HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/2016 Budget & Finance Committee minutes MINUTES
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 3, 2016
A meeting of the Budget & Finance Committee of the Council of the
County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, was called to order by Arryl Kaneshiro, Chair, at
the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday,
February 3, 2016, at 10:12 a.m., after which the following Members answered the
call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser (excused at 10:53 a.m.)
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Minutes of the January 6, 2016 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kuali`i, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the
January 6, 2016 Budget & Finance Committee was approved.
Minutes of the January 21, 2016 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kuali`i, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the
January 21, 2016 Budget & Finance Committee Meeting was approved.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For Bill No. 2610, we are going to have it
taken at 1:30 p.m., which is regarding the discussion on the General Excise Tax
(GET). We are going to skip that for now. Clerk, could you...
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair, may I have a personal privilege on the
GET Bill? Since the Administration is watching, I heard that they were planning
on doing a big presentation again, and my suggestion is if they can just present
anything new. I do not like to feel stupid and hear the same thing. We heard the
same presentation and it was about two (2) hours. If they are going to come and do
a presentation, just present what is new or what will additionally help. Just seeing
the same presentation is not going to help me. In fact, I think it will irritate me.
Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think they are going to be presenting
answers to questions we sent them, so I do not think it is going to be just a repeat.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 2 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: That is fine.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, I was wondering that if there are
people here who want to testify now on it and do not want to come back...they may
want to come back and be part of the discussion, but if there is somebody who wants
to, can they just testify, and then we can send them along?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, we can take public testimony now. If
anybody in the audience wants to testify now and have to wait until 1:30 p.m., the
rules are suspended.
CODIE K. YAMAUCHI, Council Services Assistant I: Committee Chair
Kaneshiro, we actually have one (1) person signed up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Actually, we did not even read the
Bill. Can you please read the Bill?
Bill No. 2610 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL
EXCISE AND USE TAX SURCHARGE FOR THE COUNTY OF
KAUAI (This item was Deferred to March 2, 2016.)
Councilmember Rapozo moved to receive Bill No. 2610 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is to receive. With that, I will
suspend the rules and take public testimony.
Ms. Yamauchi: Glenn Mickens was signed up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Glenn, you are letting him speak first?
Okay. I will give you the option to wait until 1:30 p.m. or if you want to speak now.
Thank you. State your name when you are ready. You have three (3) minutes. The
light is going to turn yellow when you have thirty (30) seconds and turn red when
your time is up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
JOHN PATTERSON: Thank you for taking me early. I appreciate
it. My name is Dr. John Patterson. I live in Wailua. I used to live right next to
you, Mel. I spent twenty (20) years taking public transportation, almost every day.
I took buses, Light Rail Service (Ls), subways, and I love public transportation and I
applaud your effort to expand the public transportation here on Kaua`i; however,
the time for that is not now. There are many reasons why that is a lower priority
for the GET funds that you are going to be getting versus expanding the roads. I
think that you folks hear this pretty much every week and you are going to hear it
again, but I have four (4) reasons that I want to discuss why spending money on
public transportation at this point is a bad idea. It is that when you expand the
roads, you will not just relieve congestion, you make the roads safer, and we have
some of the most dangerous roads here on Kaua`i of any roads, in the United States,
actually. The second reason is we are massively subsidizing our public
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 3 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
transportation to the tune of eight dollars ($8) per rider, per trip; each rider, every
day. I think some of these numbers get buried. When you hear the real numbers, I
think it is pretty hard to keep moving forward with this. The third reason is that
the studies that you folks have created and are using to make your decisions are
flawed; terribly flawed. I will show you a couple of examples when I get my second
time period and I think you will shake your head. I am a scientist and to look at
some of the numbers that you folks see and some of the predictions you have made
in your studies is "ludicrous," which I am using as a kind word. The fourth point
that I want to make is that it is completely foolish to think that tourists are going to
spend tens of thousands of dollars to come on their tropical vacation and are going
to spend their time taking the bus. I would wonder how many people in this room
use public transportation to come to this meeting. Most of us do not have that
option. The reason I am here today and taking time out is because I want you folks
to stop doing things that you hope will work and do things that we know will work.
We have three (3) lanes between our most two (2) populous cities—three (3) lanes. I
was the person who wrote the "Three-Legged Horse" letter to the paper. I have
driven two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) miles all over the world. I have never
seen a three (3)-lane road that was not on a passing lane or a hill. We sit here and
go on and on, yet we all get back on a three (3)-lane road with cones and we spend
six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) a year for those people to place those
cones. It is crazy. I see my yellow light. When I come back, I am going to go
through these things one at a time and we will see why this is a very poor choice.
Thank you.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a clarifying question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sure.
Councilmember Hooser: Can I ask you to clarify? The three (3)-lane
roads that you mentioned are State highways, but this is a County tax.
Mr. Patterson: I know that.
Councilmember Hooser: So what County roads would you like to see
expanded?
Mr. Patterson: Well, I would like whatever mechanism got
us a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant or
whatever mechanism you folks have to get federal funds approved to be the number
one priority. In terms of the County roads, any County road that does not have
proper reflectors, proper shoulders, and all of those things need to be addressed
with the money that you are going to be getting. Children walk to school in the
dark on the street. I see that every morning. They are little kids, who walk in
Kapahi in the dark on a street that does not even have a shoulder, and we just
repaved that street and it is still the same way. Those things get me hot, so that is
why I came down today. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura has a question.
Mr. Patterson: I thought you folks were not supposed to ask
questions.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 4 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: So did I and I am going to raise a point of
order.
Mr. Patterson: I was here the day you said you folks were
not supposed to ask questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, my point is that the question has to be
a restating of what he had already said, not to further the testimony. I think we
need to adhere to that. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like you to restate what the subsidy
is for roads.
Mr. Patterson: For roads? I do not understand the question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, he never said that. He mentioned the
subsidy for bus riders.
Mr. Patterson: Yes. The thing I am objecting to is taking
any of the GET increase—this is what I understand, that it is a GET increase, and
you folks are sort of squabbling of how you are going split up the new money. There
needs to be no money further put towards public transportation until those buses
that those people are riding on are safe and are traveling on safe roads, until every
person on this island is traveling on safe roads. It is not congestion; it is safety, as
much as anything else. I will come back and provide more facts.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: I really appreciated Mr. Patterson's
testimony. I thought it was outstanding, as he seems to have very good expertise on
it. I have no problem with the findings and purposes of this Bill to address traffic
congestion and our roads that are in poor condition. We do not need an added
excise tax to raise twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) that we would be
predominantly using for repaving our roads to make them, as the Chamber said,
"modern and well-maintained." We only need to know where the money that is
allocated for our roads is going like the gas and auto weight tax. For twenty (20)
years, I have been showing our Council's pieces of Asphaltic Concrete (AC) from our
roads that are one-half inch (0.5") to three-quarters inch (0.75") thick, yet the bids
for repaving these roads call for the final lift to be one and a half inches (1.5"). I
have taken a mayor, councilmembers, and county engineers to these sites where I
had the AC, but no action was taken. Thus, we have spent millions of dollars over
the years for AC that we paid for, but did not receive, yet no one has demanded for
an investigation to see what is going on. Not only has the AC we paid for
mysteriously disappeared, but the roads were being illegally paved by not using
proper Hawai`i Asphalt Paving Industry (HAPI) or American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards to do the paving. AC
was laid over cracked surfaces without first removing those broken sections, as
Larry Dill has brought it up-to-date and is now doing, before potholes appear and
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 5 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
need resurfacing; whereas if done property, they would have lasted fifteen (15)
years or more. To further compound our roads problems, no paving was done for
three (3) years, even though our Council approved the bid in the budget for
repaving, making our roads deteriorate even further. Even by paving the seven (7)
or eighty (8) miles with the average two million dollars ($2,000,000) appropriated
would take thirty-five (35) to forty (40) years to pave our three hundred (300) miles
of road; that is grossly inefficient. Before even thinking about putting more tax on
our overtaxed citizens who are certainly not seeing more improvement in these
problems from our tax structure that we have now, let us see if anyone in this
Council or Administration can give answers to the problems I have raised. Get rid
of problems like these and the many others that our late friend, Ernie Pasion,
uncovered in his audits. We would have enough money to not only repave our
roads, but take care of the long list of issues that exist and have existed for too
many years, traffic being at the top of that list. If we had a county manager who let
these problems exist under his or her watch, all under the direction of the council
and the mayor; would the people not be voting in new seven (7) members at election
time? Just forget any new taxes. Get a manager and let him or her have a crack at
turning this County around. Anyway, I will be tickled to death to hear Mr.
Patterson's remaining testimony. Again, find the waste in the system. Do not keep
on saying, "More taxes, more taxes." Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else wishing to testify for the first
time?
JOE ROSA: For the record, Joe Rosa. The problem with
the highway is not a County problem. It is a State highway problem. These roads
have not been done for eighty (80) plus years. Lihu`e to Kapa'a is eighty-three (83)
years. Maluhia Road to Lihu'e is eighty (80) or eighty-one (81) years. It is not a
County problem. It is where the County Council should work with the State
Legislature to get funding so we can have this infrastructure change. The last thing
was thirty (30) years ago where we had the State do something for Kauai, which
was Kapule Highway with the (Inaudible) Bridge across the valley there. Do you
think that is fair for all the tax money we pay is gasoline taxes, et cetera? Yet, you
want to tax more money for the highways? That is not a County problem. Go and
see the State. A couple of months back, they had a big headline, "Use It Or Lose It."
What was the cause of that article? The State is not using their funding, so it is up
to our legislators, our representatives, three (3) representatives, and one senator to
go after that money. I hear that the State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation
(HDOT) say that it is going to cost big money to build it. Yes, but what are you
going to do about it? We have problems. That is the thing. You folks need to get
some fire under yourselves and get after those guys. Go to HDOT and ask them,
"What are their plans for the future for the infrastructure." This has been a
problem from the Bryan Baptiste days. On their opening testimony for the year,
they talked about infrastructure, but they do not see the State and get the things
going. I used to see it in our office. Before they opened the Legislature, they would
come over and they used to ask the boss, "What can we do for funding that you need
to improve the highway system here?" They talk about big money, but that is it.
We swallow whatever they have to say and nothing is done. That is the main cause
of it. It is not a County tax problem; it is the State's problem. It is their duty to
provide the highways. We pay gasoline tax, but it is not only for resurfacing. The
gasoline tax is supposed to be for new infrastructure. I come here to give testimony.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 6 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
I have worked with the (inaudible) and everything. Like I say, those are the kinds
of things that you folks need to look at because you have the power and they have
the power. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mr. Rosa. Anyone else wishing
to testify for the first time? Mr. Taylor.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and Members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. As I said at the last hearing on this, there was plenty of flaws in the
process and some of my discussion is based on books I have here: "The High Cost of
Free Parking," "New Visions for Metropolitan America," "Stuck in Traffic," "Still
Stuck in Traffic," "Better, Not Bigger," and "Limits to Growth." Traffic is only one
small part in traffic congestion and moving around as only one small part of
planning. If we continue to plan sprawl, which we are doing, we are creating a
problem that we can never afford the need for more transportation...public
transportation...As I said at the last meeting, to make public transportation more
viable, it takes a minimum of four thousand two hundred (4,200) people per square
mile on one end, and on the other end a very large area of jobs so that you are going
from here to there...we do not have that on the island. The average is less than two
thousand (2,000) people per square mile island-wide. We need to look at the
situation very carefully. On the first page of your Bill, at the bottom there is a little
chart that shows what is going to be accomplished by this activity and I am saying
that as long as we continue to grow and sprawl, there is no way that we are going to
reach those numbers that are presented. Reading from a policy briefing from
Brookings Institution, from 1980 to 2000, one million two hundred thousand
(1,200,000) more automobiles were added to the vehicular population of the United
States for every one person added to the population. Sixty million people
(60,000,000)...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Ken, your time is up.
Mr. Taylor: Sixty million (60,000,000) more people to
be...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Ken, your time is up.
Mr. Taylor: ...population on this in the United States.
That means sixty million (60,000,000) more cars. We need to address the issue.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, repeat or
rephrase.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ken, would you please repeat or rephrase
whether you are for or against this Bill?
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry?
Councilmember Yukimura: Would you please repeat or rephrase
whether you are for or against this Bill?
Mr. Taylor: Repeat?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 7 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not think he stated it, but are you for or
against this Bill?
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Are you for or against this Bill?
Mr. Taylor: Under the circumstances and the way it is
written, I am opposed to it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you. We are going to have to
take a caption break. I just want to let the audience know that this is your
testimony on record, so you are not going to be able to come back and do another
six (6) minutes at 1:30 p.m. I just want to make that clear. We will take a ten (10)
minute caption break and come back.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 10:31 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:46 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Again, we are going to start
where we left off. We are taking public testimony for Bill No. 2610. Is there anyone
else in the audience wishing to testify for the first time? Mr. Hart.
BRUCE HART: For the record, Bruce Hart. I will start off
right away by saying that I am not for any kind of tax to fix the roads. Joe spoke
about something that I wanted to expand on also, which is that Kahl) Highway is
the State's responsibility. I just recently learned that there was a study done a
couple of years ago by the "TAT Working Group." This study was done in order to
provide recommendations as to how the State could see to it that the counties got
more of the tourists' income tax money that comes from tourism. That is what I
would like to see. In fact, I think it dovetails with this issue that we heard earlier
and the one that you have been talking about for so long, which are TVRs. I think
the TVRs ought to be taxed. I do not think that we should necessarily look at the
TVRs as a complete evil; I think that it is a source of revenue if we do it right and
we put it together right and put it in its place and do all of that. In that situation, if
the County creates that source of revenue, it seems like the State just grabs all of it.
I do not like this idea that the State takes all the money that the County generates
from things like that, and then they decide what to give us back and where we are
supposed to spend it. I think that they should get a cut and we should get a cut and
we can do what we want with our cut. We decide because it is our money, our
community, and our island. This revenue is being generated here on our island. In
other words, let us be creative and get another source of revenue. Let us find ways
to fund the government that does not put it all in this repetitive, "We are going to
just fix it for a while, `Band-Aid' approach." I think that some of the what Joe said
is that I think that this County, as well as all the other counties, should get
together, reach out to the State legislators, and fellowship; let us work together. If
they do not want to work together, then maybe you can get tougher. First, say,
"Look, we have things that we need to do." Thank you.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 8 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Now we will go to the second
round. John, you may come back up.
Mr. Patterson: Thank you for taking my second round of
testimony.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Please repeat your name for the record.
Mr. Patterson: My name is John Patterson from Wailua. I
am going to quickly go through these four (4) points that I made. First off, I
understand that Kuhi5 Highway is a State highway, but unless I go to O`ahu, this is
my only way to get anything done. You folks passed the resolution to change the
airfares. We need that kind of motivation to get the Governor and the legislators to
release money that is available for Kauai. Then of course you have control over the
County roads. Kauai has two percent (2%) of all the roads in the State. We have
fifteen percent (15%) of all the traffic fatalities. That means you are seven (7) times
more likely to be killed on a Kaua`i road than on an average Hawaii road. That is
lack of leadership. That is the three (3)-lane road manifesting itself. That is the
narrow, dark, and twisty roads that we have with no sidewalks, playing out in the
deaths of our citizens. Every time someone dies, you should ask yourself—the area
right there by that jail is one of the most dangerous parts of any highway in the
State and that is because of the fact that there is contraflow and three (3) lanes.
You folks need to do whatever is required to improve that piece of road. Let us talk
about the subsidies. As I mentioned, I have some real numbers here. You spent six
million eight hundred thousand dollars ($6,800,000) in 2013 to transport seven
hundred eighty thousand (780,000) riders. That is over eight dollars ($8) per rider,
each way. A person who went from Kapa'a to Lihu`e on the bus five (5) days a week
received four thousand one hundred dollars ($4,100) in tax money subsidies for
those trips; four thousand one hundred dollars ($4,100) per year. That is crazy. It
is crazy to spend four thousand one hundred dollars ($4,100) to subsidize a system
that is not full. Now you are saying, "Let us expand it, because if we expand it, it
will draw-in more ridership." Actually, your data from your studies shows that is
not true. When you added more routes, the number of boarding per revenue hour
fell first from fifteen (15) per hour to nine (9), and it is slowly creeping back up. But
this idea of egg, chicken—which comes first...the ridership needs to be made better.
No, it has been shown that expanding the ridership has decreased the efficiency of
the public transportation system so funding it further is a bad idea. Your studies
are completely flawed. I have to get through this quickly, but one study said that
you wanted to have up to one point three percent (1.3%) of the rides by 2020 being
done on the bus. That is a three hundred twenty percent (320%) increase from 2010
to 2020, but we are already six (6) years in and it has only increased sixty
percent (60%). That means you are saying by 2020, there is going to be one
million (1,000,000) more people riding the bus each year. The other one that was
even better than that was they predicted that...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry, John. Your time is up.
Mr. Patterson: Okay. You should reread your own flawed
studies. They predict that seven million (7,000,000) riders will be riding the bus
in 2035.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: You can still submit testimony and E-mail it
if you want to send us the points. Next speaker is Glenn.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. It was really
a breath of fresh air to hear somebody like John come up here with these figures
that realistically if you look at things like how many people use the bus and how
many people are going to. These figures right here that are projected on Bill No.
2610—it is apparent that bicycles...two percent (2%), transit/buses, point four
percent (0.4%)...by the year 2020, it might be going up to one point three percent
(1.3%)...by even 2035, which I will not be here in 2035, up to three point six percent
(3.6%). It is ludicrous and crazy to keep on saying that we are going to spend this
kind of money taking excise tax to put bigger diesel buses on a thing. You are
talking about nonpolluting? How much more do they pollute than a car? That
diesel smells. You know because you have all driven behind trucks, just like buses
or anything else. If they are diesel, they are going to be polluting more than
anything else. The point is, as John has pointed out, we are spending these huge
amounts of money, researching and going after something that is not realistic. Live
in the real world. That vehicle that you drive...you are going to keep driving it.
You are not going to abandon your vehicle for whatever reason. The convenience of
going from "Point A" to "Point B" is there when you want to come. You are not
going to wait for a bus or you are not going to get on a bike...would you go shopping
on a bike? Are you going to ask an elderly person to get on it? No you are not. It is
ridiculous to even think about that. I only ask that you folks use a little common
sense like John said. I wish you could give him more time to go ahead and finish
his testimony. Thank you very much.
(Councilmember Hooser is noted as excused.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Mr. Rosa.
Mr. Rosa: For the record, Joe Rosa. The thing is that it
is not only planning and not doing. I always hear at the start of the year "our
priorities" and "that is number one," but those priorities are not taken care of
during the year. Nothing is done. It is just cheap talk. It is coming from the top
man. Harry Truman used to say, "The buck stops here." Here, it is not; nothing
has been done. What is there to do? We are faced with this infrastructure problem.
Like I said, when the State took away the island development for each island
away...let Honolulu do everything by themselves and be consultants, which they do
not know the other islands' problems. Even if they know about it, they do not do
anything about it. You can see at the end of the fiscal year when they sent out the
booklet, a lot of the work...charge codes that we use here is not anymore, but it was
used in Honolulu in Kaneohe for a sewer system. We do not do our projects with
the money that is set aside in the Legislature, so we lose it. Plus, we lose the
federal matching funds. The County Council will have to work with our legislators
and get the money home for the island here. That is what is needed. Go get it. It is
there. I hate to say it and you always hear me say the same old thing, but I am
being realistic to the fact that that is what is lacking from what I see. It took
Kapule Highway thirty-six (36) years to build, which I retired after thirty-six (36)
years; that is too long. We also had "Band-Aid" jobs in between. Kapaia truck
climbing hill-1967 and Hanamd'ulu truck climbing hill-1969...that delayed the
projects. All of these "Band-Aid" jobs are not helping. We need realistic and
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 10 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
alternate routes, alternate routes through Kapule. I do not know how some people
cannot see the fact that alternate roads ease transportation problems in and out of
Lihu`e after 1960...1986. That is the way it is. You have to be realistic. You cannot
get paranoid over something that is not totally working. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mr. Rosa. Next we have Ken.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of the Council, Ken
Taylor. In the United States in 2000, only four point seven percent (4.7%) of all
commuters traveled by public transit. Outside of New York City, only three and a
half percent (3.5%) used transit, and eighty-nine point three percent (89.3%) used
private vehicles. The major reason is that most transit commuting is concentrated
in a few large, densely settled regions with extensive fixed rail transit systems. The
nine (9) United States metropolitan areas with the most daily trips and daily
transit commuters when taken together accounted for seventy-one percent (71%) of
all United States transit commuting, though they contained only seventeen percent
(17%) of the total population. Within those regions, transit commuters are
seventeen percent (17%) of all the commuters, but elsewhere, transit carriers was
only two point four percent (2.4%) of all commuters and less than one percent (1%)
in many low-density regions. If every American existing transit capacity was
tripled and fully utilized, morning peak hour transit travel would raise eleven
percent (11%) of the morning trip, but that would reduce all morning private vehicle
trips by only eight percent (8%), which is certainly progress, but hardly enough to
end congestion and triple public transit capacity would be extremely costly. This is
my point. We are looking at several different things in this Bill. One is to fix the
roads; we would all like to fix the roads. Transit—we would all like to have a better
bus system, but can we afford it? Should we afford it at this point in time? How
should it be afforded? I certainly believe that first of all, you put a three dollar ($3)
a day price tag on all rental vehicles and instead of putting a tax on sales, you put a
gas tax in place so that people using the facilities are going to pay for it. If I elect to
drive two hundred (200) miles this week, I pay for it. If I decide to only go ten (10)
miles this week, I pay less and it is the way it should be. I think that this Bill
should be removed from the table and a new bill will be looked at in the future.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Bruce, did you want to speak
again? If not, I will call the meeting back to order. I am going to recess this item
and we are going to come back at 1:30 p.m. Council Chair Rapozo.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, I just would like to echo what
Councilmember Kagawa requested, that we do not go through the same entire
presentation. Maybe we can send something over to the Administration that
anything in addition to what was already presented would be appreciated. I would
echo that request. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, note taken. With that, can we move
on to the next item?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 11 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
The Committee proceeded on its agenda item, as shown in the following
Committee Report, which is incorporated herein by reference:
CR-BF 2016-04: on Bill No. 2611 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B-2015-797, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET
OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016,
BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE BOND FUND
(Hanalei Baseyard Fuel Tank Project —
$40,000) (Approved.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will come back to finish up Bill No. 2610.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:03 a.m., and convened
in the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
The meeting reconvened at 1:37 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. We are on Bill No. 2610,
regarding the general excise tax. I am going to suspend the rules for now. The
Mayor has something to say and the Administration has a short presentation.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
BERNARD P. CARVALHO, Jr., Mayor: Good afternoon, Councilmembers.
