HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/2016 Budget & Finance Committee minutes MINUTES
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 2, 2016
A meeting of the Budget & Finance Committee of the Council of the
County of Kaua`i, 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,
March 2, 2016, at 10:28 a.m., after which the following.Members answered the call
of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 10:28 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:42 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
C 2016-44 Communication (02/12/2016) from the Salary Commission,
transmitting for Council information, the Salary Commission's
Resolution No. 2016-01, Relating to the Salaries of Certain
Officers and Employees of the County of Kauai for the Fiscal
Year 2016-2017, which was adopted by the Salary Commission
at its February 5, 2016 meeting.
• Salary Commission Resolution No. 2016-1
(This item was Deferred.)
Councilmember Kualii moved to receive C 2016-44 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Contrary to how we have done things before,
if we vote for a motion to receive, it means that we are accepting the Salary
Commission's Resolution as-is. If we vote down the receipt, then it is saying that
we are denying it. I just wanted to clear that up. Also, if we want to make it
clearer later, depending on how the votes go, we can also vote on it and then see if
we want to reject in whole or accept. That is another way to make it clearer so that
we are not voting yes on the receipt, because it is kind of contrary to how we do
everything else. Councilmember Kagawa.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 2 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question for clarification. If
this Committee receives this item, it still moves on to the next Council Meeting for a
final vote, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Correct. No matter what we do here, it is
still going to go to the full Council.
Councilmember Kagawa: At the full Council, how much votes would be
needed to receive it in order for it to pass?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Four (4).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Would a motion to receive not allow any
line-by-line modifications?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think we can amend...
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, I think what would happen is you
would have to go down at seriatim with each raise. It would take five (5) votes to
reject any specific raise. Basically, it is four (4) to approve and five (5) to reject.
That would be the process.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am sorry. I used the wrong word. I did not
mean "amend." I meant that we could reject it in part, so we could go down each
line item and vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are not allowed to amend.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, it would be to reject in part.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is either you take that item or you reject it.
Councilmember Yukimura: So is the process then to reject something
and then receive it? I do not believe they are compatible in that order.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. If you vote to receive the Resolution,
then it is approving it in whole. In other words, everything would be approved.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: You can reject in part. So you could move to
reject, and then everything dies, or you could make a motion to reject in part and
you would state the items that you reject or the components of the Resolution that
you wanted to reject, which would require five (5) votes.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 3 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: But both are main motions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So we would have to dispose of the motion to
receive if you wanted to do a motion to reject.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We would just withdraw the motion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. It would start all over with a motion to
reject in part, and then go on from there.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: So I am assuming that we are not going to be
voting anytime right away because we need to take public testimony and talk about
this, and restate this as we move down the path, because it is a complicated process.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. I just wanted to bring it up on the front
end first.
Councilmember Hooser: So a vote in opposition to a motion to receive
is equivalent to a motion to reject, which we need four (4) votes. So it would be
four (4) votes in opposition to receive as opposed to five (5) votes...is the motion to
reject or is the motion to receive and it is up or down?
Council Chair Rapozo: A motion to receive needs four (4) votes. The
motion on the floor right now is to receive. So if four (4) of us say "aye," then it
moves on to the full Council. If we do not have four (4) votes to receive, which is to
approve, then someone would have to make a motion to reject.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: If we make a motion to receive and we do not
get the votes and there is no motion to reject and if no action takes place within this
body in sixty (60) days, the Resolution will pass without Council action.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just to remind the Council and the public,
the final vote that really matters is next week, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 4 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, as far as our timing goes, we must act
prior to April 5th, which would leave us with a Committee Meeting and another
meeting to gather additional data. Again, if we do not make a decision on it and the
sixty (60) days lapse, then it passes as-is. The plan is to have the Salary
Commission come up. They wanted to say a few words. If we have questions, we
will ask it then. The Administration also wanted to come up after, so we can also
ask questions, and then we will open it up to public testimony. With that, the rules
are suspended. Can the Salary Commission come up?
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, I just wanted to make one disclosure
before we get started. Due to the fact that my brother is the Director of the
Department of Liquor Control, the last time this came up I recused myself from
voting, because in my opinion, obviously, he is a member of my immediate family
since he is my brother. So I recused myself, did not vote, and subsequently sent
over a request for an opinion from the Board of Ethics, who came back and said that
there is no conflict. I disagreed with that opinion. I think anyone would agree
because he is my brother, so I will not be participating in the discussions or the vote
as it relates to the Liquor Control Director. I just wanted to state that upfront
because I cannot imagine how the Board of Ethics could say that it was not a
conflict. Anyway, I just wanted to get that on the record. We will prepare a letter
for the future as well. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Please state your name.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
CAMILLA MATSUMOTO, Member of the Salary Commission: First of all, I
wanted to say good morning and thank you, Councilmembers, for the attention that
you have paid to this Resolution. I have here to submit to you, a letter from Gerald
Matsunaga from the Liquor Control Commission, as I was asked to deliver that. I
wanted to say something last week, but it was quite busy so I did not get a chance
to, so I appreciate the time here. First of all, I ask that you vote in support of the
Resolution. You have read the packet and this is just possibly for others who are
here today. I wanted to explain our role as Salary Commissioners. On this handout
that was presented, the Salary Commission, by County Charter, is responsible for
setting maximum salaries for elected officials and appointed directors and deputy
directors for the County of Kaua`i. That was our scope of our discussions in how we
arrived to create the resolution before you. I also wanted to read this one part
about the preamble that we also submitted and wanted to say that we are very
proud to present this to you. In the first paragraph of the preamble, we are saying
that we view ourselves as part of a collaborative compensation system with a goal of
attracting and retaining public servants of the highest caliber and quality to
provide optimum service and lead the County of Kauai. This is really important
here. This is the scope of our responsibilities. We recognize that our
recommendations merely set maximum limits and defer to managers on the ground
to determine where their direct reports should fall under those limits. In the
resolution that we submitted, in Section 2, we say this again: "The respective
appointing authority may set the salary of any new or existing non-elected
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 5 MARCH 2, 2016
appointee at a figure lower than the figure established for the position in this
Resolution. Elected officers may voluntarily accept a salary lower than the
maximum salary established by this Resolution for their position or may voluntarily
forego accepting a salary." The Resolution is about a cap. It is not guaranteed that
everyone is going to get that cap. I know from last week that you understand how
much we went through to come to this Resolution and we even...I have to speak for
myself as well...financial considerations were also taken into account and we were
sensitive to that because it is very delicate. Do you know that term that you have to
go home and sleep well at night? Well, I did not do that. I went home and I did not
sleep well for a long time. I really had to reflect on why I was on the Salary
Commission. I am on this Commission because I want to make a positive
contribution to a place that has given me a lifetime of extraordinary experiences. I
was raised in what my father called a "Hawaiian village." When I was little, around
two (2) to three (3) years old, all of my friends were Hawaiian. They taught me the
rhythm of the ocean and I got so good at it that I could tell you when the tides were
going to be low, when the surf was going to be high, and what time it was to go
home. I do not know what they did, but they held my hands in the water and we
moved with the ocean. I mention this because we are who we are from our
experiences and that is one of the richest experiences I have held with me and it has
carried me forever and it will forever, and it is one reason why I want to make a
contribution. I want to give back because I feel like I owe this island everything.
With that, the preamble also made mention of change to come and I would say the
next five (5), ten (10), to fifteen (15) years are extremely critical. Do you know how
you go about in life when you are at the bank, which is what happened to me a
couple of weeks ago before last week's meeting—I am sitting there waiting for my
meeting and I come across this National Geographic article on climate change. I
have not finished reading this. I want to say that while there is a lot that needs to
be done, it is positive. Climate change is not the only issue involved with this
Resolution, but it is important. Like what was mentioned the last time, the house
needs to be fixed; the global house needs to be fixed, the global culture needs to be
fixed, and the Kaua`i house needs to be fixed along with that, as well as the Kaua`i
culture. The Resolution provides leverage to implement services to fix the house
and is a key partner with the forthcoming updated General Plan, which will include
in detail, the various services needed to bring back and maintain a healthy and safe
Kaua`i. So that is why I can be on this Commission and that is why I support this
Resolution. One of the things I really love about Kaua`i, and I have learned so
much from this place, is the children. I do not know if you know this, but it is so
easy to talk to children here. You say "hello," they smile, and they say "hello" back.
