for exactly what has happened. When I had a chance to talk, I used one of my times
to ask specific questions of the Resolution proposed and I got answers. Now, when I
COUNCIL MEETING 45 DECEMBER 17, 2014
used my second time, I was making a statement of how I felt about certain issues. I
do not think it is a chance for other Councilmembers to just go back and forth. I was
not asking a question, because then otherwise, now based on what she might say, I
may want to speak again too. I think that was the purpose of the rule that we focus
on the questions, on the presentation, on our deliberation, and then getting to the
point. If we all get to the place where we express where we are leaning or what we
are planning to do as far as voting and then we all get to respond to each other to try
and convince them one more time, then it would probably take three (3) or four (4)
times going back and forth. If we did that on all issues, we would be less efficient. I
think this is the very reason the rule is here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I was not going to argue with Mr. Kuali`i. I
was going to address his concern. I hope I still have a chance to do it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, depending on how this vote goes down.
Anyone else? Let me just say, Councilmember Yukimura, you say first of all if I let
you speak, we would not be here right now. I will say, first of all, if we follow the
rules, we are not going to be here where we are at today, where we are at right now.
We agreed on the rules, we passed the rules, and I knew this day would come. I did
not think it would come today, but it did and I am glad we got it hashed out because
it needs to be clarified. The objective here is not just about expediency. It is about
being able to get your points across. JoAnn, you did a great job with your presentation
again, and move on. Everybody gets the same amount of time to speak, otherwise we
would be here all day long and we would go back and forth and back and forth and
back and forth. Now, I did not prohibit any Councilmember from asking the maker
of the Resolution or the introducer any question. In fact, I believe there were several
questions for Councilmember Yukimura. That did not count against her time and
she went beyond the scope of the question, and I did not stop her. I am just trying to
follow the rule as we agreed on and like I said when we had the pre-organizational
meeting, do not take the points of order and the appeals of the Chair of the ruling as
being personal. It is a tool that we have and that is what I have asked you folks to
do. It has been done and now we are going to take the vote. The motion was to appeal
the ruling that she should not be allowed to speak a third time, which is the rule.
Roll call. The motion is to appeal. The ruling was that she has spoken her two (2)
times and that she is not allowed to speak a third. She is appealing that. So, if you
vote "aye..." Do you know what you are voting?
Councilmember Chock: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: Support of the appeal, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
The motion to appeal the decision of the Chair was the put, and failed appeal
by the following vote:
FOR APPEAL: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 3,
AGAINST APPEAL: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
COUNCIL MEETING 46 DECEMBER 17, 2014
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not,
let us call for the question.
Councilmember Hooser: Chair? I had my hand up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, I am sorry.
Councilmember Hooser: I had my hand up. Could I ask
Councilmember Yukimura to respond to Councilmember Kuali`i's question?
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I do not know, but Councilmember
Kuali`i never asked a question.
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, his point. I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: You can ask Councilmember Yukimura
anything you want.
Councilmember Hooser: Councilmember Yukimura, would you mind
responding to Councilmember Kuali`i's point?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i was
concerned about the Resolution going straight to the Legislature and not to the
Council of Mayors and to the other Counties. We could amend. I am willing to amend
the Resolution to do that. I would like to have some time to create an amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we do that, let me. I have not spoken
yet. Let me just speak because I do not know...if we are going to do an amendment
then, it is going to be back to the Committee and that is just how it is going to be if it
is going to be a significant change. I am not sure if that amendment will change the
minds of people on this table. I am not going to put the staff through that. In fact,
another one of the things that as we were perusing the rules that the motions to not
have to be written. We can do verbal motions here. We can do verbal motions to
amend here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, then I would make a motion.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can exercise that as well. I do not think
we have ever done that, but to me, I think it is a more efficient way of doing things
rather than calling a recess, having staff run out, type up an amendment, come back,
and it fails. Let me just make some comments. Mr. Hooser, are you done?
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: The fact that we do not support this
Resolution does not mean that we do not support expansion of the bus or that we do
not support transportation. It kind of was inferred that way like let us be leaders, let
us pass this Resolution because we are leaders. Well, I can tell you as Mr. Kagawa
talked about this. There are many other priorities in this County besides
transportation, public safety, roads, parks, and there are so many. The fact that you
earmark money for an agency that is number one, first of all not ready to expand, and
we have had that discussion numerous occasions. This question was asked point
blank of the Transportation Director at the last budget. "Are you ready to expand?"
COUNCIL MEETING 47 DECEMBER 17, 2014
"No, I am not." We do not have a plan of expansion. We have a Multimodal
Transportation Plan that was done a while ago by a very good consultant. That is a
great plan, but that is not our plan. That is a consultant saying, "This is what you
folks need to do." It is not our County coming up and saying, "Hey, I want to expand,
and I want to increase routes." We have not done a route management study. For
every time Councilmember Yukimura talks about the bus somebody being told you
cannot get on, I have yet to see that bus on the road and I am on the road a lot. I
travel the road a lot. Every single morning, I say this story over and over and over.
Every single morning I see a paratransit full sized bus driving up Wailua Houselots
between about 6:15 a.m. I do not know what is open at 6:30 a.m. or so in the morning
for paratransit passenger, but it is every morning using the big bus. That is not
efficient use of our resources. I am more than prepared to support expansion of the
bus if the County Transportation Agency came up to this Council with a plan that is
doable, that is fundable, and that has some measurables. This does nothing but put
seven million dollars ($7,000,000) into the transportation account to be used for
transportation only on a Department that is not ready. I will be honest with you,
that transportation, the management of that office is not at the standard that I am
comfortable with. I am not. There are some major issues with overtime. There are
some major issues with again, routes. There are major issues. We are getting sued.
One of our employees are suing because of a management issue. There are some
problems and we are not going to take money and put that money in an account for
them to use at this point. See, I support the General Excise Tax authority, but that
money should go to General Fund and between the Mayor and the Council, they
would dictate where that money should go because see, every year we have different
priorities. Every year. If the hurricane should hit God forbid, and the transportation
system is down, what happens? The money sits in there because we cannot use it
because there will be no transportation system for that period of time the recovery
takes place. We have lived through that with Hurricane `Iniki. I cannot support
earmarking the funds. I really cannot. If you ask me where...like public safety.
Maybe we need fifteen (15) beats on this island instead of ten (10), but is the Chief
ready to prepare to come up with a plan to increase the beats to fifteen (15)? No. So,
we give him the money anyway? No. They need to come to us with a plan, a plan
that this Council and the Mayor believes is doable, and then I do not have a problem
with funding that. With that...
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Councilmember, we are not going down
that road again.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appeal the decision of the Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Make the motion.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to appeal the decision of the Chair, seconded
by Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: What is the decision of the Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have already made that decision. She can
speak twice and that is it.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, that was already appealed.
COUNCIL MEETING 48 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: But I would like to speak.
Council Chair Rapozo: She wants to speak again and she is making
a motion again. Now it is getting...I am glad the people are watching because it is
really silly, but go ahead. No, you go ahead. You got a second. We will have the
discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion dies with lack of a second.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry, there was a second.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, I am sorry. You did make the second.
Okay. Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to point out that there are
priorities for immediate implementation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember, the motion is on the appeal
of the ruling.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am trying to show you that I have a...
Council Chair Rapozo: No you are not.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...good reason for being able to speak again.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, that is not. JoAnn, do not do this please.
The motion is you are appealing my ruling.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, it is the rule that is doing this,
Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. So, let us call for the question on the
appeal. You have a second. Let us go. Roll call.
The motion to appeal the decision of the Chair was the put, and failed appeal
by the following vote:
FOR APPEAL: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 3,
AGAINST APPEAL: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4.
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call on the Resolution, please.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2014-46 was then put, and failed
adoption by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
COUNCIL MEETING 49 DECEMBER 17, 2014
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Ten (10) minute caption break.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 2:36 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:45 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we take our seat please? Bill No. 2545,
Draft 1. It is the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bill. I apologize. I had said that
we were going to try to get that at 2:00 p.m. and we are forty-five (45) minutes late.
With that, can we have the item read, please?
There being no objections, Bill No. 2545, Draft 1 was taken out of order.
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2545, Draft 1 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS 8-15.1(B) AND 8-15.1(D), KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON OTHER THAN
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS: Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Bill
No. 2545, Draft 1 on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor
for his approval, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1 as circulated,
as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Has the amendment been circulated?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes, the yellow one.
Councilmember Kagawa: May I?
Council Chair Rapozo: Please.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. The amendment was done
as I stated last week I would be working together with the Planning Director and the
Planning Commission who has recommended five hundred dollars ($500). They have
heard some of our testimony here at the Council and they have reduced that amount
that they are requesting a one-time fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) instead.
So, that is what I am moving to amend to reduce the regulatory fee which is a
one-time fee from five hundred dollars ($500) to two hundred fifty dollars ($250). This
will cover primarily contested case proceedings relating to ADU re-certifications.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just a question. I think it is an annual fee. It
is not a one-time fee.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kagawa: It is a one-time fee.
Councilmember Hooser: It says, "annual re-certification."
Councilmember Kagawa: I believe the...
Councilmember Hooser: Upon initial. Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. So, it is a one-time initial registration
fee.
Council Chair Rapozo: That needs to be fixed. Thank you,
Mr. Hooser, for catching that because initially it was. The intention of the original
Bill was to have an annual re-certification fee. Staff, can you fix that and the
applicant shall obtain...
Councilmember Hooser: Right. If I may.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: This implies the applicant has to come in and
do something every year. With or without the fee, you have to get re-certification,
and you are saying that is not the case.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I take that back. There is an annual
re-certification.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, there is an annual re-certification. If I
may? It specifically says "shall be charged upon initial registration" just as
Councilmember Hooser has sated. He had caught that. I think the wording is
sufficient, but if we wanted to further clarify it because it is close to the sentence that
says "an annual re-recertification." If that makes it confusing, then let us make it
clear, but for me, it is okay. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think there was some concern though from
members. I do not know if you were here, Mr. Hooser, but there was some concern
that the Department was creating the work that required the fee by having a
re-certification every year, which is that really necessary? I am not sure. It is really
what the Council wants. Did the Council want to have that annual re-certification?
I would prefer not. I do not think it makes any sense to have them come in every year
because nothing should change. That was the creation. Basically, it was creating
more work for the Planning Department which would justify the fee. Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I was just wondering if we could hear from the
Planning Director.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mike, can you come up, please?
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, Planning Director: Good afternoon
Mr. Chair and members of the Council. Mike Dahilig, Planning Department.
COUNCIL MEETING 51 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Chock: Hi, Mike. We just wanted to get that clear
about the re-certification entails, why, and to what advantage it is for the Planning
Department or not.
Mr. Dahilig: I think it is a residual proviso that is left as a
consequence of the amendments that have proceeded through the process. We can do
it if the Council would like us to do it. The purpose of it was at the time, an
annual...pegged to an annual fee. That is no longer the case. So, the Department
would have no objections if that proviso is actually removed from the Bill as stated
currently.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Chair, I think it might be in order
to...
Council Chair Rapozo: Take is out?
Councilmember Chock: Yes, take it out.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I had a question. What happens when
ownership changes? The new owner is just responsible to go in and give you their
current information because do you remember how the issue was we did not have
everybody in the database?
Mr. Dahilig: By going digital, this will be pegged as an
entitlement to the Tax Map Key (TMK) in our records. Regardless of whether there
is a transfer of ownership, it will be recorded as an entitlement attached to the Tax
Map Key.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Could there be any reason to have this annual
no cost re-certification just to keep on whether ownership changes on any of those?
Mr. Dahilig: If we do this correctly, and we intend to do
this correctly, if we create a database that is detailed enough, that information should
be live and active as long as the database is maintained.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right, okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to inform the body that if we are
in agreement that we want an amendment to take out the annual re-certification
requirement, then the staff is going to need some time. So, perhaps we should recess
this item and take up other items. I would say half an hour.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience
wishing to testify?
There being no one present to testify, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We will move onto the next item if you folks
do not mind so that we can get that prepared, and that will save landowners a lot of
headache in having to come back every year, which I think is unnecessary. With that,
let us take the next item which is C 2015-22.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 DECEMBER 17, 2014
There being no objections, C 2015-22 was taken out of order.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2015-22 Communication (11/21/2014) from the Vice Chair of the Salary
Commission, transmitting for Council consideration, Salary Commission's Resolution
No. 2014-1, Relating to the Salaries of Certain Officers and Employees of the County
of Kaua`i for the Fiscal Year 2014-2016, which was adopted by the Salary Commission
at its November 10, 2014 meeting.
• Salary Commission Resolution No. 2014-1
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion please?
Councilmember Kuali`i: To receive?
Council Chair Rapozo: We can get a motion to approve or a motion to
receive. We just need a motion to get this on the...
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2015-22 for the record, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved to receive by KipuKai Kuali`i and
seconded by Mr. Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion to receive is to accept the
Resolution. If we receive the Resolution, we in essence, agree with the findings or
the recommendations of the Commission. Unlike or normal procedure where a
motion to receive is to kill it, for the Salary Commission, it is the opposite. A receipt
would be to accept the findings and recommendation. Mr. Kagawa. Oh, I am sorry.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Chair. I kind of want to hear from
the Administration about our plans regarding this increase or this Resolution and
their proposed increases. Being that it is still early before budget, I think that it
would behoove us to know the direction of where this Administration is going to go.
So, I had asked if that could come through by Wednesday, and if we could ask...oh,
there is Nadine. If we could ask the Managing Director?
Council Chair Rapozo: I know Mr. Finlay from the...oh, he is here. I
am not sure if you wanted to come up as well. Nadine, no, you need to come up,
Nadine. I am not sure if you wanted some assistance from the Salary Commission
member.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Nakamura: Nadine Nakamura, Managing Director.
RANDY FINLAY, Vice Chair of the Salary Commission: Randy
Finlay on the Salary Commission.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead, Mr. Chock, you can ask your
question.
COUNCIL MEETING 53 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Chock: I do not know if that came through Nadine. It
was in that question, but we do not want to get too ahead of ourselves in having this
pass without kind of getting a sense of what the impact will be as projected by the
Administration. If you could.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Based on the ranges by the Salary
Commission in the Resolution before you, there is actually a maximum annual salary
and it is dependent on the appropriate appointing authority to set the actual salary.
The impact we are estimating would be approximately two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($250,000) a year for the maximum salaries listed in this Resolution. That
was one of the questions that was posed to the Administration. There was also a...did
you have another question?
Councilmember Chock: The impact is just what the salary would
entail, but that would not include the cost of benefits that would be associated with
those increases as well. Is that correct?
Ms. Nakamura: That is correct.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. So, do we know what the...
Ms. Nakamura: Just a rule of thumb, if it is forty-seven
percent (47%) of that salary amount. I need to double check that, but I was given the
two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) number. I can check and get back to
you on that.
Councilmember Chock: Sure.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is three hundred sixty thousand four
hundred six dollars ($360,406) if all of the salaries were raised to the maximum
allowed by the Resolution. Three hundred sixty thousand four hundred six dollars
($360,406).
Ms. Nakamura: That includes the fringe.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, that is just the salaries.
Councilmember Chock: I think maybe what is not...based on what our
staff has put together, that may not include some of the Water Department or Liquor
funds. That might be separate. I do not know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for...oh, I am sorry.
Councilmember Chock: The question is, what is the intention of the
Administration or the Mayor's Office this year to move in what direction? Is it the
intent to meet these maximum salaries? What can we expect?
Ms. Nakamura: What you can expect is that the appointing
entity whether it is the six (6) Boards and Commissions who have salary setting
authority or the Mayor will do job performance evaluations on each of the positions.
In some cases, the Directors would be doing the job performance evaluations for the
Deputy Directors. The Mayor would do the job performance evaluations for those
directly under his authority, and then the six (6) Boards and Commissions will do the
job performance evaluations for the individuals that they supervise. Out of that
process, appropriate salaries will be set.
4 m a
COUNCIL MEETING 54 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Chock: And there is no range within that would be
determined.
Ms. Nakamura: I believe what is in the Resolution includes a
column that says "maximum annual salary." So, that would be the maximum
amount, and it would be up to the appointing entity to set the actual increase.