I am here with my team, ready to share the information regarding our GET tax. I
just wanted to restate how strongly I feel that we need to support this. This one-
half percent (0.5%) will raise about twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) per year
over ten (10) years and I want the people of Kaua`i to understand how important
this opportunity is for Kauai. I support the split of seventy-five percent (75%) of
these funds to be used to repair our roads, our bridges, a centralized equipment
repair shop for all of our operational needs, and of course to reduce congestion. I
support the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) to be used to improve a transit
system, looking at frequencies of better service, commuting, and of course shuttle
service. Since submitting a draft bill in September, approximately four (4) months
ago, we have done our homework and we really worked closely, trying to get out in
the community, talked to the Kauai Chamber of Commerce, Kauai Visitors Bureau,
Kaua`i Contractors Association, Kauai Realtors, Kaua`i Business Counsel, The
Garden Island, and tried to give all you Councilmembers as much information as
possible, and just in general, community meetings. We look forward to a timely
discussion. We worked hard at the State Legislature and we ask that we have this
chance and opportunity. It was given to the counties. Our team has assembled over
and beyond the information that is needed, but we will be able to deliver that
message today and hopefully the community can see and understand. We have our
priority listing of bridges of which comes first and which comes second; our
roadways; and our bus ways. Our opportunities are on the table and we have
presented and given you the information that our team has assembled. If this does
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 12 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
not go for whatever reason, I do hope that you have a plan that can help us to work
together to address an opportunity like this. I am hoping that you have something
that you can share as well, but also at the same time, hoping that you can support
what we are doing because a lot of work and effort has gone into this. We have
listened to you, we heard you, and we have gone through the long hours of
preparation. You have our packet of information and my team will be coming up
very shortly, but as Mayor, I just wanted to say that this is what we need for Kaua`i
and we are going to share the information with you, as well as the public. Mahalo
for the opportunity and we look forward to a healthy discussion and the passage of
this Bill.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mayor. Right now, we will have
the Administration come up and do their presentation. Like we mentioned earlier,
let us try to keep the presentation to new information only or maybe just how to get
through this binder.
NADINE K. NAKAMURA, Managing Director: Good afternoon, Nadine
Nakamura, Managing Director.
KEN M. SHIMONISHI, Director of Finance: Ken Shimonishi, Director of
Finance.
Ms. Nakamura: We just wanted to follow-up this afternoon
with the Council's request at the first reading of the Bill. The Council asked for a
clear plan for the use of the GET surcharge. "What are the specific roads and
bridges that could be completed in the next three (3) years if this GET surcharge
were to be passed," and then, "What happens after the ten (10) years," were the two
(2) primary questions that we wanted to address. We are going to walk real quickly
through this. You have your plan in front of you. That is kind of what I am going to
be focusing on. The PowerPoint is really just a summary for the public. If you take
a look at the beginning portion of the plan, page number 2 at the top, there is a
little bit about the history of the GET surcharge that everybody is familiar with.
Also, what the surcharge can be used for under the State law. Then there is the
listing of the Problem Statement. Wherever we go, we hear that people are
concerned about traffic congestion or concerned about the condition of our streets
and sidewalks. The visitor survey also showed that the top three (3) things that
people do not like about their visit to Kaua`i are traffic and roads, which was
number one; having to leave; and then having nothing to complain about. I think
chickens are way down on that list, but it does appear. I am going to ask Ken to go
over the revenues.
Mr. Shimonishi: As far as the revenues, it is obviously
estimates that we have. Numbers were provided to us from the Senate Ways and
Means Committee on two (2) different occasions, and obviously those numbers
varied. I also received information from the State Department of Taxation to try to
give us a baseline of what the revenues were. Basically over the next ten (10) years,
it is estimated that a one-half percent (0.5%) in the GE tax would generate
approximately two hundred forty million dollars ($240,000,000) to two hundred
fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000), which is purely an estimate that we have.
We would receive, if enacted, the first of these revenues in April 2018 and the
payments would be the month following the quarter ended. So every quarter, we
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 13 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
would receive the payment from the State of Hawai`i, again verified through the
Department of Taxation. The one thing that we would probably request to amend
on this Bill is to create a separate fund to account for these revenues and
expenditures that we only have the GE tax surcharge revenues and
expenditures...exactly at the end of each year how much was received, how much
was expended by which department for what purpose, and what is the remaining
fund balance of such revenues to move forward with.
Ms. Nakamura: All of this is found in your "Attachment A,"
the revenue side.
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, as the Mayor mentioned earlier, our
expenditures remained at seventy-five percent (75%) of the surcharge or one
hundred ninety-one million dollars ($191,000,000) towards the road/bridges
equipment, highways equipment replacement, vehicle repair, and twenty-five
percent (25%) towards our transportation system, buses, bus yards, facilities, and so
on. Within the plan document itself, this would be under item number 4,
expenditures, "Attachment B" and "Attachment C." As far as the road resurfacing
repair component, within the first three (3) years, the Department of Public Works
has identified a detailed list of roads. That is under "Attachment D," basically, local
roads and collector roads of approximately eleven million three hundred thousand
dollars ($11,300,000) each: the roads to be repaired in the first three (3) years,
number of roads in each year, and the lane miles that we expect to touch and
complete. This just gives you a cross-section of collector roads, the roads that would
be addressed in some fashion, and the total dollars, so by the five (5) districts and
the name of each road. As far as our local roads, there were too many to list. Again,
in some fashion, these roads would be attended to by the five (5) districts, the
number of roads in each district, and the amount of money that would be expended
towards these roads.
Ms. Nakamura: To follow-up on the Council request, on
"Attachment D" is a list of all of the local roads listed by district...sorry, they are
not by district, they are by the name of the road, but we have added a section on the
district so that you can see where this road is located and updated information on
the type of treatment that is proposed by the Department of Public Works.
"Attachment D" is the local roads and "Attachment E" is the collector roads.
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, in the first three (3) years, the
Department of Public Works has identified nine million dollars ($9,000,000) in
bridge repairs. This is addressed in the following areas. The bridge is to be
attended to and the number of bridges in each area.
Ms. Nakamura: The bridges on the left hand side, the
replacement bridges, for the public, are the bridges that would be replaced and on
the right hand side is just the number of bridges per district. I think the big change
is the attention to these bridges because of the condition they are currently in. If we
do not have adequate funding, then we would need to look at a bond issuance to
include these bridges for repair and replacement.
Mr. Shimonishi: Also addressed would be our ongoing
deferred equipment list for our heavy equipment, as well as our ongoing equipment
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 14 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
for our highway needs. This is Section 4.4 of the plan, as well as "Attachment G."
We provided a list of all the equipment that has been scheduled to be replaced in
some fashion. "Attachment G" is where you would see the listing of the equipment.
We covered the centralized vehicle repair shop earlier of doing a consolidated
location to address the Department of Public Works, the Transportation Agency, the
Kaua`i Police Department, and the Kaua`i Fire Department within the first three (3)
years to expend six million six hundred thousand dollars ($6,600,000) towards
planning, design, site, location, and construction. Again, this is what we were
dealing with over at the Transportation Agency's facility that is currently
inadequate to address the repair and maintenance (R&M) and service needs of our
bus vehicles.
Councilmember Yukimura: Where is that?
Mr. Shimonishi: I do not think that is in the plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not in the plan?
Mr. Shimonishi: No, because these are things that we have...
Ms. Nakamura: We discussed it earlier.
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: The discussion is on page number 4, item
number 4.5.
Councilmember Yukimura: Page number 4 of this book?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, it is page number 4. It is not the
attachment; it is the actual page.
Councilmember Yukimura: Where is it in the spreadsheet?
Ms. Nakamura: If you take a look on "Attachment B," it is
under "Auto Shop Total."
Councilmember Yukimura: You said it was fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000). How much is the total?
Ms. Nakamura: That is the total if you take a look. It is
seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000) total; however, the GET funds cannot cover
the full amount of the facility because we can only use it towards the highway and
Transportation Agency costs. We are looking at Fire and other agencies like Parks
& Recreation. Their portion of the use of the facility could not be covered under the
general excise tax.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you give us the documentation for how
you have broken it down?
Ms. Nakamura: Sure. Can we do that as a follow-up?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 15 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have it today?
Ms. Nakamura: Our...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: From the previous presentation, I have a GE
tax surcharge and it breaks down the GET number, the federal match, and the
County or bond amount, so I can have it...
Councilmember Yukimura: No, I am talking about the percentage
between the uses that qualify for GET funding and those that do not and how that
breakdown was arrived at percentage-wise.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. The Administration can continue
their presentation and that is something that they can get back to you on once the
presentation is done.
Ms. Nakamura: Sure.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can we all ask that we be recognized, prior
to just blurting out questions and show courtesy to the Chair?
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: There is also, within the ten (10) year period,
possible new transportation initiatives to address traffic congestion, creating
alternate routes, and possible resiliency type of projects. As mentioned earlier,
some of these will require further discussion. We are not projecting funding in the
first three (3) years for these initiatives, but we just wanted to take the opportunity
to mention them. That is the Kilauea New Town Entry Road; a connector between
Knhio Highway and the Kapa`a temporary bypass, connectors between
neighborhoods and the Kapa'a temporary bypass to alleviate some congestion
through Kapa'a Town; connector between Kuamo`o Road and Ma'alo Road as a
resiliency project, should anything happen to the Wailua Bridge; Lihu`e Mauka
Road; and the northerly leg of the Koloa Western Bypass Road.
Mr. Shimonishi: Just to reiterate our dramatic increase in our
bus ridership numbers, this is covered or related to Section 4.7, page number 5, and
how we plan to address some of this would be obviously to increase our weekend
service to once every hour, extend Saturday service to 9:30 p.m., which is currently
what the weekdays run, and also extend the Sunday service to 6:30 p.m. Again,
further details are provided on page number 5, Section 4.7 of the bus improvements.
Continuing on, to recognize, reconfigure, and improve Kapahi/Wailua shuttles,
improve the Lihu`e shuttles, as well as provide Koloa service between Lihu`e and
Kalaheo, and increase mainline service during peak hours. Our bus system in the
first three (3) years is expecting to expand approximately eight million one hundred
thousand dollars ($8,100,000). We mentioned this earlier on the satellite baseyards
fleet replacement, as well as the administrative facility needing attention.
Personnel wise, we foresee the need to bring on two (2) engineers and two (2)
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 16 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
construction managers related to the Department of Public Works to move the one
hundred ninety-one million dollars ($191,000,000) in projects over the next ten (10)
years. To be clear, these would be limited term, civil-service employees. So in fact,
their employment would end once the surcharge ended as well. On the
transportation side, obviously the need would be for additional drivers to increase
the routes, dispatchers, mechanics, and administrative staff, including some
funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on these. All of these
positions would be exempt appointees, as they currently are. At the end of the
ten (10) year period, we remain with what are the risks to the County of this
funding, which would entail elimination of the staff positions for the highways,
which we already addressed as limited term civil-service employees, and either
elimination or reduction of services regarding transportation and how we continue
to fund this going forward, either other options like fuel taxes, vehicle weight taxes,
and other taxes, etcetera.
Ms. Nakamura: We just wanted to keep it short and to the
point and to address the concerns that were raised at the last meeting. We are open
to any questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.
I will start with the bridges. The bridges have been a problem for quite some time
now. I am just trying to understand or find out what efforts have we made in the
last ten (10) years to address those bridges?
LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: Good afternoon. For the record, Larry
Dill, County Engineer. The answer is a two-fold. We have our bridges that are
Federal Highways fund eligible, so those are the bridges that are at least twenty
(20) feet long and those are bridges that we can seek Federal Highways funding for
to repair or replace. Because those bridges are in that program, we are required by
HDOT and Federal Highways to do a biennial inspection. We do inspect those and
have a consultant come to take a look at them every two (2) years. Those bridges,
by and large, are in serviceable condition and we have a program in place and we
have one that is going out to bid very soon. Kapahi Bridge is our next one. We have
another one, Pu`u`opae Bridge, the following year. If we go according to plan,
`Opaeka`a Bridge will come after that. We have plans for the federal aid bridges
and that has been moving forward for the past several years.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are you talking about the bridges that you
were referencing in the presentation?
Mr. Dill: The `Opaeka`a Bridge is one of the bridges
that I just mentioned.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Dill: For the other ones, I do not believe any of
those are federal aid bridges.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 17 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, so my question is as it relates to the
bridges that are being presented in your presentation today, what efforts has this
County made in the past to address the conditions of those? Have we sought bond
money?
Mr. Dill: As I mentioned, these are the bridges in the
first three (3) years. Those are the most immediate needs. For the rest of the years,
there are federal aid bridges and local bridges that we would be doing. We have
sought bond money. For instance the Kapahi Bridge is bond funding, it is a match
for that at twenty percent (20%) on that federal aid bridge. I am sorry—it was
highway funding that we are using for the match on that one. We have leveraged
other funding in order to take care of those things.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is where I am trying to figure out where
have we...I do not recall, on the Council anyway, as long as I have been here,
addressing or entertaining a request for a grant, federal funding, or any type of
funding for bridges.
Mr. Dill: Yes, the funding for the three (3) bridges, I
will call them the "Historic Bridges in Kapa`a," has been in place for quite a while
and has been on the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) every year for the last five
(5) years, so the Council has approved that budget every year.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right and we have not repaired it?
Mr. Dill: Not in completion. The first one is going out
to bid...oh, it has already been bid...I think we have awarded it or about to award.
All three (3) of those are historic bridges, so it is quite an effort to get through the
environmental process with the community on that one.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are identifying these bridges in the first
three (3) years, but like you just explained the bridges that have been funded for
five (5) years...only now we are going out to...
Mr. Dill: Part of the reason is because those are
federal aid bridges. We have been working on the `Opaeka`a Bridge for the past
three (3) years and it is getting to the point where we are ready for construction, we
believe, by next fiscal year. We have gone through the environmental process: the
106 process and the permitting process for that one.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Follow-up question, Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a similar question. In addition to
these seven (7) bridges, how many other bridges are in play right now?
Mr. Dill: I believe we have approximately twenty-five
(25) federal aid bridges identified on this island.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 18 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: How many do you have contracts on or
working on besides these seven (7)?
Mr. Dill: I believe there are three (3) active right now.
For the Anini Bridge, we have done the technical consulting work and we are
soliciting the consultant right now, so I guess four (4), including that one.
Councilmember Hooser: So that would be ten (10) or eleven (11)
bridges? These seven (7) plus another three (3) or four (4)?
Mr. Dill: Approximately.
Councilmember Hooser: We are going to do these in three (3) years?
It does not even seem possible to do one (1) bridge in three (3) years, let alone ten
(10) or eleven (11).
Mr. Dill: You are right. It is an aggressive schedule.
Part of the reason is that we have not had the funding, resources, and manpower.
Councilmember Hooser: The capacity to put seven (7) bridges out,
which means doing seven (7) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), seven (7)
sets of plans, seven (7) permits, and then seven (7) bids is in three (3) years?
Mr. Dill: None of these will require an environmental
impact statement. They will require an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
maybe an exemption under our rules or a categorical exclusion under Federal
Highways rules. The main reason we have not gotten many bridges done is because
we have not had the funding to do these bridges. We have been keeping the bridges
in serviceable condition as best we can with the limited funding available.
Councilmember Hooser: I would differ with you in terms that none of
them will require an environmental impact statement. We do not really know that
until we apply and it seems like many of those are historical in nature also.
Mr. Dill: Yes, but with our current bridges that have
been taking a while, the historical bridges have not taken an EIS, they have been
an EA.
Councilmember Hooser: I guess my underlying question is about
capacity. I have other questions besides bridges.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am going to continue with the follow-up on
this. Councilmember Yukimura has a follow-up, and then I am going to go back to
Council Chair Rapozo and go in a circle again.
Mr. Dill: Capacity is exactly the right question to ask.
We have not had the financial or the manpower resources capacity to address a lot
of these problems that we are trying to address with this funding.
Councilmember Hooser: I do not know if seven (7) bridges have been
rebuilt in the State in the last three (3) years. In my experience, I know that it
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 19 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
takes a long time. They are all in sensitive areas, in waterways, and have many,
many layers of regulation. Besides money, it is the capacity that actually does the
work. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I notice that Waimea Swinging Bridge and
Keapana Swinging Bridges are on there. Why is Kapaia Swinging Bridge not
included?
Mr. Dill: We just did a major overhaul of that bridge.
I am sorry—Kapaia Swinging Bridge?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Dill: I was referring to the Hanapepe Swinging
Bridge, which we just did a major overhaul on. The Kapaia Swinging Bridge is not
on there because I think we have said at the Council before that that bridge is not
accessible by any legal public means at present. At least for now, I do not feel
comfortable including it on this list because it is not something that is legally
available for public use.
Councilmember Yukimura: I thought you were working on that and
getting easements to it.
Mr. Dill: We have been working on that with both the
Kapaia Swinging Bridge Foundation and the landowner and we have not completed
that process yet because that is a long discussion in another area, but the way we
approach that may be changing, subject to everybody coming to an agreement on
that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Where will you be with respect to
bridges at the end of ten (10) years?
Mr. Dill: Where we will be with these seven (7)? With
all the bridges on this list right here?
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it not your goal to bring all the bridges up
to preventive maintenance standards?
Mr. Dill: That is certainly the goal for the roadways.
For the roadways, we have done an exhaustive survey of the conditions of all the
County roads, so we have good information on that. For the Federal Highways
bridges, I can confidently say yes, that certainly at the end of these ten (10) years,
all of our federal aid bridges will be in good condition. We do not have, at this stage,
an exhaustive report on the condition of all of the non-federal aid bridges on Kauai.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you plan to?
Mr. Dill: With this, we see funding available for us to
do a survey of the bridges, yes.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 20 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that in your budget?
Mr. Dill: We have not budgeted that in the first two
(2) years, but maybe that is something to consider for the first three (3) years.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so your goal for bridges at the end of
ten (10) years is that you are going to get your Federal Highways bridges in good
condition, which what does "good condition" mean?
Mr. Dill: Biennial inspections have very...I do not
have it with me...I do not know...I could not tell you, but they rate them from
"excellent," "very good," or "good." I am not sure exactly what the criteria are for
that.
Councilmember Yukimura: But your target is "good" under the
standards of the Federal Highways measurements.
Mr. Dill: Yes, all of the bridges would be at least in
their "good" rating, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: And you do not have a goal with respect to
all of the other bridges. How many other bridges do we have?
MICHAEL MOULE, Chief of Engineering: Michael Moule, Chief of
Engineering. It depends what you call a "bridge," honestly. There are box culverts,
which are concrete culverts, essentially, so those could be called bridges. Federal
aid bridges are anything that is twenty (20) feet or longer. There are dozens, if not
hundreds, if you include smaller box culverts like the one that was replaced on
Waipouli Road last year. If you include bridges like that, the smaller box culverts
or ditches under the road, there one hundred (100) or so, somewhere in that range.
We do not know the entire count because we do not have them all inventoried at
this time. The larger ones of those that are five (5) to twenty (20) feet—I do not
have an exact number of those, but it is something in the order of probably fifty (50)
or sixty (60) and there are a lot of small bridges on this island. One of the things
that we want to be able to do and have funding to be able to do is to be able to have
an ongoing program of repairing, and when needed, replacing all of those bridges,
which is something that this County has not proactively done. We have actively
done it, but not in a real proactive nature. That is one of the goals of being able to
have funding to do this sort of thing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, if you want to do that, I would not
recommend that you create more bridges and roads. Your goal is federal aid bridges
in good condition and an inventory and an assessment of the condition of all other
bridges.
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that accurate?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 21 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Actually, we will stay on the topic of bridges,
and then we will go back to Council Chair Rapozo's questions. Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Regarding the listing for bridges
that we have here, how many of these are at that phase where they are ready for
reconstruction or maintenance? Where are they on the plan? Are all of them just
waiting for money to start reconstruction?
Mr. Dill: `Opaeka`a Bridge is already on the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and we have already been through
planning and design with that one or we are close to the end of planning and design.
That is why we are seeking funding that we will need for the County match for
construction to match the Federal Highways fund in the next fiscal year. `Opaeka`a
Bridge is probably the closest. On the Niumalu Bridge, the Council has already
appropriated funds toward that bridge...I am sorry...I mean Anini Bridge. That
should be Anini Bridge II, which is the second bridge when you go down to Anini
Beach. For that one, we begun to do technical consulting work for it and we have
some funds appropriated for it, but I do not recall how much funding is in place
right now, but we need to do design for that one still. Those are the only bridges
where we have commenced any work on. We are going to have to start from scratch
for the rest of them.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Are we still projecting three (3) years
to be able to complete all of these?