I am doing this for the children of Kauai. It is for the future. I think that with a
resolution like this, we can retain and maintain quality managerial workforce to
help provide a healthy and safe community for our children. That is what I wanted
to say.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any more comments or statements
that the Commission wanted to make?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question. Camilla, thank you very
much for your very heartfelt testimony. You started out by reading...was it the
vision? I just wanted to know where it came from.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 6 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Matsumoto: In the packet last week, there was a
PowerPoint presentation and it sort of looks like this here, and the responsibilities
are stated in the first paragraph.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions for the Salary Commission
from the members?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for being here. Did the
Commission ever think about rather than setting salaries at a specific number to
deal with the inversion issue, that you would set a requirement that they would get
a raise or their maximum salary would be adjusted with an increase that was equal
to what their counterparts, their workers in their organization, or their department
receive? So in other words, if Collective Bargaining granted a six percent (6%) raise
in that year, that the maximum salary of that department head would go up six
percent (6%); not guaranteed, but that would be the new ceiling so that here would
be parity rather than coming up every so many years with a resolution that would
hit the taxpayers with this mega expense? Was there ever a discussion about that
or was it always just limited to what is the right maximum salary?
ROBERT CROWELL, Member of the Salary Commission: Bob Crowell.
I do not think we ever had that type of discussion. I think in our minds though, and
I am not speaking for everyone, but in my mind you are only talking about a
percentage increase as a bargaining unit would get. It would not preclude the
inversion. I think what you may be saying is would we give the...let us say the
Chief of Police—his salary would be above the highest employee base pay. At this
point, if the entire Kauai Police Department (KPD) got a six percent (6%) increase,
he would still be below the highest-paid bargaining unit employee if we only give
him a six percent (6%) increase. I think you might have been saying to give him
what the highest-paid bargaining unit employee would receive—I think that would
put him above the Mayor and everyone else in the County. I do not think we ever
had that discussion. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am not sure if
that is what you meant.
Council Chair Rapozo: I was just thinking about this over the last
week. It is very difficult to find out what that right salary is. As I look at the list,
and I think I brought up my concerns last week as it related to attorneys versus
other directors or department heads that do not have the necessary requirements
that the attorneys, do but yet they receive the same pay. I am not sure. It is a
tough one to solve. That is all I have. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 7 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I just wanted to add a bit of
history. Early on when I was on the Council, the executive-level salaries were set
based on the highest-paid civil servant. At that time, it was Keoji Masaki in
Engineering, and the result of that rule was so outrageous that the public filled this
room because the salaries got so high. Also, you did not have the lateral equity. If
you did a version of that where because the Collective Bargaining impacts are so
different, you would have department heads having highly different salaries, so you
would not have the horizontal equity so to speak. In fact, if I remember correctly,
that incident and that system led to the creation of a Salary Commission because
people wanted to do it by a formula, so it did not require any discretion so they just
pegged it to the highest paid civil servant. Chair Rapozo's ideas are not unexpected
because everybody is looking for a way to set it easily. But it led to so many other
distortions and outrage from the public that it was deferred and a Salary
Commission was proposed and I think eventually got into the Charter. That is the
system that we have been working with since then. If somebody else remembers
differently, please correct me.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I have a question. I was not here last week,
but I did watch you on television the other night. I do not think I had clarity on
this, but there was a comparison done with other counties as far as mayor-to-mayor
and it said that is what County's current salary was; is that what their current
ceiling is or is that what they are currently getting paid? If it is what they are
currently getting paid, do they have a ceiling higher than that? It was the
comparison of our Mayor to other counties at last week's meeting.
SHERI KUNIOKA-VOLZ, Vice Chair of the Salary Commission: Hi. Sheri
Kunioka-Volz. The salaries for the other counties were the actual salaries. We do
not know if that is the cap or not. We would have to do research on that.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you. I have another question.
As we are setting the ceiling, I do not know if the Commission had a conversation on
what the expectation is. When we set this ceiling, are we setting a ceiling that we
are saying, "We are just trying to get them to where they should be today," or are
we setting a ceiling that the County should be working up to for the next couple of
years? Are we saying, "We are setting a ceiling that is high enough so that if the
other counties increase, then we will end up equal?" Do you have any comments on
that? For us, I think the fear is we set the ceiling and tomorrow everyone's salary
goes up there. Is that the intention for a ceiling at that rate? Was that to get them
to where they should be today or is it supposed to be a gradual increase?
Council Chair Rapozo: Chair, I think if you look at "Exhibit A" in
your binder, it is very evident what happens. Everyone gets to the maximum,
except for the attorneys for some reason. I am not sure why.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not mean to put you on the spot. For
me, I am just wondering the intention. If we are setting this ceiling, it is the
intention that we are setting this ceiling and we think it is fair that tomorrow if
they are at that, then everybody is happy or does it gradually increase to that point
over a few years? I just want a little bit of understanding on how we get to that
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 8 MARCH 2, 2016
point. Obviously, our biggest fear for us—if we are saying this ceiling is to get them
to a certain point in the future...maybe tomorrow they will say...if it gets passed
tomorrow, they will say to everybody...is that the ceiling...
Ms. Matsumoto: When I mentioned leverage, what I meant
was the cap would give the County leverage, to compensate people for their
expertise as needed, which I think is really critical because there is change to come.
We are already seeing it. I live on a very quiet street and yet I hear ambulances,
fire trucks, and police sirens all the time, certainly much more than before. We
have more people driving on the islands and our infrastructure is maxing out. For
me, it is the leverage to be able to solve these challenges that we are facing today so
we are able to hire the expertise that we need. That is a partial answer to your
question. Also, when I read the preamble, we are leaving the decisions of salaries to
managers at the different levels. It does not guarantee that everyone is going to
have a raise; it is just that we are raising the cap.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We do have the current salaries that
everyone is getting and I know it has been a lot of time, so everybody is probably at
the maximum already. I am just trying to get a feeling. If you folks gave us this
recommendation and during this next budget session, if everybody is at the ceiling,
is that what the intent was? Are we still happy with that?
Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Do you mean if we are going propose another
increase?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No, I am just saying that with the ceiling...in
this next budget session...if this thing passes, they can increase everybody's salary
to the ceiling. Obviously, it is not the intention of the Salary Commission to say,
"Yes, this is automatically what the numbers should be," but if it happens, is that a
number that the Salary Commission would be comfortable with? Is it something
that they should be working up towards? Maybe some people should go to the
maximum ceiling?
Ms. Kunioka-Volz: I believe this is a catch-up. We are just
trying to catch-up with what the other counties already have.
Mr. Crowell: As well as the Bargaining Units. I think we
explained it that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has gone up accordingly, so if they
do go up, we think that is what they do deserve, whoever the manager is. If it goes
to that ceiling, we are comfortable with that.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Mr. Crowell: For me personally, and this is a question I
asked at the Commission: "Can this County afford it?" I think you folks should hold
the Administration hostage on that to make sure that they can. We think they can
and I believe they can.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 9 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have two (2) questions. The first one is just
a general question. I understand the rush to make things right and to take care of
the inversion, but I guess my question is what is the rush of doing this when we
have not even hit budget? One could say that all Department Heads and the
Managing Director that accepted the job when the Mayor got reelected knew what
the salary was. I do not think they were told that two (2) years from now that they
were going to get a raise. One could ask, "What is the rush of doing it now?" If we
want to attract better candidates or whatever, then let us increase the salaries
when the next election comes up so that the Mayor will have competitive salaries to
go and hire his new team.