Councilmember Chock: Understood. What is typical? Can we forecast
it a little bit better because it is not helping me? If it is maximum, I am going to have
an issue with it because I think that is a lot. Five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) is what I can estimate. There is an impact on the budget that we need to
consider. However, if it is one percent (1%) or two percent (2%) that we might be able
to see across the board, maybe that is something that we can look at. I understand
that it has been many years since we have had these increases, but I think that we
also need to be good stewards in understanding what we can expect. I am not sure if
that is helpful, but if there is any direction that you can help us with.
Ms. Nakamura: At this point, the job evaluations have not
been completed and that will be guiding the decision-making on whether the
performance of the individuals in question are superior, excellent, fair, average, or
below average. I think that will be the determination of the amount that is set, and
that will be the Administration's prerogative to set that amount.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We do not have the figure yet about the
estimated impact at maximum rate broken down by funds at this point? I am hearing
you say two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). The Chair is saying three
hundred sixty four thousand dollars ($364,000). Will you be able to clarify that?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, we can clarify that. I think one of the
areas where we may have variances in the Prosecuting Attorney and County Attorney
Deputy positions where we may have...I need to confer.
Councilmember Yukimura: Assume different amounts?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, we may have made some different
assumptions there.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, and that is not including benefits. I
thought your benefit ratio was kind of low at forty-nine percent (49%).
Ms. Nakamura: Forty-seven percent (47%) is a rule of thumb.
Councilmember Yukimura: We do not usually use something like sixty
percent (60%)?
Ms. Nakamura: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Forty-seven percent (47%) is for the whole
County? We use that? I have heard differently, but alright. What is the total amount
of the allowances allowed to the Chief and the Police Chief under Article 4 and 5, I
guess, we should know? Well, I would like to know that. I am guessing we do not
have to act on this today, but we can get more information.
COUNCIL MEETING 55 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: No, because of the time requirement, we have
to act on it today because we do not have another meeting for quite some time. So, it
has to be acted on today or it will be...
Councilmember Yukimura: How much time do we have? Thirty (30) days?
Sixty (60) days?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Sixty (60) days from November 10th.
Councilmember Yukimura: November 10th? We did not get it
November 10th.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: But it is adoption by the Salary Commission.
Council Chair Rapozo: Salary Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: When is the deadline?
Councilmember Kuali`i: January 10th.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, why can we not make our first...if it is a
Committee Meeting, make a Special Council Meeting on our first meeting in
January?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is whatever the pleasure the Council is. I
am prepared to vote today. I am prepared to move.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I do not think we have all of the
information.
Mr. Finlay: We have the information on the allowances.
It is not a big amount.
PAULA M. MORIKAMI, Boards and Commissions Administrator: For
the uniform allowance, Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief is three hundred dollars
($300) annually. For the maintenance allowance for Police Chief and Deputy, this is
firearms, is five hundred dollars ($500) annually. For the Standard of Conduct, Police
Chief and Deputy Police Chief July 1, 2013, three hundred eighty-one dollars ($381)
per month; July 1, 2014, four hundred eighty-five dollars ($485); July 1, 2015, six
hundred fifty-eight dollars ($658) per month; July 1, 2016, six hundred ninety-three
dollars ($693) per month; for...
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So, we need that in annual amounts.
Ms. Morikami: For uniform allowance for the Fire Chief and
Deputy, it is four hundred twenty dollars ($420) annually.
Mr. Finlay: Those amounts are primarily set by the
bargaining.
Councilmember Yukimura: But why is the Salary Commission following
Collective Bargaining when they are not part of Collective Bargaining?
Mr. Finlay: We are not following the Collective
Bargaining Agreements. We are trying to make some salaries...
COUNCIL MEETING 56 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Cannot hear you.
Mr. Finlay: ...that are equitable, that are fair because all
of the people in the Police Department for example, below the Chief has gotten these
kinds of allowances.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are following Collective Bargaining.
Mr. Finlay: As far as regards the allowances.
Councilmember Yukimura: What about the equity among Department
Heads?
Mr. Finlay: For?
Councilmember Yukimura: Among Department Heads.
Mr. Finlay: For other Departments?
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, the Police and Fire Chief, they are
Department Heads, and what about the equity among Department Heads?
Mr. Finlay: Do you understand the question?
Councilmember Yukimura: I mean, our Department Heads have to show
up anytime they are needed. They are not on a salary schedule, right?
Ms. Morikami: Based on the discussions at the Salary
Commission Meetings, it is my understanding that they wanted to focus on public
safety and that is the reason why they had that bump.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not...okay.
Ms. Nakamura: I think part of what this Resolution does is by
proposing increase salaries for everyone else, all of the other Department Heads,
because Police and Fire received increases earlier in 2012, I believe. This is to bring
all of the other Directors up to that same level.
Councilmember Yukimura: But then they have a premium above that.
Ms. Nakamura: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: The theory is that public safety
administration requires more talent, skill, education, and risk than regular
Department Heads like engineers, planners, and those kinds of people?
Ms. Nakamura: Right, and wear uniforms, carry guns, and
have expenses relating to that.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have no problems with the uniform
allowances.
Mr. Finlay: All of these allowances, they are not very
large allowances.
COUNCIL MEETING 57 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, it is ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
more, right about?
Mr. Finlay: These are people that when they work their
way up and all of a sudden they take on a Deputy Chief role, they have already
become familiar with these accommodations, these allowances. So, you are going to
take that away from them, it would be a disincentive to step up to the role or a Deputy
Chief.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, it is mainly the inversion?
Mr. Finlay: We cannot avoid inversions. We tried to get
those out. There is always going to be inversions. It was mostly to incentivize the
younger police officers and firemen to step into the roles of a Deputy or Chief when
the time comes. You do not want to penalize them for taking on the role of a bigger
responsibility.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Let me make a clarification
before we go on because the State of Hawai`i Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO),
that is already in there. That was already passed.
Mr. Finlay: Years ago, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So, that is not up for debate today. I mean, if
you reject that portion, it goes back to the existing Resolution which has it anyway.
So, it is...
Mr. Finlay: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: The real issue today is salaries, but we are
looking at your Resolution and it is not ramseyered. So, it is difficult, but all of the
other "stuff' was already passed. For today, really what we are looking at is the
salaries. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, thank you, Chair. That is the
clarification is was looking for. If we could just look at the Resolution. Page 1 lists
all of those positions. That is all new...if this Resolution was not passed, these
salaries would remain at whatever they are now?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Page 2 similarly. The language in Section 2,
Maximum Salary, is that the same?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the same.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Now, page 3 talks about Council Chair,
Councilmember salaries, that is the same?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, there was no raises for the Council.
Councilmember Hooser: The car, cell phone allowance, is that the
same or is that new?
COUNCIL MEETING 58 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the same.
Councilmember Hooser: That is the same?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: We are not voting on that today?
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. If we rejected the thing, page 3 would
remain essentially, the same?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: The benefits, whatever benefits are in there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. I am just curious, and
thank you for your service, Randy, on the Salary Commission. I was curious, was
coming up with these totals, did you use some of the other City and Counties in
Hawai`i to kind of compared, and where do we stand overall? Are we the lowest?
With the proposed changes, would we be the lowest? Would we be somewhere in the
middle?
Mr. Finlay: The little history would be that in 2005 there
was a Commission or a consultant that was brought in.
Ms. Morikami: 2007.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, quite a long time ago, that helped the
County adjust some raises. There was a program over a four (4) year period where
the raises would be from their current very low position to a competitive position.
Then, those raises were never implemented. The first three (3) were, but the fourth
step of that was never implemented because the Salary Commission chose to push
that off. That has been since 2009 that has been pushed off. So, this Resolution is
really adopting some salary rates that would have been applied in 2007 had the
economic downturn not occurred. Now, to set these salary rates, we take into
consideration the rates of the other four (4) Counties, the three (3) Counties, and some
information from the mainland, and try to get comparison because it is very difficult
to compare police officers with a private sector. Similar trade, right? Now with
Engineers and Prosecuting Attorneys, you have a little bit more ground to work with
about what private sectors are making. With these raises that we are proposing,
Kaua`i by in large is still at the lowest salary rates of any of the Counties in Hawai`i.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just give me one (1) comparison. Let us pick
out maybe the Finance Director.
Mr. Finlay: Finance Director.
COUNCIL MEETING 59 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kagawa: He will make one hundred fourteen thousand
eight hundred forty-eight dollars ($114,848) now under this proposal, and how much
does one make...
Mr. Finlay: Maui is one hundred seventeen thousand
dollars ($117,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Finlay: Big Island is one hundred ten thousand
dollars ($110,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Finlay: And City and County of Honolulu is one
hundred thirty-six thousand dollars ($136,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: So, we are higher than the Big Island, but
lower than the rest?
Mr. Finlay: Yes. There is a little variation there, but if we
could do more examples, you might find that is not always.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Ms. Morikami: I believe that the Big Island got increased
based on this article here where all of them got raises effective July 1st. When this
was put together, this did not occur, but there is an article that shows all of them
getting increases. So, this amount here that was presented by Human Resources
(HR) of one hundred ten thousand two hundred forty-four dollars ($110,244) of the
Finance Director, I believe it is incorrect.
Mr. Finlay: Or it is previous to their new...
Ms. Morikami: Previous to their July 1st increase.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Finlay: I think the answer to your question is yes, we
took the Counties into consideration and had the debate, well, the populations are
different, the budgets are different, but then some would argue that the amount of
work for a Police Chief on Kaua`i is greater because he does not have as many
assistants. So, there is all kinds of debate there.
Councilmember Hooser: This may or may not be a question for the
County Attorney, but I will see if you folks want to answer it. The Charter says that
"The Commission Salary findings shall be adopted by Resolution of the Commission,
forwarded to the Mayor and the Council on or before March 15th of any calendar year."
This is not on or before March 15th of any calendar year.
Mr. Finlay: Oh, yes it is. This is before March 15th of 2015.
Councilmember Hooser: Well, it says calendar year though.
Mr. Finlay: The Commission made every effort to make
sure we got this before the end of the year because this is for adoption next year. We
COUNCIL MEETING 60 DECEMBER 17, 2014
made the mistake once of putting a Resolution forward that was in March and we
were reminded politely that the sooner we can get this to the Council, the sooner you
have the ability to modify your next budget.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Finlay: So, we made a very good effort to try to make
sure we got this before the end of the year.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. As long as you have cleared it with the
attorneys. It does not look that way, but I will accept it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. That was the "shall versus may"
fiasco. Really. It was September too it came to us, not March. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for all of the work. Do you know
what would be really helpful maybe for the future, is that there is a report file that
explains all of the things that you went through in thinking about how you did this
so that we would not have to draw it out by questioning. Sort of...that would be very
helpful.
Mr. Finlay: That is a good idea. We could do that. We
were trying to take the Resolution itself and make it as less wordy and as straight
forward as possible, but we could certainly have an attachment. For example, the list
of salaries from other Counties which was a very important basis for establishing
these rates.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. I remember getting such a report and
that may have been that 2005 consultant when it was an extensive report, but
perhaps we can adopt that practice, which I think might be helpful to us. Then we
have the basic rationale and then can ask questions from there.
Mr. Finlay: We could certainly distribute the comparison
by County which was the primary document to guide us.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I have one (1) more question and that
may be for the Managing Director. Right now, what is the number of Department
Heads who are at the maximum salary? I mean, Department Heads, Deputies, and
Deputy Attorneys.
Ms. Nakamura: I do not have the budget in front of me, but my
sense is that most of them are at the maximum salary.
Ms. Morikami: I think the exceptions to the rule apply to the
Deputies in the Prosecutor's Office and the Deputies in the County Attorney's Office.
They start at a lower grade and they work their up. Those are exceptions. I am an
exception to the rule. I mean, it is not the rule, but I am an exception where I do not
get the salary listed here. So, there are cases where it is not at the maximum.
Ms. Nakamura: And these salaries have been constant since
2008.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I guess my question is are they at the
maximum because they are pushing the limits which have been unduly low or is it
because the Commissions just...the appointing bodies just fill them at the maximum?
COUNCIL MEETING 61 DECEMBER 17, 2014
I mean, just give them the maximum because I heard that at the Salary Commission
too, in which case all this thing about evaluations and things does not have a lot of
meaning.
Ms. Morikami: For the six (6) Directors and Deputies...I
mean, the Directors that are appointed by a Board or a Commission, before that can
occur, an evaluation has to be completed by the Commission, they evaluate that
Director, and their final summary is put in the personnel files.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Ms. Morikami: They cannot give an increase without an
evaluation.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Ms. Morikami: That is a standard procedure starting in July.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, starting this past July?
Ms. Morikami: Some start in July, some start in September
or October, but by the end of the year, all of the evaluations are completed.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is excellent and a great improvement
over past years where I have been sitting on this body and kind of watching the
administrative process. Thank you for that. That is making the County more
professional, I think, and our top managers are, I think, the most important people
in the County because how they manage their Departments determine whether we
are using our resources effectively, whether we are wasting, whether we are
committing mistakes, and all of that. They are the key.
Ms. Nakamura: We also wanted to point out that some of the
numbers in here reflect current salaries that some individuals are currently
receiving. For example, the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief of Police, they receive those
salary increases reflected here in 2012 as did the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief.
The County Clerk, the Deputy County Clerk, the County Auditor, and
Councilmembers received increases in 2009, I believe.
Councilmember Yukimura: Excuse me.
Ms. Nakamura: Was is 2009, Paula, for the Council?
Ms. Morikami: 2009.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, what you are saying is that for a Police
Chief and the Fire Chief, they are not receiving raises through this way because they
got previous raises much earlier?
Ms. Nakamura: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Which gave them much higher salaries then
the other Department Heads. So, you are bringing the other Departments up to the
same level. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kaneshiro.
COUNCIL MEETING 62 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kaneshiro: The job evaluations, do they do that every
year or is it just when the Salary Commission...
Ms. Morikami: It is done annually.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: If this does get approved, they could do...I
guess it has a seven percent (7%) cap, right, as far as increases go? They could step
it up depending on the budget or however it goes over the next seven (7) years to get
to the roof, have job evaluations every year, and base the increases on that. It is not
necessarily going to be a one-time punch.
Ms. Morikami: And this time around, as part of their
evaluation process, the Boards have also set goals for the Department Heads, which
is great because they could then measure the success of the Department Head.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I share the concern that Councilmember
Yukimura had. I wish that this showed where the changes were because now that I
look at some additional documents, yes, some of these numbers are the same that
they have been since 2009 and most of them are the same. So, why not just highlight
the ones that have increases and tell us why? The one that I do see is the Director of
Personnel. It went from one hundred ten thousand two hundred fifty-four dollars
($110,254) to one hundred fourteen thousand eight hundred forty-eight dollars
($114,848).
Ms. Morikami: That is considered the exception to this chart
in that the Civil Service Commission testified before the Salary Commission and said,
now that it is becoming a Human Resources (HR) Department with more functions,
payroll is now with them, training, everything is with them. They felt that rather
than having two (2) levels of Department Heads and HR being at the second level,
they thought that it qualified to be on a Level I salary. That is the change there.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. What others are there like that?
Ms. Morikami: That is the only exception.
Councilmember Kuali`i: That is the only one?
Ms. Morikami: That is the only exception, is that is moved up
to a higher level.
Mr. Finlay: Like she said, that is because the job
description changed.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right. I hear that. So, of all of these numbers
that is the only one that changed?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Ms. Morikami: I just wanted to bring up the reason why the
concern was raised at the Salary Commission, if you look at Prosecuting Attorney's
COUNCIL MEETING 63 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Office and County Attorney's Office, Deputies are Deputies. They are attorneys. If
you look at the difference in salaries, I think it is over six thousand dollars ($6,000).
It really should be on the same level is what the Salary Commission felt because they
are Deputy Attorneys.
Councilmember Kuali`i: In the past it was dealt with because both the
Deputy County Attorney and the Prosecuting Attorney, those figures did not change?
Ms. Morikami: If you look at the bottom of the sheet that was
just passed out to you, you can see that in December 1, 2009, increases did occur in
the Prosecutor's Office, but not in the County Attorney's Office.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. Most of these decisions are being made
based on information from other Counties, and the logic is that people that are taking
jobs there will take it here? I mean, it seems like if I live on Kaua`i and this is my
home, I am not going to be moving around the State just for a salary. I do not know
if that should the only reason. What else do you look at?