Mr. Dill: Yes. For some of them, we would not have to
go through the federal process because they are not federal aid bridges, so that
would make it quicker.
Councilmember Chock: Understood. Will each one be undertaken as
a separate project with a separate contractor?
Mr. Dill: Not necessarily. If we have funding
available, we might go out with a proposal for the consulting work to have them do
them as a batch of bridges.
Councilmember Chock: My concern, which applies to roads as well, is
that we have certain districts that has roads...is the plan to focus on one district so
that you do not move other resources around, thus costing money, or are you having
projects all over the island at once?
Mr. Dill: Certainly for the roads, we look to do them in
bunches in a certain area to minimize mobilization costs. That would not be as
applicable when it comes to a bridge project. We usually have one contractor per
one bridge taken care of.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 22 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions on bridges?
Councilmember Kagawa: What is the status of the Hanapepe Town
Bridge? I know we had some problems with the State Historical Preservation
Division (SHPD) or what have you, but is it on the next year's list? Where is that in
our plan?
Mr. Moule: Michael Moule, Chief of Engineering. For
the Hanapepe Road Bridge, the one you are speaking of, we have a project to do
some repairs to that bridge and it is already funded, so it is not listed here. It is one
of the bridges that we have proposed for the ten (10) year term. After the repairs,
we would not need to replace it in the first three (3) years of the GE tax. It is one of
the bridges that are on our larger list of needs and it is likely one that we would
move into somewhere in those ten (10) years, rather than beyond the ten (10) years.
Councilmember Kagawa: So these are only bridges that need to be
replaced or is replaced and repaired all in the same bunch?
Mr. Moule: If you look on the bottom, you see
replacement and repair. The ones on the left are actual names of bridges that we
intend to replace within the first three (3) years of the funds, including three (3) of
those being federal aid bridges of twenty (20) feet or longer. There are two (2) other
federal aid bridges that we are going to replace prior to this that are already in the
process and we already have funds set aside for it. On the right, those are total
number of bridges in each of the districts that we are going to do preventative
maintenance on during the first three (3) year timeframe. I think we are actually
planning to do that in the first year, honestly. Throughout the ten (10) years, the
idea of having an ongoing amount of money always goes to repair, and as needed,
replacement of the smaller bridges, and then we would line item the larger federal
aid bridges, if that makes sense.
Mr. Dill: I would also like to add a note that as I
mentioned, a couple of the bridges are already in the process in moving forward
with planning and design work. Should the Council approve this proposal and we
see the construction funds coming, we will start now on some of those other bridges
and begin the planning and design effort to make sure we can get these projects
completed within the three (3) year timeframe.
Councilmember Kagawa: My final question is that I know before I
came on and a couple of years before that, like five (5) years ago, we had a surplus
of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) plus. Did we repair any bridges or replace any
bridges five (5) years ago until now?
Mr. Dill: For the past five (5) years, we have not. We
have done some temporary repairs, which is the best I can say we have done.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 23 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Chock: Just a follow-up on Niumalu Bridge, is that
going to be a replacement for a continued single-lane bridge? Does it have a
walkway as well?
Mr. Dill: Since we have not gone through the process
with the community that would involve community input, if I had to predict right
now, I would say that it would be very similar to the bridge that is there today,
except that we would not want to have the weight restrictions on it. We have to go
through the community process right now in order to establish the final
configuration of the bridge.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. We just had a community meeting
this past week and that was one of the concerns.
Mr. Dill: Yes, I heard the concerns.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just a quick question, I cannot remember
the last time the County built a bridge. When was that and how long did that take
from start to finish?
Mr. Dill: It was prior to my time, so I do not have the
details on that. I believe it might have been the Kilauea River Bridge on Kolo Road
perhaps. Then there was Olohena. I am not sure which was more recent.
Mr. Moule: I have the list here. Olohena was replaced in
2005 and Kilauea Bridge in 2009. We did a ford crossing on Hoala Road in 2010,
which is kind of a bridge, but it is not a long span. In 2004, the `Oma`o Bridge. So
in early to late 2000s, there were some bridge reconstruction, but there was a period
of time where there were no bridge projects being developed, but that changed
several years ago and as Larry mentioned earlier, we had three (3) bridge projects
in development over the last several years, one of which we are going to Notice to
Proceed to the contractor next week; the other of which was next year; and the third
of which is `Opaeka`a Bridge, which is up there on the screen for the following year.
Councilmember Hooser: So with the ones we have already done, how
long did it take from start to finish?
Mr. Moule: I do not have an answer for that.
Councilmember looser: I am trying to get some capacity context.
Mr. Dill: Yes, I do not have an answer for that. I can
tell you for instance the bridge that we are going out right now...at least ten (10)
years. That was a project in looking at it now with 20-20 hindsight prior to our time
may not have been managed as well as it might have. They had to actually return
the moneys back to the Federal Highways Administration that was received
because they did not get through the environmental process properly.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 24 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I am not questioning the need to do
the bridges. It is just that doing ten (10) bridges in three (3) years does not seem
reasonable.
Mr. Moule: I can try to address the question by
estimating how long it does take with a process that is continually moving and not
pausing along the way. For a federal aid bridge, I would estimate that it is going to
take about three (3) to four (4) years to get it from conception to construction. It
could be accelerated to two (2) years, which we are trying to do for the `Anini
Bridge II, which is a federal aid bridge. We are in the process of selecting a
geotechnical consultant to figure out how to replace that bridge. The next federal
aid bridge on it that is almost ready to go is the K5loa Road Bridge in Koloa Town.
I think we have scheduled in the third of these three (3) years, which is 2020 so that
gives us four (4) years if we start now, which is our goal, to move forward and get
that bridge ready to go. The other four (4) bridges on the list are smaller bridges
that do not have to go through the federal processes in the same way, which can be
done in one (1) year, potentially. Two (2) is longer, but the process of getting a
design done for these smaller bridges...some of them are fairly small and they are
much simpler to design, so it could be much faster.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: You said that you are planning to do
preventative maintenance for list on the right hand side.
Mr. Dill: Well, it is not all preventative. It is a lot of
reactive maintenance. There are problems with some of those bridges for repair. As
Michael kind of alluded to, our goal would be to create a bridge asset management
program with these moneys by inspecting and creating an inventory of all of the
bridges and beginning to do more preventative repair stuff. A lot of the existing
repairs that need to be done are not preventative maintenance repairs.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I was going to say "bravo" for getting
to preventative maintenance. I hear that you have that as a goal. My question is if
you use all of these moneys to do what you are planning to do, how are you going to
do preventative maintenance of bridges after ten (10) years?
Mr. Moule: As the Finance Director stated a moment
ago, (inaudible) would have to go away, but I think honestly from the bridge point of
view, we or whoever is here at the time, would need to move towards making sure
that that program stays in place because it is a critical program. We are way
behind. The State is behind on this island as well. It is something that we hear at
the State HDOT level. Both the State and the County of Kauai are behind in
replacing bridges and they recognize the need to get up to speed, but bridges have to
be continually inspected and maintained. We are doing that to some degree now.
We need to do a better job, as we have said, on the smaller bridges and we need to
make sure that eight (8) or ten (10) years from now, that looking to see what needs
are five (5) to ten (10) years from then, we would need to program those funds and
ask for funds if these funds are running out.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 25 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Dill: On the roadway side, we have done
inventory and we have created a program and we know what funding is necessary
now. We have a much better handle on that. With the bridges, we are not that far
along. In a development of that asset program, we would be able to identify what
funds (inaudible).
Councilmember Yukimura: I totally concur with those goals. My
question is why are you not asking for a recurring source of funding that would
enable you to continue your plan?
Ms. Nakamura: Councilmember Yukimura, can I just point
you to "Attachment F" in your plan?
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: There are two (2) pages to "Attachment F,"
and on the second page in the middle, it is broken down by year. The top portion,
top third, are 2018 projects.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Ms. Nakamura: The middle section is 2019 projects and the
bottom is 2020 projects. At the end of the 2019 projects is annual funding for
preventative maintenance of federal aid bridges and repair and replacement of
small non-federal aid bridges. That is one million dollars ($1,000,000) in 2019, and
then at the end of 2020, there is another one million dollars ($1,000,000) that has
been programmed for the preventative maintenance portion and I believe that is the
program that we want to put in place, so that would be an ongoing asset
management function.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I hope you are doing that for the bus
as well. You have here fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), but in your spreadsheet
you had ten (10). Can you explain why?
Mr. Dill: Which spreadsheet are you referring to with
the ten (10)?
Councilmember Yukimura: Your expenditures spreadsheet. Excuse me,
I was looking at your auto shop. Okay. Where is the fifteen million (15,000,000) on
the spreadsheet?
Mr. Moule: It is on "Attachment B"...
Councilmember Yukimura: For three (3) years. Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: If I read that slide correctly, you are saying
that in the first three (3) years, we are going to replace nine (9) bridges and we are
going to repair twenty (20).
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 26 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Dill: There are seven (7) on the left hand column.
Council Chair Rapozo: Seven (7)—I am sorry. So repair twenty (20)
in the first three (3) years?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: How much was the `Oma`o Bridge?
Mr. Moule: I do not know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Somebody needs to know that, somebody has
to know that. I am not talking about you because you were not even here, but for
whoever was here, somebody needs to be able to tell me a ballpark amount.
Somebody needs to make a phone call, I guess, is what I am trying to say. How
much was Olohena?
Mr. Dill: I do not have information.
Mr. Moule: We do not have those records with us here.
We have them in my office so we can find out.
Council Chair Rapozo: What about Kilauea? Somebody has to
remember that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Eighteen (18).
Council Chair Rapozo: You remember eighteen million dollars
($18,000,000)? I am thinking eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000). I am thinking
Olohena was about five million dollars ($5,000,000). We are talking ten (10) years
down the road. We are talking inflation, cost of living, cost increases for material
and labor. I am not talking about just three (3) years; for the entire ten (10) year
period, we are going to get to all of these bridges with thirty-eight million dollars
($38,000,000). Is that what you folks are saying? I am looking at "Attachment B,"
which are bridges federal aid and bridges non-federal aid. This is basically on the
condition that we receive federal funding. Right now in this spreadsheet for ten (10)
years, we are looking at thirty-eight million four hundred thousand dollars
($38,400,000) to do all the bridgework. History tells me that these bridges cost a lot
of money.
Mr. Dill: Those two (2) bridges that you identified are
costlier than the ones we currently have, for instance the three (3) Kapa'a historic
bridges we are looking at. What is the bid contract amount for the Kapahi Bridge?
Mr. Moule: The budget on that was one million seven
hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000).
Mr. Dill: So we are doing Kapahi Bridge for one
million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000).
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 27 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Dill: Many of these bridges are smaller bridges.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you folks are confident that thirty-eight
million four hundred thousand dollars ($38,400,000) is sufficient? That is
conditional, right? That is if we get federal funds. If we do not get federal funds, we
have to put the money in. You have looked at these projects individually and
adjusted it for inflation and everything else and you think that thirty-eight million
four hundred thousand dollars ($38,400,000) would be sufficient?
Mr. Dill: We have done a closer look at the first three
(3) years. I cannot really represent to you that for the last seven (7) years that
thirty-eight million dollars ($38,000,000) will cover it.
Council Chair Rapozo: When you submit the spreadsheet like this,
it tells me that this is what you are saying.
Mr. Dill: Our estimates, the further out they get, the
less confidence you can have in them.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is scary, but that is true and I am glad
you are honest. Thank you. That is all I have for bridges.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions on bridges? I will
open it up to any other questions regarding the presentation. We can talk about
roads or transportation? Any questions on roads? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a similar question to what
Councilmember Hooser asked about the bridges and its capacity. Do we have the
capacity? Right now, if you look at "Attachment B," help me understand this
spreadsheet. If you look at the very top, the point five percent (0.5%) is what the
GET would generate for the first six (6) months, the seven million seven hundred
thousand dollars ($7,700,000).
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next line, which is local roads and
resurfacing and reconstruction, are roads that are not subject to federal funding.
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you are saying that in the first year or the
first six (6) months, the two million one hundred forty-four thousand dollars
($2,144,000) would be for the local roads. In the collector roads resurfacing and
reconstruction, those are the roads that qualify for federal funding and we are
saying that we are going to take four hundred twenty-eight thousand eight hundred
dollars ($428,800) from the GET revenue and we are going to leverage that against
one million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) of federal money. Is it just
a coincidence that the GET number from the local roads is identical to the total
budget for collector roads?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 28 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Dill: No, that is intentional.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you folks are basically saying that you are
going to do 50/50?
Mr. Dill: Yes. The basis for that...as you have heard
the number that (inaudible) about the one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000)
backlog in road repairs—when you look at those numbers and parse them, about
half are local roads and half are collector roads.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so I guess the question is how do we
envision making these roads happen, the paving of the roads? What will be
different? Again, you are looking at federal roads projects and we are talking about
ten million five hundred thousand dollars ($10,500,000) of GET revenue and we are
leveraging that with basically almost four (4) times the amount in federal money.
What happens if we do not get the federal money? What happens if over the next
ten (10) years, which we do not have a clue on what is going to happen in the next
ten (10) years—what happens if that does not pan out? What if we do not get the
forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000)? What are the chances or percentage of
success, in your opinion, of getting that money? I think the public needs to
understand that it is going to come not just from the one-half percent (0.5%), but at
some point is going to come from property tax or any other tax that we charge. I
guess the first question is how sure are we or what is the percentage that we will
even get the forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000) to match with the ten (10), and
then the second question is, what makes the next ten (10) years...if you look at the
amount of funds for resurfacing, five million dollars ($5,000,000) to six million
dollars ($6,000,000) a year, what makes that different from the last four (4) or five
(5) years, as far as the County paving roads and what we have expended in paving
roads?
Mr. Dill: Firstly, if the Federal Highways funds are
not available, that leaves us, if you look at the total over ten (10) years, with
sixty-two million dollars ($62,000,000) in resurfacing funds. Our intent would be,
because our needs are about 50/50 between the local and the collector roads, to split
that amount 50/50. That would still be well ahead of the current rate that we are
funding on roadway resurfacing projects, so we would be far ahead of today still, but
it is a fair question to ask about the possibility of Federal Highways funds. I am not
going to be able to quote you a percentage, but I have run this informally by HDOT,
who implements the Federal Highways program in Hawai`i and they said that this
overall program on this spreadsheet is not unreasonable to anticipate this level of
funding. Of course there are no guarantees, but we have done the preliminary step.
What was your second question?
Council Chair Rapozo: I just had two (2). That was the first one.
The second one was what Councilmember Hooser brought up about the bridges'
capacity. What is going to be different in the next ten (10) years that we could
spend five million dollars ($5,000,000) to six million dollars ($6,000,000) in
resurfacing over the last four (4) or five (5) years?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 29 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Dill: The difference will be the resources, having
the funding, and having the positions, is the short answer to that question. We
have been wrapping up the Engineering Division. In the past, they have been
limited in their capacity to put up projects like this. We have been building up that
capacity, which is why we recently had two (2) Islandwide Resurfacing projects and
we are working on the next ones now for the next fiscal year.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have had the funding in the last four (4)
years or so. We did not pave because we did not have funding.
Mr. Dill: As the funding has been available to us, we
have been getting those projects out. You probably recall that when I came
on-board, we had not put out a resurfacing project for some years, and the Council
continued to appropriate funds, so there was a pot of money. We got that project out
and we had a big five million dollar ($5,000,000) resurfacing project happen all at
once. Since that time, we have kept up with the one million two hundred thousand
dollars ($1,200,000) of appropriations to get road projects out so that is happening,
which is done in conjunction with...thanks to Michael's leadership along with the
Engineering Division, we are upgrading the capacity of engineering to get these
resurfacing projects out because there are some minor design work involved in
getting plans out. As we do that ourselves, that accelerates that process. Part of it
is increasing the capacity of engineering and getting these positions that were
mentioned earlier in the presentation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: In looking on page number 3, there is a
summary of expenditures that says seventy-five percent (75%) or one hundred
ninety-one million dollars ($191,000,000). I am assuming that this is one hundred
ninety-one million dollars ($191,000,000) over the ten (10) year period goes to
repair and resurface, repair bridges, aging equipment, vehicle repair shop, plan and
design, and construction of new roads. How much of this in terms of percentage or
dollars is for new roads?
Ms. Nakamura: You can take a look at "Attachment B."
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Dill: I do not have a percentage for you, but there
are dollar amounts shown here.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, what would the total dollar...
Mr. Dill: Okay, so the top section with the first yellow
highlighted total, "County Roads Resurfaced/Reconstructed," we show one hundred
five million dollars ($105,000,000) and that is it as was discussed a moment ago,
roughly sixty-two million dollars ($62,000,000) in GET and the remainder forty-two
million dollars ($42,000,000) in Federal Highway funds.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 30 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: So sixty-two million dollars ($62,000,000)
towards new roads?
Mr. Dill: No, for resurfacing existing roads.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry, is it fifty-two million dollars
($52,000,000) or sixty-two million dollars ($62,000,000)?
Mr. Dill: It is fifty-two million dollars ($52,000,000)
for the local roads and ten million (10,000,000) more for the collector roads.
Councilmember Hooser: My question is how much for new roads?
Mr. Dill: If you look down...
Councilmember Hooser: What page are we on again?
Ms. Nakamura: "Attachment B."
Councilmember Hooser: "Attachment B?"
Ms. Nakamura: There is a spreadsheet that you pull out.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Dill: Just to revisit quickly, Councilmember
Hooser, up at the top, the first yellow line highlighted, "Total County Roads
Resurfaced/Reconstruction," is one hundred five million dollars ($105,000,000). Out
of that one hundred five million dollars ($105,000,000), I guess ten million five
hundred thousand dollars ($10,500,000)...sorry...forty-two million dollars
($42,000,000) are Federal Highways funds and the rest, which would approximately
be sixty-three million dollars ($63,000,000), would be GET funds for resurfacing.
Councilmember Hooser: Right now, I am only interested in the new
roads.
Mr. Dill: Okay. In the new roads, which if you go to
the fourth yellow highlighted line, so new transportation initiative and projects,
that is totaling about eighty-one million dollars ($81,000,000).
Councilmember Hooser: Over the ten (10) years?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: The first year looks like it is one million
dollars ($1,000,000), then two million dollars ($2,000,000). Is that what that
means? It is in a little red box.
Mr. Dill: I beg your pardon?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 31 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: It says "New Transportation Initiatives &
Projects" for 2018 is one million one hundred three thousand three hundred fifty
dollars ($1,103,350).
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: That is what you are planning on spending
on a new road in 2018?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: It goes from there to eighty-one million
dollars ($81,000,000) over ten (10) years.
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Ms. Nakamura: Just to clarify, too, there are some details
that might be helpful in this regard. If you take a look at "Attachment F," we have
some details. The new road transportation projects are outlined here on the
second...if you take a look at "Attachment F," on the second page. Within the
Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, these are the projects that they
have identified for the first three (3) years. Now in terms of new roads, I do not see
any new roads in the first...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are on "Attachment F" on page number 2.
Councilmember Hooser: No new roads?
Ms. Nakamura: In the first year, the focus is really on the
preventative maintenance of bridges and roads. For the second year, the focus is on
bridges, roads, and some sidewalks. It is the third year that if you take a look
at...let us see...I thought there was one in here.
Councilmember Hooser: It looks like it bumps up to fifteen million
dollars ($15,000,000).
Ms. Nakamura: There is something in here for the Wailua
Houselots in Kawaihau District, a connection to the bypass road. If there is a new
road in the first three (3) years, that is one of the projects because there is currently
design funds in our CIP Budget that the Council approved. That is why this project
may be further along.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. The people that I talk to out in the
community are most concerned about the roads and traffic. While potholes are a
concern, too, but it is about traffic, traffic, and traffic. While we need all of these
roads repaved and all of these bridges redone, that will not impact traffic one bit, I
do not believe, so we do not start building new roads until 2021 or so with the way
this goes. Looking at the State Highways Traffic Plan for 2014, it shows from
Kawaihau Road, all the way to the Tunnel of Trees, that the level of service is the
lowest it could possibly be, almost the entire route; it is an "F' all the way through
there, and we know that and we drive in it every day. I think the public is thinking
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 32 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
that we spend two hundred fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000) that is going to
impact traffic and I do not believe that is the case. So that is my question. Ten (10)
years from now, are there any metrics or any predictions after we spend two
hundred fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000), what the level of service on these
highways is going to be?
Ms. Nakamura: It is a good thing we have our future "State
Highway Engineer" to my right.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Again, the public thinks we are going
to spend all of this money and we are going to get rid of the traffic and I do not
think that is the case.
Mr. Dill: That is a good point, but from my
perspective, it is a mischaracterization of the purpose of this GET proposal. To me,
this is an opportunity...this Council has spoken before about the one hundred
million dollar ($100,000,000) backlog in repairs. We are certainly looking at the
first few because developing a new road takes time. You have to go through a
planning, environmental, and community outreach process before you get to the
design and permitting before you get to construction. That is one of the reasons
why we do not show a lot in the first few years because it is going to take a while to
get there. The reality is that a lot of this effort is taking care of the backlog of
deferred maintenance that has not been adequately addressed for decades. This is
not, to my way of thinking, primarily an issue or initiative to address traffic
congestion, but that it is a maintenance issue. There will be some traffic
congestions that we are trying to address as well with it, but that is not the focus of
this initiative. I did not check with my boss before I said that.