Ms. Kunioka-Volz: I think part of our problem right now is
retention. We are having problems retaining the executive-level.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can I get "Attachment E" on the overhead?
In this attachment, you showed the salary inversions by department. If you look at
the first one you have, it is the Director of Finance, 2015 highest paid is one
hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000) and the Director of Finance is at one
hundred one thousand dollars ($101,000). That one is not too bad, three thousand
dollars ($3,000) difference. When you go down to the Police and the Fire, if you look
at the 2015 base, there is only two (2) people making more than the Chief with the
base salary, the two (2) Assistant Chiefs, and a lot of the big difference, and the
public has gone crazy about this ever since we heard that one hundred seventy-one
thousand dollar ($171,000) figure. The public is asking, "Why is there such a large
gap?" It is plain to see that it is the overtime. Is overtime causing the salary
inversion for Police and Fire? If we better manage overtime, would the inversion
not be as bad?
Mr. Crowell: I think the Administration will answer it
eventually, but just from my knowledge of it, the base salary of a bargaining unit
employee in the Police Department, I think the highest base salary is still above the
Chief.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. You can clearly see that in 2015, there
were three (3) people making more than the Chief...or two (2) people making more
than the Chief, and in 2017, there will be four (4) people making more than the
Chief accordingly to base salary, but it is the overtime. If you look at the overtime
column, the "Other Pay" is where the problem exists. I do not know if for parity
reasons, we should consider allowing the Chiefs to make overtime. We will never
catch up. If you look from 2015 to 2017, one (1) person goes up in base pay fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) and the other person goes up sixteen thousand
dollars ($16,000). Each year, they are going up eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In
order to catch up salary inversion, I do not know how to fix that. Maybe it can fix it
this year, but next year we are back to salary inversion again. I am just thinking
that if we are truly trying to fix salary inversion, this is not going to cut it. One
hundred twenty-seven thousand dollars ($127,000)—next year, you have three (3)
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 10 MARCH 2, 2016
guys back over again. It is very difficult for me. If you look at the Fire Department,
the Fire Captain made fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000). He made more than
half of his salary in overtime. Is that normal and what we can expect or do we feel
like we can cut the overtime through management? I do not know if the Salary
Commission is...I hope that we can look for a more sustainable long-term solution
in trying to work with the Administration and the Department of Finance. I think
the public is feeling like these salaries and overtime are beyond what the taxpayers
can pay. It is out of hand right now. I know it is a union thing, but going forward
to be sustainable and to consider an eight hundred dollar ($800) request right now
and not trying to fix the major problem, I think, is working backwards because it is
not sustainable. I do not know how we are going to do it. You look at the overtime
columns there and I am seeing that for Police and Fire, we will never make up what
the Chiefs should get to get over that if we cannot control what is going on in that
column. That is where I am at.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: That may be a question for the
Administration when they come up because they provided this to us. Any more
questions for the Commission? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Aloha. Thank you for all of your work. I,
too, missed last week's meeting. We were in Washington, D.C. at the Legislative
Conference. I wanted to know all of the materials that you have provided us, that is
the materials you used to come up with these figures. Was there any additional
material and information that you used to justify these numbers? If there is, can
you provide that as well? We were provided these exhibits last week, so I have
them. One document shows the different counties. How did we line up with the
other counties? Did we decide that our rates should be higher than Maui, but lower
than Hawaii Island? In fact, we are actually higher than Hawaii Island as well,
except for one (1) position, which is the Deputy Director of Finance. We hear a lot of
talk about inversion, inversion, and inversion and we are looking at ourselves,
across departments and within departments. It seems to me like a part moves and
the rest has to move and we are constantly, because of inversion, trying to shift
everything up. I do not know how else you deal with inversion, but I know that it is
not just inversion that you are using to make these decisions. What are the other
pieces of materials and how did you use it, like for example, this specific one
regarding comparisons to other counties? Are you just providing information? Did
you use this to make a decision?
Ms. Kunioka-Volz: We did use this. This was provided to us.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So was there ever a point where the Salary
Commission decided, as a principle, that our County, in comparison to the City and
County of Honolulu, the County of Maui, and the County of Hawaii, where we
should fit in the salary range based on our population, based on the sizes of our
departments, and based on the services that we provide? For me, and I remember
this from the last time, I had a hard time approving any kind of increases until I
saw real data. In the past, I think there was talk about real data with regards to
some Nash study or something. Have there been any new studies? That study is
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 11 MARCH 2, 2016
kind of ancient. How old is it? Over ten (10) years old maybe? Fifteen (15) or
twenty (20) years by now. I do not know. When was that Nash study done?
Mr. Crowell: It is about ten (10) years old. I think we
answered that last week. Sheri mentioned that we looked into that, but it was kind
of cost-prohibitive.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Cost-prohibited to do a new study?
Ms. Kunioka-Volz: Our focus is primarily on parity within the
State, too, between the other counties. We were able to get the Nash study data
locally. We did not have to hire a consultant for that.
Mr. Crowell: There were also discussions in our meetings
about the Department of Public Works Department Head in our County versus the
other counties. The City and County of Honolulu has an Environmental Director.
Hawai`i Island does not have trash per se; they have their landfills, but they do not
have door-to-door trash pickup and things like that. I think what you are looking
at, the way we got the increases was the CPI and we took it from the last pay raise
that they had and we looked at each year. I believe that is what gave us the close to
twelve percent (12%) increase. We took the CPI throughout those years.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Would you not agree that applying the CPI,
which is just a percentage increase across the board, only works if the base that you
are looking at to begin with is where you think it should be? If you are considering
these other counties, for example.
Mr. Crowell: Well, the base we had to work with was all
that we had.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right. But part of the adjustment to make a
change is to correct the salary and if the correction is down versus up, then you
could make that recommendation, too, if you had the data to back it up. My
question here goes back to the same basic appendix, "Appendix A," where we are
comparing the different counties. Clearly, Kaua`i in no way should be compared to
the City and County of Honolulu because they are just a whole different animal.
Though, Hawaii County and Maui County is probably more similar to us than the
City and County of Honolulu, just because the City and County of Honolulu is a
huge city, right? Did we look at and how are we saying that some of our positions
are paid higher than the County of Hawai`i and some of them are lower? They are
all lower than Maui, so for whatever reason because maybe Maui is bigger and they
have a bigger service level. I would think that we are probably more comparable to
the County of Hawaii, but some are higher and some are lower. There is no
consistent application on what we agree on. Maybe you have looked at it in specific
by item...but it is just one example of the type of deeper comparative analysis and
justification that I kind of want to see before I can be supportive. That is just one
example for now.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 12 MARCH 2, 2016
JAY FURFARO, Boards and Commissions Administrator: Committee Chair,
I would like to address that. I think the Commission did touch on those items. I do
have some other material here that I can give you. In particular, I only have one (1)
copy that I brought with me, but your staff can make some copies. This compares
the different engineering divisions across the County. For example, engineering
responsibilities on Hawai`i Island do not relate to the fact that they do not have a
trash pickup in their community. They actually have to deliver it to the landfill as
individual citizens. Obviously, the differences in Maui include that they have
Public Works Engineer, but they also have an engineer that handles environmental
services such as wastewater and so forth. They also have a separate engineer that
handles waste materials as it relates to the collection. Some of these counties have
fewer services in their scope, while other counties have additional people with the
expanded scope. The material I just gave you deals with water, Public Works, and
so forth. We do have other survey material that focused on that material, but to
answer your question today, you do have that copy and I will give the chair back to
the Commissioners.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the Commission?
Thank you. We will have the Administration come up. They provided a binder with
answers to some of the questions from last week.
NADINE K. NAKAMURA, Managing Director: Good morning. Nadine
Nakamura, Managing Director.
KEN M. SHIMONISHI, Director of Finance: Ken Shimonishi, Director
of Finance.
JANINE M.Z. RAPOZO, Director of Human Resources: Janine Rapozo,
Director of Human Resources.