Mr. Finlay: Well like is said, it is very difficult to compare
against private sector for certain of these kinds of jobs like Police and Fire. The
attorneys, for example or the Engineering Department, you can compare that with
private sector salaries which are typically a little higher. The other Counties is about
really the only baseline information you can compare certain jobs like Fire and Police
or we also got some information from some mainland municipalities to try to get an
idea of what the right salaries are.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Finlay: But you did not want to have something that
is so low that you cannot fill the positions or you cannot get the quality of people that
you would like to attract.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So having made the statement, do we have
any information that is happening in any way, that some of our salaries are so low
that we cannot fill those positions?
Ms. Morikami: My personal opinion is I think it occurred in
the Department of Water. When they went out and sought applications for the
Manager position, the amount of applicants, I think, is an indication of the salary...I
think it was one hundred seven thousand dollars ($107,000). Was it one hundred
seven thousand dollars ($107,000)?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would just argue that maybe we are erring
on the side of caution and potentially a little bit of that problem can be addressed
when it comes up, but to avoid it in total all across the board, it represents a lot of
money for thirty (30) positions to be paid over four million dollars ($4,000,000). As
important as the job is, I think our citizens' tax dollars are pretty important and that
is something we have to be cautious about, and consider the different reasons for it
and have a little bit of consideration for it not having to be one hundred percent
(100%) no variances, no allowances for the chance that somebody might not apply for
a job from somewhere else because they can get paid more on Maui, all of that.
Ms. Morikami: Councilmember Kuali`i, the Salary Resolution
consists of fifty-three (53) positions. If you add the Deputies from both the
Prosecutor's Office and the County Attorney's Office, there are fifty-three (53)
positions that the Salary Resolution includes. Twenty-seven (27) positions did not
COUNCIL MEETING 64 DECEMBER 17, 2014
receive a salary cap increase and twenty-six percent (26%) did in 2009 and 2012. It
was the intent of the Salary Commission to make it consistent and fair. It is the
salary cap. It is not the salary. It is the maximum that is permitted so that everybody
is at the same level. That was the intent of this Resolution based on their discussion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I appreciate that. Just making the point
further too then, with fifty-three (53) positions that are paid over one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000), we are talking about five million three hundred
thousand dollars ($5,300,000), the potential at the maximum. It is a big
responsibility not just for the Salary Commission, but for the Mayor and for the
Council when we are looking at budget. So, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just to clarify because I thought I had it all
understood and then after Councilmember Kuali`i's questions...so this sheet we are
looking at right here that was passed out to us, there seems to be very little change.
Only the one from the Resolution that is 2009. All of these salaries listed under the
2009 column are currently in effect? That is existing salaries?
Ms. Morikami: No. The first column is the salaries for 2008.
The next column was proposed.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. So, 2008 is existing salaries?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, so that is what people are getting
today?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ms. Morikami: The 2009, I am sorry, the first line above is
missing. It should have said "Proposed 12/01/2009."
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. So, those are not?
Ms. Morikami: No.
Councilmember Hooser: That is the same number now that is on 2015?
Ms. Morikami: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: So, that represents...these are all raises?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. As we discussed it, it sounded like only
the Personnel Director was getting a raise.
Ms. Morikami: No.
Councilmember Hooser: But every single one of these people are
getting a raise?
COUNCIL MEETING 65 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Except Police.
Councilmember Hooser: Except the Police.
Councilmember Yukimura: Police and Fire.
Ms. Nakamura: Police, Fire, Prosecuting Attorney.
Councilmember Hooser: Police was at one hundred seven thousand
dollars ($107,000)...no, the Police gets are raise too. The Police Chief is at one
hundred seven thousand dollars ($107,000) right now and goes to one hundred
fourteen thousand eight hundred forty-eight dollars ($114,848).
Ms. Morikami: But if you look at the 12/01/2012, it shows...
Councilmember Hooser: It is at one hundred fourteen thousand four
hundred ninety dollars ($114,490). So, they get a four hundred dollars ($400) raise.
Ms. Morikami: That was some kind of error. It should have
been that amount.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Now we understand it much better.
After your conversation with the Councilmember and the column of 2009, the column
of 2015, I...
Mr. Finlay: That is a key word that was not on that list.
Councilmember Hooser: That did not make it.
Mr. Finlay: The 2009 was proposed back in 2009;
however, all of the raises were stalled since then except for in 2012, the Police and
Fire got their raises and now it is 2015. So, it has been...
Ms. Morikami: Five (5) years.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, five (5) years of no raises and all we are
doing now is implementing what was proposed way back in 2009.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Actually, it was proposed before 2009, right?
The 2009 was the final step of a multi...
Mr. Finlay: Of a four (4) year layout yes. That was
prepared by an expensive consultant.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, we paid somebody a lot of money to tell
us what we should do.
Mr. Finlay: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: And we did seventy-five percent (75%) of it,
and that rotten Council said "no" to the last one, I think, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Finlay: No, actually, the Salary Commission said "no"
to the last one.
COUNCIL MEETING 66 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay good.
Mr. Finlay: Our Resolution for 2009 was flat and no
raises.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, that is right. That is right. Okay, got it.
Any other questions for the Administration? If not, thank you very much.
Ms. Morikami: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: While the rules are suspended, is there
anyone in the audience wishing to testify on this matter?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is a little easier to make my decision
knowing that this does not affect our salaries. I would be hesitant to say that we are
worth more or we are going to do more by getting a raise. I think we all ran not for
the money that was there and not thinking that we are going to get into office and
give ourselves a raise. Now as far as the other salaries, I think I am satisfied with
the numbers provided by the Salary Commission. It is not exorbitant increases. It is
in line with other Counties. If I look at the Mayor's salary, I mean, he was making a
little more than the Prosecuting Attorney, a little more than the County Auditor, in
fact, less than the County Auditor, and that surely is not right in my view. I think
the Mayor deserves a separation from all Department Heads including those
positions I had mentioned. An eight thousand dollars ($8,000) difference is to me, not
too great. As far as all of the other personnel getting raises, these are the most
challenging times facing our County in the history of the County. We will be asking
all of you who will be receiving these raises to do more with less and work together
with us to right this ship because if we do not, I truly believe this County is in trouble.
So, I can support the raises knowing that together, you will work with us, run your
Departments better than ever, and do more with less because that is what the public
expects and that is what we expect. So, I will be supporting the motion to receive.
Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else comments?
Mr. Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I really appreciated Councilmember
Yukimura's point of maybe we could wait unlit the January meeting. I honestly do
not feel I have enough information, enough justification, and I have not done enough
analysis of the numbers especially with the confusion over 2009 was proposed. I was
looking at some numbers that were already higher and already closer to the change.
I know the Salary Commission did their work and this is not be mean any disrespect
to them, but if I have to vote today, I am going to vote in opposition. I could probably
do enough analysis and support it at the first meeting in January, but today, no.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I am feeling more comfortable with it
given the explanation, but I would like the actual figures and I do not think a delay
COUNCIL MEETING 67 DECEMBER 17, 2014
will hurt. We can still make the deadline if we move it to a Special Council Meeting
on January 7th. I know some people may be ready to vote on it, but if there is time
for others who are not comfortable, I would rather ask that we have that time, and if
it is not going to hurt or delay anything with the Department Heads because this
takes effect July 1st of next year. It is way before the budget and it is way before it
takes effect. So, I do not see any harm in delaying it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Staff has informed me that January 7th is
possible for a Special Council Meeting.
Councilmember Yukimura: Unless there is any more discussion...
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any more discussion? If not, do you
want to make a motion to defer?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, okay.
Councilmember Chock: If I could?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Chock: I just want to say that we have been talking
about...I am concerned about it and we have been talking about the need for us to
look for places to satisfy our budget. In fact, that is all we have talked about and that
is all we have been focused on. I think that we have done a real job in getting the
community to back up the need for our County by raising taxes. I think that not only
do I support us continuing to look at this and I appreciate that we can find more time
on the 7th, but I think that we have to take into consideration a couple things. One
is, there is only twenty-four (24) hours in a day, right? I believe our people work hard
already. I believe that money does not truly drive incentive. If it was up to me, I
would spend our money in building capacity in other ways. So, that is just my take.
I think that I agree with Councilmember Kagawa. We came in here as public
servants and there is no way that we can compare to the private industry. I think
that it would be foolish to try to even do so. The other thing I think is that we have
created this system as it is and the discussion about where the unions have driven
this or collective bargaining has driven this is really one of the systemic issues, but I
do not think that we will respond to that by actually creating an acceptance to it. In
fact, I think that we can show an example not only here, but within our Department
Heads about the direction that we think this needs to go for our community. For me,
it is a bigger hill and I just wanted to mention that in terms of where I am going with
this. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chock. Anyone else with
discussion? I will just say it is a bigger hill for me too, Mr. Chock. This is three
hundred sixty thousand dollars ($360,000) plus benefits that is another fifty percent
(50%), close to fifty percent (50%). So, you add one hundred eighty thousand dollars
($180,000) to that, that is another five hundred forty thousand dollars ($540,000).
That has to come from somewhere that we have to find. I mean, are we going to raise
five hundred dollars ($500,000)worth of taxes next year? No. We really have to think
long and hard about this. The other part of me is this is long overdue. It is from as
we talked about earlier, from a study that we paid for years ago to determine what
the best numbers for our hiring and retention were. It is really hard when you have
to make a decision because we know they deserve it, but can we afford it? It is a
tough place to be. The other thing that comes to mind is had we acted in 2009, had
we approved those raises back in 2009, would that have changed the people that we
have hired? Would we have gotten different people? I can tell you we have some
COUNCIL MEETING 68 DECEMBER 17, 2014
issues with our Departments. We have some issues. I am not going to hide and
pretend everything is groovy. Did you just see the audit? We got some issues. Is
that because we are not opening up the funnel wide enough because of the salary
holding it back? So, there is a lot of things going through my mind right now, but the
biggest thing is can we afford it? That is something I am glad that Councilmember
Yukimura has suggested the deferral. As long as staff says we can do it, then I have
no problem with that. It will give us some time to explore whether or not we can do
this or not. Having said that, Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to defer C 2015-22 to the January 7, 2015
Special Council Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Mr. BC, how
much time we got? We got one (1) minute? Okay. We will take a five (5) minute tape
change. Stay in your seats. Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 3:38 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:44 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going to go back to Bill No. 2545,
Draft 1, and when we left off Mr. Kagawa had an amendment.
Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the motion to amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1
as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Attachment 1. Councilmember Kuali`i withdrew the
second.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1 as circulated,
as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Attachment 2, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa, you can explain it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. This time in addition to reducing the fee
from five hundred dollars ($500) to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), we also took out
the requirement to obtain an annual re-certification. So, hopefully that makes it
easier for both parties, the applicants and the Planning Department. Thank you.
Any questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion again?
Anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: No discussion on the amendment.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1 as circulated, as shown in the Floor
Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Attachment 2 was then put, and unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING 69 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. We are back to the main
motion. Any further discussion? If not, oh, go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, I think one of the key dates that we left
in there we did not change was the requirement to re-certify by February 15th. I
would like to ask the applicants to spread the word out there. If you read the
amendment, it says "even if you miss that date, you may appeal the termination with
the Planning Commission in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure."
So, I believe there is still a window of we do not want to go down that road if possible.
Jesse has been the leader of getting the communication out, but if there is anybody
that you feel may not have gotten that message, please spread that word. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not,
roll call please.
The motion for adoption of Bill No. 2545, Draft 1, as amended, on second and
final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carries. Next item,
please. Let us go back to the...we did get clarification from OIP on the
Communications relating to the two (2) Bills and it is okay. If we could go back to
those items for receipt please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is on page 2 of your agenda, C 2015-10
and C 2015-11.
C 2015-10 Communication (12/02/2014) from the Director of Economic
Development, transmitting for Council consideration, a proposed draft Bill to amend
Chapter 17, Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to public charging of
electric vehicles at County owned charging stations.
C 2015-11 Communication (12/04/2014) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, a proposed draft Bill to amend Section 21-9.1
of the Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to Integrated Solid Waste
Management, to amend the variable rates for the collection of residential refuse.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion to receive please?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2015-10 and C 2015-11 for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next item is on page 3, number 2.
COUNCIL MEETING 70 DECEMBER 17, 2014
C 2015-17 Communication (11/06/2014) from the Civil Defense Manager,
requesting Council approval, to accept the donation of eight (8) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) trailers: three (3) Home Recovery Kits (HRK) and five
(5) Pre-Positioned Disaster Supplies (PPDS), from the State Civil Defense/Hawai`i
Emergency Management Agency, valued at approximately $215,430, to be used by
the Kaua`i Civil Defense Agency for disaster response at the following locations:
• Barking Sands: one (1) HRK and two (2) PPDS;
• Lihu`e: one (1) HRK, and two (2) PPDS; and
• Kapa`a: one (1) HRK and one (1) PPDS.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2015-17 with thank—you letter to
follow, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anybody in the
audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-17 with thank-you letter to follow was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item please.
C 2015-18 Communication (11/06/2014) from the Civil Defense Manager,
requesting Council approval, to accept the donation of two (2) six (6) feet by ten (10)
feet enclosed cargo trailers from the State of Hawai`i, Department of Defense, valued
at $14,412.14 each for a total of $28,824.28, for use by the Community Emergency
Response Team (CERT) program and coordinators: Councilmember Kagawa moved
to approve C 2015-18 with thank-you letter to follow, seconded by Councilmember
Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone in the
audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-18 with thank-you letter to follow was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item please.
C 2015-19 Communication (11/07/2014) from the Assistant Chief
Procurement Officer/Budget Chief, requesting Council approval to dispose of Work
Folders; Closed Contracts; Professional Services; Emergency, Sole Source, & Exempt
Files; Various Logs (Contract Assignment Record, Telephone Bids, & Mail);
Equipment Reports; Trust Accounts; Protest Logs & Files; Office Account Files; and
Copy Machine Files; pursuant to Section 46-43, Hawai`i Revised Statutes and
Resolution No. 49-86 (1986) as amended, for the following reasons:
COUNCIL MEETING 71 DECEMBER 17, 2014
1. Kept for over seven (7) years and are no longer of use or value.
2. Kept for over two (2) years and original verified to be on file with
electronic/duplicate records.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-19, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just for the record, I did check with the
Assistant Chief Procurement Office on this just to verify there were not any
permitting or regulatory items being destroyed and nothing concerning property
taxes or Ordinance No. 808.
Council Chair Rapozo: And that was verified?
Councilmember Hooser: That was verified via E-mail.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, that was verified via E-mail.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. I would ask that with the
motion, that we also state that in the motion just to be sure that those files are not
included even if they are over seven (7) years. Is that okay?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. Do we need a motion?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to amend the motion to approve C 2015-19 with
the condition that no records relating to real property taxes or permits/actions
pertaining to Ordinance No. 808 shall be disposed, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Next item,
please.
C 2015-20 Communication (11/18/2014) from the Prosecuting Attorney,
requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and expend Federal funds for the
Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit in the amount of $47,695, and approval to
indemnify the State of Hawai`i, Department of the Attorney General, to be utilized to
continue the program for the term commencing March 1, 2015 to January 15, 2016
for salaries/wages and supplies for the Domestic Violence Prosecution Unit:
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve C 2015-20, seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone in the
audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-20 was then put, and unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING 72 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2015-21 Communication (11/21/2014) from the Director of the Office of
Economic Development, requesting Council approval to accept a donation from the
Hawai`i Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) for building energy monitoring at
3990 Ka'ana Street, valued at $150,000, to include identification and analysis of
energy conservation measures, building energy modeling, and schematic bid
packages for lighting and mechanical improvements for the facility: Councilmember
Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-21 with thank-you letter to follow, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone in the audience
wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-21 with thank-you letter to follow was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2015-23 Communication (12/02/2014) from the Housing Director,
requesting Council approval for the following:
1. Acquisition of a residential unit at 165 Ulaula Road, `Ele`ele, Kaua`i,
Hawai`i, TMK: (4) 2-1-006-005, for a purchase price of not more than
$341,000 under the County's Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program based on the fee simple market appraisal;
2. Resale of 165 Ulaula Road, `Ele`ele, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, by leasehold for not
more than the leasehold market appraisal, which will be obtained
through this transaction; and
3. Authorize the County Clerk to sign legal documents related to these
transactions.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-23, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, wait.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Sorry. This is Housing, right? We were going
to have them. They are coming because I did want to ask questions about...
Council Chair Rapozo: That is probably him right there.
Councilmember Yukimura: Here we go. I do second it...wait, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 73 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: We are seconding it?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Did you run over?