Ms. Nakamura: To me, I think the other piece that the public
does not understand is the jurisdictional issues between the State and the County
and what we can do. I think we have to educate the public on the different projects
that the State Department of Transportation is working on, especially in the
Kawaihau District, because those are significant projects that I believe we are being
told will make an impact. But these are projects that are on the books that are
moving forward that have been funded and some of them have been held up because
of environmental and cultural studies, but are moving forward. For example, the
addition of the lane between Wailua Bridge and the bypass in front of Coco Palms,
that additional lane, plus the lighting improvements and so forth. Signalization
will make a difference, and then the funding that the Legislature approved last
session that extends the Kapa`a bypass road, that one section that is only one way
going south, the addition of that additional lane going north. Those are two (2)
major projects. That is why in our plan, if you take a look on page number 5,
section 4.6, you will see connectors between neighborhoods and Kapa'a temporary
bypass road and connector between Knhio Highway and Kapa'a temporary bypass
road—that is where the County can make a difference in reliving congestion on the
highway, but we do not have jurisdiction over the highway itself. So that is where
we could provide relief.
Councilmember Hooser: Like you said, I think this has been
mischaracterized, not to anyone's fault, but it is just that traffic is on the forefront
of everybody's mind and they say, "Okay, let us go ahead and raise this tax then
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 33 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
that will get rid of traffic," but I just want people to be clear that this is not going to
get rid of traffic.
Ms. Nakamura: I think in working hand-in-hand with the
State, we can work on some of the possible traffic relief.
Councilmember Hooser: The State initiatives are separate from this.
If they happen, they happen, and I hope they do. Again, I believe it has been a
mischaracterization of the impacts of this measure. We will have some relief to
public transportation, but when you add the growth—that is why it would be
interesting to have metrics with projected growth and traffic mitigation, and will
they ever catch up or not? I just do not want to mislead the public to have them
think that if we raise the taxes it is going to be a "silver bullet" and they are going
to be out of Kapa'a traffic in the near future. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: My question is about sidewalks, but just as
a follow-up, have we and can we start that process for the feeder roads sooner?
Because as the concern is being mentioned, this is what people are looking for and it
would help the cause if people can stand behind it if that is part of what we are
saying we can do at a sooner date.
Mr. Dill: You are talking about the feeder roads that
we were talking about with the connectivity?
Councilmember Chock: Yes.
Mr. Dill: In the presentation that was done, I think it
is the same one that is listed under the section that was just read off there. The
ones that are identified on slides number 18 and number 19...
Mr. Moule: It is the same as page number 5.
Mr. Dill: Okay. These are at various stages. If I look
at Kilauea New Town Entry road, we have had discussions with both the
community and the Department of Transportation about that project. While that
has not moved forward firmly in any way, it is on the radar and more so because we
have been discussing alignments and funding for that. The next two (2) projects
have come out of Kapa'a Transportation Solutions project, so an early community
outreach has happened for that, as well as some discussions with DOT and Federal
Highways about both of those. The connector between Kuamo`o Road to Ma'alo
Road is the only discussion that we had that is kind of a resiliency project to provide
an alternative way to get around the Wailua River in the event of an emergency
down at the river mouth where the Wailua River Bridge is. For Lihu`e Mauka
Road, we did a feasibility study that was funded by Federal Highways and for the
northerly leg of the Koloa Western Bypass, we have actually gotten all the way
through and completion of acquisition of the land and the environmental work. I
think the next page would be design on that one, so we are well down the path of
that project.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 34 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Chock: Okay.
Mr. Dill: That project is just waiting on funding.
Councilmember Chock: So we have started the process, but we still
anticipate at the earliest, the first road to be started on in four (4) years. Is that
correct?
Mr. Moule: The absolute earliest. We were talking
about capacity earlier on. We did not add these projects for the first three (3) years
because they cannot be done. There is no way we can bring this to construction in
three (3) or four (4) years.
Councilmember Chock: That is what my question is. My other
question is that I see there are seven (7) sidewalks projected mostly in the Waimea
District in the first three (3) years. Do we have an understanding of the total
amount of sidewalks we intend to construct in the ten (10) year period with the
money that is being proposed and how do we decide which roads have a sidewalk or
not?
Mr. Dill: I assume you are looking at "Attachment F."
Councilmember Chock: Yes.
Mr. Dill: Okay, so if you look at far right hand column
and follow the source, those are all acronyms. I am not sure if you have the
acronyms. Those represent the public vetting or community outreach process that
they have gone through. If you look at the previous page, there is an explanation of
all of the.acronyms there. So every one of those sidewalk projects identified has
been discussed to some degree with the public and is included in some sort of a plan
for construction and implementation.
Mr. Moule: To answer your question regarding what
sidewalks projects we have planned for the next ten (10) years, we have not planned
that. We have listed some of the sidewalk projects that are in the much larger list.
Several meetings ago, we came to you with a laundry list of all projects that we
could identify in any planning document, which there is no way we could fund all of
those in ten (10) years, maybe in twenty (20) years, but there is a full list of that.
One of the things that we need to do and will do before we go very far down the road
in planning future projects is prioritization and an effort with the public and each
district and maybe overall try to prioritize which of those in that huge laundry list
of projects, whether it is sidewalks or otherwise, should be built in the near future
or in the next ten (10) years. We have not gone beyond the first three (3). Even
with these first three (3), what is in this first three (3) years for sidewalks are the
ones that we, based on our knowledge of these planning documents, see as the
higher priority, but we have not gone through a formal prioritization process. That
is why this is all subject to change because it could change as we go through the
prioritization process and start meeting with the communities to make sure that
that community actually wants sidewalks on their streets that are identified in the
planning documents that listed these projects.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 35 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Chock: I just want to repeat what I heard. Of the
seven (7) that I see, those have not been vetted yet with the community as to
whether or not they will be completed in first three (3) years?
Mr. Moule: They were listed in planning documents that
have gone through community processes and through the Council; however, they
have not been specifically vetted as projects. We have not even necessary vetted
how those designs are going to look, what is the width available for sidewalks, and
how they are going to be built. There is a huge level of effort that needs to take
place with any of these projects. We want to get started on that, but first we need
some funding.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Those projects will need to come in front of
us also when you are going through the planning stages, right?
Mr. Moule: Absolutely.
Ms. Nakamura: Just as a follow-up and example of the Moi
Road project, a sidewalk from Kaumuali`i Highway to Hanapepe Heights—it has
not come up in a formal document or plan, but at every community meeting that the
Mayor has attended, residents from the area have asked for that type of assistance
to get up the hill.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Now that you mentioned Moi Road, I am
looking at this spreadsheet and it is one hundred twenty thousand dollars
($120,000)? Moi Road sidewalk to Hanapepe Heights, ending at Ali`i Road, which
the community has been asking for as long as I have been on this Council—one
hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) is what the estimate is?
Mr. Dill: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then why in the world have we not done
that? I thought there were other problems with it like Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA) or whatever the case may be, but one hundred twenty thousand dollars
($120,000)? I was just asked that the other day, "Mel, when you are folks going to
take care of that sidewalk so that I can walk there?" It was a senior citizen. I said,
"I do not know. We have asked since Bryan was the mayor." Anyway, my question
is section 4.6 on page number 5—where is the funding? Which attachment would
reflect the new projects?
Ms. Nakamura: If you take a look at "Attachment B"...
Council Chair Rapozo: "Attachment D?"
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 36 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: "Attachment B," under this yellow section
called "New Transportation Initiatives and Projects." It is a total of eighty-one
million dollars ($81,000,000) over ten (10) years.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Nakamura: At this point, we have not budgeted for any
of these projects in the first three (3) years for the reasons Larry and Michael
mentioned earlier, that we need to go through a prioritization process and figure out
which one of these are the Council's priorities and which ones you think might
relieve the most traffic and provide some relief for our residents. That is the
conversation that we need to have if this funding goes through. It would be
interesting to hear your thoughts.
Council Chair Rapozo: We know that the State told us that the
alternative route is off the books. Mr. Sniffen was here not long ago and said that is
no longer even being addressed.
Ms. Nakamura: The Kapa'a-Wailua bypass road?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct. I heard it again today that that is
not our responsibility and that it is the State's responsibility and I agree that
highway is the State's responsibility, but is it the Administration's position today
that looking at other alternative routes that does not include the State—I think we
definitely need to try to work with State. Let us just say the State is absent and
they are not participating; is it the Administration's position to not start that
process with some other alternatives? I am not hearing that and it concerns me
because I keep hearing that it is the State's issue and it is not, but what are we
planning to do as far as alleviating the traffic? The people I talk to on the streets
think that these moneys are going to alleviate congestion, but the truth is that it is
not. I do not know if the media is here today, but I think it is important that the
public understands that this is not going to alleviate congestion and it is going to
cost a lot of money. In the next ten (10) years, what is the Administration looking
at doing to address that congestion in Kapa'a and the west side?
Mr. Dill: The traffic through Kapa'a and the east side
is through the Kuhio Highway corridor and through the Kapa'a Transportation
Solutions project, it was confirmed that most of those solutions rest on the State's
shoulders. The County also identified other connectivity projects that we can do to
help alleviate congestion by keeping it off the highway and that is some of the
things that we are looking at with the connectors between neighborhoods and the
Kapa'a temporary bypass, so we are working on those and including that in our
proposals here. The fourth one, the connector between Kuamo'o Road and Ma'alo
Road is a down-sized version of the State's Kapa'a Relief Route where we would
seek to take advantage of existing cane haul road alignments to improve those to
provide an alternate way to get between Lihu'e and the Wailua-Kapaa area. That is
one that we are looking at.
Council Chair Rapozo: That would include a bridge over Wailua
River?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 37 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Dill: Smaller bridges, yes. Not as significant as
the alignment that the State was looking at. Way further north, so there will be
crossings (inaudible).
Council Chair Rapozo: You would have to have a crossing at some
point because you have to cross Wailua River.
Mr. Moule: There would be two (2) bridges over each of
the forks of the Wailua River, way mauka on what is currently State land, but not
where it is a navigable river. It is much further than that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Dill: There are existing bridges there where the
cane haul roads are, but we would have to improve those but nearly as significant
and as costlier an effort than what the State was looking at.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: To follow-up on your question, Council Chair
Rapozo, the State Department of Transportation also mentioned the opportunity of
converting the emergency Wailua bypass road into a permanent bypass road and we
may want to think about if that is a priority for this County, then do we want to
look at some sort of County-State partnership using these GET funds to move that
along or to make it happen sooner or if there is a way to partner?
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I would assume that you realize in
next ten (10) years that the population on Kaua`i will increase. Is that something
that you would agree with? That the number of vehicles would increase in the next
ten (10) years? Whether we like it or not, that is the reality. I think the public has
already spoken as to what they want. I think we all know that the public wants to
alleviate the congestion in that corridor. I do not know what more assurance we
need other than just having to talk to the people. The west side is another concern
because we do not have as many options. Anyway, those are just my thoughts.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just to follow-up on what has been said,
would you agree that as you guys deal with the public, the major concern about
roads and what have you is vehicular traffic coming in from Kapa'a and coming in
from the west side into Lihu`e traffic congestion. That is what we are hearing and I
am the third Councilmember that brought this up, so I am wondering if you folks
have been hearing the same thing.
Mr. Dill: Absolutely. There is also a big concern about
the conditions of the roads. I think that when we did our surveys at the County
Farm Fair every year, I think it was roadway conditions that came back as the
number one concern. Certainly condition of the roads and traffic congestion are
both significant issues.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 38 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: I know that Joe has experience in working
with the State, and I know it is true for the first fatty (50) because I have been alive
for fifty (50) years, but has our roads in the State highway system basically been the
same from Kekaha to Lihu`e and from Ha'ena to Lihu`e for the past eighty (80)
years?
Mr. Dill: I would defer to Mr. Rosa because I do not
have the background.
Councilmember Kagawa: We have not had many upgrades. We only
had Ahukini and a couple of widening projects here and there, but it has basically
been the same for eighty (80) plus years. Why would the State Legislature, our
delegation, want to get us to address the residents' number one problem of traffic
congestion and say, "Council, even though you do not have anything to do with the
traffic congestion, we want you to tax other residents by one-half percent (0.5%)
more." Why does the State Legislature not do it, as Joe said, take responsibility and
take care of the number one problem?
Mr. Moule: Is that a question for us?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Mr. Moule: The State Legislature has. They have
funded the second southbound lane between the bypass and river, which last I
heard, they are looking to have that starting construction next year sometime. Last
fall, as Nadine mentioned a minute ago, they funded the last leg of the bypass from
the roundabout back to the highway. They have funded the two (2) most important
improvements that came out of the Kapa'a Transportation Solutions study and I
think they are partners on this and we are working very close with them all of the
time to try to make sure that we and them are doing what we can to make this
work. They have projects proposed for going west as well from here to the Tunnel of
Trees, trying to widen roads or fix those roads. The challenge is the significant cost.
We have talked to them about trying to do something in the interim to improve
congestion without actually widening. There are significant costs, hundreds of
millions of dollars just by widening the Tunnel of Trees.
Councilmember Kagawa: But the significant costs issue is their
problem, right? So why are they trying to get us to tax the people and take care of
the traffic congestion?
Mr. Moule: As we have said earlier...
Mr. Dill: I think that is a question for the
representatives to answer.
Councilmember Kagawa: My second question, and this was the one
that you kind of got me where I said, "We have to do something"—I do not think in
your presentation you explained the condition of the roads now and as one
Councilmember said, "It is minor with a few potholes here and there," but actually
when I discussed individually with you folks, you said that if a lot of these roads,
although it may seem that it just has a few potholes here and there, that if we do
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 39 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
not fix it in the real near future, it is going to mean total reconstruction, which is a
significant loss to the taxpayers because we are ignoring a problem that we know is
going to just multiple tenfold. I do not know if you can elaborate on some of those
problems that appears to be okay now, but if we do not attack it now, it multiplies
tenfold in a couple of years because you are going to have to totally redo the road
and base costs and what have you.
Mr. Dill: Thank you. That is a great point and a great
question. It is our goal to get all of our roads in the County of Kaua`i, all of our
County roads anyway, into a preventative maintenance program status. That
would mean that we are regularly treating those roads with some sort of treatment
on a regular basis in order to extend the life of that road. The challenge we have
right now is because of our limited resources, we defer and defer repairing roads.
So the roads get into such a poor condition that by the time we get around to fixing
it, usually we are talking about a lot of total reconstruction. What we want to do is
get into a situation where we have a road that is reconstructed, then we come back,
maybe in five (5) years, and instead of having to do reconstruction in five (5) years,
we can do a slurry seal because asphalt pavement tends to lose its fines over time.
It is not readily apparent that that road is losing its integrity, but that is the first
thing that begins to happen. If we slurry seal it again and keep the water intrusion
out, that will extend the life of the road. We want to get into a regular cycle of
asphalt repair work for every road where we do maybe a slurry sealant in five (5)
years and another slurry seal in five (5) years, and then we do an overlay after
fifteen (15) years. Instead of doing nothing for fifteen (15) years, and then we might
have to do a total reconstruction. That would serve to extend the lives of those
roads before we have to get to the total reconstruction and it will lower our overall
life cycle cost. That is the goal of that program in a nutshell.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Bravo. I appreciate that the Administration
now has a plan and also a commitment to maintaining our roads. The only thing I
disagree with is your funding source. I want to go back to the issue of traffic
congestion because I believe that is the most important issue to the people of Kaua`i
now. Which one of those are going to actually improve the traffic congestion
between Kapa'a and Lihu`e?
Mr. Moule: There are three (3) projects on this list that
will have some affect. The Kapa'a Transportation Solutions study, however, as I
think you are aware, showed that the effects for any of these are relatively small,
which is why the State's projects came up so high on their study, but the three (3)
projects are the two (2) on the bottom here, the connector between Knhio Highway
and Kapa'a temporary bypass, would alleviate the need of traffic needing to use
Kuhio Highway in Kapa'a in the areas where it is congested, somewhere between
the south end of the bypass and the core of Kapa`a Town and some sort of
connection from there to the bypass. The next one below that, the bottom one there,
connects between neighborhoods and Kapa'a temporary bypass, so potential
connectors from the bypass to say Wailua Houselots to Olohena Road, up towards
Kaapuni Road and Wailua Homesteads, would give people routes to get to where
they want to go without getting out onto the highway. For the connector between
Kuamoo Road to Ma'alo Road, this one is very challenging from a cost and
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 40 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
environmental point of view, even though it is on existing roads, but that one could
also relieve congestion...it is alternate route between Wailua and...
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not believe it is a practical route. People
will not use it. They might use it in an emergency, so I agree it is an emergency
route, but let us not talk about it on a daily basis affecting traffic congestion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want to get into a debate on it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Those are the three (3). I am just talking
about...
Mr. Moule: The ones on this list?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Moule: The Lihu`e Mauka Road will have some
effect, but again, it is mostly for the Lihu`e corridor, not the connection.
Councilmember Yukimura: So what I read from the Kapa`a-Wailua
Temporary Solutions Study is that all of the combined State and County
improvements are going to improve the traffic congestion between Wailua and
Kapa'a slightly above the condition where you assume no contraflow. Is that
correct?
Mr. Moule: I could not speak to that exact element of the
study.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe you all submitted testimony
questioning that. If it is a little improvement over no contraflow, it is not any
improvement at all.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, again, I do not
want to get into a debate.
Councilmember Yukimura: Their burden is to show that there is going to
be some relief in traffic congestion, so the one traffic congestion relief that will
happen is with the bus. Is it not? So building new roads...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura...
Councilmember Yukimura: I am asking a question. Is building new
roads your solution to the congestion problem on the island?
Mr. Dill: We cannot say that we believe that the
process of adding an additional lane between the southern end of the temporary
bypass in Kapa'a and the river would help significantly with traffic through that
corridor. Then a separate project of adding a second lane on the northern part of
the bypass will also significantly help traffic through that corridor.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 41 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: So what is going to happen when the four (4)
lanes in front of Coco Palms turns into three (3) lanes going towards Lihu`e?
Mr. Moule: I will take that question. The challenge
right now from a traffic engineering and transportation engineering, street design
perspective is you have a single southbound lane through two (2) traffic signals,
which are three (3) phased traffic signals where the southbound movement only
gets one (1) of those three (3) phases and the State has made that as long as they
possibly can in time, it is very long, asking anyone who lives in the Houselots or up
the Homesteads and wants to make a left out of there—there is tons taken away
from that single-lane movement. Once you get past the signals, the need for
multiple lanes drops dramatically because you no longer have traffic signals that
cause that stop and go flow. Once you get past that location, the next signal is all
the way in Hanama`ulu at the triangle there. Again, the State working with us, as
much as we are able to, continue to monitor that intersection to provide the
necessary lanes, a dedicated right-turn lane and a through lane, extending the
length of those would help, and we talked about that, improve any future congestion
at that intersection.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it going to go from level "F" to level "D?"
Mr. Moule: The thing about level of service is that when
we talk about level of service, you are typically looking at level of service for the
peak hour. The challenge we have today on the east side is that we have level of
service "F," not just for the peak hour, but for hours of the day.
Councilmember Yukimura: Correct, we know that.
Mr. Moule: Honestly, I cannot come up here and tell you
that you are going to see level of service "D" or "C" after that project is constructed
during the peak hour.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Moule: It can be argued that getting level of service
"D" or "C" during peak hour is...
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, let us use another measure.
Mr. Moule: Can I finish?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, please do not
interrupt him.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Moule: It can be argued that trying to build to the
peak hour is a huge expense to do that. It has been argued that that is a waste of
money. I am not going to make that statement here, but it has been argued that is
the case. Where we will still see congestion during peak hour, level of service "E,"
possibly "F," you will not see level of service "F" for hours of the day once those
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 42 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
projects are constructed unless traffic volumes continue to grow dramatically from
what they are today. To me that is the real benefit of those State-proposed projects,
which is to reduce the amount of time during which you have so much congestion.
The problem with level of service "F' is that corridor is well-beyond "F." There is no
level beyond "F." There are measures that you can measure, but once it is past a
certain seconds of delay or certain average speed for that corridor, it is all "F." You
can talk about "F+" and "F++."
Councilmember Yukimura: You are making my point.
Mr. Moule: So the point is that this will bring it back to
a much better "F" so to speak or a no "F" outside of the...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh my God. Okay, let us use a different
measure then. What about the number of vehicles going through a point? Are we
going to improve that?
Mr. Moule: Yes, the capacity will absolutely increase by
adding a second southbound lane.
Councilmember Yukimura: By what to what?
Mr. Moule: The Kapa'a Transportation Solutions Study
evaluated that, but I do not have those numbers in my head.
Councilmember Yukimura: Would we not increase the throughput if we
had more people using the bus?
Mr. Moule: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, ask a question
and let him answer it.
Councilmember Yukimura: He did.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: He was still talking. You keep on
interrupting him.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, he said yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am just saying if we can get a break in
between the questions and the answers.
Councilmember Yukimura: Have you explored what the traffic
congestion improvement could be like if you increase bus service?
Mr. Dill: We have looked at that to some degree. We
have not done a detailed traffic analysis. The Kapa'a Transportation Solutions
Study...we asked them to study that in more detail. It is a bit challenging to do.
The thing is that it is difficult because it is difficult to judge the latent demand for
buses. There is definitely some that if you increase service you are going to see
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 43 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
more use, but trying to say that many people are going to switch to buses is difficult
to judge how much that is going to be. That is why it is difficult to say.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it not true that our Multimodal Plan has
showed that whenever we increase service that the ridership increases? In fact, I
think it is stated in our Multimodal Plan that the limiting factor is not demand. We
do not have to persuade people to ride the bus. The limiting factor is service and we
are not providing enough service, therefore people cannot use the bus.
Ms. Nakamura: That is why the Administration's proposal
for the use of GET includes twenty-five percent (25%) of the surcharge being used
for expansion of bus services.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am asking about specific bus solutions for
the Wailua-Kapa`a traffic corridor and why you are not focusing on that if that
could, in fact, really reduce congestion, which is a key priority? We want these
moneys. They are a burden on our people. If they are going to pay a lot for this,
they want to see results. That is where good results could be given. Why are we
not applying our moneys to looking at that?