Ms. Nakamura: I have a few remarks, and then we will open
it up to questions and answers in response to the questions raised by the Council
last week. First of all, I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak today
and for putting this on your agenda. When I first ran for County Council, I took a
two-thirds (2/3) cut in my pay and people thought I was crazy. But my family and I
made sacrifices so that I could have the opportunity to serve the public in a different
way. Again, I thank each and every one of you for your service. The public sees you
every week in this room, or on the computer, or on the television, but they do not
see the work that happens behind-the-scenes to get the business of the Council and
your initiatives accomplished. I also wanted to mention that when I became the
Managing Director, my pay doubled. It is still lower than my private sector
consulting practice, but I made that choice. I work about twenty (20) to
fourteen (14) hours during the day, and then some on weekends like many of you. I
would like you and the public to know that our Mayor works much harder than
myself because aside from overseeing the County and its operations, he also spends
every weekend going out into the community and connecting directly with Kaua`i
residents. I also wanted to speak on behalf of the appointed department heads,
deputy department heads, and attorneys of the County of Kauai—after two and a
half (2.5) years as Managing Director, I am in the unique positions to share my
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 13 MARCH 2, 2016
thoughts about the men and women who serve in cabinet positions and who are the
subject of this Resolution before you.
First, I want to speak about their professionalism in their given fields,
whether it is winning of National Valor Award for rescuing one hundred twenty
(120) stranded visitors or winning the American Planning Association Award for the
South Shore Development Plan, or competing with other counties and obtaining
competitive tax credit awards, and obtaining financing for four (4) affordable
housing projects in the span of five (5) years; your department heads are leading
their respective departments to achieve incredible outcomes for this County.
Second, I would like to talk about collaboration. Our department heads are
breaking out of syllos and are collaborating in new and exciting ways, whether it is
working with community-based groups to develop stewardship agreements to
protect our special places, working with each other and even including the State to
try to improve our building permit process, securing over two million dollars
($2,000,000) in 911 funds to improve our KPD Records Management System. All of
these actions and partnerships mean that we do our jobs more efficiently, we
provide better services for the public, and reduce the cost of County government.
Third, your department heads proposed and this Council approved, over five
million dollars ($5,000,000) in cuts to the County's Operating Budget last year. As
you know, vacancies are not automatically filled as they were in the past.
Department heads are looking creatively how to best deliver services by eliminating
positions, re-describing positions based on 21st century needs, and rethinking the
way we do our work. Departments are constantly looking for efficiencies. They are
not satisfied with the status quo; things like implementing electronic procurement,
training our supervisors to avoid bad management decisions that lead to costly and
protracted litigation, and getting laptops so that our liquor inspectors can do their
job in the field more efficiently, creating a tree-trimming crew, carving out a levee
maintenance crew out of the existing workforce, and tackling sewer delinquent
accounts in a systematic way. Our department heads know that in this fiscal
environment that we have to do more with less, be creative with the resources that
we have available, and that our end goal is to better service the public. I believe
that Mayor Carvalho has assembled a topnotch team of smart, committed, and
dedicated public servants. They work long hours to get the job done for the County,
including problem solving on weekends, evenings, and during emergency operating
center activations. I often have to tell them that when I am checking E-mails at
night that they need to get to bed. They are professionals in their respective fields.
They care about the public and the community, and it is reflected in the work they
do each day. While their employees have received pay increases between twelve
percent (12%) and twenty-nine percent (29%) over the past seven (7) years, they
have not received a single increased, and while their employees receive overtime
and compensatory time, they do not. Please note that the Deputy Fire Chief and
the Deputy Police Chief positions have been vacant for over one (1) year. There is
very little financial incentive for the rank and file to take a cut in pay to take
additional responsibilities. Similarly with the recent vacancy in the Department of
Public Works, division heads with engineering licenses that qualify for this position
and are most suited to move up the chain would not want to take a cut in pay with
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 14 MARCH 2, 2016
increased responsibilities. So while the Resolution may not remove all of the salary
inversions, it goes a long way to provide fairness and equity into the County
compensation regime. There are many reasons for department head departures,
but please note that the two (2) most recent department heads who left the County
secured positions with higher salaries.
In closing, I do not think you will find a more dedicated and selfless group of
public servants and I feel very honored to having the privilege of working with this
team. Please give us the opportunity to increase their pay, catch up, and I believe it
is well deserved, fair, and long overdue. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Any questions from the
Members? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Good morning all of you. This may have
been answered already, but it is not clear. Why is this not presented in the context
of the budget? When the budget is presented, it seems that it should all be a part of
the budget.
Ms. Nakamura: Well, I believe according to the Charter, the
Salary Commission has until March 1'5th to submit their proposal. That was one of
the options that were available. I believe last year it was submitted very early in
the process in January, and the idea here was to submit it very close to the budget
process. It is kind of a "chicken and egg" thing. If we had put it in the budget
without having some deliberations with the Council, there may have been the
feeling that we are assuming that the Council is going to approve it. So the Salary
Commission did its work and it just happened to be very close to the budget
submittal. As we were working through the budget that will be submitted to you on
March 15th, we are taking this into account. We are going to share with you how we
intend to cover this, because I think that was one of the questions from last week.
Councilmember Hooser: So on March 15th, some of it will be folded
into the budget presentation?
Ms. Nakamura: We wanted to get a reading from the Council
as well to see if it is all of it, none of it, or partial, so that we have time. We are in
decision-making ourselves on the budget that is going to be coming over here on
March 15th.
Councilmember Hooser: I can wait for the answer to my next question
if I need to also, but do you anticipate fee or tax increases in the next budget?
Ms. Nakamura: I will ask our Director of Finance to answer
that question.
Mr. Shimonishi: We have not proposed any fee increases, nor
any tax rate increases, but obviously assessed values move and so forth, and the
projections of those do indicate a slight upward trend in our real property. As you
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 15 MARCH 2, 2016
know, the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) remains flat at best. Other than
that, we are not proposing any fee or rate increases.
Councilmember Hooser: So if I could restate, it is possible or likely
that property taxes will go up because of assessments going up, but the
Administration is not proposing any rate increases.
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Just a follow-up on this. There
is a response here that talks about the moneys saved from the gas collection that
could be used to pay for the increases, six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) or
so. That is for 2017, but what we are expecting to see on the 15th is how you intend
to attribute those costs moving forward. I am a little unclear if this going to be for
the following budget.
Mr. Shimonishi: So in the proposed 2017 budget that is
forthcoming, one of the areas we identified in our response is that the financial
assurance appropriation amount, which last year was one million one hundred sixty
thousand dollars ($1,160,000), that amount is significantly reduced to five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000). It is reduced because we were able to obtain approval
on State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans to finance the gas collection system, and that
could be spread out over twenty (20) years at a one percent (1%) interest rate. The
drawdown on that or the debt service payments would not start until Fiscal
Year 2018. For Fiscal Year 2017, we can realize a direct reduction in our budget of
some six hundred sixty thousand dollars ($660,000) as we put in our response.
Going forward, we anticipate that reduction to be some three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,000).
Councilmember Chock: Okay. So sustaining these increases
thereafter, do we have an accounting of that as well?
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, we would realize the three hundred
thousand dollars ($300,000) going forward because we are financing this on a
long-term basis, and the balance obviously would just be worked into part of our
budget process as we do pluses and minuses. We are always asking departments to
look at their budgets, scrutinize, and then obviously Council review.
Councilmember Chock: think our Chair asked about whether or not
these will be maxed out. It seems to me that they will be taken to the limit
immediately, but I just wanted to clarify if that is true. Is the intention that we
would move toward, hitting the ceiling immediately on these increases? If not, how
would you make that determination?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 16 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: I think it will be looked on a case-by-case
basis. There are a lot of appointees who have been with the County since the
beginning of the Mayor's term. A lot of the attorneys would be looked at
individually. Some of them are newly hired, so they would not go to the top of the
scale and that, we would leave to the Prosecutor and the County Attorney to decide
on those salaries. We will be looking at three (3) major criteria: one is the length of
service, the second is the Job Performance Reviews, and third will be the
accomplishment of goals set out for that department.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken, what was the anticipated increase in
real property tax revenue this year?