KAMUELA COBB-ADAMS, Housing Director: I speed walked.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Speed walked.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. If you could just state your names for
the captioner and then Councilmember Yukimura has some questions.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: Good afternoon. Kamuela Cobb-Adams,
Director of Housing Agency. Just one (1) comment since I am here. It is beautiful,
the decorations. Merry Christmas. It is awesome.
STEVEN FRANCO, Homebuyer Specialist: I am Steve Franco. I am
the Homebuyer Specialist with the Housing Agency.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for you acknowledgment of the
decorations. I want to acknowledge Elizabeth Freeman and her team who have done
this now for eighteen (18) years. It is a real gift to the community. Your purchase of
the Ulaula Road, `Ele`ele property, what is the plan with that? It is for three hundred
forty-one thousand dollars ($341,000). It is quite expensive.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: It is to purchase, bring it up to standard if
necessary, and then sell it as a leasehold property.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, that sounds good. Thank you. That is
all I had because the other one...oh, I see. Okay. Number 1, we are purchasing it.
Number 2, we are selling it as a leasehold.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: Yes, and for clarification, we are not the first
or highest offer. So, we are backup offer.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: But we needed to get approval in the case that
the first falls out.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, I have one (1) more question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it a repurchase? It was not in County
inventory.
COUNCIL MEETING 74 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Mr. Cobb-Adams: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, okay. Alright. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions? If not,
thank you, gentlemen. Again I will ask. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion was to approve and we did have a
second.
The motion to approve C 2015-23 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
LEGAL DOCUMENT:
C 2015-25 Communication (12/02/2014) from the Housing Director,
recommending for Council approval, the conveyance by Alexander & Baldwin, LLC.,
of the 11.204 acre parcel situated alongside Po`ipu Road to the County of Kaua`i for
the development of workforce housing which fulfills the final housing condition for
Kukui`ula Development Company (Hawai`i), LLC as required by Ordinance
No. PM-2004-370, as amended.
• Dedication Deed concerning Tax Map Key (TMK) No. (4) 2-6-004:019
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-25, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: No. I just have discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know if people understand the
significance of this, but it is going to allow the County to acquire land in the heart of
Po`ipu and will allow us to implement a permanent affordability policy that will keep
this workforce housing forever affordable in the Po`ipu area. It is also a Smart
Growth measure because it is within walking and biking distance of most of the resort
jobs in the area. It is just mauka of the roundabout. I want to really thank Tom
Shigemoto who is back there in the audience, Alexander & Baldwin (A&B), and
Kukui`ula Development Company for their cooperation in making this happen. I
want to thank our Housing Agency Director Cobb-Adams and Gary Mackler for their
work in making this happen. It was not a cookie cutter arrangement, but it took a
lot of innovation, creative thinking, and cooperation. It is going to be very good to
have this housing in the inventory. There are still many steps to move on before we
COUNCIL MEETING 75 DECEMBER 17, 2014
get people in these homes, but this is one big step that we are completing today. I
want to thank the Council and the Mayor for their cooperation in making this happen.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Councilmember Yukimura. Any
other comments? I think Councilmember Yukimura, this was back in 2000 when we
went through that zoning. It was a while ago.
Councilmember Yukimura: It came out of the rezoning for Kukui`ula.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: But it took an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance.
Council Chair Rapozo: And I think Councilmember Yukimura was
the tenacious one that went after the affordable housing parcel. Congratulations, you
got eleven (11) acres and not only that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: As I read the cover letter because it happened
so long ago I kind of almost forgot about it, but this also includes Kukui`ula
Development will dedicate at their sole cost all off-site infrastructure. That includes
the electricity; the sewer; the water source, storage and transmission sufficient to
serve one hundred fifty (150) dwelling units on the parcel; and they will pay to have
existing overhead power lines relocated either underground or off the property. So,
it is a significant, as Councilmember Yukimura said, significant accomplishment. I
want to echo her mahalo to the Housing Agency, the Planning Department, and
everybody who made this happen because it is. It is a huge thing for the island and
for affordable housing. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Really, it is not me. It is the
County that will be getting this and it was the County's effort. Yes, A&B and
Kukui`ula. Thank you. I do want to say there is one (1) error in the posting. I do not
think it is significant in terms of this approval, but this is not the final hosing
condition of Kukui`ula Development because there is another site which was
supposed to be a model for cooperative housing. It is five (5) acres and we need to
work on that as well. This is a wonderful thing. Thank you again, Tom.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is Tom here?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. He is right back there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, yes. Thank you, Tom. Thank you very
much.
Councilmember Yukimura: Really, I cannot emphasize enough Tom's
leadership in this matter and his integrity and following through. It helped us create
a model of public/private partnership. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I wanted to offer my thanks also to
Councilmember Yukimura and A&B for this great thing. I do question whether or
not that needs to be changed. I mean, it is a pretty significant statement that says,
COUNCIL MEETING 76 DECEMBER 17, 2014
"this fulfills the final housing condition." If that is not correct, that should be
corrected perhaps today.
Councilmember Yukimura: How do we do that? I do not mind...
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, it is a pretty significant statement to
say that it is the final condition if it is not the final condition.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Let me do this. Let me suspend the rules
and have the Housing Agency come up. I believe it is the final housing condition. I
think there is that question of the parcel that was going to be offered to the
Department of Education (DOE) if I remember correctly, but they had the first right.
Is that the one you are talking about, Councilmember Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, it is.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: But it is not complete because if they exercise
their right of refusal, then it will come to us. Actually, just like with this condition
that we are approving, this change in the zoning condition, we may need to work on
that as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you could identify yourself again please.
GARY MACKLER, Housing Development Coordinator: Good afternoon
Councilmembers. Gary Mackler, Housing Agency.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: Kamuela Cobb-Adams, Housing Agency also.
I understand...I will let Gary speak to it. He is more of an expert on this and has
been here from the day when the original Zoning Ordinance was passed. So, I am
going to let Gary handle this question.
Mr. Mackler: The rezone that was referred to was in 2004
and in that Zoning Ordinance, there was what we refer to as Condition 19. Then
Condition 19 of the Ordinance, there was a host of housing requirements, one of which
is the requirement that Kukui`ula provide seventy-five (75) units of employee
housing. In 2005, Kukui`ula went into rezone land which is the subject parcel we are
talking about today for the dedication and as part of the conditions for that rezone,
the first seventy-five (75) units to be built on that site would have to be the
seventy-five (75) units of affordable housing because under the 2004 Ordinance, they
had the ability to provide that housing anywhere between Po'ipu and I think it was
stated as Port Allen. They wanted to keep the housing as close to the resort as
possible. They rezoned that parcel that we are talking about today. This is the final
condition, this is the final requirement under Condition 19. The other possibility of
housing is not really offered to the Housing Agency. It is initially the purview of the
Department of Education whether to accept that land for the expansion of school
facilities or to decline it eventually and take an in-lieu fee payment from Kukui`ula,
which would then allow the County of Kauai to have the opportunity to utilize that
property for affordable housing. At this point in time, it is not within our control to
have that land.
COUNCIL MEETING 77 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: But it still is a zoning condition that is not yet
completely unfolded or it had not yet been executed?
Mr. Mackler: Yes, and we will not know if and when it even
happens because if the Department of Education decides to utilize that land to expand
the school facility or to build new school facilities, we will never see it.
Councilmember Yukimura: But I have been in conversation with the
Department of Education and they already have seven (7) acres of land right at KOloa
Elementary School for expansion. It is unlikely that they would build a middle school
or a high school in Po`ipu. There is a possibility we could provide some teacher
housing that could include teacher housing. There is some possibilities for
negotiating a change and that would require a zoning change. The bottom line is that
we are not done with that Zoning Ordinance because there is a housing possibility.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think the housing component of the zoning
amendment Condition 19 is complete with this.
Mr. Mackler: With this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Maybe Councilmember Yukimura, we can
post and item either in your Committee or Planning Committee to have that explored,
and maybe we should go aggressively go seek that parcel because I agree that is a
great parcel as well. I do not know how long the DOE...I do not even know if they
had a deadline on that. I do not think they had a deadline. So, the DOE could string
that out.
Mr. Mackler: No. The Department of Education, I have
read in their communication to Mike Roberts who was at the time working on the
zoning amendment...
Councilmember Yukimura: About four (4) years.
Mr. Mackler: ...indicated that they wanted to wait to see
over three hundred (300) units built first within the resort development before
making a decision whether they would want that land or to take an in-lieu fee instead.
I do not know how far away three hundred (300) plus units is for the resort. Maybe
Tom could speak to that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, that is not on the agenda today. So, we
will post something just to cover that. Go ahead, Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. The issue for me it seems the
communication statement and I do not know if there is precedent for amending
communications. If we could amend it, we could take the one, two, three, fourth, fifth
line where it says "workforce housing," delete it all the way to the word "as." It says
"approval for the conveyance of A&B parcel for the development of workforce housing
as required by Ordinance No. PM-2004-370, as amended" which takes out the
language saying this is their final housing condition, but it leave in this is for the
housing as per the Ordinance. If we can amend the communication, I think it is still
an accurate statement rather than leave this inaccurate perception on the table.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know if that is allowable. I am not
sure if we can amend the communication, but you can restate the motion so that the
COUNCIL MEETING 78 DECEMBER 17, 2014
motion is approving a specific...Ricky has informed me that what we are approving
is the Dedication Deed, not the communication. The Dedication Deed is in your
packet.
Councilmember Hooser: If I could just follow-up?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: We are approving the deed. We have not and
are not approving any communications?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Is it sufficient just for the record to state in
the minutes that...well, I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for the Council,
that I did not concur with the communication that this is the final requirement?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I mean, I believe you can...
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, I can state that?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. There is no way this body could without
a formal motion, remove that condition of what I call the "DOE parcel." There is no
way we can do that even if the communication says it is their last housing condition.
Unless that zoning amendment or that Zoning Ordinance was on the floor, I mean,
that will stand as-is.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am comfortable with it. I am just doing a
real quick check of the Dedication Deed as you folks are discussing this.
Councilmember Hooser: These things take years to go through and I
would hate for two (2) years from now someone just say, "Listen, it was already...you
said it was final, but it is not final." I am fine with just putting it on the record.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, maybe if the maker of the motion
who I think was Councilmember Kuali`i could just make clear that or even just in the
minutes that it was a motion to approve the Dedication Deed, and then we have these
minutes anyway of all of us saying that it is not the final condition or it is the final
housing condition under Condition 19. It is the final housing...
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, the Dedication Deed is TMK specific.
It is specific to just this parcel and not any other parcel.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and we have stated it for the record.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: I want to point out a couple of things because
in our communications and that was our communication so I thought it would be
weird you folks amend what we are communicating to you folks, but that is our
understanding. It does meet the final affordable housing condition. The condition
which is Condition 19. We could clarify that. The other condition which is being
referenced is a Department of Education condition which then there is another level
if they do not use it, it could be given to the County for affordable housing. If you
COUNCIL MEETING 79 DECEMBER 17, 2014
want us to clarify that, I think we need to address it now because if you look at D,
page 3, "The grantee agrees that upon completion of the requirements set forth in the
restated Housing Agreement" I am not going to read the whole thing. You folks can
read it, but it basically says that the grantee has fulfilled their housing condition. If
you approve this agreement, you are approving basically that same understanding.
Councilmember Yukimura: Wow.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: I just wanted to clarify that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Which paragraph on page 3?
Mr. Cobb-Adams: Page 3, top paragraph labeled number 8.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, that has to be amended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. This is what we will do. This is not
time...we can wait for the Committee?
Mr. Cobb-Adams: Yes. I want you folks to make the best
decision. I just wanted to clarify that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I appreciate you bringing that up
because that is concerning too as I read that paragraph. I appreciate you bringing
that up. Councilmember Yukimura, do you want to have this referred to your
Committee?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I definitely...
Council Chair Rapozo: This is obviously going to have to be
something that the County Attorney has to look at. Let us just put it in your
Committee.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is fine, but even before it is in my
Committee I think the Housing Agency just needs to go back and have the deed
amended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: I guess depending on what you folks do, we
can...if you folks approve it, you approve it. If it sounds like it is not going to be
approved, we can take it back and then speak to Kukui`ula about changing that
because...
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Cobb-Adams: ...it is a mutually agreed upon.
Council Chair Rapozo: In fact, Ricky just suggested that we just
receive this item today and then you folks do the research, we will do our research,
then come up with a Dedication Deed that is much clearer, and then we will repost
at that time at the full Council. Is that okay with everybody? We will just have a
motion to receive at some point, but wait. We cannot yet. We have to call the meeting
back to order. They are still here. Any more questions for Housing? If not, thank
you very much.
COUNCIL MEETING 80 DECEMBER 17, 2014
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion? If not, can we
have a motion to receive?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I withdraw my motion to...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, receive trumps it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Receive takes precedence.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2015-25 for the record, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Thank you, Gary.
CLAIM:
C 2015-26 Communication (12/03/2014) from the Deputy County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Jeffrey S. Kay, for damages
to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2015-26 to the County Attorney's Office for
disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion to refer C 2015-26 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition
and/or report back to the Council was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2015-01) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2015-01 Communication (10/28/2014) from Committee Chair
Kagawa, requesting the presence of the Director of Parks & Recreation, to
provide a briefing on repaving roads and parking lots located within County
parks, including, but not limited to discussion of the following:
• Methodology used by the Department to track the need for
repaving; and
• Any preventive maintenance plan for repaving (and if no plan
exists, discussion of the time projection and cost for establishing
a preventive maintenance plan),"
COUNCIL MEETING 81 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kagawa moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PL 2015-01) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved as Amended on second and final
reading:
"Bill No. 2545 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS 8-15.1(B) AND 8-15.1(D), KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON OTHER
THAN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS,"
Councilmember Yukimura moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any
public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item.
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-BF 2015-01) submitted by the Budget & Finance Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2565 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2014-781, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII,
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015, BY
REVISING THE AMOUNTS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND (Real
Property Assessment Software— $100,000),"
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Public testimony?
COUNCIL MEETING 82 DECEMBER 17, 2014
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Next item,
please.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2015-04 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW (Donald G. Kolenda):
Councilmember Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-04, seconded
by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call, please.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-04, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Hooser TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2015-05 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW (Julie A. Caspillo): Councilmember
Kuali`i moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-05, seconded by Councilmember
Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Hearing none, public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call.
COUNCIL MEETING 83 DECEMBER 17, 2014
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-05, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Hooser TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2015-06 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION(Allan H. Parachini):
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-06, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would like to ask the Boards & Commissions
a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Paula, if you could state your name for the
captioner, please.
Ms. Morikami: Paula Morikami, Boards & Commissions.
Councilmember Hooser: Hi. Good afternoon.
Ms. Morikami: Good afternoon.
Councilmember Hooser: I just had a few questions. In terms of the
process, does the Mayor interview all of the nominees or appointees?
Ms. Morikami: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. On this appointee there has been some
questions raised publicly about certain items that I wanted to ask you if the Mayor
was aware. There was questions raised about the circumstances regarding the
discharge from a prior employment in the Los Angeles court system, I believe. Did
the Mayor or the Administration look into the circumstances behind that discharge?
Ms. Morikami: No.
Councilmember Hooser: They did not?
Ms. Morikami: No.
Councilmember Hooser: Were they aware of the allegations of the
controversy surrounding the discharge?
COUNCIL MEETING 84 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Morikami: No.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. It was in the newspaper. I am just
saying.
Ms. Morikami: Yes, I understand. The nomination was
submitted to you prior to that and that is how it appeared in the newspaper.
Councilmember Hooser: Since it has appeared in the newspaper, did
the Mayor or anyone in the Administration seek to look into the background and
validate whether or not the allegations were true to the circumstances regarding the
discharge?
Ms. Morikami: No we did not.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. This is for a Charter Review
Commission position.
Ms. Morikami: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: There are lots of things discussed about the
Charter Review. There are certain positions. Was the Mayor aware of the
nominee/appointee's positions on various Charter proposals?