Ms. Nakamura: We actually are. There are two (2) studies
underway: the north shore/south shore and we added the eastside shuttle. That
study is going on and the short-range transit study is also starting up. Both of
those will give us better direction for the best use of the GET funds, but we have
some ideas of what can be done now. There is more information that we can get out
of these two (2) studies and both of those should be done by the end of this year.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not believe that the Wailua-Kapa'a
shuttle study area includes Lihu`e.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, I do not want to
get into a debate. Ask them the question. There are other people that want to ask
questions, too.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is fine. I will finish up in a minute. I
do not want, "Yes, we are going to do this," and it is not really focused on getting
solutions to the real problem that is strangling the community.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: What is the question?
Councilmember Yukimura: How can you reduce traffic congestion with a
concerted plan for increasing public transportation in the Kapa'a to Lihu`e corridor?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am pretty sure I know what you want the
answer to be.
Councilmember Yukimura: You do?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have heard it a lot of times already.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not even know the answer.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 44 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: "Improve the bus system." I think Nadine
did a good job of saying all of the stuff they are looking at as far as trying to reduce
traffic, and it is not just roads. They are looking at the shuttle system and the bus
system.
Ms. Nakamura: We do not have the specific answers now, but
we will be sharing the results of these two (2) studies as we get them and getting
your feedback along the way.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I am going to go back to roads for a second. I
agree one hundred percent (100%) that four (4) lanes across the bridge north to the
existing bypass will make a huge difference in that area there. It may still be "F,"
but it would be a huge difference for Kuhi5 Highway. I appreciate the consideration
you gave our legislative group, but getting the money is not getting the job done.
There was money in the budget eight (8) years ago for this project. The Mayor's
Office...we all need to put more pressure on our legislators, as well as the
Administration to move the project. The way the budgeting process works there is
everything is over-budgeted in terms of projects, and then the Governor and the
departments pick which ones they want to use. Just because the legislators have
something in the budget, it does not mean it is going to happen. I think what the
people want to see, and you heard the conversation today, is about traffic, the
Kapa'a traffic especially, but it goes all the way to the Tunnel of Trees. To raise
people's taxes and raise some two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) and
have no significant and measurable impact on the level of service is something that
I certainly cannot support and do not believe the community will support that once
they know what is going on. My question is the three (3) projects that affect the
Kapa'a traffic...I agree with Councilmember Yukimura that the one at the top is
"pie in the sky" with all due respect. Is that almost Loop Road and conservation
lands?
Mr. Moule: Not quite to Loop Road.
Councilmember Hooser: But the political resistance and the
community resistance to opening up what is now what most would consider a
pristine area there is going to be significant, not to mention the cost, environmental
impacts, and it is decades, if not fifty (50) years away. I do not know if you can
bring up the other slide, but the other two (2) areas...this was discussed in a prior
administration. I remember ten (10) years go walking the temporary bypass with
members of the Kapa'a Business Association and the administration saying, "Why
do we not connect the house lots to the road? Why do we not do all of these other
things that are in that plan? The administration has never come to ask us for
money." Why has that not been done? Where is the urgency? I know there are lots
on your plate, but I think that is what the community wants to see, which is an
urgency to deal with the traffic.
Ms. Nakamura: I do not know if you recall the discussion at
the last budget where funds for the Kapa'a Urban Design was reprogrammed by the
Council to look at a connector road, so we have been working diligently to identify
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 45 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
what some of the options can be here, engaging the community in some discussions
right now, and then the plan was then to come back to the Council. That was part
of our conversation, which was to do our homework, look at the alternatives, talk to
the HDOT, and then come back to the Council with how we intend to use the funds
to actually work on some plans and to go through the environmental work so that it
can...within three (3) years, if with can use the three hundred thousand dollars
($300,000) set aside for this project to do the environmental work and the design,
maybe a portion of the design, then we can use the GET funds to implement.
Councilmember Hooser: Three (3) years from now?
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, so that might move up further,
depending on how we move along that project. That is one where the clear priority
of the Council and direction of the Council made us change our course and we have
been meeting with some of the community members who will be impacted by this.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I guess it speaks to the capacity also
to deliver on these projects. That is an example of something that has been a long
time and to think that just because there is money available, we think we are going
to be able to meet the expectations laid out in this plan.
Ms. Nakamura: I believe this goes to a need for everyone to
understand the Kapa'a circulation study because a lot of resources were put into
bringing on a consultant and the State involved the county representatives to sit on
that study group. There was a list of potential projects generated that were
prioritized and scored and so forth, and then they came up with a list of State
projects, county projects, high priority, medium priority, and low priority. I think it
is important for this body to understand the recommendations because we can move
on some of these recommendations if there is agreement around the table that we
should move on some of these. It might be helpful to try to do a workshop around
that or for everyone to at least get a copy of the study to understand what is in
there because that can help us in our budgeting process.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. It would be helpful for the
Administration to say, "We want to do this project. We think this is going to help
Kapa`a. This is how much it costs. Say yes." That is another way to approach it.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are still on roads. I am just going to say
that we are getting close to 3:30 p.m. I will open it up for questions and if we do not
make it to 3:30 p.m., then that is fine, but we will need to take a ten (10) minute
caption break. When we get back, if anybody wants to testify, I will open it up for
public testimony. You can wait or if you want to do it now, you can. I just do not
want to hold anybody up if you have to go. The plan is that we will go up until
3:30 p.m. or anytime sooner, and then take the caption break and open it up to
public testimony if anyone wants to testify now. They can always wait until the
end, but I am not sure when the end will be. Councilmember Yukimura.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 46 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, is it possible to let this young man
testify now? He has to catch the bus at 3:30 p.m.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Well, I can open up public testimony now
until 3:30 p.m. While the rules are still suspended, I will open it up to public
testimony.
Councilmember Yukimura: I can take you if you miss the bus.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Push the button and it will be blue. When
you start, the light is going to turn green and you will have three (3) minutes. At
thirty (30) seconds left, it will turn yellow, and then when your three (3) minutes is
up, it will turn red. That means stop. Since you have to leave, if you want to take
another three (3) minutes, we will let you take the three (3) minutes now. Just
state your name for the record.
TEVIN VIDINHA-FLORES: My name is Tevin Vidinha-Flores. I am here
testifying for Councilmember Yukimura. I had an E-mail from her asking me to
come. She wanted me to make a statement on the Kaua`i Bus. These people here
sound like they just want to build roads and use a lot of funding. From what she
was telling me, the Kauai Bus is going to help a lot more, so I cannot grumble with
that because that is more people on the bus and less people in cars. There is no
other way to put it. I use the Kaua`i Bus on a daily basis. On an average day, I
catch it maybe four (4) to six (6) times a day and on a real busy day, I catch it maybe
ten (10) times. Was there anything else that you wanted me to state?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is his testimony, not Councilmember
Yukimura's testimony.
Councilmember Yukimura: Absolutely not. This is a young man who is
using the bus. Can you tell us how old you are and if you are a student? Do your
friends use it?
Mr. Vidinha-Flores: Okay. I am seventeen (17), going on
eighteen (18) in March. Almost every friend that I have uses the Kauai Bus to go to
work, go to family occasions, school, and everything that you can think of. It is
pretty much like our car. We are so thankful to have the bus and from the E-mail
she sent me, she is here today to try to make the bus have more hours, more
schedules coming in, and more buses coming in and out of town. From my point of
view, that would be great. It could not get any better than that. From the people
that were sitting here, it sounds like they want to build lots of roads. It would be
good if they could fix the roads and do what they say...it is not my business, but
that is what I am learning right now. This is a big learning experience for me. Just
having the bus is a real blessing for me.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Tevin.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 47 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have five (5) minutes left, so I will take
one more testimony of three (3) minutes, and then we will take a break and come
back. Let us go in order of the list.
Ms. Yamauchi: Luke Evslin.
LUKE EVSLIN: Luke Evslin for the record. I am speaking on
behalf of Apollo Kaua`i today. While most of us will not notice a one-half percent
(0.5%) increase in the GET, for those who do notice, it can mean the difference
between paying rent and buying groceries and between sleeping in a bed or sleeping
on the beach. Hawai`i has the highest proportion of homeless people in the country,
and out of that, Kauai has the highest number, which is an estimated thirty-six
percent (36%) of families that are on the verge of homelessness. As a State, we have
the fifth highest taxes on low-income families and our current Hawai`i excise tax
impacts the bottom fifth of Hawaii wage earners ten (10) times more than it
impacts those at the other end of the spectrum, which makes the excise tax, by far,
the most regressive tax there is. Literally, any other funding method is better than
the excise tax. As we are seeing economic growth in the 21st century as slowing
around the world and especially in Hawaii, an inequality is rising everywhere. We
can see those effects all around us and every decision that State and local
governments make needs to be in terms of reducing that growing inequality, which
is why new roads and road repair should be funded entirely from increased vehicle
weight and gas taxes. We do need to increase our public transportation on Kauai.
As I was waiting for the bus to get here today, a guy sitting at the stop next to me
said, "This bus is taking forever. I will lose my job if it is not on time." I am always
struck by the disparity between those who ride the bus and those who testify at
Council. Our lowest income families are not in here, as nobody wants to sit in front
of a camera and say how much a one-half percent (0.5%) increase in the cost of
goods would affect them. Nobody wants to say how they do not have a car and the
bus is their only lifeline to get to work. Those are the families that you need to
work the hardest to protect. Bus service, to be viable, needs to be every half hour.
While public transportation is a proven way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and even more important is that it is a proven way to reduce inequality, which as I
said earlier, we are in desperate need of. While long-term funding for public
transportation should come from a significant increase in gas and vehicle weight
taxes, since the County is in such a fiscal hole regarding our transportation
network, then I can understand the need for a temporary stopgap for capital
improvements such as new buses or shelters. However, if the money is raised from
the excise surcharge, then it should be no higher than point two five percent
(0.25%). It should go exclusively towards the inequality-reducing measure of public
transportation and it should very quickly sunset as other less regressive forms of
taxations start to generate the necessary funds. A quick note on road construction
is that the State spends fifty-nine percent (59%) of its highway funding on new
roads and only forty-one percent (41%) on existing roads. That translates to
ninety-nine point four percent (99.4%) of our existing roads, receiving only forty-one
percent (41%) of funds while the remaining point six percent (0.6%) of new roads get
the remaining funds. Because of that imbalance, thirty-nine percent (39%) of
Hawai`i's roads are in poor condition, giving us the distinction of having the fourth
worst roads in the country. I hope the County does not go down that same path, as
the fundamental law of congestion has repeatedly proven that new roads do not
alleviate congestion, as traffic overtime will always return to equilibrium. I hope
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 48 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
that we can expand public transportation and bring our current roads up to
standard before building new ones and I hope that the funding can come primarily
from users of the roads and not from a regressive excise tax. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. With that, we will take a ten
(10) minute caption break and we will come back and still open it up to anybody
that wants to testify now.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 3:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:39 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Again, we are going to start
where we left off at public testimony. Can we have the next registered speaker?
Ms. Yamauchi: The next registered speaker is Keren
Michaels, followed by Matthew Bernabe.
KEREN MICHAELS: Keren Michaels. I will say that I went to the
meeting that Governor Ige attended two (2) or three (3) weeks ago, and he said that
the money had been appropriated by the State from the federal government and
that they had gotten a ton of money and it had been appropriated for that bypass
road to have that extra lane on it, and that the money is to come to us. His opinion
was that there was no question about it. So that is done. My other thing is about
the bus. I rode the bus for a year and I thought it would be great and it really was.
I never got on the bus like the kids do and said, "I will ride it to wherever it takes
me." I used it as an appointment-only bus. I would make my dental appointment
and say that I have to be there at such and such a time. They would come and pick
me up at Sun Village and come right to the door to pick me up and took me to my
dental appointment. It was wonderful. My next problem was trying to get home. It
was always the problem to get back home. Every fifteen (15) minutes, I could call
the dispatcher back and say, "The bus did not show up to get me. Can you send
somebody else?" They said, "We will send you another one." In fifteen (15) minutes,
she would call back again, and again. There are a lot of logistics problems that
needs to be worked out with this bus, more than expanding the service of the bus,
because the hours that I rode the bus were peak hours. I normally rode between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. There was nobody on that bus. There were many
days where I was the only rider on this humungous bus. I would think, "What great
taxi service I am getting for next to nothing." Anyway, I went on and one day, there
were five (5) people. I thought, "My gosh. We have a real rush on the bus today."
But there is never. The usage of that bus...I do not think you are going to change
people's riding or not riding that bus because you throw more money at it. That is
not the problem. Let me say another problem. There is another major problem
with the bus. There is no food or drink allowed on the bus. You cannot get your
groceries and bring them on the bus. If the bus driver sees you bring groceries on
the bus, you have to get off or get rid of the package or you cannot come on. No food
is allowed. So I cannot do my grocery shopping on the bus. Please, before you
throw more money after it, make sure that the problems in the service are worked
out first before throwing more money at it.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 49 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. You have a question from
Councilmember Yukimura. Repeat or rephrase.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to clarify that you were using
the paratransit and not the regular bus, right?
Ms. Michaels: I used what was referred to, which says
"Kaua`i Bus" on the outside of it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, but they picked you up at your house
and took you back to your house.
Ms. Michaels: The bus service that I used...all the buses
that were coming around, they pick you up at an assigned place and it just so
happens that I live in Sun Village and right downstairs there is a regular stop
there. Stops do not necessarily go at people's homes, but my understanding from
riding the bus is that they will take you right to your door and bring you straight
from your door to where you want to go.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is the paratransit part.
Ms. Michaels: Yes, but I was using what is referred to as
the "Kaua`i Bus."
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, they are part of the Kauai Bus.
Ms. Michaels: Whatever.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just a different service. Thank you.
Ms. Michaels: But it is a good service. Like I said, my
grandkids use the bus the way he does. They just get on it and visit their friends
and go to the mall or wherever they want to go. That is just basically what it is.
That was not the usage I had for it. Mine was the main source of transportation.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For the rest of those in the audience, you can
decide to testify now or you can decide to testify later. You are not going to be able
to testify now and again later, so pick your choice.
MATTHEW BERNABE: Matthew Bernabe for the record. I oppose
this tax for many reasons. It is just an extension part of a pyramid scheme that the
State is pulling to balance their budgets. The whole reason we are allowed to do
this is because they said we could because they are taking our transient
accommodations tax that they inflated and are disproportionately funding four (4)
of their major programs with it. The one I want to focus on now is the reality that
at every level that our Roads Division has been operating, as far as I have been
paying attention, is to me ridiculous. Instead of actually having a plan with
timelines that have costs versus those timelines, they come over here and they
cannot answer questions, which to me, is important because if I was these guys with
this presentation today or any of their presentations, and tried to get a business
loan at a regular bank, we would be turned around or politely said, "You need more
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 50 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
in your packet." How do I know this? I know this because I go to the bank, use the
bank, own a business, and do functions in the real world. Instead, they say, "We do
not really know, but it is going to expensive. We will tax you today and tell you the
plan later. In some cases, we are just going to go ahead and do it and ask for the
paperwork to make it legal after." As I wrote down through here...right
here...expenditures. Let us use this one on page number 4. I went to the general
plan...what is it called? I am not saying it correctly...our future plan? Most of the
discussion was about bicycle trails and sidewalks. Over here, there are no
sidewalks on expenditures. This is just a breakdown between the roads, bridges,
buses, and all the other facilities. They are not even honest right here with it.
Second, they talk about having no manpower to get to these crucial things that have
been on radar for a while, but yet they have lots of manpower to go and look for a
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant for Rice
Street that is only twelve (12) years old and is in one of our best conditions,
meanwhile when I pick up my kids, that road from Mahelona down to the highway
in Kapa`a, you have to lock the hubcaps on that. They do not have the manpower
because they are too busy doing illegal bike trails and they are too busy focused on
Rice Street's revitalization versus looking for grants that maybe could do something
about the bus, looking for moneys to go and fix some of these bridges and some of
these other roads that are in desperate need of repair. That is why they do not have
the manpower. I see my red light, so I will come back.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Ms. Yamauchi: Our last registered speaker is Nancy Kanna.
NANCY KANNA: Good afternoon. I am Nancy Kanna for the
record and I am speaking as a private citizen. I am here in support of the Bill. The
reason I am in support is because I was thinking the other day...I have a fourteen
(14) year old son and I think back to when I was younger and the older generation,
they were taking care of the things that I was not able to see. I see this young man
that is here today who is riding the bus. My fourteen (14) year old son rides the
bus. It is becoming a way of life and transportation for them. We are at this crux
right now where we do need to start getting out of our cars and we do need to start
looking at alternative forms of transportation. More importantly, I see our bridges
in disrepair. Should they have been repaired ten (10), fifteen (15), or twenty (20)
years ago? Yes, they should have, but they have not been. This is one of those
unique opportunities for this Bill to pay for some of those badly needed
infrastructure items that we need to have done; not just for ourselves as the older
generation, but for the younger generation because we are otherwise passing it on
to them. So I encourage you to consider passing this Bill for the one-half percent
(0.5%) GET surcharge. I personally do not like to pay a general excise tax, but if I
know that that one-half percent (0.5%) is coming back to the County that I live in
and it is going to be for the future of our young generation, then I am in support of
it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Ms. Yamauchi: Committee Chair, we have another
registered speaker, Bev Brody.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 51 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
BEV BRODY: Hello. Bev Brody. I am here to
enthusiastically support this Bill. One of the reasons I support this Bill is because I
was driving along one of the roads in Kilauea the other day and I did not see it
because it was raining really hard and I hit a big pothole. My husband was not
pleased. It was a County road. Anyway, our roads are in real disrepair. I do not
think that is any fault of this Administration. As a matter of fact, I think the
Administration that we have now is absolutely one of the best we have ever had in
history and that they have actually done an outstanding job putting together a plan
for this money and actually thinking about how we can have preventative
maintenance. If we do not pass this Bill and to increase our taxes, it is going
to...our roads are going to become further deteriorated and it is going to become
way more costly to repair. Somewhere down the road, as the previous lady just
spoke, there is going to be a raise in taxes somewhere and if it means that our
children are going to have to do it, I do not want to have to pass that on. I think
that we should step up to the plate, take responsibility, and support this Bill
wholeheartedly. I am not even going to the yellow light. I am done. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Repeat or rephrase.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you speaking for yourself?
Ms. Brody: Yes, I am.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Ms. Brody: You are welcome.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience
wishing to testify for the first time?
MARK PERRIELLO: My name is Mark Perriello. I am President
of the Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for hearing my testimony. I will
be brief. I am here to double-down and say that we support this GET increase. I
think that transportation is critical for the businesses on the island for a host of
reasons, which I will not get into. One of the things that I want to reiterate from
last week and make clear from last week is that the Chamber does not support
building up an infrastructure that we cannot support at the sunset of this tax
provision in ten (10) years. So whatever the money is spent on, it needs to be spent
on projects that are existing on things that will not require sort of that maintenance
of effort over a long run when there is no more money to be found. As you are
considering this, I would strongly recommend that you be conservative with how the
money is spent and do not spend every penny because it does disappear in ten (10)
years. Thank you once again for your time and good luck with your deliberations.
Thanks.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
for the first time? For the second time? Tevin, you may come up.
Mr. Vidinha-Flores: Tevin Vidinha-Flores for the record. I am
learning a lot today. From what everybody is saying, they like to talk with
numbers, so to build more roads and bridges, it is going to take more money. To
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 52 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
make more bus hours, more bus stops, and more schedules, that is going to take a
lot less to just pay a bus driver, fill up the bus, and make a bus shelter and what
not. Financially, I think it is cheaper to continue with the bus and pass the Bill.
Either way, you are going to have to repave the roads that have the potholes. That
needs to be done because that is where the bus has to go over and over. Financially,
it is going to be better for all of us to pass the Bill and try to push forward with
having the bus run more often, having more bus routes, and having more bus hours.
That is basically numbers-wise. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Matthew, you may come up next.
Mr. Bernabe: Matthew Bernabe for the record. I am going
end with a criticism with one last point. How can we trust these guys, the Roads
Division, when they say that they are going to put in and categorize from the most
urgent to the least urgent? They have obviously demonstrated that their most
urgent are roads that are already existing and they just want to redo it so that they
have bike paths and sidewalks. That is what they have shown me and that is why I
am against it for them. I do recognize the need to generate revenue. In fact, I also
recognize the need for our County to have a long-term revenue generating plan, like
an export of some sort like agricultural. For the short-term, to solve this problem, if
we did a poll to tourists and asked, "Would you like all of your purchases to be taxed
at a higher rate or would you just like to have at three dollar ($3) to five dollar ($5)
a day addition to your rental car? I bet you they would pick the rental car. I know I
would because I rent cars when I travel. If I knew that every meal, every bottle of
water, and every other thing is going to be hiked up just to subsidize the roads, I
would take the three dollar ($3) to five dollar ($5) a day easily. It does not even
hurt you when you budget for your car. We all recognize that the roads are a mess.
Some of us recognize the people in charge of the roads, in my opinion, are
incompetent of spending this money. This is like giving your addict child more
money to pick up a gallon of milk and expecting him to come home with milk and
eggs. That is how I feel right now. I am so suspect of how they have conducted due
process that I do not trust giving them another penny. I am going to charge you
guys...if you guys pass this, you guys better be on your game and whoever is sitting
in those chairs better be able to tell these guys, "You messed up. You were wrong."