Mr. Shimonishi: Currently, it looks at about a little over six
million four hundred thousand dollars ($6,400,000) to six million five hundred
thousand dollars ($6,500,000) is what I believe we are estimating.
Council Chair Rapozo: Technically, we are not getting a tax rate
increase, but we are definitely getting a tax increase. The people would be paying
six million five hundred thousand dollars ($6,500,000) more in property tax.
Mr. Shimonishi: Well, I think we need to further look at what
categories they are coming from because there has also been new development like
the new Safeway and the new Longs Drugs. Overall, I think if you are looking at
people paying as what I am interpreting as the Homestead class, I believe our
initial numbers looked like they went up less than two percent (2%). I think one
point eight percent (1.8%) or something, with additional properties going into that
category. Again, further analysis, but obviously new development as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then following up Councilmember Chock's
question about the gas collection system, I think you said that this is...we will see
an annual savings of about three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) going
forward, right? Is Solid Waste currently subsidized by the General Fund?
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct. So what that means is that we
would technically be able to reduce our General Fund contribution into Solid Waste
because that would be a reduction in the Solid Waste appropriations. So ultimately,
that is a savings to the General Fund.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess that is one way of looking at it. I
think Councilmember Hooser asked the question about there being no more fees or
tax increases submitted in the budget, but as far as the budget as you are preparing
it today, is it including these raises already?
Mr. Shimonishi: We have not actually entered those numbers
in. I think we are waiting to see what the read was. I guess it would be
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 17 MARCH 2, 2016
presumptuous for us to put those in prior to even seeing the recommendations and
the Council's action on it.
Council Chair Rapozo: So the sustainability of the cost of the raises
going forward—you have three hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars ($329,000)
from the Solid Waste Fund, but aside from that, where is that remainder coming
from? Is it going to be absorbed in the budget? I guess the real question is was
there any attempt to consolidate the workforce and reduce the number of employees
going forward?
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, being absorbed in the budget and as
far as reducing workforce, that is an ongoing endeavor continuing on with our
Vacancy Review Committee and overall just part of the budget process, trying to
keep in check the departments' requests against what we know is doable. If you are
asking me specifically if we identified positions to eliminate to fund this, I would
have to say "no."
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. That was the question. That was the
question I asked last week. Is there going to be a specific effort to take a look at
reducing the workforce going forward to accommodate the pay raises? You just
answered that. There was no specific look at that.
Ms. Nakamura: I am sorry, that question unfortunately did
not come over from the Council, but we did initially take a look at every department
to see whether they could absorb the costs within their departments. We have been
working on the budget for the last couple of months so far. We have gone through
the department reviews and so forth. Because the other labor-negotiated increases
that we have to budget for...we have no choice...we must budget for—we have been
looking at cuts in each of the departments, so we have to accommodate it. There are
a lot of ways that we could present that information to you, but we just thought that
this was one way to just show how we can accommodate all of them for this fiscal
year. You will be seeing, in next few weeks, the complete budget that will show
many other cuts within the departments, which we needed to do in order to give you
a balanced budget. Again, it is still in the works. As Councilmember Hooser said,
the timing of it is a little awkward, but we can assure you that in order for us to
give you the balanced budget, we have to make cuts.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am not concerned about how we
fund it in the upcoming budget. My concern is how do we fund it the budget after
that, the budget after that, and the budget after that? Then we have the next
Salary Commission Resolution one (1) year or two (2) from now and it is another
recommendation for raises. What I was hoping to see was, "Hey, in perpetuity, we
are going to free up one million dollars ($1,000,000) in salaries because we did
internal review of departments and we found consolidation, so we can actually do
away with two (2) or three (3) positions. That is going to be used to fund these
raises going forward." That is what I was looking for because this is a recurring
expense. It is not a one (1) year expense. So for me anyway, we need to see how we
are going pay for these funds down the road, year-after-year. That is all I was
asking for. Thank you.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 18 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you for being here. My first question
has to do with deputy positions. Out of the fifteen (15) departments, ten (10) have
deputies and five (5) do not have a deputy. The ones without a deputy is Human
Resources, Economic Development, County Auditor, Housing, and Liquor Control.
How has the Administration decided which departments need deputies and which
do not?
Ms. Rapozo: Deputies are not a chartered position, so I
think through the budget process those are just processed through the budget as far
as having that position in there. Currently, the Kaua`i Police Department also does
not have a deputy and I believe last year the Fire Department dollar-funded their
deputy. They currently both do not have deputies.
Councilmember Kuali`i: By "does not have," you mean that the
position is vacant?
Ms. Rapozo: It is dollar-funded.
Councilmember Kuali`i: That was your remark, too, that because of
the inversion, the salary is not high enough, so we cannot really even promote
anybody in-house to that position because they are making more money in the job
that they are doing. So if the deputies for the Fire and Police have been vacant for
an extended period now, how is the job being done? Is it being done by an Assistant
Chief of Police...there are four (4) of them in the Police Department, and probably
by some other position in the Fire Department. At what point, if the position can be
dollar-funded and if the issue is that we cannot hire anyone because the salary is
not high enough, can we admit that the job can be done without that position, and
that we eliminate that position? Like Council Chair was talking about, for the long
haul, in order for some positions that you can justify increases because they are
doing the job, managing large departments with lots of people, they do not have the
support staff of assistant positions, and this is the position that we have control
over, more or less, not so much with the bargaining unit positions—that is part of
the give and take that has to happen, I think.
Ms. Nakamura: I think that is the discussion that is being
had and I think we have the Chief of Police and Fire Chief here and they may want
to add their insights to that discussion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This is kind of a follow-up, but it is a
question that Councilmember Kagawa asked earlier. In looking at "Schedule E,
Other Pay," why do some of them have such a high number in there? Say like the
Fire Captain, their base salary is ninety-eight thousand dollars ($98,000) and they
have fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000) in "Other Pay?"
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 19 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: Again as part of the bargaining agreements
that are made with each of these groups of the union employees, they are entitled to
certain pay provisions whether it be overtime or in the Fire Department's case,
rank-for-rank. In Police, they have their standard of conduct. All of those things
attribute to them obviously making additional moneys, depending on the situation
that arises. I think if you want to talk specifically about the management of those
positions and what attributes those additional pay costs, then clearly I think the
Fire Chief or the Police Chief would be better able to explain down the reasons for
that. I think in years past in the budget, I know that Executive Chief Contrades
has talked about the police overtime situation and I would not try to detail the
events that leads up to those overtime costs or any other premium differential pay
that gets folded into those employees.
Ms. Rapozo: Just to add to that, if you look at the
responses on 2(b), the last paragraph, it does go over most of the different
differentials that non-elected or non-executive appointees would be entitled to,
which include overtime compensation, standard of conduct differential, subsidized
vehicle allowance, night differential, split-shift differential, callout pay, meal
allowance, uniform allowance, temporary differential, bureau incentive differential,
K-9 handler pay, and hazard duty pay. That is all included in that column.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For me, it is just getting a better handle on
how much of this number is fixed and how much of it is variable based on the
collective bargaining. I know that in past budgets, there are comments that based
on collective bargaining, they automatically get a certain amount of overtime, and of
course, that would be a fixed cost. When I look at this number, it is hard to know
what is fixed and what is variable.
Ms. Nakamura: If you take a look on page number 3 of the
response, there is a little matrix there that shows some of the position numbers and
then what some of the allowances are for appointees. If you take a look under the
Police, the uniform and gun allowance is eight hundred dollars ($800). It is at the
bottom, the last row of the matrix. The standard of conduct pay is seven thousand
nine hundred dollars ($7,900) fixed. So these would all be fixed. Then if you have a
subsidized vehicle, there is an allowance, and the subsidized vehicle allowance in
this case is six thousand seven hundred forty-four dollars ($6,744). Rather than the
County purchasing the vehicle outright or leasing vehicles, we allow the officers to
purchase their vehicle, and then we subsidize it. That would be some of the fixed
costs. If you add that up, that is approximately fifteen thousand five hundred
dollars ($15,500). So those would be fixed.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: When I look at Fire, the fixed number will be
four hundred twenty dollars ($420), but the other pay is fifty-four thousand
dollars ($54,000).