Ms. Morikami: Actually, I was the one that recommended
this person to the Charter Review Commission. I have noticed he has attended
Council Meetings and he was attended Charter Review Commission meetings. The
eighty (80) page Charter is very detailed and I was hoping that someone who was
familiar with the Charter would be able to get as there and start running because
they have the last two (2) years of the Charter Review Commission, right? It sunsets
at the end of 2016 and the more knowledge they have up front, it will benefit the
whole Charter Review Commission and the County.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. When looking at different people and
positions and something like this, you have one candidate "A" for example might be
open, open to what citizens have to say, and open to hearing different perspectives
before I make my decision. Candidate "B" might come in, I know what my position
is, and I have stated my position publicly strongly on this issue. We are talking about
the number of signatures required for a charter amendment versus an ordinance
which was a subject of great debate and great controversy here at the Council. Was
the Mayor aware of the position of this applicant on that particular issue?
Ms. Morikami: No he was not.
Councilmember Hooser: Was that question asked about
specific...when applicants are being interviewed, are they asked "How do you feel
about certain issues?"
Ms. Morikami: No, I do not ask them those questions. I
basically want to know where they are from, their background, whether or not they
are interested, and whether or not as a volunteer they can commit to the time that is
required to be on the Commission.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 85 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Morikami: The Mayor tries to get a very diverse group of
individuals from all walks of life, long-term residents, short-term residents, females,
or males.
Councilmember Hooser: No, I understand.
Ms. Morikami: The diversity when we interview people, we
want to find people with diverse backgrounds and they are basically lay people
serving the public.
Councilmember Hooser: I understand.
Ms. Morikami: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: This particular issue was also in the paper on
several occasions. So, it is just a hot button issue and strong opinions. I just wanted
to know if the Mayor was aware of those opinions.
Ms. Morikami: No he was not.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Is the Mayor aware that this particular
nominee publicly disparages the character of Councilmembers in the past?
Ms. Morikami: I am not sure if he is aware. I am not aware.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I am aware. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Hooser. Any further
questions of Paula? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, no, not of Paula.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question for Mr. Parachini.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Paula.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Paula.
Council Chair Rapozo: The rules are still suspended. Mr. Parachini.
ALLAN H. PARACHINI: Good afternoon.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you could just state your name for our
captioner please.
Mr. Parachini: Allan Parachini.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Parachini: I would like...
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, let me ask you...
COUNCIL MEETING 86 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. Councilmember Yukimura, you
have the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: There has been some allegations about your
past employment...
Mr. Parachini: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...at the courts of Los Angeles. Would you
care to clarify what happened?
Mr. Parachini: I would be happy to clarify that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Parachini: It is well out in the public record and has been
since 2010. Within the last twenty-four (24) hours there has been extensive
exchanges between attorneys representing myself and attorneys representing a
media company called BuzzFeed which posted a liabalist piece about me in July that
reiterated a number of very stale, very old allegations about my departure from the
Los Angeles Superior Court. Within the last two (2) hours, I do not have internet
access in here. I am not quite sure I am going to be able to do this, but there was an
agreement reached shortly after noon today between my Counsel and BuzzFeed in
which a retraction either has gone online within the last hour or two (2) or will tonight
that essentially retracts all of the allegations about bribe taking, criminal behavior,
all of that hogwash that had gotten in the rumor mill, and was reiterated by this
erroneous liabalist piece on BuzzFeed. Their Counsel and my Counsel with
remarkable speed, this has all come together in the last twenty-four (24) hours. They
have skinned that story back and taken it back. It is my position that what I told my
lawyers yesterday was "I will not tolerate anyone calling me a criminal." I do not
care what the circumstance is. I think Mr. Rapozo, you and I have been in similar
situations with allegations that were completely unwarranted.
I was terminated by the Los Angeles Superior Court. Allegations were made
to me initially in the termination process that I was suspected of inappropriately
disclosing confidential court information. The court was never able to produce a
single episode or example. Subsequently, the court entered into a settlement with
me. The terms of that settlement are protected by a Confidentiality Agreement,
suffice to say that the court did not and could not produce any...not even evidence.
They could not even identify a single alleged example of this purported misconduct.
So, it is very easy to reiterate and republish wildly speculative alleged information
circulated on websites. The developments over the last twenty-four (24) hours with
all of these lawyers in three (3) different cities...you too huh? This has been
somewhat stressful to me and it really has nothing to do necessarily with this
appointment, although I did tell my attorneys yesterday that this matter would come
before you today and I wanted the air cleared before this hearing. Thankfully it has
been or I believe it has been.
Councilmember Yukimura: If anything should surface contrary to this
particular issue, would you be willing to well, how do I put that? If what you say
turns out not to be true, would you be willing to come back for approval?
Mr. Parachini: Sure. I would reiterate to this Council the
same offer I made to the Los Angeles Times and had made over time to other news
organizations including through Counsel yesterday to BuzzFeed. I am willing to
authorize all access to all of my financial records for the entire duration of my
COUNCIL MEETING 87 DECEMBER 17, 2014
journalistic and public relations career starting in 1965 to any forensic accountant
you would care to employ, have at it. There is nothing there to find. That was the
conclusion of the Los Angeles Times drew by the way.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So, there has been also allegations that
you are fixed in your positions on the Charter. Would you like to explain to us how
you see your role on the Charter Commission?
Mr. Parachini: Sure. I have said publicly, and I believe said
to this body the other week when I was here and you were out of town, that it is my
feeling that amending the Charter should be a rigorous process because the Charter
is the underlying Constitutional framework document of our County government. It
is not a document that should be revised often or willy-nilly. A process that is rigorous
is appropriate and I do believe that. I believe that about the issue that I spoke out
about. I would remind this body that when I addressed the Charter Review
Commission and wrote to them, and some of you have seen my letters to you over
time. There have been four (4) or five (5) of them mostly on Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO) issues. I noted at the time that nothing the Charter Review
Commission could have done pertaining to signature requirements would have
affected that particular proposal because had the proposal gotten to the ballot, the
Charter Review Commission would have been powerless to stop it. The debate before
the Charter Commission was whether the signature requirement for Charter
Amendments and the signature requirements for Initiative Ordinance should be
tinkered with. What I have said and what I believe is that the most charitable way
to put the language in the Charter right now or to describe it is to say it is ambiguous
on the issue of what constitutes a Charter Amendment which is why this Council
found itself in a position of needing a legal opinion before you rejected that particular
proposal.
I read Mona's analysis. I also read the cases and what created the problem for
this body and for the Charter Review Commission is that the Charter language is
silent on the issue of what constitutes a Charter Amendment. The attorney took the
only possible position under the circumstances that case law then controlled. She
read it, I read it, and it is pretty unambiguous. Case law says you were not in a
position to legally allow that matter to proceed to the ballot. You did the right thing,
and you complied with the advice given to you by your attorney in what I would by
the way say is one of the best written legal opinion I have ever read from County
Attorney's Office anywhere. That is that. My position on that question could not
have touched that proposal getting on the ballot in that particular year.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. My last question is there
has also been charges that you disparage people in your commentaries. I know that
is kind of a fine line in terms of disagreeing with people versus disparaging people,
but do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Parachini: Sure. Mr. Hooser and former Councilmember
Bynum, in your case is and in his case, was a member of this body. I was an author
of an opinion editorial (op-ed) piece that took them to task for the manner in which
they had conducted the advocacy campaign for Bill No. 2491. I believe I referred to
it as a political conspiracy. That is the kind of strong argumentative language that is
typical and common of op-ed journalism. I do not know how many op-eds I have
written lifetime. It is in the dozens. Only four (4) of them have ever had my name
on them as the author. All of the others have had other author's names, but it is the
manner of political discourse. If Mr. Hooser took offense, I am sorry. I do believe
that as I said at the time, that Bill No, 2491 was poorly envisioned and poorly crafted,
COUNCIL MEETING 88 DECEMBER 17, 2014
and that its fate was very predictable given the way courts have ruled in the past on
preemption issues. If you took offense Mr. Hooser, I am sorry. I apologize.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions for
Mr. Parachini? Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just a brief follow-up. I hope it is clear that
when I spoke to the Boards & Commissions, I chose my words very carefully.
Mr. Parachini: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: I have never accused you of bribe taking or I
do not even know...
Mr. Parachini: I appreciate that. I know that.
Councilmember Hooser: I do not even know what is on...
Mr. Parachini: It is out there.
Councilmember Hooser: I do not know what is on BuzzFeed or the LA
Times in New York.
Mr. Parachini: You are lucky.
Councilmember Hooser: It is my understanding that you were
terminated by the Los Angeles court system.
Mr. Parachini: That is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. What was the reason they gave you for
termination?
Mr. Parachini: The reason given was that I had
inappropriately shared confidential court information. They offered me an
opportunity to resign. My response was that was such an outrageous and spurious
allegation that they were going to have to fire me. I was not going to roll over and
resign for something I had not done.
Councilmember Hooser: After you were terminated, did you sue the...
Mr. Parachini: I did not sue. There was never any litigation.
It was my expressed wish to my attorneys that since I knew the cost of litigation of
the court and outside Counsel that the court absorbed every year, even under the
circumstances, it was not my desire to contribute to that heavy toll in dollars. I asked
my attorneys to resolve this without litigation, that occurred. As to the terms of that
settlement, as I said, there is a Confidentiality Agreement. I cannot discuss it.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Again, for the record, my questions of
the Boards & Commissions was "did the Administration attempt to contact the court
system to find out their response rather than just having your response."
Mr. Parachini: I have no idea.
COUNCIL MEETING 89 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. The disparaging remarks for the
record, were more than just questioning my judgment as a Councilmember. You said
that I was doing it for personal gain, and that is what I found offensive.
Mr. Parachini: Well...
Councilmember Hooser: When you question, and I question whether or
not an officer of the County should be someone who publicly makes those decisions.
I do not see that as something that helps dialogue and relationships when you
question the motivations and character of decision makers, question and actions, but
not motivations and character.
Mr. Parachini: Point taken.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions for
Mr. Parachini? Thank you, sir. Any other...Ms. Cowden. The rules are still
suspended.
FELICIA COWDEN: My name is Felicia Cowden. I have concerns
about this appointment. The man is a very talented man used to playing
heavy-handed with the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. These are urban
centers with a really intense type of community that they are dealing with. Kauai is
much more gentle. It is like getting professional ball against American Youth Soccer
Organization (AYSO) or something like that. What I find is that we have a culture
here of being polite and that is really important to come in and speak in a way that
is kind, is open minded, and understanding. I actually have a lot of respect for this
person when I watch him in different meetings. He knows how to twist the
conversation to cause that stiffness in the spine. I feel like he has taken action
against the public affairs team of KKCR. It is implied. As I wrote my letter, I had so
many people, and it was not easy for me to write my letter. I wrote that letter in the
paper that ended up as a news article. I had a lot of people appreciate me for doing
it. They tell me their stories. I say, "Well, why do you not say something?" They say,
"That guy is going to sue me. Are you kidding? He has an element of lawyers. He is
going to go right to the lawyers and he is going to sue me if I say anything." Of course
I feel the same way and I do not feel like I violated anything by saying, "I am
concerned that this is not the right temperament for this job with something this
important." He can do many wonderful things in this community. Let him do them
first before he comes in to suppress the ability of the people to speak out. That five
percent (5%) is not that easy to get. Yes, maybe the Charter needs to be adapted. It
is odd that a Charter Amendment is easier than an ordinance or a resolution, but
twenty percent (20%) is really high. If we are concerned, the twenty percent (20%), I
mean five percent (5%) is too easy to get. We have a Commission of seven (7) people.
You can have a quorum of five (5). That means three (3) people can make a decision
and you have somebody who can be pleasant and who is very persuasive. I have a
problem with that. What I see, I do not see where it comes across to me as direct
huge accusations, but I see a device of nature when half-truth can be put out and then
it creates stress and division amongst the people in the dialogue. A lot of this has
been online, but I know that there is a big stomach ache in the environment where I
work with in public affairs. It is like, ugh, what does he want? I think that is how
people can feel. It is hard to get people to come to these meeting and not be
intimidated. My time is up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Questions for Felicia?
Go ahead, Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 90 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you explain the issue with KKCR?
Ms. Cowden: KKCR. He has come into the programming
meetings. I am hearing things in the background. I do not want to be...because I am
worried about the guy suing me, right? I am going to be very careful what I say, but
I know why he is there. Because he does not like the level of professionalism amongst
community radio, a bunch of volunteers chatting as best they possibly can on these
public affairs shows. My show is where people bring forward their concerns. It is
called "Kaua`i Soapbox." I allow people to come and speak their concerns.
Councilmember Yukimura: And...
Ms. Cowden: It was regarding that. Why is he there? Why
is he coming to our meetings? He is not on the Board. He can come. Why is he there?
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know.
Ms. Cowden: Well, I do not know either. Well, actually, I
feel like I do.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is so hard to address things that are so
unspecific.
Ms. Cowden: I know, but so I should let it rest to say it is a
level of discomfort. When I think about...I am a pretty extroverted person and this
guy shuts me down. When I work really, really hard to be very well-informed and so
when we have things like a Commission where people need to come and speak their
heart, and they come in and there is somebody who is intimidating there, I do not
think that is the best choice. When I look at who is here on the island and who is
willing and able to raise their hand, I have a problem with why we make a choice like
this.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ms. Morikami, I thought, brought up a very
good point that there needs to be diversity. I mean, to have somebody who is very
nice but not really understanding the structure of the Charter is...
Ms. Cowden: Well, nobody asked me and I understand the
structure of the Charter, right? Like, where do we go on that?
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, Felicia...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. This is not a debate.
Councilmember Yukimura, you have a question for Felicia?
Ms. Cowden: Okay. I am sorry.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. What are the half-truths that you are
talking about?
Ms. Cowden: On Facebook statements and things about to
do...
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know. You just used the word "half-
truths."
___■
COUNCIL MEETING 91 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Cowden: Half-truths like on GMO conversations,
populating it with...on both sides of that issue, there are people who are under
informed and emotional. It is easy to set people off with the wrong information. What
I see, he will put a statement up there, people get all upset, and all upset at me for
not tearing him apart because some of what he is saying is true, right? I see just this
division, creates the problem, and then he leaves the conversation. This is not about
Facebook, this is about public behavior. Public behavior is such that he is kind of a
master. I am impressed. I am impressed and pleased that somebody has that much
knowledge about how you go in and you take a group that works well together and
you create dissent and distress amongst them.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am going to ask that you...if you have
an answer to the question, fine. But you are making a lot of assumptions, Felicia,
and I am just trying to be fair to everybody. I mean, I think you are making a lot of
assumptions and it is very difficult...
Ms. Cowden: I am being vague. I am being vague. So, let
me say that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on.
Ms. Cowden: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have the Facebook articles and...
Ms. Cowden: And I never screenshot them. Just like he is
saying, all if fair...
Council Chair Rapozo: I...
Ms. Cowden: I am in a campaign.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is right. Do you have any more
questions, Councilmember Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more questions? If not,
thank you very much, Felicia. Any other...Mr. TenBruggencate.
JAN TENBRUGGENCATE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Council. My name is Jan TenBruggencate. I sit on the Charter Review
Commission. I was the Chair of the Charter Review Commission last year when the
issue around the Charter Amendment "signature count" came up. That was defeated
in that Charter and both Felicia, the previous speaker and Mr. Parachini testified. I
really do not think it is appropriate to disqualify people from public service because
they have taken a public position. I did want to say I have known Mr. Parachini for
a couple of years. The first time I met him, he showed up at a campaign forum for
the Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) election. He is, to me mind, bright,
concerned, and independent. He and I may not agree on specific issues, but I feel
assured that he can look at an issue, research an issue, come to a reasonable
conclusion, and that is all I ask. I mean, I think the members we have now on the
Charter Commission are able to do that. We do not always agree, but I am thankful
that we are having a reasoned public discussion. That is the kind of thing we do. I
think he would be a good addition to that panel. I encourage your support of his
nomination.
COUNCIL MEETING 92 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Jan, for testifying. How many
people are sitting on the Board?
Mr. TenBruggencate: The Commission has, under the Charter, has
seven (7) members. Currently, two (2) members are terming out currently. I have
reason to believe we may have another vacancy. We would have three (3) vacancies.
Councilmember Kagawa: If Mr. Parachini gets approved, then we would
only have...
Mr. TenBruggencate: Then we would have one (1), maybe two (2)
vacancies. I am sure the Administration will be bringing up other nominees for those
positions.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Jan.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other question of Mr. TenBruggencate?
Thank you.
Mr. TenBruggencate: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I will be supporting
Mr. Parachini. I would be hesitant because a lot of new things have come up, if he
were on a panel of maybe three (3), but I have confidence that like the County Council
here, the numbers help to balance the decision. We cannot be, I believe, selecting
individuals on one (1) instance or two (2) instances. I first-hand know that I am far
from perfect. If I did not have second chances, I certainly would not be sitting here.