The Mayor was willing to compromise. Maybe we have to create language that if
there is a breach in due process that it automatically goes to some charter review
instead of even going up to a 7:0 vote to you folks. There has to be some guarantee
that we are not going to just have the "Wild West" in retaining funds, shooting from
the hip, creating bike paths, creating sidewalks, and reducing lanes. They actively
take the position that they want to slow traffic down on Rice Street. Not only are
they wasting their time on a road that has structurally nothing wrong with it, but
they are actively saying, "By the way, we also want to slow you down." Do you want
to trust guys like that? I cannot. Please shut this tax down and come up with an
alternative method of generating revenue, something that is better than this
because all you are doing is cannibalizing our pockets. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
for a second time? You guys are done, sorry. If nobody else wants to testify for a
second time, while the rules are still suspended, we will bring back the
Administration for more questions. Councilmember Kagawa.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 53 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Have we moved on from roads? I have a
question for the financial side.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I believe we are done with roads.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can we have Ken then? I guess before we
consider this one-half percent (0.5%) increase that will raise twenty-five million
dollars ($25,000,000) a year, I think it is good for the public to know what is our
current financial position. We just recently had our Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) done by our CPAs and the unappropriated surplus was
fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000). If we take that fourteen million dollars
($14,000,000) and add our current cash reserve or savings balance—I do not know
what that is—and we minus out some of the unaccounted for projected salary
increases next year, then we kind of come out with a snapshot of what is our current
savings balance at this point, right? I want to know how much we have in the bank
right now, as of today or just an estimate. I do not expect an exact number. Is it
close to ten million dollars ($10,000,000)? Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000)?
Can we just break it down? We know what the CAFR surplus is. What is our
current reserve or savings that we have?
Mr. Shimonishi: Ken Shimonishi, Director of Finance. You
are talking about the General Fund, Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, the General Fund.
Mr. Shimonishi: The CAFR that was just recently presented
by N&K showed the Unassigned Fund Balance at I want to say approximately
twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) to twenty-eight million dollars
($28,000,000) that was ending fiscal year June 2015. We did have some draws
against that with the 2016 budget ordinance. We put more money aside towards
ours reserve, towards our self-insurance fund. We had impacts that were from
Bargaining Units 2, 3, and 4, which brought that number down to approximately
twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000), roughly. That is what is currently held as
unassigned in the General Fund and would be considered as part of whatever
reserves that we have, so a savings typically is what you can kind of refer to.
Councilmember Kagawa: But then next year's salary increases would
not be accounted for in this year as operating, so what is next year's projected
salary increases?
Mr. Shimonishi: Our preliminary numbers projected are to be
a little over seven million dollar ($7,000,000) increase over last year.
Councilmember Kagawa: So would it be fair to subtract seven million
dollars ($7,000,000) from the twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000) to know our
current?
Mr. Shimonishi: That, along with any offsetting potential
revenue increases. One potential decrease would be if our TAT is not resolved, then
we would lose one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) on that,
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 54 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
looking at our real property values, of course, which make up more of our General
Fund revenue. That would be correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: Kind of close to nineteen million dollars
($19,000,000) maybe?
Mr. Shimonishi: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: What did we get before the cap on the TAT
was done about five (5) years ago or so? Did we use to get twenty million dollars
($20,000,000)?
Mr. Shimonishi: I do not believe it was that high, but I think
projected, we would have gotten, had we been on the old formula, which was
forty-four point five percent (44.5%) of the total TAT, and then the County of Kaua`i
got fourteen point five percent (14.5%) of that. If we were on that formula, I believe
we would be getting an estimated nine million dollars ($9,000,000) plus more.
Councilmember Kagawa: Per year?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: To the twelve million dollars ($12,000,000)
that we are getting now?
Mr. Shimonishi: To the thirteen million five hundred
thousand dollars ($13,500,000), correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: So with the cap on, we get thirteen million
five hundred thousand dollars ($13,500,000)?
Mr. Shimonishi: At the current cap, we get fourteen million
nine hundred thousand dollars ($14,900,000) because the cap was increased from
ninety-three million dollars ($93,000,000) to the counties to one hundred three
million dollars ($103,000,000). That cap stops at the end of fiscal year 2016, so
some legislative action is required to continue to cap, increase the cap, or remove
the cap.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is why you are saying that we could
lose one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) because it could drop
to...
Mr. Shimonishi: To ninety-three million dollars ($93,000,000)
capped for the counties again, of which we would get thirteen million five hundred
thousand dollars ($13,500,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Now there is another proposal from the
working group that we are pursuing that could give the Kaua`i County an additional
nine million dollars ($9,000,000). That is what the mayors all agreed to try and
push forward.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 55 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct. That would be effective in
fiscal...I think it is...fiscal year 2018.
Councilmember Kagawa: And all of those TAT moneys come from the
tourists, right?
Mr. Shimonishi: The vast majority, unless the locals are
staying at hotels, then you are paying the TAT as well.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. If we do not get the moneys beyond
the cap, then instead of receiving tourists' tax moneys, we are now saying, "Well, we
are going to use the one-half percent (0.5%) GET tax instead." How much of that
would come from the tourists and how much would come from the residents? Do we
have any estimates done?
Mr. Shimonishi: The rough estimates are that the tourists
pay thirty percent (30%) to thirty-five percent (35%) of GET tax revenues generated.
Councilmember Kagawa: Wow, that high?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Still, instead one hundred percent (100%)
coming from tourists' tax moneys, it will be thirty-five percent (35%) coming from
tourists' tax moneys.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Just in terms of financial projections and
questions, there has been a lot of criticism about the GET in terms of reducing the
County budget first. I wanted to just have the opportunity for you to share some of
the budget trend analysis as we have come from the last two (2) years. Have we
been reducing and what does it look like moving forward in terms of reducing our
budget?
Mr. Shimonishi: Clearly, I think as you look at the trends, I
would not say we have been reducing, but we have been controlling and keeping
expenditures on an almost minimal type of growth level. Again, the General Fund,
which is the largest operating fund that we have; almost fifty percent (50%) of the
General Fund is made up of between Police and Fire, which I am assuming are very
essential functions of the County. In looking at the General Fund as a whole,
eighty-three percent (83%) of the General Fund expenditures relate to position
salaries, employee benefits, and collective bargaining. In order to actually make a
significant impact, it would be a reduction of that "piece of the pie," so to speak. The
County is bound by bargaining agreements that we do not necessarily have a
majority say in, but we are bound by those agreements nonetheless.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 56 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: So when you are saying that the "piece of the
pie" gets smaller, do you mean the non-salary expenditures...if we go on a budget
that is non-growth, then we are cutting into the non-salary expenses because of the
salary increases that keep going up, but the budget stays the same, so we are
squeezing out the non-salary.
Mr. Shimonishi: That would be a correct assumption.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have a question about finances, but it is a
little bit different. I think you told us this before, but I cannot find the spreadsheet
that actually shows it. If the GET as proposed was to be approved and seventy-five
percent (75%) went to roads and twenty-five percent (25%) went to the bus or
transportation, what amounts would be freed up from the General Fund? I thought
I saw thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) over ten (10) years, but I am not sure.
Mr. Shimonishi: When we first presented the general excise
tax surcharge, and in fact I think it was a question from the Council about what
moneys could be freed up; we identified positions in the Department of Public
Works and other areas potentially and the number we came up with I believe was
about seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) a year. If we wanted to take a
real critical approach as far as using the GE tax to fully fund existing
transportation, which would mean no improvements towards the transportation
like the bus system, then that piece that is currently general fund supported is
roughly four million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000). I think that is the
number.
Councilmember Kuali`i: A year?
Mr. Shimonishi: A year.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am kind of moving from financial if there
are no further questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Are there more financial questions? I have a
financial question. Hypothetically, if the GET does not pass, what are our plans to
fund this maintenance obligation we have as far as roads?
Mr. Shimonishi: If the GE tax does not pass, we are obviously
stuck with the same revenue stream, the same expenditure line items, and barring
any type of other revenue increases. We would see the roads resurfacing continue
at approximately one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) a year with
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 57 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
any potential matched money from the feds. Again, all things being equal, that has
been the history of the County, at least for the last few years that I have been here.
Ms. Nakamura: I can also add that there are alternate
sources of funding if we want to aggressively pursue the backlog in repair and
maintenance of our roads and bridges and if you wanted to expand transit. We do
not have too many options available. We have property taxes, fuel taxes, and
vehicle weight taxes. Those would be the other alternatives to pursue. We could
pursue bond funding, but then we need the revenues to support the repayment of
the bonds.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Follow-up? That may not end
up being hypothetical, depending. We will see. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Just to follow-up, to me it is important for us
to look back, even if we talked about it before, and say, "Why have we not prepared
for this in the last twenty (20) years? What can we learn from it?" I think I have
heard it before, but think it is worth hearing again. Why did we not save for this?
What are we going to do moving forward? I think we are talking about what we are
doing moving forward, but if you could point any fingers so that we can learn from
our mistakes?
Ms. Nakamura: I think a big lesson that we need to learn
from all of this is that we have to get a really good handle of our asset management
needs within the County. Only recently did we, within this Administration, find out
how much the road repair backlog really is. At the time that information became
available, we were really having a hard time balancing the budget, so it is difficult
to catch up when you do not have enough to just balance the budget and to make it
structurally sound. We really need to look at funding opportunities as they come
up. Because we know now that we have this backlog, this serious need to address,
so we could either kick the can down the road and leave it for another generation to
solve or we address the issue now. People either plan ahead and try to get a handle
on this through this ten (10) year plan or we say, "Kaua`i residents, you need to live
with this unless we are willing to increase real property taxes, vehicle weight taxes,
and fuel taxes." Really, those are the options available to us.
Councilmember Chock: So somewhere along the line, we came up
with this idea that what is appropriated is one million two hundred thousand
dollars ($1,200,000) a year, which is far reaching from what it is our true needs are.
How are those things determined in the scope of what is really the reality of our
conditions. Who was responsible for that?
Ms. Nakamura: That precedes my position, but...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I was going to ask that same question
in a different way. What was the plan before we found out that the State was going
to give us the authority to raise the GET?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 58 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: There was a proposal to increase our fuel
taxes and vehicle weight taxes, previously. I think the fuel tax passed, but the
vehicle weight did not receive a first hearing. That proposal last year did not pass
the first reading at the Council.
Council Chair Rapozo: How much was that? For Ken, if we explored
going after a bond, have we explored that and what would that impact be to the
taxpayer? What would that impact be to the County? Councilmember Yukimura,
let him answer. I get frustrated when I hear you try to answer for them.
Mr. Shimonishi: I guess to have some guidance on that if we
explore the bond, we are not talking about a bond to do road repairs, bridge repairs,
and resurfacing because those would not be applicable uses of the bond proceeds.
We are not talking about issuing a bond to do operational type of things, but purely
upfront outright facilities, etcetera. I will give you an example of the impact of a
bond because I heard it come up. One of the things that we proposed was this
consolidated automotive shop, right? We are saying that we could use ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) of the GE tax surcharge to help fund part of this facility.
People may say, "Why do you not float a bond, because that way you have the bond
going out twenty-five (25) years and the people who benefit from this facility would
pay for the bond?" That all sounds good and well, but when you apply this ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) in a bond term, which is typically twenty-five (25)
years, three and a half percent (3.5%), what you actually have done is you have
added five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in the
project; five million dollars ($5,000,000) in interest. I am not sure what the
question is about why we did not go after a bond, because as we are trying to apply
this GE tax surcharge towards the road repairs and resurfacing, etcetera, it is not
bond applicable. That would be my analogy of a bond, just to keep in mind as we go
forward whenever we say, "Let us use a bond."
Council Chair Rapozo: So the only options are taxes and fees? Is
that the only other option for this County?
Mr. Shimonishi: It is not rocket science; it is revenues versus
expenditures and how you balance those things and what the priority is. Unless
there is another way to increase the money that you are putting towards the
improvements of roads, bridges, etcetera, it has to come from revenues.
Council Chair Rapozo: The federal moneys are available like federal
grants, Federal Highways money, and whatever we used to do Hardy Street and
TIGER grants. Are there not opportunities in the federal government to assist us
with the projects that need to be done like bridges, roads, and so forth?
Mr. Dill: Yes, absolutely. We show those in the
spreadsheets that we have provided with you that we are leveraging the moneys
that we have with those, but they require a match.
Council Chair Rapozo: Potential, right? Or do we have the federal
moneys already?
Mr. Dill: We do have for some...
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 59 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess my question is, and it follows up with
Councilmember Chock's question. For the last ten (10) years, did we spend any
energy, resources, or efforts to go after federal money, the way we went after federal
money for the bike path, Hardy Street improvements, Kawaihau Road
improvements, and the Rice Street improvements? Have we spent the type of
energy that we have had on these beautification or rejuvenation projects on the
issues that are of the highest priority right now, which are the bridges and the
roads?
Mr. Dill: Yes, so the three (3) bridges that we have in
the process right now, `Opaeka`a, Kapahi, and Pu'u'opae, are all eighty percent
(80%) federally funded. Our most recently resurfacing project, collector roads,
was...we have explained to the Council in the past that our strategy now with the
one million two hundred thousand dollar ($1,200,000) allotment we get every year,
because we go out every other year with the resurfacing projects. So every other
year, that means we get two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000).
With the two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000), we take two
million dollars ($2,000,000) into a local roads project, take four hundred thousand
dollars ($400,000) and leverage that with federal highways funds, which gets us a
two million dollar ($2,000,000) collector roads project. We are already doing what
we can with the funds that we have available to leverage what Federal Highways
moneys we can.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but are we limited is what I am
asking. Are we limited to that?
Mr. Dill: We are only limited by the amount that we
have available for us to use as match moneys to match against the eighty percent
(80%).
Council Chair Rapozo: For example, the TIGER grant; what is the
County match on that? About two million dollars ($2,000,000)? If we leverage that
against federal funds for road resurfacing projects, what would that generate?
Mr. Dill: That would generate...
Council Chair Rapozo: Thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000)?
Mr. Dill: No, eighty percent (80%). The TIGER is a
different matching for it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am not good at math.
Mr. Dill: If you have two million dollars ($2,000,000)
of County funds, you get eight million dollars ($8,000,000) in federal funds.
Council Chair Rapozo: So ten million dollars ($10,000,000)?
Mr. Dill: A ten million dollar ($10,000,000) project,
provided that funds are available.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 60 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. That is a big problem. I know this year
I think we are going to nationally get more money for highways and transportation,
but how long is that going to last? I guess that is a concern. We do not know. We
are at the table today with a deadline that we have to make a decision if we are
going to raise the GET and there are no assurances that we are going to get the
federal money. I think that is the scary part for me. For some, maybe one-half
percent (0.5%)...I have heard it before from several people testifying that it is not
that much, but I do not look at one-half percent (0.5%) from an individual person; I
look at two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) over ten (10) years. That is
how I see it differently, not only it is only half a cent on a dollar. I am talking
collectively and it is a lot of money. I think the questions we are asking today is,
"What are we going to get for that? What can we as a Council and the public be
assured that we will get?"
Mr. Dill: That is an excellent point, Chair. From my
perspective, the one-half percent (0.5%) GET will generate a lot of funds and we
could do a lot of projects. It is our goal to take that and leverage the money to get
even more projects done with the Federal Highways funds. Theoretically, if we had
zero Federal Highways fund available to match, for the resurfacing we would still
have sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) worth of resurfacing projects that we could
do. But to Federal Highways, that gets increased to one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a slide, but I am not sure if it is ready
to go or not. I am assuming that you vetted this with the County Attorney, and
with the State Attorney Generals Office, did you look to see if the Bill that we have
now complies with the enabling legislation, the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)?
Ms. Nakamura: We did have the County Attorney review the
Bill.
Councilmember Hooser: So the County Attorney did, but not the
Attorney General? The reason I ask is because...
Ms. Nakamura: I would be happy to look at any amendments
that you think would help to make it comply.
Councilmember Hooser: I may be mistaken, but it says that for
counties with a population equal to or less than five hundred thousand (500,000),
which is us, we can use it "for operating or capital costs of public transportation
within each county for public transportation systems." Then it says "comma,"
including roadways, highways, and public buses." It looks to me like the primary
purpose is for public transportation systems and the other is incidental to a public
transportation system; not paving roads and making roads that have no connection
to the public transportation system. That is what it looks like to me as I read this.
The primary purpose, if you look at number one, it says "public transportation
systems," including public roadways and highways. If you look up above, it says...
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 61 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
this all came about the rail system...we know that. It also says, "The county
surcharge of state tax shall not be used to build..."
Ms. Nakamura: That applies to the City and County of
Honolulu, that section above "F."
Councilmember Hooser: I guess maybe it is a legal question. When
you look at number one, is enabling legislation the State is giving us to pass this
law say that public transportation systems are the primary...that should be the
focus. That is what I am reading. It says, "comma, including..."
Ms. Nakamura: So our roads, buses, and trains all make up
the public transportation system is how we read it.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I guess I read it differently, especially
in relation to the rail and public transportation. It is usually considered more than
just roads.
Ms. Nakamura: That is why I think it says "roads, highways,
buses, trains, ferries, pedestrian path sidewalks, or bicycle paths." All of those
make up the public transportation system.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. The other section, which is not in this
slide...let me see if I still have it here...says, "As used in this section, capital costs
means non-reoccurring costs required to construct facilities or systems, including
debt service and cost of land." Is repaving a legal use of these funds? Has that
been checked out legally? It is.not a capital cost.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right. Again, we are looking at the language
"operating and capital costs" being allowed, in the first paragraph that you just had
up.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Ms. Nakamura: Honolulu does not have that option to use
the GET's surcharge for operating; only the other neighbor islands.
Councilmember Hooser: So repaving a County road that does not
have a bus stop and no buses go down that road would be considered an operating
cost of that road and is considered part of the public transportation system, even
though public transportation vehicles do not go down that road?
Ms. Nakamura: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So on page number 5 of your summary, I do
not see the Po`ipn or the north shore shuttles included in your list and I am
wondering why because we are doing studies on them.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 62 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
LEE STEINMETZ, Transportation Planner: Hi. I am Lee Steinmetz,
Transportation Planner with the Planning Department. You are absolutely correct
that we are looking at shuttles in Po`ipn and the north shore as well and we will
actually be coming to you in two (2) weeks with an update on that plan. This is the
list for the first three (3) years, so in working with Celia and the Transportation
Agency, what we were looking at are the improvements...one of the things that we
will be doing in order to expand shuttles to other areas is that we are going to need
to buy more buses. That is also funded in here, but we wanted to show the types of
increases that could be done with the equipment that is already in place on-island
as the first things that we would do within the first three (3) years. That is why the
projects that you see listed here, the service improvements that you see here, can be
done for the most part with equipment that is already with the buses and the
equipment that is already on-island. That does not mean that we will not do those
shuttles because those will be further out later in ten (10) years, but in those first
years, we will also be acquiring the equipment that is needed to expand other
shuttles in the future.
Councilmember Yukimura: So are you assuming that it is going to be the
County bus system that runs the shuttles and it will not be private enterprise that
might be in a partnership that will have their own vehicles?
Mr. Steinmetz: That is a good point and that is an option
that we will be looking at as well. We have not made a final decision on that yet.
That is another reason why we did not want to show that as part of the first three
(3) years because as we complete those studies, we will be able to make those
determinations.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you go for a private shuttle, you could start
it within the first three (3) years, but you might need funding.
Ms. Nakamura: All of these are options, Councilmember
Yukimura. That is why when we put this together, we have labeled it a...we really
do consider this a "draft" plan, a plan that could be updated as we get better
information and we can better steer the way those funds are spent, but that is
definitely a possibility. I think we are going to have much better direction as a
result of the completion of the shuttle studies.
Councilmember Yukimura: When is that completion due?
Mr. Steinmetz: We are looking at the shuttle study to be
summer of this year and the short-range transit plan to be by the end of the year.
Let us just say that by the end of the year, we will have all of that information
available.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why is it not in your draft to start it and
fund it?
Mr. Steinmetz: Well, I think we are trying to be as
conservative as we can based on the information that we have now, that since we
are not yet sure on the management or operation of these additional shuttles, we
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 63 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
know we can do this with the equipment that we have and the funding that we
would have, we would be able to do this within the first three (3) years. If there are
other things we can do, we can certainly add or if we decide that something else
becomes more important, we can make adjustments to that, but we are trying to
demonstrate what we know we can do within that timeframe.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just concerned because I thought the
shuttles were priorities, so I would think that they would be in here, maybe with
the caveat that if it includes County buses that it is not possible, but if it is private,
then it would be possible and you are actually budgeting for it. My whole intention
in lobbying for this one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax was the authority for the
one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax in that it would accelerate the expansion of the
bus system so that we could address traffic congestion and we could also address
the need of our families for more convenient and frequent services. I am baffled
that there is such conservatism, but maybe it is because there is only twenty-five
percent (25%)?
Mr. Steinmetz: Again, it is not really based on the amount; it
is based on the equipment that we have that we know what he we can do with that
and just trying to be realistic about what we can accomplish in those first three (3)
years. I think you will also see that there are service improvements in terms of
frequency of service and extension of service of existing lines, especially the
mainline in terms of weekend service and increasing frequency at peak hours so
that we are addressing the issues of expanded service that can contribute to
congestion reduction.
Councilmember Yukimura: I like your list. I think it is very good and I
also thought that these shuttles were priority, so I am asking about their absence
on the list. What is your timetable for the baseyard expansion?
CELIA M. MAHIKOA, Executive on Transportation: Celia Mahikoa
with the Transportation Agency. As far as the baseyard expansion goes, ideally we
would need to have locations identified and actively in use before we can expand the
fleet size, which is why we have chosen to implement certain increases in service
prior to others because there are certain actions we can take with the existing fleet.
Ideally on our map, we have that as one of them being procured and activated
within the first fiscal year, fiscal year 2018, and then the second in fiscal year 2019.