Ms. Nakamura: That would be just for the Fire Chief and
Deputy Fire Chief, but the other employees would probably have a rank-for-rank.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 20 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Rapozo: Yes, the rank-for-rank would be an overtime
situation, as well as if they are in the Prevention or Inspection Bureau, they get a
bureau incentive differential per month. For those captains or those people in those
bureaus, they would have that as a fixed cost. So the Fire additional pay is a little
bit different from the Police.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. I might need to call up the Fire Chief
later or something, but maybe we will go through more questions. For me, I am just
trying to get comfortable, knowing what these numbers are that we are looking at.
You have somebody making almost half as much as their base pay in "Other Pay,"
so I just want to know how much of it is a fixed cost that is part of the collective
bargaining and how much of it is variable. Does it make a difference if they end up
having a deputy? Is that going to reduce any of these costs or is it not going to
make any difference? That would be my follow up question to how variable are
these costs and will it make a difference if we have a deputy. Is the deputy going to
take some of the overtime that maybe the guys are doing? Does it make sense to
have a deputy, rather than the guys working overtime and looking at the variable
costs? I will come back to that. We will stick to you folks. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In your folder, which you presented to us
today on question number 6 about the compounding or the simple addition of the
union collective bargaining increases, you show Bargaining Unit's seven (7) year
approved rate increases, which was in your PowerPoint presentation from last
week. So you show that United Public Workers (UPW) over seven (7) years, a
fourteen percent (14%) increase; Hawai`i Government Employees Association
(HGEA) had a twelve percent (12%) with a step; State of Hawaii Organization of
Police Officers (SHOPO) had a twenty-nine point three percent (29.3%) with a step;
and Hawai`i Fire Fighters Association (HFFA) had twenty percent (20%) plus step.
I asked whether these were simple or compounded, and your answer was that they
are simple. In fact though, budgetary impact is compounded, right?
Ms. Rapozo: I think the way the question was answered
was whether or not that was the total percentages throughout the seven (7) years.
So in that respect, it would be simple. If you are looking at the budget, then yes,
each year you would be compounding that additional percentage.
Councilmember Yukimura: Whereas the CPI increases that you are
proposing for the department heads are just simple increases, right?
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it is "apples and oranges" in one sense.
Ms. Nakamura: In the end, the disparity is even greater
because it is compounded.
Councilmember Yukimura: Correct.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 21 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: If that is the assertion you are making, then
yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is the point I was trying to determine
based on your answers. So somebody had a three percent (3%) increase, and then
the next three percent (3%) was of one hundred three percent (103%), whereas
using the CPI increase for the managers is just a simple increase.
Ms. Nakamura: And a one-time application of the increase.
Councilmember Yukimura: Correct. Thank you for that clarification.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members? If
not, I just want to get a little more clarification. I am just using Fire as an example
because it is right here on the schedule. Can the Fire Chief come up or can anybody
help explain to me in this "Other Pay" section, how much of is fixed and how much
of it is a variable cost?
ROBERT F. WESTERMAN, Fire Chief: For the record, Robert
Westerman, Fire Chief. I guess in response to a couple of the different questions,
some of the overtime pay, even though it is classified as overtime, is mandated in
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Part of their base salary includes overtime as
part of their salary because they do not work a forty (40) hour workweek because
they work a fifty-six (56) hour, so built into that every single day is four (4) hours of
overtime. That is one of the examples. The other example of overtime is
rank-for-rank. It is mandated in the Collective Bargaining. In fact when we had
that come on Collective Bargaining, we reduced our overtime budget and shifted
about eighty percent (80%) of that overtime budget cost into the rank-for-rank, but
it is still considered overtime costs, and that is how we utilize it. When we need to
utilize them on overtime, we utilize the rank-for-rank hours until they run out of
rank-for-rank hours. That is what they call "scheduled overtime." Also included in
all of the overtime costs are holiday overtimes, all the other overtimes that come in
and you will see that is the "Other Pay," and then you have the premium pays
which are a little bit different. That is how they are calculated in there. Hopefully
that clears it up a little bit more.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Say if you look at the fifty-four thousand
eight hundred forty-three dollars ($54,843), "Other Pay 2015," the very top line for
the Fire Captain.
Mr. Westerman: Part of that would be some of those
calculated in there.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For me, I am trying to figure out what
percentage of that or how much of that would be a fixed cost based on your
collective bargaining, the guaranteed overtime, and how much of it is variable.
Maybe it is all fixed. I do not know.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 22 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Westerman: The other list I have here does not even
break it down to that amount for each individual. The individual you are talking
about happens to be in a specialized unit, so his base pay has other things added to
it and that is where some of the additional pay comes from. Councilmember Chock
knows what I am talking about. I do not know the exact number for this first line
item, but I would say in that overtime, four (4) hours of that every day that they
work is overtime. All of their holiday hours are considered overtime and their
rank-for-rank is considered in that number.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: All of those are all mandatory anyway, right?
Mr. Westerman: Those are all mandatory in the collective
bargaining.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As far as any variable costs in these number,
there is very little or no variable costs.
Mr. Westerman: Very little. I do not have the number off the
top of my head, but it is very, very little. We do not utilize a lot of overtime. All of
the firefighters work some overtime outside of what would be rank-for-rank
scheduled overtime. In other words, we have to have the position filled so someone
fills it on overtime. For special projects and things like that, we use very little
overtime. Again like I said, we have taken that overtime budget and moved it into
rank-for-rank budget and utilized them on their rank-for-rank for our overtime
when we can.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just as a follow-up, so because of how the
scheduling is and how the contract is, you are saying that there is some dollar
amount that is showing up in this column as "Other Pay," but really it is part of the
automatic base pay.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So it would be more meaningful if it was in
the right place or if "Other Pay" was broken down by the types of overtime. When
we think of overtime, we just think of people working a forty (40) hour work shift,
and then needs of the division or the department require additional time, so they
work extra and they get paid extra. But the way the position is, is that they work
three (3) days and off four (4), and those days are longer, so part of that pay has to
be at a different rate. It is still really their regular schedule and their base pay.
Mr. Westerman: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: That is why you are saying that the real
overtime is minimal.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 23 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: But a lot of showing in this column of"Other
Pay" because a lot of that really should be in the base pay in a way.
Mr. Westerman: That is the way the negotiations were held in
the bargaining unit. I would love to see it all in base pay and only have true
overtime.
Councilmember Kuali`i: For purposes of salary adjustments, you are
talking about the base pay.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So whether they do it or not, I think for our
analysis, we should make a spreadsheet that shows us that because that is what
you have to justify to us and that is what you are working off of as far as inversion
and what not; not all of the "Other Pay" but some of it.
Mr. Westerman: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Probably most of it.
Mr. Westerman: If you remember last week, the conversation
was, "Well, do I work overtime?" Sure, but I do not get compensated for it. The
comment was made this morning, "Let us just give department heads overtime." I
do not know if you really want to do that. I might say I love it because it might be
very significant for me because I do not an eight (8) hour day, none of us do, and
that is not the intention to try and make more money, I am just saying that it is just
not the way our salary is structured, so we are trying to make this balance of how
do we have this pay equity because of the inversion. In going back to the deputy, I
do it and I tell you what, I am doing a lot of it because I do not have the deputy. So
the workload just falls on me and the other staff and now they are doing more than
they were anticipated in doing. You will see in the budget that we are making some
recommendations for some changes in that so that we can get some help to make
that happen. You are right. Just because it is dollar-funded, it does not mean that
the work does not have to done. It just gets done by other people. Thank you for
the concern.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Chief.