I would hope that Mr. Parachini will prove us right today and really do the good work
that needs to be done on the Charter Commission. I think a lot of proposals are made
to the Charter and I think my personal view is that we should limit the amount of
items that go on so that when the voters vote, there are just a few big issues where
they can put a lot of thought and know what they are voting for. That is the key, I
think, as far as I am concerned, is to try and keep it simple if that makes sense. I
will be supporting Mr. Parachini and I thank you for volunteering to serve. Thank
you. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. I will not be supporting Mr. Parachini.
In politics, we are fair game. So, it is not just because somebody has criticized me or
does not like me or has said nasty things about me in the paper or on Facebook.
Chair, I will never forget you sitting in that chair and responding to someone or to a
general statement of someone questioning your motives that it were political in
nature. The response that you gave, I am sure you will never forget.
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
COUNCIL MEETING 93 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Hooser: We all feel that way, I think, when people
question our character or motives and we know we are trying to do the right thing.
So, that is not the reason though it is a symptom and one of the testifiers mentioned
this, public behavior. The example I gave to the nominee was just one (1) example
and I am not going to repeat all of the negative...I am not going to repeat my own
negatives here, but there are many situations where he has entered conversations
and have been disruptive, negative, and disparaging. I think that is problematic at
its core. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, I am disappointed the
Administration did not follow through on answering the question in terms of what is
the truth behind his termination. I mean, we have heard his story and it is probably
true, but we will not know. It is like an employee. You would think you would
follow-up on something this serious. You would contact the court system, you would
get the court system's take on it, but the Administration has chosen not to do this. I
would think at the minimum, we would defer and then find out the reasons why the
termination and the legal action. It was characterized not as a lawsuit, but I
understand it is a legal matter because there was a settlement and its confidential
terms. We deal with lots of legal matters here. We have lots of employee actions
against the County costing us a lot money and yet we do not know the circumstances
behind that situation except from what we have been told today. I think it would be
prudent of the County to look into this and it begs the question. There is a huge pool
of people, qualified people, people that would I am sure want to serve, and there are
other ways for this nominee to serve besides in this particular position. To bring
somebody in with a cloud...I mean, there is a cloud there. I am not prepared to do it.
I am going to be voting no. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Everything that I have seen, and I do not go
on Facebook a lot, so I have not seen everything, has indicated that Mr. Parachini
has a good mind for doing the work on the Charter Commission. All of us have been
subjected especially over the last two (2) years, to being demonized with no basis at
all. For those who come in and attack, I asked "What is the grounds" and I have not
been given anything. I do agree with Councilmember Hooser that the Administration
should do the research or should investigate. I do not mind deferring so that there
can be complete clearance of Mr. Parachini if we want to defer to January and ask
the Administration to do that work, but if we have to vote today, I will be voting for
Mr. Parachini.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the
statements by Councilmember Yukimura. I would also like to say while I do not know
Mr. Parachini personally, I know of some of his volunteer work in the community and
he has volunteered with the Kaua`i North Shore Community Foundation that I work
with. I just appreciate his...even though he may not have been here a long time, he
definitely has gotten right into the community and has been supporting us in
different ways that most people do not even know about. I am glad that he is willing
to serve and I am willing to support him today.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. This is a real hard one for me.
This guy comes here, he is wanting to serve and give back to the community, and he
has to go through all of this for one. The other thing that I want to say is that I
appreciate that he has come up and answered all of the questions forthright. I too
have not found the specifics in my request for actions or words that are being
COUNCIL MEETING 94 DECEMBER 17, 2014
expressed that he has used that are negative. I have also met with him on two (2)
occasions and I actually think that he is a good candidate and in many ways can
contribute a lot to this Commission. However, the truth is that people are
uncomfortable with him taking this position and that is an issue for me. The other
issue for me is that what we really need to do is to engage people who are going to
help build the trust that is necessary for good legislation and work to occur. That is
just undermined by mistrust often. I am a bit torn on the decision here on what to
do, and may be going with the majority. I would like to hear more. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I just want to thank Allan for coming out. I
served on a Board before, Cost Control Commission, and it is a volunteer position. I
takes time to go out there and I give everybody credit that serves on a Board or
Commission because it really is a selfless position to be out there. I am comfortable,
he got a lot of questions, and I comfortable with his answers. I will be voting in favor
of him being on the Commission.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am willing to make a motion to defer just to
have the complete clearance which I am confident will be forthcoming. It is good
practice to investigate whenever there is a really important position, but I also want
to say that we all have to be accountable for how we behave in public. All of us
struggle in one way or the other with that, but just because people feel uncomfortable
with someone is hardly a test because I mean, I think I would be good on the Charter
Commission, but I know there is a lot of people who feel uncomfortable with me. It
may not just be me. It may be that people are uncomfortable with conflict and they
do not like people who stand up and speak a certain position. We all have to get over
that, but we also all have to be as kind, gracious, and diplomatic as possible as well.
This discussion actually, is a reminder to all of us for that. I do want to echo
Councilmember Chock in terms of appreciating Mr. Parachini's straightforward
willingness to come and answer the charges. It is not easy to do and many times,
they are made undercover so you cannot even begin to address them. It is a hard
position to be in public service whether it is elected or appointed. I would like further
discussion about a motion to defer if that will make people more comfortable. I know
some people feel very clear right now, but we also think about each other. I know
that might be upsetting to Mr. Parachini, but what is the mindset? I feel
uncomfortable deferring, but I also feel like good practice is to inquire. We could ask
the Mayor's Office to do that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I am prepared to vote today. We have
had a week, I guess, since the Resolution was introduced. I am not sure why the
Mayor's Office did not pursue any kind of...and we do not know. I mean, I think
Paula answered to the best of her ability. I am not sure. I have not spoken to the
Mayor. The curiosity of it all got me going on Google and everything else. I think we
probably received three (3) testimonies and these are all public records, but I am not
going to mentioned names. One testimony states, "I just learned of Allan Parachini's
nomination. I am horrified at the thought. He is not the man for the job. He has a
very shady past. Please do not endorse this. Thank you for serving us all." I do not
know. I could not find the horrible past. I found some allegations in Google. When
you Google, you read TMZ and whatever. Another testimony reads, "Good day
respected members of the Kaua`i County Council. I am a registered voter of Kaua`i
and think the aforementioned Allan Parachini is a terrible choice for the position of
County Charter review Commission. Kaua`i surely has a big enough pool of
perspective appointees, people have stronger history here and familiarity with the
COUNCIL MEETING 95 DECEMBER 17, 2014
sensitive issues, and you can consider someone better suited." Again, very general
broad statement, nothing specific, and it is hard for me to vote against a Mayor's
appointee. It has always been my policy and the Mayor has the prerogative to appoint
his Commission members. I have never voted against the first appointee or the first
term appointee. I just never did. I think that is the Mayor's choice. I have voted
against the reappointments because I was not satisfied with the performance. At any
given time Mr. Parachini or any Commissioner choose to take a side road and be a
troublemaker, the Mayor can remove him. If it is to the agreement of the Council,
that person is gone.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: There is a safety net in there as far as I am
concerned. Again, I have tried to locate and there are stories out there I guess. There
is not many. I mean, there is only a few, but you have made, I guess, the LA Times
and they have all of your little stories about the allegations and so forth. Obviously,
you being today shows me a lot that you are willing to come up and take the bullets,
if you will. The problem with this process though is if we think we have problems
filling Commissions here today, it will be tougher tomorrow because when the Mayor
calls people and they saw what happened to this person, I am not going before that
Board. Of course not. That is the problem we have. Granted we have a lot of people
that may be interested. It just takes a very special person to put up with that
volunteerism of being on a Commission. Charter Review is a very important
Commission and it is made up of seven (7) members. Mr. Parachini, if you can go up
there and sway the members of the Charter Review Commission to go do some
diabolical deed, good luck. I do not think that will happen. I will support the
nomination today. Again, I would be interested to know why the Mayor did not. I
am sure he did just out of pure curiosity. I think most of us did, but what I found and
what was available and the public record was obviously not enough for me to not
support the nomination. With that, I will be supporting the nomination.
Councilmember Hooser: Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Please.
Councilmember Hooser: Just real briefly. What I was asking the
Mayor was more of an official look at the record, not just a Google search that we
might do, but to actually talk to the Los Angeles County Superior Court System to
find out what their perspective is, what legal actions may or may not have been taken
for what reason or whatever it was about. That is why I was looking at.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: Not just for him to go Google.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, not to Google.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, roll
call, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 96 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura moved to defer Resolution No. 2015-06, seconded by
Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call for the motion to defer.
The motion to defer Resolution No. 2015-06 was then put, and failed by the
following vote:
FOR DEFERRAL: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 3*,
AGAINST DEFERRAL: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Chock was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative for the motion).
Council Chair Rapozo: 3:4. Back to the main motion. Roll call,
please.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-06, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6*,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Hooser TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Chock was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative for the motion).
Council Chair Rapozo: 6:1.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Next item,
please.
Resolution No. 2015-07 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
(Gerald S. Matsunaga): Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution
No. 2015-07, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, real quick.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: In doing the interview...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on. Excuse me, if you folks are going to
talk, please go outside because the microphone picks you folks up and it is difficult
for the captioner who is already struggling. I understand.
COUNCIL MEETING 97 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: During the interview process we had heard
that Judge Matsunaga had an interest in the Police Commission. I had mentioned to
him if he would still be interested if a position opened up, and he did. Basically, when
you have a good Judge with a great track record like Judge Matsunaga, you want to
give him what he wants. If he wants to help the Police Commission, by all means, we
could really use that help with his voice on that Commission. I just wanted to for the
record, state that. If we have a Police Commission, Mayor, if we have a Police
Commission open, Judge Matsunaga is a wonderful choice as well as he is a wonderful
choice on the Liquor Commission. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just briefly in support. This is a great
example of another good candidate. We get lots of good candidates and earlier it was
mentioned that the process ad how people get scared away.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as present.)
Councilmember Hooser: I just wanted to point out that there are
seven (7) nominees today. There is only really one (1) that I am aware of that had
any controversy or any great debate or discussion. As a Council, we should be willing
to ask the tough questions and make those tough votes. It is not like every nominee
comes up here and gets grilled or ripped or investigated. I think it is generally a very
friendly process when the candidates are vetted, proper, and have a track record in
our community. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Any
public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call, please.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-07, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
Resolution No. 2015-08 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION(Louis E. Abrams—Business):
COUNCIL MEETING 98 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-08, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Like Councilmember Hooser said, based on
the interview, top notch choice and he has experience prior. So, he has seen changes
and I think he can use that knowledge of how it was and how we can be for future
things to come. He explained himself unbelievably. I am really happy with this
choice. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Public
testimony? Please
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you could just state your name please for
the record and proceed.
LEE MOREY: Lee Morey. I am President of the Kaua`i
Board of Realtors. I would just like to say Mr. Abrams is in my opinion, is just about
the best choice you could possibly make. I mean, he had got the experience, he is
articulate, he is smart, he knows Kaua`i, and he has Kaua`i's best interest at heart.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, cool
There being further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call,
please.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-08, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2015-09—RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII TO AMEND CHAPTER 92, HAWAII REVISED
STATUTES, TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF A COUNTY COUNCIL TO JOINTLY
ATTEND COMMUNITY MEETINGS: Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption
of Resolution No. 2015-09, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 99 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I want to thank you, Chair, for
introducing this. This has been a long standing admiration if you will, in the
Sunshine Law. It is pretty ridiculous tat Councilmembers would be restricted from
attending public meetings where we can learn more and hear from our constituents.
I think it is a change that needs to be made because I think it thwarts debate,
discussion, and learning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Anyone
in the audience wishing to testify? Please.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Ms. Cowden: I am Felicia Cowden. I support that measure
deeply. I think it is really important that the County Councilmembers are able to
come to these public discussions. It is often with grave disappointment that the
people attending when they are looking up and looking around are unable to see the
Councilmembers there and then coming in to testify when we realize that the Council
is not privy to the near the amount of information that the community has gotten.
So, I think it debilitates the Council for not being able to be there and when Council
can go to parties, social events, and all kinds of other things in the same place, might
as well be able to go to things of importance to the job. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Any questions for
Felicia? If not, anyone else.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Thank you. Again, it
is a law that is required, I think, Sunshine Law. I think it is a good law overall, but
number one, it does not apply to the State Legislators that actually passed the law.
The State can do whatever they want. They can meet as often as they want with
whoever they want and the Council cannot. Especially this year as we went through
the different forums, Koloa, one of the questions was have you attended the
community meeting. It was difficult to answer that. Of course you only have a
minute, but in many cases we have to kind of figure out and we cannot really talk to
everybody who is going. Staff typically tries to get a head count and once you hit the
number two (2), the rest cannot go. I mean, it sounds ridiculous, but that is the way
the law is written. I am hoping that if you can contact your State Representatives
and Senator and let them know that this needs to pass. Like you said, Felicia, it
would be perfectly legal under the Sunshine Law for all seven (7) of us to go to a party
tonight, but it is illegal for us to all seven (7) us to go to a community meeting
involving issues in the community. Go figure. Roll call, please. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I want to thank you also for putting this
together. I am very supportive of it and actually, furthermore, we talked earlier about
looking at rules in order to get our meetings under control in terms of time, but the
fact is that because of Sunshine Law we cannot talk to anyone. The need to vet
questions, get clarity, and share is so important. I mean, I would like to see much
more flexibility in how at least information is being shared moving forward in
addition to what you have done which I think is a good first step. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 100 DECEMBER 17, 2014
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-09, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2015-10 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COUNCIL
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE KAUAI HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW
COMMISSION (Stephen W. Long—Architecture): Councilmember Kuali`i moved for
adoption of Resolution No. 2015-10, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-10, was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2015-11 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COUNCIL
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES PRESERVATION FUND COMMISSION (Ivory K McClintock —
At-Large): Councilmember Kagawa moved to Receive Resolution No. 2015-11 for the
Record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. Ms. McClintock unfortunately rescinded
her application. So, that is why we are receiving it. We are not denying her because
we do not want her on. We actually wanted her on. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 101 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Oh...I will suspend
the rules with no objections. Mr. TenBruggencate.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Mr. TenBruggencate: I just wanted to reference an earlier comment
on another nominee in which I think Mr. Hooser said that there is a big pool out there
of people willing to serve. There is not a big pool of people out there willing to serve.
The Boards and Commissions members tend to skew male and old. I am one of them.
I was thrilled to see Ms. McClintock's. I would have supported her application. It
was thrilling because she is young and female and that kind of diversity is needed. I
urge you to encourage the Mayor's Office and the Boards & Commissions Office as I
do, to push for more diversity on our Boards and Commissions. Thank you for letting
me speak.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no one further testimony, the meeting was called back to order,
and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just also ad to in addition to what
Mr. Kagawa had mentioned is that I think we will see Ms. McClintock in the future
and that she just needs some time right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Good news. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would disagree with Mr. TenBruggencate,
the person with the long name. I think there is a tremendous pool that we are just
not reaching. I would encourage Boards & Commissions to reach out to the
University of Hawai`i, the college, there are various Hawaiian groups, and civic
groups. There are lots of organizations and I think we just need to push a little
harder, but there are a lot of very good and competent people in our community, and
I am sure if we made the proper outreach we would reach those people.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Hooser. Mr. Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just before I vote to receive, I just wanted to
say a big mahalo to Ivory McClintock and thank her for her service in the past. We
look forward to her coming back one day soon. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? This is
what I will suggest based on Mr. Hooser's comments. What is the E-mail for the
Boards & Commissions Office? Does anybody know? Do we have it? How about this,
what is our E-mail?
Councilmember Yukimura: Pmorikami @kauai.gov.
Council Chair Rapozo: P-m-o-r-i-k-a-m-i @kauai.gov. If you carbon
copy (cc) counciltestimony @kauai.gov, then we will get a copy. I guess the challenge
is we are going to see who is right, Mr. TenBruggencate or Mr. Hooser. All of the
millions of people watching, if you are interested in serving in a County Commission,
send you letter of intent or whatever you want to call it to
p-m-o-r-i-k-a-m-i @kauai.gov with a cc to counciltestimony @kauai.gov with your
interested area, and we will see what happens. Mr. Hooser.