Councilmember Yukimura: The baseyard?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, if you look within "Attachment C," it is
the top line item there.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Ms. Mahikoa: The satellite locations.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 64 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so why would you not have shuttles in
there for fiscal year 2020?
Ms. Mahikoa: We are going to take the first step in
reconfiguring our existing shuttles, such as the Kapahi...we know that the Wailua,
Kapa`a, and Kapahi areas needs to be reconfigured and additional attention needs
to be placed there as far as service frequency, and then within Lihu`e also, the
ability to be moving the population around.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are having this study done of north
shore and south shore, but you are going to let the results sit and not implement
them for two (2) or three (3) years?
Ms. Mahikoa: I think the challenge that we are in right
now is that we are in the middle of this study and that we will have good
information to use very soon.
Councilmember Yukimura: By the end of this year?
Ms. Mahikoa: Very soon. Please do not hold us in stone to
what is listed here because if these recommendations come out and clearly defined
that we should be addressing, say a Poipu shuttle as soon as possible or some other
priority sooner, then we need to look at that, reassess it, and re-determine what the
true priorities need to be for us to address first.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I guess I always thought there were
your priorities and you told me that these studies will result in operational plans, so
I cannot see sitting on operational plans for two (2) or three (3) years. It does not
make sense.
Ms. Nakamura: Because we are at capacity, physically at the
current site, if we are going to be adding buses to the fleet, we will need to work on
the capital expenses upfront. If the Council feels that you want to invest in that
now, sooner, that is...
Councilmember Yukimura: I am asking what the Administration feels
they would like to do.
Ms. Nakamura: That is why we have this plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: But you are not showing anything in the
third year, so okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other questions regarding the bus? I
have some. At the end of the ten (10) years, what are our annual recurring costs for
the bus?
Ms. Mahikoa: Are you talking about what it will be at the
end?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 65 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, the estimated recurring costs, because
we heard in the presentation that at the end of ten (10) years we are going to have
to make the decision to cut the services, and I do not know what we will do with all
the buses we bought for the expanded services. Obviously, we hired thirty-four (34)
employees, so I want to know what the recurring costs is at the end of the ten (10)
years and what we would be looking at.
Ms. Mahikoa: At the end of ten (10) years, the service
added through this potential new means of revenue will be seven million two
hundred thousand dollars ($7,200,000). That is the last full fiscal year of figures
that we have. Seven million two hundred thousand dollars ($7,200,000) would be
the added service provided by this funding source.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So after ten (10) years, seven million two
hundred thousand dollars ($7,200,000) is how much we are going to need to
generate in order to keep whatever services we have at the end of ten (10) years
going?
Ms. Mahikoa: Exactly.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any further questions? Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Were any of you listening when
Dr. Patterson testified earlier this morning?
Ms. Mahikoa: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Nobody listened? He referenced a study and
referenced some numbers that he had provided. Number one was an eight dollar
($8) per ride, per person subsidy. Is that true? He got it from the study that we
use. He is a scientist and an analyst and did his own study. Is that what it is
today?
Ms. Mahikoa: Based on our calculations, it is closer to six
dollars ($6) per trip for fixed route service.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am talking about the total. I do not know if
we can replay the tape. I know he said eight dollars ($8). That is what his analysis
of the study was, eight dollars ($8) per ride, per person. Is that what it is? A
County subsidy, in addition to whatever the bus generates?
Ms. Mahikoa: As far as a subsidy above and beyond?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Ms. Mahikoa: I have not calculated what our overall is. I
typically will separate our paratransit cost per trip versus our fixed route
passenger.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 66 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I think he looked at the total
operating cost and divided it by trips and he came up with an eight dollar ($8) per
person. That is probably right. If you came up with six dollars ($6), eight dollars
($8) would probably be right. He mentioned something else, and I wish I could
remember his terminology and I was hoping that he would still be here, but he said
that his analysis of the same study revealed that the expansion resulted in less
efficient service because of the ridership. Yes, it grew, but in comparison to the
costs, the efficiency was actually reduced. Do you have any comments on that?
Again, I would have to go back and listen to the tape, but that is what he basically
said.
Mr. Steinmetz: I am sorry, I did not hear the testimony, so I
would have to see what he said.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does that sound right, based on the cost,
fuel, maintenance, and the buses and you add up everything? The amount of
ridership increase resulted in less efficient service because basically the ridership
increase was not proportionate to the increasing costs is what I got out of his
testimony.
Mr. Steinmetz: I can tell you that what we are striving for is
the opposite of that.
Council Chair Rapozo: I understand what we are striving for. The
reason I ask that question is because does that mean that the more we increase,
and we are talking about a major, massive increase with this money, would that
even decrease the efficiencies even further? I think his comments were that tourists
will not get on the buses; some will, but most of the tourists will still come and rent
a car. I am asking somebody to analyze that same study using his pair of eyes
because he is a scientist. I am curious because if the expansion resulted in less
efficient service, then it is not practical. The second question is will the further
expansion decrease the efficiencies even more? That is where I am at as far as this.
Ms. Nakamura: Did he leave a copy of the study?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, he was using our study and the same
numbers that we have. His comment was that the study is flawed. He is using the
same study, the same numbers.
Mr. Steinmetz: I would be happy to look at the testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: As soon as we can get it pulled, we will have
it transcribed and we can send it over.
Mr. Steinmetz: Sure. If I could just say that part of the
improvements...there are several things that we are looking at. We will discuss
this more when we come back in a couple of weeks, but one of the things that we are
looking at is improving the efficiency of existing operations. For example, part of
the idea of the baseyard is we have bus drivers that come into Lihu`e and then they
have to drive the buses out to both ends and start their runs there. If we had these
satellite baseyards that improves the efficiency of the bus system by not having
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 67 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
everyone have to come into Lihu`e to go out and start their routes. We are also
looking at some of the existing shuttles that do not have high ridership of
eliminating those or reconfiguring them or consolidating them so that our shuttle
system is as efficient as possible. The third part is by increasing and expanding our
service, we are also able to transfer more people from the paratransit system that
we have now to the mainline system, which is way more efficient and is way less
cost per rider. Those are some of the things that we are looking at to actually
improve the efficiency of the overall system. Again, I would be happy to look at
what was presented.
Council Chair Rapozo: We will try and get that pulled as soon as we
can and get it over. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe he used the existing conditions
report of the Nygaard transit study. I believe he said that it was not increasing as
much, given the infusion of services, but I also think he did not take into account
the dropping gas taxes, which does affect some of the ridership. There are a lot of
factors.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we have daily ridership numbers from
stop-to-stop and does it tie into the revenues collected?
Ms. Mahikoa: We do have that information available daily.
Councilmember Kagawa: My friend mentioned to me that if we had a
bus from Kekaha to Po`ipu, the Grand Hyatt Kaua`i, he would catch it every day to
go to work, but there is none that would allow him to reach there by 6:30 a.m. How
do we determine whether an additional route like that or maybe taking a route that
is not quite full...do we experiment? How do we notify the public that we are doing
a test run and trying to see along this route if it is going to be full and serve the
public?
Ms. Mahikoa: Up to this point, we have not had the luxury
of doing test runs with various routes. We have relied on most recently the work
with our studies that are conducted and we are particularly looking forward to the
work that comes from this short-range transit plan that is coming up. We are
hoping for that kind of information to be able to target the highest demands that is
needed and we know that there are individuals who have service needs that are not
being addressed right now and if we can target in on the high-demand area, we
would be able to address that and have a decent return.
Councilmember Kagawa: Would we be using priority travel such as
going to work as a higher priority than perhaps going shopping or going to a
recreation type of event? The people going to work are the ones that are going to
catch it consistently and we are taking cars off the roads, but we need to get them
from certain times to work and we need the route to get them back home. Is that a
priority compared to routes that are more for pleasure or for tourists to get by? I
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 68 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
think those people can make adjustments because they do not get fired if they show
up late or they do not get fired for going to the beach one hour later than they want
to.
Mr. Steinmetz: If I could add a little bit to that, some of
what we are doing with this existing study is we have information of where people
live and where people work, so we are able to look at where do we need to get people
to and from? In addition to that, for example with the Po`ipu area, we just asked to
verify that we have the right information and asked employers to provide us with
zip code data so we could look at exactly where people live and work and what shifts
they work at. What is kind of tricky with resorts is that they have different shift
times that are different than standard 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work, so we are trying
to gather all of that data. Another step that we want to do is really talk to some of
the workers or have more survey information to find out how many could really take
the bus because some are working multiple jobs and some need to use their cars
because they have to go pick up their child from school or whatever. We want to be
as real as possible with the data that we have so that we can project as best as we
can. Where do we set the routes and what times are going to be the peak times?
We do exactly what you are saying that as a priority for how we set them up and
how we expand service.
Councilmember Kagawa: The initial phase is you said the survey is
online.
Mr. Steinmetz: There was an online survey. We are going to
follow-up with more detailed information like particular areas that we want to get
more hard information on. Right now, we are working with the resorts on the south
shore, for example, to get their employment data and really tie that into the
information that we got from the online survey.
Councilmember Kagawa: Did we ever determine how many different
people on a typical work day ride the bus? Did we ever do a count like that? I know
it messes up some counts when they stay on the bus from stop to another stop and
we count it again. I am wondering if we ever did a count because I am curious how
many different people on a typical day, if we take an average even for a week, ride
the bus? I think it is a legitimate question that the taxpayers should know. Later,
if we do expand it, we can show the results like, "Okay, now this many people ride
the bus and it shows the growth."
Ms. Mahikoa: We unfortunately do not have data that is
that specific right now. We do take trip information so we know that we provided
say one thousand (1,000) trips a day and you can kind of apply logic in order to try
and calculate about how many individuals that would be. As far as the actual
number of individuals using the bus in a day, we unfortunately do not have that
available right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do you have an estimate of what you feel
may be a typical count? Is it one thousand (1,000) or two thousand (2,000) people
including tourists and residents? How many different people do you think ride the
bus on a typical work day?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 69 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Mahikoa: Maybe, this is just pulling a ballpark, around
seven hundred (700) to eight hundred (800).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. I had one more question, but I forgot
what it was. Excuse me. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Further questions? I have a question. The
bus stops and ADA improvements at the bus stops—is that money coming out of
this or is it coming out of highways or is it already going to be funded through some
other means?
Ms. Mahikoa: The State Legislature generously provided
six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) very recently and another one million five
hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) this past Legislative Session for us to finish
up the work on forty-nine (49) different locations. For each of those forty-nine (49)
locations, the ADA compliance is addressed in the design of the bus stop, so all
forty-nine (49) will have the shelter be fully ADA compliant and we will have the
bike racks and the benches available.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: That is all of our bus stops? The forty-nine
(49) are all remaining bus stops that need a shelter?
Ms. Mahikoa: That will leave some that will not have
shelters. There are some that either are not considered completely...we are not
certain that we should leave them where they are located now for one reason or
another and if there are land ownership issues where individuals are denying the
ability for us to install shelters at certain locations. Every location has its own
separate story that we work through, but the forty-nine (49) certain ones that we
were able to define early on are the forty-nine (49) that we have fully funded and
anticipate being able to get done.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, so those expenses are not going to be
in this project. We already have the money for it from the State to do bus stops and
ADA improvements to those.
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I remember what my question was. Do we
have some routes that are consistently overcrowded?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes. Typically our work commuter times
would be crowded.
Councilmember Kagawa: Did we make any adjustments to
accommodate that or do we tell them that they have to catch the next one?
Ms. Mahikoa: It is basically handled on a case-by-case
basis. We have situations where when school gets out, the bus is completely
overfilled, so we can identify another driver in the area who is maybe just ending a
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 70 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
run, so we will send them up there to help move the students down to where they
need to go. Our dispatch team is very much on top of that as far as working with
our drivers and our drivers help out with assisting when able to. Basically, we do
what we can with the resources we have right now. If we are able to add to the
frequency, that always helps and that may also encourage others to get on if they
know they are not going to need to stand for a period of time.
Councilmember Kagawa: In response to that, did we ever consider
looking into a double-decker bus that is not as hard to drive as a large, Oahu type
of bus, like the ones in London?
Ms. Mahikoa: It is interesting that you just mentioned that
because I just spoke with our counterparts on Maui and they have been operating
one double-decker bus over the past couple of years at least and they are actually
looking to sell it now because of the difficulty with operating a vehicle that height
on the island with overpasses. They are rather limited on the routing that they can
do.
Councilmember Kagawa: So some of the electrical wires, telephone
wires, and what have you give problems. Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question on roads.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are going to stay on buses. Does anyone
else have more questions on buses?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one question and the double-decker
bus on Maui triggered it. What is up with the Honolulu buses that we got?
Ms. Mahikoa: We are currently still speaking with the
United Public Works (UPW) union regarding working out the technical details on
the difference in vehicle size.
Council Chair Rapozo: How long does that take? That was your
response the last time you were here and it has to be close to one (1) year ago.
Ms. Mahikoa: Right and that is unfortunately taking
longer than we had anticipated, but meanwhile we take the buses on the road every
other week to go and make sure that they are still operating well. Of course we did
not anticipate it taking this long to work through those details, but we hope to be
able to address having that implemented.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we do not know how long it will be?
Ms. Mahikoa: I can hope for soon.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is the issue?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 71 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Mahikoa: Looking at whether or not we need to offer a
separate classification of bus driver position.
Council Chair Rapozo: The Honolulu bus drivers are UPW, right?
Ms. Mahikoa: They are Teamsters.
Council Chair Rapozo: They are not UPW?
Ms. Mahikoa: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ours is UPW?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: We have seen all of these spreadsheets with
the ten (10) years and the plan for the roads. Is there the ten (10) year plan for the
bus piece, the twenty-five percent (25%)? Is that one of the attachments?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, it is "Attachment C."
Ms. Nakamura: "Attachment C" has the details.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So it is pretty evenly spread out over the ten
(10) years and the bus purchases are happening in which year?
Ms. Mahikoa: If you look at the top section, "Capital," the
last item listed under that top section shows buses.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes.
Ms. Mahikoa: It shows the amount we would need to invest
in in vehicles each year.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It is actually over two million dollars
($2,000,000) every year, spread out over ten (10) years.
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But primary investment is in expansion?
More buses, more drivers, more routes, and more hours. Is the increase and the
parking area or the shop all part of this or is that somewhere else?
Ms. Mahikoa: It is actually in the fiscal year 2018 and
fiscal year 2019 line items above the bus line items.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 72 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: The nine hundred thousand dollars
($900,000)?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. What I am getting at, too, because
when I received the information on the dollars that would be freed up from the
General Fund, so there are seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) on the low
end and there is four million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000) on the high
end, but the high end would mean that these new funds collected from the GET that
would go to the bus operations could free-up current County general funds that are
going to bus operations. If we freed-up that four million two hundred thousand
dollars ($4,200,000), that would not allow any of this expansion. This expansion is
the four million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000). My thoughts are do
you have any other plan, like a "plan B," if you only have half of that money what
you would do, or do you only have this full throttle, all or nothing, four million two
hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000)?
Ms. Mahikoa: You are saying as far as what determines
whether or not we expand?
Councilmember Kuali`i: To what level you expand. This four million
two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000) a year over ten (10) years allows you to
expand according to what you have proposed, so if you had half that amount, then
you would expand evenly half or...I am just curious if you have thought of anything
other than this full plan or prepared for anything other than this full plan.
Ms. Mahikoa: Regardless, what we would need is to make
the frontend investments in our capital in our baseyard and our facilities.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So that nine hundred thousand dollars
($900,000) in the first two (2) years, but this two million one hundred thousand
dollars ($2,100,000), two million two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000), two
million three hundred thousand dollars ($2,300,000), two million four hundred
thousand dollars ($2,400,000) over ten (10) years for buses—that is with
replacement, added, and overtime.
Ms. Mahikoa: These buses listed here are to support the
service that is depicted in the operation/administration section underneath. In
order to operate additional service, we would need this much in additional funding
for buses and for personnel.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Oh, so the increase happens in Fiscal Year
2019 and once you have that added cost, it continues on?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So are these two million dollars ($2,000,000)
for replacing old buses? Do you keep buying new buses?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 73 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Mahikoa: In actuality, we are allowed to replace
vehicles either every five (5) years or one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) miles;
whichever comes first, which is just about always one hundred fifty thousand
(150,000) miles first. What we have here is a vehicle rotation replacement plan.
The first three (3) to four (4) years is buying new, and then beyond that it is
replacing the first ones that we bought.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is our plan at the level of where we are
getting the most life out of each bus or are we replacing it prior to them falling
apart?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thanks to our excellent mechanics and
drivers, we can take them up to probably about three hundred thousand (300,000)
to three hundred fifty thousand (350,000).
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Have you explored the feasibility of putting
the bus services in the same shop as the other departments? My understanding is
that the FTA requires a pretty strict accounting of the use of supplies and
materials, time, and of course there is that urgency that the buses be serviced
promptly, otherwise you cannot provide the service to the riders.
Ms. Mahikoa: As far as FTA funding goes, if they are
providing the funding for the positions, then the individuals are required to be
working exclusively on transit-related responsibilities. If the repairs are occurring
at a centralized shop and all of our mechanics are currently funded through general
funds and highway funds, I believe—if that is the case, then FTA would not have an
issue with it unless they are being asked to fund equipment that will be located in
the centralized shop. The potential of it being used for non-transit related
applications may raise some questions, in which case we just need to ensure that we
are maintaining compliance with anything that we purchase with FTA funds.
Councilmember Yukimura: So in terms of best practice with bus systems
like we have, do you know whether they are combined or whether standalone is
preferred?
Ms. Mahikoa: I am not familiar with any that are
combined. But then again, I have not visited many other transit operations. I have
seen O`ahu's so far and they are exclusively...
(Committee Chair Kaneshiro, the presiding officer, relinquished
Chairmanship to Councilmember Kuali`i.)
Councilmember Yukimura: O`ahu's is totally separate.
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, they are contracted out.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 74 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Mr. Steinmetz: I think this is a good question and I have not
looked into it, but this is something that we could ask our consultants and do a little
bit more research on, in terms of best practices and get back to you with some
information on that.
Ms. Mahikoa: Good idea.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Any other questions regarding the bus? If
not, we will move on to the next question. Committee Chair Kaneshiro is back.
(Councilmember Kuali`i returned Chairmanship duties to Committee Chair
Kaneshiro.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We got your goals for your bridges. What are
your ten (10) year goals for roads?
Mr. Dill: Larry Dill, County Engineer for the record.
Generally speaking, our goal is to address the backlog that we have identified by
the recent inventory and survey that we had done by our contractor. I have not put
definition to this yet as far as a pavement condition index target, which is a good
thing that we should establish, but we want all of our roads to be in good condition
by the end of the ten (10) years. I think you bring up a good point and we should
establish a particular pavement condition index as a minimum threshold for all of
our roads to stay at.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am presuming that one of your goals is to
eliminate the backlog of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in ten (10)
years. Is that correct?
Mr. Dill: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I would assume it is also to ensure
that there is a preventative maintenance process that keeps us from going into
another one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) deficit?
Mr. Dill: Correct. That would be related to what I
mentioned a moment ago, which is establishing a minimum threshold for a level of
serviceability of the road and that would require a preventative maintenance
program, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. When you repave a road in year one,
may I assume that the preventive maintenance program will start with that newly
paved road?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 75 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: So in ten (10) years, that road will be
up-to-date?
Mr. Dill: Yes. We would be discussing, as we flush out
the details of this program, is that we would touch our roads on a regular interval.
We are thinking now that we would come back and treat...as I mentioned earlier,
the program in a certain cycle would go with the slurry seal, and then a certain
number of years later with another slurry seal, and then we might do a mill and fill
to that road, then a couple of slurry seals in at some point, and reconstruction. We
established that cycle for all of our roads. We are thinking right now that we would
touch every local road on this island on a ten (10) year cycle and every collector road
on either a six (6) or seven (7) year cycle. Of course that depends after the ten (10)
years, maintaining a certain level of funding in order to support such a program.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is exactly what I am driving at. What
is the recurring amount you will need to maintain a preventative maintenance
program, which I am assuming you will be starting from year one with the roads
that you paved or the roads that you paved in year zero. You are going to have to be
applying preventative maintenance practices to that one, right?
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are going to have two (2) things going:
eliminating the backlog while you are preserving the roads that you pave...
Mr. Dill: Yes. We already intend, with our next
Islandwide Resurfacing, to begin that with some of the roads we resurfaced five (5)
to six (6) years ago to come back with slurry seal. We are beginning that process to
set that up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have an estimate of how much that
would cost on a yearly basis?
Mr. Dill: Yes. Again, this is estimating ten (10) years
down the road, so today's dollars—four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right now, we get one million two hundred
thousand dollars ($1,200,000).
Mr. Dill: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the
Administration?
Councilmember Yukimura: And with no new roads. That is your
bill...the assumption is no new roads.
Mr. Dill: Based on three hundred (300) lane miles of
road. Sorry. Our current inventory, correct.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 76 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the
Administration? If not, thank you. We will bring this meeting back to order. I am
not sure where anyone is going to vote on this. The motion is to receive. I know
there are a lot of things in play when we take this into consideration. We were here
for many hours and I know there are also things that the State is doing that are
into play and the TAT might affect the decisions. I can say that the State concludes
May 5th and we would have a TAT decision on whether they decide to go with the
recommendations or cut it in half and this needs to pass before mid-June, in order
for us to be in compliance. I am just throwing it out there as a consideration. I am
open to hearing the discussion. Right now, the motion on the floor is to receive.