Mr. Westerman: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: Rather, it is "good afternoon."
Mr. Westerman: Yes, it is afternoon already.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 24 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: You were saying that every day there is
four (4) hours of overtime.
Mr. Westerman: That is part of their base salary.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is part of their base salary?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so it is not at an overtime rate?
Mr. Westerman: It is at an overtime rate.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Instead of eight (8) hours, they work
twelve (12) hours?
Mr. Westerman: No, they work twenty-four (24) hours.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, twenty-four (24) hours and they get
paid at regular pay for twenty (20) hours and then four (4) hours at an overtime
rate?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they have a workweek of five (5) hours
and...what did you say?
Mr. Westerman: Here is the perfect person to answer that
question.
ROSE BETTENCOURT, Kaua`i Fire Department Administrative Officer:
Rose Bettencourt, Administrative Officer for the Fire Department. The
overtime that he is talking about is that they work in excess of four (4) hours every
week. They annualized it and now it is in their pay as an add pay. Instead of what
they used to call "black shift," now they get paid those four (4) hours, it is
annualized, and it is in an add pay.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they work twenty-four (24) hours a day
for a total of...
Ms. Bettencourt: Fifty-six (56) hours per week.
Councilmember Yukimura: Fifty-six (56) hours per week?
Ms. Bettencourt: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is sixteen (16) hours of overtime?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 25 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Bettencourt: No. The way their collective bargaining
works is although they are working excess of what we would normally work for a
forty (40) hour workweek, for them it is a standard. It is standard regular pay. The
four (4) hours excess is what is called "additional pay."
Councilmember Yukimura: So we are paying them for fifty-two (52)
hours...or fifty-two (52) hours is considered a forty (40) hour week standard, and
then they get plus four (4) hours of overtime.
Ms. Bettencourt: Yes, it was something that was agreed upon
in collective bargaining.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and that is in their base pay?
Ms. Bettencourt: It is an addition pay, so when you look at the
base salary, that is the base not including what we call "scheduled overtime."
Councilmember Yukimura: So the four (4) hours is not called "scheduled
overtime."
Ms. Bettencourt: It is called "scheduled overtime." We call it
"Standard of Conduct Differential (SOCD)."
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Bettencourt: To get away from having to calculate the
four (4) hours of overtime pay, what they used to call "black shift," they came to an
agreement whereby each firefighter would get what they call the "differential" or
"Scheduled Overtime (SOT)" and what they did was we annualized it and it comes
out to their hourly rate times...there is a specific calculation that we do. So we
annualize it and it is paid semi-monthly in their paycheck as an additional pay.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it is not counted in this column as base
salary.
Ms. Bettencourt: No, it is not.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is in fact included in the "Other Pay."
Ms. Bettencourt: We call it "premium." Yes, it is in the add
pay.
Councilmember Yukimura: But on this sheet that we are looking at, it is
in "Other Pay."
Ms. Bettencourt: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you tell us how rank-for-rank works?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 26 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Bettencourt: Rank-for-rank is for ranking officers who are
off of duty for vacation or another type of leave and a comparable ranking officer
works in his place and this is considered overtime for the person who is working for
the other official.
Councilmember Yukimura: Then on holidays it is double overtime?
Ms. Bettencourt: Holidays are not considered overtime
because they are scheduled to work on that day, so it is called a premium, so it
should be in the premium column or the extra pay.
Ms. Rapozo: They just have this one column on this sheet.
Ms. Bettencourt: Okay. The one I have looks different.
Because they are already scheduled to work those twenty-four (24) hours, for each
hour they get an additional pay rate, so that is considered premium. We do not call
it overtime. For us, overtime is when you are not scheduled to work and you have
to come to work. That is considered overtime.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is basically a fixed cost based on the
negotiations.
Ms. Bettencourt: Yes, add pay and holiday pay.
Councilmember Yukimura: But how often a person is called in for
rank-for-rank varies.
Ms. Bettencourt: Each ranking officer has two hundred
forty-four (244) hours per year that they can work rank-for-rank.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do they all max out or do they have to be
scheduled to make the two hundred forty-four (244) hours?
Ms. Bettencourt: They work it out among themselves. They
are guaranteed to work the two hundred forty-four (244) hours should they so
choose.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: So if someone goes on vacation and a
firefighter does not go to work, then they do not get any of that?
Ms. Bettencourt: No, then they do not get rank-for-rank, but
then we would in all probability temporary assignment (TA) someone up, so you
would have the temporary assignment pay.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 27 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. That was the other question that I
had. In the "Other Pay" block, does that include the temporary assignment?
Ms. Bettencourt: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: If a captain works in a capacity of a battalion
chief, does the differential in pay show up here in the "Other Pay" column?
Ms. Bettencourt: That would be the other pay, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. That is all I have.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Rose and Janine, for putting
perspective on the centralization of the work you folks are trying to do. I know it is
a logistical nightmare. The question is for the Chief, actually. I just wanted to
clarify, because what I heard you say is that the feasibility of relinquishing that
these positions that are not filled is low on priority. Basically, you really need those
positions to be filled in order for the workload to be...
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Really, the core issue here or the root cause
is that those positions need to be somehow transitioned to a base salary, similar to
the way yours is administered.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Is that a charter change? What do we have
to do to move us in that direction? I do not know if that is a policy call that we need
to look at. But these positions are receiving these extra benefits, and yet your
salary is not. If those positions were changed, meaning more perspective in
alignment with how yours is administered, would that be more feasible?
Mr. Westerman: Well, for us we are talking about maybe an
assistant chief and it is not a charter change, because really the deputy is not
directed by charter. It would be a budget issue of filling a position as an assistant
chief to help anticipate that workload and provide that service that position has and
it not have the dilemma that we have now with the pay inversion, because then it
would be a civil service pay salary scale that would be adjusted when all the EMs
get adjusted.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members?
Council Chair.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 28 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Basically, you are going to make a civil
service position?
Mr. Westerman: We are going to reallocate the deputy.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you get rid of the deputy and create a civil
service position, which would further invert the system.
Mr. Westerman: Well, there would only be me.
Council Chair Rapozo: Huh?
Mr. Westerman: The only inversion you have is me, but you
have the inversion no matter what you do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, so it does not improve the inversion by
doing that. I can see the benefits of doing that, but it will not help the inversion.
Mr. Westerman: It will help keep the position filled. If we do
not do anything, nobody is going to accept the position. That is the problem we are
having with inversion.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the problem that we are finding even
with our auditor position. It is difficult.
Mr. Westerman: Over time, there was salary increases for the
chief and the deputy, but they just were not funded. So we are behind because we
have never kept up with what was already there to provide. Now I guess, like you
said, it just puts us further behind.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members?
Seeing none, we will take public testimony.
CODIE K. YAMAUCHI, Council Services Assistant I: Committee Chair,
we have three (3) registered speakers. The first speaker is Lonnie Sykos, followed
by Mary Kay Hertog.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry, let me have Mr. Furfaro come up and
speak on behalf of the Salary Commission.
Mr. Furfaro: Jay Furfaro, Boards and Commissions
Administrator. Committee Chair, I wanted to thank you for letting me come back
again. We did not anticipate the questions asked by Councilmember Kuali`i about
the Salary Commission's research that they have, so I have gathered a lot of
documents for you to make your copies and study. They have been working on this
for the last seven (7) months. The one document I did give you was the engineering
comparisons between the counties. I also gave you copies of the job descriptions as
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 29 MARCH 2, 2016
it relates to the earlier report. In addition to this, and again, the Salary
Commission is looking at approximately thirty-two (32) positions that come under
their jurisdiction by charter with the deadlines of turning in the work. I wanted to
share with you and you can make copies and return this to my office at your
convenience, but this is some of the material that we worked on. For example, for
the Police Department, we have the Western Region 2014 Survey of Police Chief
data across the western region. I will leave that for to you make copies of as well.