COUNCIL MEETING 102 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Hooser: I think that is a great idea, but I think the
reality of it is that the millions of people that are watching are all over sixty (60) years
old. I would encourage...which is a young age.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is.
Councilmember Hooser: Believe me, sixty (60) is a young age.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: But I would encourage those people that are
watching and seriously, the successful or mature adults in the world whether you are
teachers or administrators or bosses, to reach out to the younger people that they
work with, people in the classroom, people in their employment that may not be
watching this and pass the word onto them because I truly believe there is a lot of
people out there that would serve. We just have to get the word going. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did Paula leave? Her E-mail must be going
off right about now. Mr. Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just wanted to say I think that at least out
of the in-depth conversation that we have had, I think it has generated some interest.
I thank Felicia Cowden because I think she sent in a whole listing of people who are
interested. Paula has her hands full now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. We have vacancies in the Council
appointees for Commissions as well. It is difficult at times.
The motion to Receive Resolution No. 2015-11 for the Record was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR RECEIPT: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST RECEIPT: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item. BC, how far away
are we from a...where are we on a caption? We are ready? It was not a caption break.
Okay. Let us take a ten (10) minute caption break and we will wrap up shortly.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 5:14 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:24 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We are now on Bills for First Reading. If we
could have the first Bill, please.
BILLS FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2566) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2014-781, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND (Department of Public Works — Solid
Waste Disposal, Consultant Services — $95,000): Councilmember Kuali`i moved for
COUNCIL MEETING 103 DECEMBER 17, 2014
passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2566) on first reading, that it be ordered to print,
that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for January 14, 2015, and that it
thereafter be referred to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I am going to voting on first reading in
support, but I have a letter I am going to circulate dated February 26, 2014 because
I do not believe this Bill really spells out why the consultant services are needed.
This letter is from the Managing Airport Safety and Operations Division, United
States Department of Transportation which says that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) maintains it opposition to landfill proposals to be built within
six (6) nautical miles of an airport. Our landfill is proposed at I think three (3) miles
from the airport. So, the letter clearly says they maintain its oppositions to proposals
built within six (6) nautical miles. This is due to birds, flights, and everything
interacting. They say, "If the County of Kaua`i builds a landfill in this location, they
urge the County and State to ensure that they do effective wildlife mitigation." That
is what this consultant contractor, I think, is for, but I have underlying concerns
about putting a landfill there period. I would like to explore that further as this Bill
moves forward. There is only going to be more planes and more birds overtime and I
am not confident that wildlife mitigation efforts balance out the safety of the airport
in the long term. I will just have this circulated and we can talk about it more in the
future. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you,
Mr. Hooser. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify on this?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: If not, I agree with you, Mr. Hooser. When
you get a letter from the Federal government or the State saying "We oppose this,
aggressively oppose it," and I think that is where we are at with them, we have to
really be careful. One of the things that I will be asking the Administration to put in
the scope of work is what will it cost to maintain this mitigation plan going forward,
but I will be supporting this on first reading as well. Thank you. With that, roll call.
The motion passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2566) on first reading, that it
be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
January 14, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the Budget & Finance
Committee was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 104 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2567) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2014-782, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CAPITAL
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT FUND (Koloa/Po ipu Intersection
Improvements — $80,750): Councilmember Kuali`i moved for passage of Proposed
Draft Bill (No. 2567) on first reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing
thereon be scheduled for January 14, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the
Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Anyone in the
audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call, please.
The motion passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2567) on first reading, that it
be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
January 14, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the Budget & Finance
Committee was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2568) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 21, SECTION 21-9.1, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: Councilmember
Kuali`i moved for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2568) on first reading, that it
be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for January 14, 2015,
and that it thereafter be referred to the Public Works / Parks & Recreation
Committee, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, Mr. Chair. First I want to say that the
testimony log that was passed around it not accurate. It actually should show that
everybody is opposed including Pamela Burrell and Sharry Glass. So, that needs...
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Also, I want to say that I will be voting against
the motion and against first reading. I know that it is not usual to do that, but I
believe that this Bill is not good and it was already vetted just a short time ago. Even
considering this Bill will be very disruptive to the implementation is already
COUNCIL MEETING 105 DECEMBER 17, 2014
underway because it will confuse people, it will cause additional costs if it passes
because we will have to reeducate, and also it will defeat the recycling efforts by not
following the consultant advice that shows that in order to be effective, we need a
certain differential between the rates. I think is untimely and really would create
both problems and costs for the Solid Waste Recycling Division that has been very
conscientious and has already fielded five hundred (500) calls from citizens trying to
understand this and now we are going to change the rules midstream. It is going to
be very disruptive.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I did not want to go here on the
first reading, but I need to explain myself. Let me just read a letter from Val
Tsuchiya. A lot of you know him. He used to work for the DOE. This is a letter I got
from him. "Ross, the reason I am writing to you is that I just received my Residential
Refuse Collection Assessment. Now I have two (2) Graduate Degrees, but this is one
of the most confusing forms I have ever received. I anticipate a slew of calls to the
Council about confusion surrounding this new assessment and program. The easiest
suggestion I have is to have a grid with the options and the cost for each option with
a total on the bottom. The resident just checks the one he wants. Not all the costs
are upfront on the form linked to the size of the bin. The required assessments are
right in there with the options but added features are not calculated upfront. They
also talk about additional refuse collection. Does this mean that they will come more
than once a week? What is the added cost? I anticipate many people will select to
cancel their residential collection and just pay at the base assessment. This will mean
that they will take their own trash to the transfer stations. I, myself, barely use half
of a thirty-two (32) gallon container in a week and I have a truck and I drive through
Hanapepe several times a week. It is easy for me to do. The concern I have is that
the transfer stations need to have an afterhours collection bin, a large one, or bags
will be thrown over the fence or stacked outside. I anticipate more trash dumped on
the side of the roadways and private property. In closing, I just spoke to
representatives from the Solid Waste Division to get an explanation and even they
admit that the form is confusing. Aloha and mahalo. Val Tsuchiya."
Now, this is just one (1) testimony. The way I do my business as a
Councilmember is I talk to whoever I see out there about the new forms that they
have been receiving. The overwhelming response for me has been anger and they are
upset. A lot of them do not even know and they find out when I am asking them the
question. I just find this again, just like the Real Property Tax. When we took off
the cap, a lot of people do not really know and they are only going to find out when
they get their bill. This troubles me because I do not want to go through what we
went through with the mummy and the Real Property Tax. I mean, even if we do not
amend the Bill, at least we will have a piece to do some education for the public, but
I am open to any amendments. I am not saying I am set in stone on ten dollars ($10)
and eighteen dollars ($18), but I am open to compromise. I will continue to fight for
the people no matter whether it is troublesome for the Administration or what. For
me, the public comes first. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. I have had similar responses from people
in terms of the form. I know I got mine in the mail and I am saying, "What is up with
this, the property taxes?" The forms are not well done, but if the Bill was just a
requirement to redo the form for the next time they send it out, I would say yes, but
the Bill changes the structure of the payment and as Councilmember Yukimura has
said, the train has already left the station. These things have been mailed out, it is
COUNCIL MEETING 106 DECEMBER 17, 2014
going to cost more money to mail out more. It is just going to compound the confusion
or the feeling in the community. I think we should do what we are doing now and if
we want to look and ask the Department to redo the forms next time or look at the
prices in the future a year from now, but right now, the train has left the station. We
had this discussion a couple of months ago. The Council voted on it and passed it.
We reduced it and made it more affordable for the small cans, I believe. The
differentials between the two (2) prices of the two (2) cans is such to maximize
recycling. There is a method to this. It is not just picking numbers. I think if we
draw this out another couple months, it is going to delay implementation, delay our
recycling effort in the future, cause more confusion in the community, and so normally
I would vote yes on first reading, but I am going to be voting no today. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I can understand some of the upset and
confusion. Some of that is normal with any transition and we are making a big
transition. We are moving from paying one (1) rate to choices about rates and sizes.
I know Val Tsuchiya well and it sound like the third container which is coming later
in another sequence, a smaller container, will be good for him which will be a
super-saver size. I really feel like the remedy to this confusion is yes, better forms,
more outreach, and maybe better training for those who are answering the phones. I
do not think changing the rules midstream is going to be the solution. That is what
this Bill does. It changes the rules midstream. I do not think we should move
forward.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone in the
audience wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: It changes just the rate. Nothing else
changes. It just changes the rate. So, the rules are the same. The barrel sizes does
not change, the pickup dates does not change. It is changing the rate. With that
changing of the rate comes a financial impact to the County which I think is
substantial. It is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). There is that, but the
rules does not change. In fact, the change would be beneficial to the resident. So,
there would be really, no need to have to go out and inform people because really, it
is to their advantage. There is very minimal informing. The real issue is in the
impact, the fiscal impact that needs to be thought about, but the rules do not change.
Everything is the same. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, the thing is though, that people are
making choices about containers and that is governing the orders that we are making.
If the prices change, they may choose a different container and that will just throw
all of our ordering off. So, there is a lot of implications to that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Mr. Chock and Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Chock: I think also in addition, the reason behind the
study and the outcome of it was that there was an incentive driven by the decision
that we made which was the eighty percent (80%) differential. I cannot support this
while I do support some of the other needs in terms of communication, education, and
COUNCIL MEETING 107 DECEMBER 17, 2014
working on these forms. I think that what we did was come to a more feasible solution
by amending it the last time for neutral revenue outcome, but this goes against our
plan. What I was told was that out of the five hundred (500) calls that they have
gotten, only two (2) really were in opposition and the majority of feedback has been
positive, and the people understand the bigger implication and need for us to deal
with our trash and change some of the mindsets that are behind our current practices.
Again, I am supportive of what we have in place right now. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I believe these types of information would
come out of Committee. We do not normally vet an item. So, just because the
Administration says we received two (2) complaints out of five hundred (500), does
not mean all of the residents are happy. I mean, it is ridiculous. Who do the residents
complain to? They complain to Councilmembers. We passed the legislation. They
recommended the fees to be that way, we passed it, and they do not complain to Solid
Waste Division. They complain to us. They complain to the Councilmembers. We
get voted in or voted out based on our decisions. You folks keep your job. Remind
ourselves that we just raise the tipping fee for Solid Waste. How much million was
that? I mean, we raised the gas tax and fuel tax. I mean, at some point, we have to
fight for the public and say, "Perhaps these fees, we can increase yearly. We can go
up one dollar ($1) of somewhat," but for the ninety-six (96) gallon can, did we have to
start six dollars ($6) more than what it was? That is all I am saying. If some
compromise can be worked out in between, great. If I do not have the votes, then
great also, but why are we stopping on first reading? We can get the information
from Public Works, we can see...I doubt that a lot of people have responded. My mom,
I asked her, "Did you respond to the letter?" "No. I have until May 30th." May 30th
seems like quite a bit of time. I want to see the numbers. We sent out eighteen
thousand (18,000) mailers, how much have responded? Those kinds of thing, I think,
can be answered at Committee and we hear what the public has to say. If it is a bad
idea that I put the Bill on the agenda, then I will own up to it. But to have the
discussion, we had discussions before on items that are redundant and we have two
(2) new Councilmembers. I think they are owed the discussion and their decision to
be made based on how they feel whether they are for or against it. I do not see us at
a point where we cannot do what we feel is right for the community. I think we still
can do that. Just because mailers have been sent out does not mean we cannot
change. Sometimes we can admit perhaps decisions should have been done more
carefully or what have you. So, that is where I am at. It is not a point where it has
to be my way or the highway. I am willing to work, but the input that I am getting
from the community is of concern, great concern. They are upset that such high
increases have been attached with a ninety-six (96) gallon can. That is basically all
I have to say. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: As I spoke earlier today, that I am all in favor
of expanded debate. I think we could create another opportunity to have that
discussion. There could be a Resolution put on the table, there could be a Workshop,
we could invite the community in, we could talk to Solid Waste, we can reexamine
the entire one, and then if we wanted to change the rates for next year or another
time in a more methodical purposeful manner, we could certainly do that. But right
now, again, people have already made their decision, some people, and now we are
going to have to debate it and then send them another form which is going to cause
more money, ask them to make a decision they have already made, and confuse
people. We normally do not legislate forms. I thinks sometimes I want to because I
agree the forms are not that helpful, but if the problem is with the forms, let us deal
with that problem, with the problems with the rates which we had that discussion
again, just a short time ago, the Council made a decision, they Administration acted
COUNCIL MEETING 108 DECEMBER 17, 2014
on the decision, and started investing and spending money, staff time, and real money
on that decision. The decision supports the plan that we also passed and paid for.
So, I would say this is not the time to start spending more money and add further
confusion into the community. I think we should kill this on first reading. Have a
workshop later and have further discussion. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Okay, let us bring this in. The
Bill does provide for a public hearing if it passed first reading. We should give the
public an opportunity to testify. It also moves us to a Committee Meeting which we
can have the discussion. With that, roll call.
The motion passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2568) on first reading, that it
be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
January 14, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the Public Works/Parks
& Recreation Committee was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST PASSAGE: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Public hearing will be set for
January 14, 2015. Next item, please.
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2569) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 17, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for
passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2569) on first reading, that it be ordered to print,
that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for January 14, 2015, and that it
thereafter be referred to the Economic Development & Intergovernmental Relations
Committee, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I am going to be recusing myself at
this point pending a decision from the Ethics Board because I own an electric car,
well, I am leasing an electric car. In one way, it would be like us voting on real
property taxes since we are all taxpayers, but I want to check with the Ethics Board.
I will be stepping out.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you and the record will reflect that.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as recused.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Anyone in the audience
wishing to testify?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded and follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 109 DECEMBER 17, 2014
The motion passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2569) on first reading, that it
be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
January 14, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the Economic
Development & Intergovernmental Relations Committee was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Yukimura TOTAL— 1.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) and one (1) recused.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item. We are on Bills For
Second Reading.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Bills For Second Reading, the last item of the
day, Bill No. 2565.
Bill No. 2565 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B-2014-781, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND (Real Property Assessment Software —
$100,000): Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of Bill No. 2565 on second and
final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a question for the Tax Department.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
SALLY M. MOTTA, Deputy Director of Finance: Good evening, I am
Sally Motta, Deputy Director of Finance.
Councilmember Hooser: Hi, Sally, thank you very much for coming. I
apologize for you having to be here all day long and most of the day anyway waiting.
This measure was discussed last week when I was not able to be here. On first
reading, I did express some concerns about it and I wanted to just briefly ask you
about it. Now, it is my understanding that this measure, this one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000), but actually that the overall cost is more than that. Is that
correct?
Ms. Motta: Correct. The one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) is for the first year for setting it up and running it for that first year, and
then it turns into fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000) for the next four (4) years.
Councilmember Hooser: How much?
COUNCIL MEETING 110 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Motta: Fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000) per year
for the next four (4) years.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. So, that would be two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000) plus this one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). So,
that is three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) roughly?
Ms. Motta: If you did the math, yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Is that the end of the cost?
Ms. Motta: That is the end of the contract.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ms. Motta: Then if we continue with the same system, it
will of course, require a new contract.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I will describe the system as I
understand it and then you can either correct me or further describe it. This is a
system that takes an existing capability we have of pictometry which is a satellite
service from the...that takes pictures basically.
Ms. Motta: Homeland Security.
Councilmember Hooser: Homeland Security. A satellite passes over
Kaua`i, scans it, takes images if you would, and this particular service takes those
images and matches the images with what is on file at the Building Department or
Tax Office in terms of...
Ms. Motta: Our Tax Office, yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. So, if a person has a two thousand
(2,000) square foot house on file and this system as it scans it, finds out they put a
deck on the back of it without getting a permit for example, it would show up. The
Tax Office would know that and the Tax Office would then bill the person for that
additional improvement. Is that correct?
Ms. Motta: That is making it very short.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Do you want to expand on that a little bit.
Ms. Motta: Well, no. Just the fact that as you said you
were not here and they went through the presentation on this, but every five (5) years
about, we are supposed to touch every property. When we do see where there is
something different, we are able to then run it through this system to see what the
difference is and then that way if there is like a deck like you are talking about, then
we can make a decision on whether or not that is something that should be raising
the assessed value or not.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. The Tax Office is supposed to touch
every property every five (5) years?
COUNCIL MEETING 111 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Motta: Every five (5) years, right. That is why this
contract is the five (5) years, twenty percent (20%), twenty percent (20%), twenty
percent (20%). It is what our hopes are.