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I think this is a very important bill. As you
know, I lobbied really hard for the authority of this one-half percent (0.5%) tax. So
how we use it will be watched closely by the State and so I think we have to spend a
lot of time thinking about it. I would like a chance to make a proposal to this
Committee in two (2) weeks or in one (1) month. I do not want to defer it for a long
time. I think continuous dialogue on it could be useful or at least some periodic
dialogue.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: You are proposing an amendment to the
current bill?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I would like to, but I would like to
propose an overall plan because I want all of the things that are covered by this Bill
to be funded somehow, well except the new roads. Unless they will really show, I
think the priorities should be on traffic congestion and I guess I could see new roads
that could be shown to improve our top traffic congested areas. I would like to have
an overall plan for how to do this that I think would be fair and just. If the
Committee would at least give me two (2) to four (4) weeks, I will then present it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry, I have one more question that I just
thought about right now, so I am going to bring the Administration up. I apologize.
I am going to suspend the rules. Nadine, I have a question. Earlier today, you
mentioned an amendment or Ken mentioned an amendment to setup a particular
fund. Does that need to be in this Bill and are you going to propose the language for
it or can it be something that is done later after the decision?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Nakamura: It might be cleaner to do it now and we are
happy to prepare an amendment to the Bill.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: But you do not have the amendment yet?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 77 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: I am sorry, we do not. Basically, it changes
the language. Instead of depositing the GET surcharge receipts into the Highway
Fund to setup into a separate GET special fund just so that the accounting is clear.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. How long do you think it will take to
get that amendment?
Ms. Nakamura: If you want something right away, we can do
that now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. I will call the meeting back to order.
Discussion? Councilmember Chock.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Chock: This is a question for Councilmember
Yukimura. Could you give us a little more in terms of the direction that you are
heading towards? I understand that in your proposal you are looking at the same
services or reaching the same amount of services, but are you looking at a different
funding mechanism or different percentage? What are some of the details you
might be able to offer in terms of the direction your mind is going?
Councilmember Yukimura: Let me just say that I think our priorities are
fixing our roads, expanding the bus system, and addressing traffic congestion. They
are all critical pieces. I think, and I have always thought, that the excise tax is
appropriate to expand the bus system because it hurts proportionately the lower
and moderate income families the most, but it also is the means by which they can
save money. If we implement our Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, household
transportation costs would go down by fifteen percent (15%). We heard Tevin and
others that it is an affordable way for young people, elderly people, workers, and
people with disabilities to get around. I see that it is appropriate. Road repairs are
critical. We cannot kick the can down the road anymore, as some speaker said. It is
like saddling our children with a huge bill and that is not right. Why do we have
this huge bill? It is because we did not take responsibility; we were not willing to.
We stopped things like the vehicle weight tax increase, which could have helped
fund repair of the roads. People are complaining about the bus being subsidized—
well, we have been subsidizing the roads by one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000) in deferred expenses. Because we have not been willing to increase
the gas tax and the vehicle weight tax, which are the users and it is according to use
because the more you use, the more you are paying; the more you damage, the more
you pay. Right now with gas prices low, people are paying two dollars ($2) less per
gallon. If you pay five cents ($0.05) more per gallon, people are still going to be
saving money. The third one is traffic congestion. As I showed you on first reading
of this Bill, we cannot solve our problems at the same level that they were created.
All this talk about bypass roads and so forth—that is the whole thing we have been
going through with the Wailua-Kapa'a bypass, except that it is going to cost six
hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) and there is no way we have the money for
that. If you look up at the screen, that is the result of building more roads in
Honolulu. That is what Honolulu has done for thirty (30) years and that is what
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 78 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
they look like right now. That is what you can do with road space if you shift the
mode.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We saw this presentation before.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, but this is the concept which I have
to be allowed to speak because it is part of the solution. The only way to really
reduce congestion is mode shift and that is by making transit more available. I
think some bypass roads, some of those local roads...
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, the question from Councilmember
Chock was what she was intending to do as far as the amendment.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am thinking about the three (3) goals...let
me go back...fixing our roads...I think it needs to be done through a gasoline and
vehicle weight tax increases, small, that will be reduced overtime as we do the
backlog and do it now while energy prices and gas prices are low. The transit would
be funded by the excise tax and it probably has to be ongoing because it is mainly
operations. I believe like the rail, that is what legislators know they will fund. The
road congestion, a combination of those projects that will really...what is that road?
Pouli Road? The one that the Managing Director talked about...the ones they are
looking at right now...the connections to Wailua Houselots that would take some
traffic off the main highway—a combination of that and increased bus service could
really address the Wailua-Kapa'a corridor. We have not even begun to look at those
kinds of trials that Celia was talking about.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. I really want to narrow it in because I
do not think your proposal is going to say what the County is going to do as far as
projects. I think your proposal is going to have to say if we are going to go with the
GET tax, if we are going to change the percentage, or if we are going to reallocate it
a different way, I guess, would be the proposal. I do not think we can say that we
are going to do this and here are all the projects that we are going to have the
County do.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not trying to specify the projects, but I
am trying to specify that the nature of the projects have to be related to traffic
congestion and reduction.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Got it. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I want to thank the Administration for the
proposal and regardless of whether it gets approved or not, it is not going to waste
because I think we needed to identify our priorities going forward for bridges, roads,
transportation, and we may get there in another venue during the budget if there
are alternate proposals to raise revenue like maybe increasing property tax for the
tourist industry. As I said, if the State is taking away our TAT and our tourist tax
that should be going to fix needs that are pressed upon us by our visitor industry
and is a rapidly growing visitor industry, how can the State cut our funds from any
increases? It is like saying, "Well, you folks are getting no more impacts from the
visitors than last year or four (4) years ago," which is totally not true. One of the
options could be to look at property tax increases for all of the visitor industry
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 79 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
classes. I will certainly be looking at that option. I do not want to hurt the visitor
industries to the point where the room rates are so high that Kaua`i will be
unattractive, but certainly, I think we have got to look at why we are here. I think
we are here, primarily because the Legislature gave the City and County of
Honolulu the authority to charge one-half percent (0.5%) for the rail, and being that
they did that, I think the State legislators from the island of Oahu, which
outnumbers any other island—they control is; it is a monopoly. It does not matter
that Senate President Kouchi is from Kauai. The majority of members there look
out for O`ahu. Being that they gave the City and County billions of dollars with this
rail tax, I think they are looking at the other counties and saying, "If you folks need
more money to fix your island, be like the City and County of Honolulu and take the
heat for raising the GET." I feel like that is not fair for our residents to pay
sixty-five percent (65%) of what should be one hundred percent (100%) paid for by
tourists. I will keep pushing our legislators to look at the working group's proposal
at a minimum, giving us nine million dollars ($9,000,000) additionally and I will put
in an additional amendment and be asking our Kaua`i Delegation to look at a
proposal that will only include the working group's recommendations for Kaua`i,
Maui, and Hawaii island, and leave the City and County of Honolulu out, because it
looks like Maui and Hawai`i island are not going to be approving the one-half
percent (0.5%) GET as well, just from my conversations with the representatives
there. That would be my proposal. I do not want to pass a tax that came from the
tourists to our residents. We only talk about the lower class suffering from a tax
increase and that is totally not true. The middle class does not get income tax
breaks, welfare, food stamps, grants and scholarships for their children who attend
college, or free and reduced lunch. The middle class suffers greatly in the State of
Hawaii, especially on Kauai. Everybody suffers when we increase taxes and it is
an easy decision for me not to increase a GE tax when I have never supported any
tax increases here. Never. It is easy for me because I am consistent. I am saying
let us live within our means and let us maximize what we can from the Legislature
because I think there is compromise out there. That is how I feel right now. I will
be voting to receive this. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have been vocal in my opposition to raising
the GE tax from first reading and I am glad to see that others on the Council are
coming around to that decision also. I think it is a bad tax; it is a regressive tax. As
Councilmember Kagawa mentioned, we are here because the State Legislature has
put us in this box. Not only have they cut the transient accommodations tax, but
they have not come through with their highway funding in the projects. It is more
than just funding; it is getting the projects going, so we are here for that reason. If
they would come through and do their job, the traffic on Kfihi5 Highway specifically
would be greatly alleviated with that project moving forward. The money from the
TAT will be sufficient, in my opinion, to float bonds and to do a lot of this other
work that we are talking about. Again, I have been against raising these taxes from
the beginning. I sincerely appreciate the work the Administration has put into this.
I know it is a tremendous amount of work, but it does not give me confidence that it
is going to make one iota of difference in terms of traffic congestion. I think that is
what the people in our community want first and foremost. If I was going to state
my priorities, I would say it is traffic, traffic, and traffic. We have to address that
first in the key corridors. I support public transportation and I know the
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 80 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
importance of maintaining the roads, but if the State Legislature would come
through and restore the funds that they took away from our County and if they
would come through with the highway improvements that have been languishing
for a decade now, then we would not be in this position. We would still have to
catch up on our paving and what not, but we would have other funds to do it. I am
happy to vote to receive this to kill this attempt to raise the GE tax. I am open to
looking at other proposals that Councilmember Yukimura and others are working
on, which I am working on some myself. It might be a more creative and
appropriate way to raising some additional funding. I was against the tax increase
from the beginning and I remain against it and will be happy to vote to receive it.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I feel a little differently from what has been
said so far. I just think that we need to work on it a little more. I think that it is
our fiduciary responsibility to even look at if anybody has amendments, or even if it
is not a part of this Bill, it might be an accompanying bill or accompanying
resolution that adds to this what we would offset with. For example, I have been
always concerned about the impact on the most vulnerable in our society with
everyone paying even the small amount that we talked about. I think they showed
us in the spreadsheet that it was a two hundred forty-two dollar ($242) impact on a
one (1) adult and one (1) child family in a year. That is twenty dollars ($20) a
month. It is not a lot, but it impacts people who do not have even one dollar ($1)
extra a month like seniors living on a fixed income, youth, handicapped, or disabled,
if you will. I was looking at some targeted relief measures and I am thinking about
putting that in the form of a resolution. I do not see any reason why we would not
at least work on it a little more. I feel like it is our fiduciary responsibility in the
sense that...even though traffic congestion is important and it is what we are
hearing from the voters and it is an election year—we are responsible for a lot more
than the most popular issue. For whatever reason, we are where we are at and we
have this large backlog of road maintenance and road maintenance is not sexy, but
it has to get done. If not now, then when? How will it get done? Maybe to a lesser
degree, but we have to start somewhere, take responsibility, make it work, and see
what we can do. I do not even know what is possible and where I will be at the end,
but I want us to try a little more. The idea about putting it on the tourists—it is not
fair to say that because the State did not give us the fair share of the TAT, that we
should now add it to the real property tax because they are already paying it; it is
just that the State has taken it. They are going to feel like, "Well, now we have to
pay more because you cannot work it out with the State." We have to do better with
pushing for our TAT and our fair share and we have to come together as a whole
County, mobilize our citizens, and talk to our legislators and have them battle for
us. If they go to Honolulu and they end up fighting for the State or everything
going on there in Honolulu, we have to remind them that they are there for us and
for our constituents and citizens. I feel like we have a job to do. I am not ready to
give up today. We have until June, so yes, there is not a hurry, but if we just kill
this now, then it would take a new bill to even reconsider some form of this, some
amended form of this. That is just where I am at. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to make it clear that the motion
is to receive. If motion to receive passes, it will still go to the full Council. Again,
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 81 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
we want most of the work to be done here, as much as possible. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the motion to defer has precedence
over the motion to receive, so we could just defer it, too, which I would like to do.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If there are the votes to defer it, then yes.
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just wanted to share where I am. First of
all, I wanted to thank the Administration. I think they worked really hard on what
they presented and while there has been a lot of work in it, I think that there is
more to do. Because of that, I think I am in a place right now where I would like to
continue to work on it, just as Councilmember Kuali`i mentioned. I think there may
be a few alternatives and additional means of generating the revenue that we are
talking about that can be discussed around the table and worked on with the
Administration. There have been ideas about addressing the rental vehicles. I am
more inclined to look at the fuel tax in this scenario, as it attributes more directly to
the impact that is being caused. I think the shuttle study will also play a lot into
how I move forward or vote on this because I think that is something we need to
fully invest in. I agree that I think we should be looking at our feeder roads first, if
any way possible. Traffic congestion is what the people have said is important and I
think we should be looking at that in any way we can. Basically, I think it is a
combination of multiple things that we need to consider. I think that putting all of
our eggs in one (1) basket can be detrimental to the sustainability of trying to
continue to fund this deficit that we have not in the past. Everything from lobbying
the State to looking at some other creative incentives—that is why I appreciate
today because I think it has spurred some insight and discussion on what those
incentives could be moving forward. I think there is a lot more work to be done on
this and whether goes to another bill or not, I am inclined to not receive it and to
defer it in order for that work to continue so we can come up with some solid
solutions that we can all agree upon. That is where I am with this. The last thing I
wanted to say is that I do think there are two (2) things that would I like to see:
one, I think the discussion today has shown that we need to be much more realistic
and I am not confident yet that we are at that capacity of what we can provide. I
would like to feel more confident about that and to be able to prove that we can do
what we say we are going to do. Also moving forward, the post ten (10) years, we
have just sort of touched the surface on the maintenance plans and some of those
asset management solutions that I think need to be vetted forever. I think we are
on the track. The bottom line is that we have dropped the ball on this for too many
years. While I do not think the GET is the right solution, we have to come up with
a solution and that is what I am committed to. I am looking forward to that. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I made the motion to receive and I am
going to support the receipt. I appreciate everything that has been done. I would
agree with Councilmember Chock that the GET is not the solution. I would agree
that the State was hoping that this Council would do what we are doing, that we
would ignore the fact that they took our TAT and that their little carrot was the
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 82 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
GET, forcing us to raise the GET; forcing us because they knew that all the counties
needed the funds. The GET is a pyramiding tax, a regressive tax, and a bad tax.
Not long ago, this Council, not the same members, talked about the how bad that
tax was and all of a sudden we are talking about it, that "it is the saving grace." It
is not; this is not a good thing. The visitor industry impact to this island is going to
be transferred from the visitors' dollar to the County taxpayers. That is what this
does. It is not fair. Since 2007, the State has enjoyed almost a one hundred
ninety-seven million dollar ($197,000,000) increase in TAT; and for the counties:
two million two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000) million that has to be shared
amongst the four (4) counties. That is not fair. That money is generated by the
visitors and we should get a bigger portion of that. Every TAT dollar spent comes
with a four percent (4%) GET that we do not even hear about. The reason I talk
about the TAT is because that is where we should be going after. For the public,
you need to talk to your Kaua`i Delegation. That is where it is at. Do not go and
put the people here, the taxpayers, and have them pay another one-half percent
(0.5%) just because the State wants to maintain that cap. I have a lot of concerns
and it is also unfair for the State to say, "You have only this period of time to pass
this Bill." It is horrible. Why is it not an open opportunity or an open option every
year? "No, you have to do it in this window," because they want the councils to feel
like their back is against the wall so we have to pass it. There was no discussion on
these items before the money was available and I have been here since 2002 and
there was a short break, but we never had any discussions. We never had any
discussions. The money became available and all of a sudden we have this
wonderful plan. During all of those years, the bridges and roads went to crap. All
of a sudden, because there is a pot, now we have a plan. I use the Hardy Street
improvements, Kawaihau Road, and TIGER grant—we spend a lot of energy on
these things throughout the year because the money is available. But no, we have
to work on this when the money is not available. We need to have a plan in place
and we have not done that. I share the responsibility because I have been on this
Council for a long time. Scott, can you put that slide up? I am going to put this up
because I do not think we have the capacity to do all of those bridges and
improvement in three (3) years. I get really offended when people infer that
because I did not support the gas tax increase, myself and Councilmember Kagawa,
that we are the cause of this big backlog. Since 2012, that is the budgeted amount
for road resurfacing from this Council and this is what we spent, so do not tell me
that they need the money. It is about capacity. What can we logistically,
reasonably, and realistically do in a period of time? Those numbers do not lie. They
come right off the budget and the CAFR. That is what we budgeted. Yes, we took a
couple of years off. The bottom line is can we spend the money? Are we going to set
up a special GET account and leave the money there, tax our people, and put it into
a bank until we are ready to spend it? No, I am not going to support that. I have
been here long enough to know that this...it is just government. It is not this
County; it is all over the place. It takes a long time to get things done, a very long
time. I just wanted to use this example because the public out there has been told
or is under the impression that we are going to alleviate congestion, that we are
going to get all of these roads paved quickly, but it is not the case. It is going to
take a long time. Yet, we continue to do these projects...I do not know how people...
the response I get from Hardy Street and these other projects is that they are not
very happy with that. They would much rather us work on the traffic congestion in
Kapa'a and the west side, which is a priority for me. The fact that this plan says we
are going to discuss it and decisions have to be made is not enough for me. That is
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 83 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
not enough. We need to have a plan of what we are going to do to alleviate
congestion because that is what the people think they are going to be paying an
extra one-half percent (0.5%) for. That is my time. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to say, as the person who lobbied
for this one-half percent (0.5%), that the State gave us a deadline because they
cannot leave that authority out there, because when they do, they cannot pass a
one-half percent (0.5%) tax themselves. So they have to know whether we want it
or do not want it. There is a Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) proposal to
have a one percent (1%). If they feel the counties are all going to use it...it is not
like an ever expanding resource. They understand that you just cannot keep piling
up taxes on people, so they want to know whether we are going to use it or not.
That is why there is a deadline. I want to say that I have been a strong advocate of
the TAT moneys and I think we deserve it. But we deserve it to offset the impacts
that visitors have on this island, not to pay for the things that we should be
responsible for like rescues and park maintenance; those things that our visitors
require and are causing for County costs. We really deserve that money. I do not
see it as "in lieu" of. So a very well-crafted tax policy is what we need. We cannot
keep letting our roads deteriorate, so we have to find a way to repave and maintain
them.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just very briefly, I want to say that I do not
have an amendment to make this better. If there is any shot, it takes a totally
different bill and I am willing to work with whoever works on something, but if this
vote is today, I think I will support the receipt.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not even know where to start. Nobody
wants to pay taxes and I do not usually see a lot of E-mails saying, "Please raise my
taxes." When we are one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) behind in road
repairs, it makes me think, "Is that fair to us to have that kind of liability?" No. I
guess the next question is what do we do about it? What is the solution? Do we
continue to kick the can down the road? Do we make it fair to future generations
and say, "Hey, we have a one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) liability in
roads right now, so let us kick the can down the road and you folks deal with it?"
Maybe it will be two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) at that time. Do we
take a step now and try to do something about it? For me, I think it is our
responsibility to try to do something about it and you look at what kind of tools do
we have to get to pay for this? We do not really have many tools. We are not going
to have money falling out of the sky. Basically, we have the GET, which is being
proposed right now. We have the TAT, which we do not really have a clue where
that is going. Again, on May 5th we will have a better idea of whether the State is
going to take the recommendation of the nine million dollar ($9,000,000) increase.
They may cut it or not even give it to us. It is very hard to say what they are going
to do. We have a fuel tax, vehicle weight tax, and a real property tax. Those are the
methods that we can use to try and cover this cost. For me, the question is not are
we going to pass this cost off? I do not think we should. I do not think we have
been budgeting to even try to catch up. I think when we budget, it is not even fair
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 84 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
to budget one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) when the liability
is six million dollars ($6,000,000) or seven million dollars ($7,000,000) a year. For
me, it is kind of a question of where do we want to take it in the pants? Do we want
to pay a GET? Do we want to pay it in a vehicle weight tax? Do we want to pay it
in a fuel tax? Do we want to pay it in real property taxes? As the state we are in,
we are not really in a rush to do it, so I want to keep the toolbox open and see what
is going to happen with the TAT. How much money are we going to get from that?
What is the consensus on the GET here? If the GET fails, then what are we going
to do in the future? Are we going to start budgeting for all of this maintenance?
How are we going to pay for it? Then we will be left with a fuel tax, vehicle weight
tax, and real property tax as our only means to fund it. For me, it comes down to
what is our responsibility and what is our legacy? Do we want to continue kicking
this can down the road—one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in road
improvements? I am just talking about road improvements. I am not talking about
new roads or bus expansion. I am talking about road and bridge improvements,
which I look at the County and spending money as kind of like my own bank
account. I want to take care of the needs that I have now before I go and buy
something new and build a new road and add maintenance. To improve this, I
think we still have some checks and balances in our hand because the projects are
going to have to come in front of us. We have to vote on it. Do I want to do a full-on
bus expansion and pay over sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) and have a seven
million dollar ($7,000,000) liability at the end of ten (10) years? Not really. I am
not comfortable with it. Do I think all of these roads need to go in? I am not sure.
All I know is that we need to get our deferred maintenance covered. For me, I want
to keep the toolbox open. If it is the GET, it is the GET. Eventually, someone is
going to have to pay a tax to get these costs covered, which is the sad truth. If not,
we can take the easy road and continue to kick the can down the road, but is that
what we want to leave for our kids or the next generation with this huge liability
and big potholes? We have seen cases come in from the Tunnel of Trees where
people's tires have been broken from potholes. We see what Puhi Road looks like.
Again, I think there are a lot of concerns and they are all valid concerns.
Accountability for the money—are we going to spend it? Can we spend it? Project
type—are these the projects that we actually want? For me, I think the main point
is that we should keep the toolbox open. I am open to deferring. I am open to
hearing any new proposals. For me, I do want to see what the State is going to do
and how we are going to react to it. Ultimately, we are not going to have money
falling from the sky to be able to pay for all of this. I am willing to vote on a
deferral.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to defer Bill No. 2610 to the March 2, 2016
Committee Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Chock, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR DEFERRAL: Chock, Kuali`i, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL– 4.
AGAINST DEFERRAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL– 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL– 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL– 0.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 85 FEBRUARY 3, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Seeing no further business and hearing no
objections, the Budget & Finance Committee is now adjourned.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Codie K. Yama*hi
Council Services Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on March 16, 2016:
1L.. \ /ALAAIL.A_•
ARRY 4 A NESHIRO
Chair, BF Committee