Councilmember Hooser: But I think the reality of it is the Tax Office
does not touch properties. I do not remember anyone every coming onto my property
knocking on my door to touch my property.
Ms. Motta: Because of staffing issues and if there is not a
reason for us to have to go out and inspect the property, we do have some limitations
because of staffing.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. How sensitive is this system? It can
judge a deck. Can it judge a shed? Can it judge a greenhouse? Can it judge trees
and foliage?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I want to talk later about my concerns
about this.
Ms. Motta: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: The invasion of privacy as I see it. What is
the policy in the Tax Office in sharing information with Public Works, for example,
building permits?
Ms. Motta: Correct. We do go back and forth with our
information.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. This would provide potentially if not
actually, information to the Building Department also?
Ms. Motta: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: If Mrs. Souza's son built her a shed in the back
without a permit and this system goes into place, it could potentially reveal the fact
that she has a shed, increase her taxes, and cost her to have a citation for not having
a building permit?
Ms. Motta: That is the potential, correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Assuming for a second that there is
significant number of situations like this, sheds, decks, or whatever, how does the
Tax Office prioritize? Do they just go after everything or do they go after the big ones
first or how do they approach the violations at that point?
Ms. Motta: Well, with our current system or with the new
system?
Councilmember Hooser: With the new system.
Ms. Motta: With the new system, I do not know that has
been determined yet. I would think that we would probably want to look at the ones
where there are the biggest discrepancies between what is on the ground and what is
actually being shown in the pictures that we do get from the air.
COUNCIL MEETING 112 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Hooser: How many other Counties or municipalities
use the same system?
Ms. Motta: Currently, Arizona, Maricopa County is using
it and also British Columbia are. Maui is set to being their use in February. In fact,
we were in combination with Maui when we spoke to this company to see how it was
going to work and to find out what the results were that were being obtained at the
other places that it is being used. It is so cutting edge that there is not a lot of other
areas that have already started using it. I know the reset of the County of Hawai`i is
also interest in looking into the potential of using it, as is Honolulu, O`ahu.
Councilmember Hooser: But the only other United States County is
Maricopa County?
Ms. Motta: The only one at this time that we have
information on.
Councilmember Hooser: Is that Texas? Where is Maricopa?
Ms. Motta: Arizona, Phoenix.
Councilmember Hooser: As I said earlier, it is not one of my favorite
Counties in terms of its history with the Sherriff and whatnot. Having said that, it
is a little bit troubling that there is not more experience with the system. Is the
system able to tell if people are in the yard?
Ms. Motta: If you look at the pictures that were shown in
our presentation, you can see cars and it shows you how big the cars are and it is
going to be very difficult to tell whether it is a post or a person or an animal of what
if there is something else because the cars are so small that you know a person is
going to be even smaller than that.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Ms. Motta: I looked as these pictures to see if there was
anybody in a swimming pool or laying around and I could not find anything to answer
that.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Is there different settings if you would,
to get more detail, less detail in terms of the pictures?
Ms. Motta: Well, as far as pictometry taking the pictures,
I do not know. But as far as us being able to use that, we can zoom in or zoom out to
a certain extent.
Councilmember Hooser: What County employees have access to this
ability to zoom in and out of people's properties from the sky?
Ms. Motta: The Assessment Department is who would be
using this as a tool.
Councilmember Hooser: And Public Works as well?
Ms. Motta: Not at this time.
Councilmember Hooser: So, what is to prevent them from using it?
......mow.:
COUNCIL MEETING 113 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Ms. Motta: They would not have access to the same
program that we are going to be using.
Councilmember Hooser: But there is nothing legally to prevent them
from using it, I guess? It is just an internal...it is like your computer, they would not
come in and use your computer or your copy machine?
Ms. Motta: No.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Motta: And it is the same thing that nothing really
stops them that if they wanted to come over to look at some of our other records. It
is the same type of security. We do not go into their Department and they do not
come into our Department, but we share information.
Councilmember Hooser: And the same goes for every agency in the
County?
Ms. Motta: I cannot say that for every...
Councilmember Hooser: If the Police wanted to come in and look at the
records, they could too I suppose?
Ms. Motta: With a subpoena.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Ms. Motta: There are definite limits. It is not where
everybody can have access to what everybody else is doing.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. I am just trying to get a feeling.
Sometimes agencies will say "Well, it is not intended for that" which I understand,
but not intended for that does not mean it does not have the capability for that. I am
just trying to get clear on the capabilities and the privacy aspects of it.
Ms. Motta: Our hopes is eventually that the Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) are going to be available for all the different Departments
so that we can all work together and not each Department depend upon a separate
software that they are using so that we could talk to each other. Right now, a lot of
it is apples and oranges and we would like to have all of it be together so that it makes
us more efficient, saves costs, saves employees, and saves everything.
Councilmember Hooser: My final question if I could, I am assuming
that our County Attorneys looked at the privacy issues to see if it violated anything.
Is that a correct assumption?
Ms. Motta: You would have to ask...unfortunately I do
not have the answer to that.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I would not want a deeper question
actually because privacy is a big question. Because it is so new and it is so cutting
edge, I would want that question answered. Thank you.
Ms. Motta: Our feelings is that it technically is giving the
taxpayers more privacy because we are going by a picture that is based on what is
COUNCIL MEETING 114 DECEMBER 17, 2014
given to us that anybody could take. There is no law that says...look at drones. Our
feeling is that it is giving the taxpayers more privacy because when there is
discrepancy, we are not going to be driving out to their property knocking on their
door and saying, "Oh by the way, we need to research and look at all of your property."
That is an invasion.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Motta: So this way, we are able to answer a lot of
these questions at our desktop and avoid that invasion.
Councilmember Hooser: I think though, you would need a court order
or a search warrant to go onto someone's property around behind their house to
examine an improvement without their permission.
Ms. Motta: We do not need that.
Councilmember Hooser: I believe you do and we can talk about that.
Maybe for agricultural property when people sign things ahead of time, you do not
need that, but I believe for residential property, you do need that.
Ms. Motta: We can go up to the door, knock, and ask if we
can look around or we can take pictures the fence, from wherever.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Motta: But we do not go inside, definitely.
Councilmember Hooser: My point is you could not go onto the property,
walk around to the backyard and examine a deck in a residential home without...the
County Attorney is here. They can correct me if I am wrong, without a search warrant
or a court order. I am not saying you would do that. I am just saying that from the
level of privacy for a property owner, they have a greater degree of privacy now in
terms of someone looking into their backyard than they would if this system was in
place, in my opinion. Thank you. Can we ask the County Attorney up here? We are
finished here. Thank you. Other members might have questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have some questions as well. Go ahead
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you. I did not mean to put you on the
hot seat here. I appreciate you being here.
Ms. Motta: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: Sally, thank you. If this is a contract for
five (5) years, should we not put the five (5) year amount that we are...
Council Chair Rapozo: That was my question.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...encumbering? If we are getting into a
multiyear contract that is going to obligate us for payment, do we not have to
encumber the money with the contract? I mean, all of it.
COUNCIL MEETING 115 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Council Chair Rapozo: We need to approve the multiyear contract.
We do not have to fund the multiyear contract, but if this contract, and that was the
same question I had after Mr. Hooser brought up the additional costs.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess the question is, is this a multiyear
contract?
Ms. Motta: This is what we are going to be doing. It
would be a multiyear contract with the stipulation in it that any of the additional
years would be subject to being able to have the funds available.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, that might be okay then.
Ms. Motta: Which is what we are moving more towards in
Purchasing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then I would suggest we hold off because I
think the...has the Attorney's Office looked at the contract?
STEPHEN F. HALL, Deputy County Attorney: Good evening,
Deputy County Attorney, Stephen Hall. I anticipate that we have, but I cannot speak
to it as one hundred percent (100%) that we have looked at it and approved it as to
form and legality.
Council Chair Rapozo: The Charter says we cannot...if this one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) is initial payment of a multiyear contract, then
it is not sufficient. The Council needs to approve the multiyear contract, the
obligation.
Councilmember Yukimura: But if it is subject to available funds, then
maybe it is not a multiyear obligation per say.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: We do not know that. From what I heard, this
money is going to purchase a system that requires ongoing maintenance and ongoing
costs. If that is the case, I do not know if the vendor would come in and install the
system and not be committed to some kind of...I do not know. If that is something
we have not done, we need to do.
Mr. Hall: Sure, and like I said, I am not familiar with
whether we have reviewed this or not. I would have to look at the contract and talk
to my colleagues in the office which I would be happy to do, and address any of those
concerns.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, that is fair. Any more questions for...
Councilmember Yukimura: Let us see, staff told me that we can pass this
today without any problem or do we need to defer this?
Council Chair Rapozo: I cannot support it, not with what I learned
today.
COUNCIL MEETING 116 DECEMBER 17, 2014
Councilmember Yukimura: Is there a time crunch on this?
Ms. Motta: I am not aware if there is one. At this point,
I am not exactly sure where we are. I was under the impression that we are at this
point, are looking into doing this, but that the contract has not actually been drafted
otherwise legal would have been able to have seen it by now.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Motta: Without checking, I can get the answer for
you on that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Based on the briefing we got, it seems
like a good thing. So, if there is a problem, if time is of the essence, we should know.
If not, we should just defer it to the next meeting and give us the time to do all of the
checking. Maybe, well, this is the last item.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is the last item.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well...
Council Chair Rapozo: I think, and Councilmember Kuali`i just shard
me the memorandum that is in our packet and it is actually a five (5) year program
totaling three hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($315,000) and I am not sure if...I
guess I need clarification or I need the County Attorneys to let us know that it is not.
This is a one (1) year...it is for the next budget year. If it obligates us to three hundred
fifteen thousand dollars ($315,000) over the next five (5) years, then obviously that
would have to come to the Council.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Hall: Sure. Again, I apologize that I cannot provide
more clarity on that issue, but I will be looking into it.
Councilmember Yukimura: We should just defer to January?
Council Chair Rapozo: That would be my suggestion. Mr. Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I support the deferral, but since the County
Attorney is here and I posed some questions, if he can address the privacy issue. This
program allows us to look into people's backyards to look at their houses and their
improvements in their backyards. The only United States County that is doing it is
Maricopa County which is not actually a bastion of Civil Rights and personal liberties.
My question is, has this been challenged do you know? Has it been analyzed in terms
of privacy and Constitutional protections? That is question number one. Question
number two, am I correct that the Tax Office cannot just walk onto our properties
and inspect it in the backyard without our permission or legal court authority?
Mr. Hall: With regard to question number one as to
whether we have reviewed it for privacy issues and things of that nature, I can tell
you that there is an enormous amount of Supreme Court law on privacy issues and
they usually stem from search warrants that have gone bad or people doing flyovers,
usually Sheriffs or Police Officers doing flyovers looking for drugs and things of that
nature. There is an enormous body of case law on that. It would be a great case issue
COUNCIL MEETING 117 DECEMBER 17, 2014
for us to research and get back to you on with, and I would have to research and get
back to you on the second issue as well. That might be an issue to discuss with our
counterparts over at the Prosecutor's Office to get their interpretation of what the
law is on that area.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is pictometry based, right?
Ms. Motta: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is pictometry based? The program that we
are using pictometry, right?
Ms. Motta: Correct. It has been around for several years,
2000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, and in fact, it is already been used by law
enforcement.
Ms. Motta: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not sure, but that is a good question to
pose on the County Attorney and the Prosecutor's Office. I mean, it is there. It is
being used now. They use it for search warrants, they use it for all kinds of
investigative...I mean, the public can go to Google Earth and get pretty much the
same thing. I think Mr. Hooser's concern is that we are not using that as a
government in a way that violates people's privacy. We will submit those questions
over.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I just had a quick comment following what
Mr. Hooser said. I know already we kind of use an aerial system because when we
look up TMKs, it is on a system similar to Google. I do not know if it has already
been looked at before because I know for real property taxes you can punch in a TMK
and it will give you an aerial map of that TMK with a line around it. I do not know
if it helps.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am ready to...
Council Chair Rapozo: Do we have any questions for them? No more
questions? Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to defer Bill No. 2565, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
The motion to defer Bill No. 2565 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. That ends the business of the
day. If there are no more objections, meeting adjourned.
COUNCIL MEETING 118 DECEMBER 17, 2014
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RICKY WATANABE
County Clerk
:aa
Attachment 1
(December 17, 2014)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2545, Draft 1, Relating to Additional Dwelling Unit on Other than
Residentially Zoned Lots
Introduced by: ROSS KAGAWA
Amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1, by amending Subsection 8-15.1(d) as follows:
1) Amend item number 7 to read as follows:
"(7) The applicant shall obtain an annual re-certification from the
Planning Department certifying that applicant has met the requirements set
forth in Sec. 8-15.1(d)(6). A regulatory fee of [Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00)] Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) shall be charged upon initial
registration. Beginning in 2015, the annual re-certification shall be
obtained on or before February 15 and shall cease to be required upon
publication of the "Notice of Completion" by applicant. If the applicant fails
to obtain the annual re-certification by February 15 of the applicable year,
the entitlement to the additional dwelling unit shall be deemed terminated
and no building permit shall be issued for the additional dwelling unit. The
Planning Director shall notify the applicant in writing that the entitlement to
the additional dwelling unit has been terminated. The applicant may appeal
the termination to the Planning Commission in accordance with the Rules of
Practice and Procedure of the Planning Commission."
2) Amend item number 8 to read as follows:
"(8) Where a regulatory fee has been paid, the fee payment shall be
deposited to the "ADU Re-certification Fund." There is hereby established
and created a fund to be known as the "ADU Re-certification Fund." The fees
collected pursuant to this subsection are hereby deemed appropriated upon
receipt, and may be expended by the Department of Planning for the hiring of
persons employed on a fee, contract, or piecework basis, or independent
contractors to assist in conducting [inspections.] inspections, and for
administrative costs for contested case proceedings related to ADU
re-certifications. The maximum number of persons that may be hired with
these fees shall be determined by the Budget Ordinance. The fees may also
be expended for materials, supplies, and equipment that facilitate
inspections, and for payment of overtime to conduct inspections. Any moneys
remaining in the ADU Re-certification Fund on December 15, 2024, shall be
transferred and deposited into the General Fund."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. Material to be added is underscored. All
material is new.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2014\12-17-2014 Bill 2545D1 AO:aa
Attachment 2
(December 17, 2014)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2545, Draft 1, Relating to Additional Dwelling Unit on Other than
Residentially Zoned Lots
Introduced by: ROSS KAGAWA
Amend Bill No. 2545, Draft 1, by amending Subsection 8-15.1(d) as follows:
1) Amend item number 7 to read as follows:
"(7) The applicant shall obtain [an annual] a re-certification from the
Planning Department certifying that applicant has met the requirements set
forth in Sec. 8-15.1(d)(6). A regulatory fee of [Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00)] Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) shall be charged upon [initial
registration.] registration for re-certification. [Beginning in 2015, the annual
re-certification shall be obtained on or before February 15 and shall cease to
be required upon publication of the "Notice of Completion" by applicant.] If
the applicant fails to obtain [the annual] a re-certification by [February 15 of
the applicable year,] February 15, 2015, the entitlement to the additional
dwelling unit shall be deemed terminated and no building permit shall be
issued for the additional dwelling unit. The Planning Director shall notify
the applicant in writing that the entitlement to the additional dwelling unit
has been terminated. The applicant may appeal the termination to the
Planning Commission in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure
of the Planning Commission."
2) Amend item number 8 to read as follows:
"(8) Where a regulatory fee has been paid, the fee payment shall be
deposited to the "ADU Re-certification Fund." There is hereby established
and created a fund to be known as the "ADU Re-certification Fund." The fees
collected pursuant to this subsection are hereby deemed appropriated upon
receipt, and may be expended by the Department of Planning for the hiring of
persons employed on a fee, contract, or piecework basis, or independent
contractors to assist in conducting [inspections.] inspections, and for
administrative costs for contested case proceedings related to ADU
re-certifications. The maximum number of persons that may be hired with
these fees shall be determined by the Budget Ordinance. The fees may also
be expended for materials, supplies, and equipment that facilitate
inspections, and for payment of overtime to conduct inspections. Any moneys
remaining in the ADU Re-certification Fund on December 15, 2024, shall be
transferred and deposited into the General Fund."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. Material to be added is underscored. All
material is new.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2014\12-17-2014 Bill 2545D 1 AO:aa