Also, we focused on the reality of their job scope as it relates to their highest
priorities. Remember, we are starting at a point where these department heads are
actually only at eighty-eight point eight percent (88.8%) of what their salary gross
was, but we did do some definitions about what the Consumer Price Index was. I
have that material for you here. We also referred to in our sheets, not "Other Pay,"
but we referred to it as allowances. For example, the allowances for the Police Chief
and what they get for uniforms, their gun, and so forth. It is reflected on our sheet
as an allowance. Also, as we dealt with the Department of Parks and Recreation
and bargaining units, we have this wage comparison that goes against eleven (11)
golf courses and the operation of those golf courses in Hawaii, as well as a tracking
sheet on how we arrived at the individual increases that were labeled to the
bargaining units, which Councilmember Yukimura read from the summarized
memorandum that I submitted last week. Here is the actual worksheet for that.
The Salary Commission also took the salary resolutions of two (2) years ago,
anticipating the fact that they had to compare jobs for the Island of Hawaii, as well
as the County of Maui and there are the particulars that deal with questions that
have come up earlier schedule on the appointed process that deals with
entitlements by negotiated contracts. Lastly, we went back to the 2010
occupational employee wages compared in Hawaii. The closest date we could get
was 2010 as it relates to the fact that our people have not moved since 2008. I
would just like to add that to the engineering document that the Salary Commission
worked on and submitted earlier. Hopefully that answers some of the earlier
questions. We were not dealing with overtime staffing and so forth. We were
dealing with the Salary Commission's authority that is limited to the positions that
are in the Charter. Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are not going to get through this by
lunch, so the plan is to take public testimony until 12:30 p.m., take a lunch break,
and then come back at 1:30 p.m.
Ms. Yamauchi: The first registered speaker is Lonnie Sykos,
followed by Mary Kay Hertog.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Lonnie Sykos is not currently present. Next
speaker.
MARK KAY HERTOG, Vice Chair of the Police Commission: Good
afternoon Councilmembers. I appreciate the opportunity to come back again. I am
Mary Kay Hertog, the Vice Chair of the Police Commission. Let me apologize for
Chair Iona because he had an emergency. If not, he would have been here today.
What I want to talk about was some items that came up last week. As you all
know, I came here last week and went on record to show my support for this
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 30 MARCH 2, 2016
particular Resolution, but the conversation kind of morphed into performance
standards, performance metrics, and how they are tied to the performance
evaluations, and what I wanted to do was allay the Council's concerns, especially
when it comes to the Police Department, that our Police Chiefs annual evaluation is
based on well-defined performance standards, many of the same standards that
were used to go out and recruit the Chief back in 2006. The Chief is evaluated
under six (6) major performance standards: 1) planning, organizing, and setting
priorities, 2) problem solving and decision-making, 3) communication skills,
4) financial budgetary skills, 5) leadership/supervision, and one that is kind of
unique is, 6) the attainment of the goals and objectives set by the Chief himself. So
it is a 360 degree look, not just a 180 degree look. Under each one of these
performance standards are subcategories where there may be between one (1) or six
(6) different other standards by which the Chief is evaluated. In these
subcategories for example, there are six (6) under the leadership category, which
can range from development, promotes teamwork and good morale, as well as
supports employees and their professional growth and development. Our rating
guidelines are based on points. It goes from an exceptional five (5) points, all the
way down from "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations," "needs improvement,"
and "unsatisfactory." Any rating above or below a three (3), which is "meets
expectations" has to be justified. Let us say if I was to evaluate the Chief on his
ability to bring in a budget and maintain that budget, I cannot just give him a five
(5) and say, "The Chief did a great job this year." I have to go in and tell on that
performance evaluation, "Well, the Chief was able to get fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000) in grants, other people's money, or they reduced the overtime budget
by 'x' amount." You have metrics that are tied to this as well. It is not just the
Police Commissioners that provide this kind of look. What we have done is every
year we go out and look for eight (8) additional community members, what we call
"stakeholders" to ask, "Would you be willing to serve as one of the Chiefs
evaluators for this annual performance?" It is voluntary and we get volunteers to
do that and they rate the Chief, not only on the six (6) categories that we do, but
five (5) additional categories. I think most important, community service, customer
service, and professionalism. In reality, his whole department is getting rated by
these stakeholders, not just the Chief. They also get an opportunity to make
comments and make suggested improvement areas, too. The bottom line is that I
want to assure the Council that the Police Chiefs evaluation is multi-dimensional,
provided by seven (7) commissioners, as well as eight (8) community stakeholders;
internal/external customers, and it requires detailed and factual information to
accompany the ratings.
If I could address the overtime question that Councilmember Kagawa
brought up—there is some concern in terms of overtime as there really should be,
but the bottom line is that you have some very specialized people in the police force
and very limited numbers like a detective, who is going to get called out for a
homicide or perhaps an armed robbery and they are going to have to do that job,
and because there are so few in that number and they are very highly qualified, you
are going to have to pay those individuals overtime. One way to drive that down is
to authorize more individuals. A detective is not something that you can just hire
off of the street. You have to grow them up as well. Any questions?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 31 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much. That is very
reassuring. Are you speaking in your position as a commissioner?
Ms. Hertog: Yes I am.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are an official from the County?
Ms. Hertog: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: When you mention the six (6) categories, are
those the same as the standard sheet that the County gives for evaluating
department heads or it is something unique put together by the Police Commission?
Ms. Hertog: I honestly do not know. I have not been
privy to the other department heads' evaluation forms, but my recommendation
would be that the Department of Human Resources take a look at that so you have
some kind of standardization across the board where it applies.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. My last question is once everyone
performs the evaluation, do you have a meeting with the Chief to discuss it?
Ms. Hertog: The Chair and the Vice Chair do, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see. Okay. Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Vice Chair Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.
I see some disparity in the amount of overtime, like an assistant chief made about
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in overtime and I see this detective made fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000) in overtime in 2015. So I am wondering is there any
accounting or management oversight so that we are making sure that overtime
hours are taken when somebody is possibly going to die or a case will not be closed if
an officer is not there, just to make sure that the overtime is really...I think what
the public wants is that overtime is really, really necessary. If not, let us do our job
in the eight (8) hours that we are paid.
Mr. Hertog: I absolutely agree. The public is entitled to
know what that overtime is being spent on. I have spent probably nine (9) to
twelve (12) hours with Chief Perry and Executive Chief Contrades going over their
budget, specifically looking at overtime. We developed a subcommittee based on a
couple of commission members because there was such concern. I am convinced
that they have been good stewards of their overtime and that has been well-
managed. It kind of goes back to certain problems that they have had. For
example, let us take training. There are two (2) trainers in department to train new
recruit classes. That is not enough. In my experience of having done training for
quite a bit of my career, that is just enough for a recruit class. What happens is you
pull out people from their departments, their primary duties, to help train the
recruit classes because you want a great class of recruits. When they have to go
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 32 MARCH 2, 2016
back to their department, the only way sometimes to get that job done in a timely
manner is to do overtime and it also goes back to this very specialized investigators
be it traffic, be it a detective that might have to come out on the scene at over hours
or odd hours of the day or night and get that case resolved as fast as possible. I
believe Executive Chief Contrades has signed up to make some comments, too, and
he could probably go into some great detail about that for you as well.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Like I said, in looking at the overtime in that
case, it is more than half of his salary is making overtime. For me, is that too
much?
Mr. Hertog: I cannot say that. It is depending on what
cases. I would have to look at the cases handled, but I think that would be a
question I would defer to the Chief and Executive Chief.
Councilmember Kagawa: Theoretically, we are only getting half the
time of the work because overtime is time and a half, right? I am just troubled that
the numbers are so high that...
Ms. Hertog: Those are all legitimate questions. As I said,
I would defer it to the Chief Perry and Executive Chief Contrades, and they are
prepared to answer.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think if we can monitor that overtime and
bring it down a little bit, then our salary inversion is not as great.
Ms. Hertog: Absolutely. One thing to consider, too, is
that the manpower authorizations in the KPD have not been increased in years and
years, although the amount and number of service calls have more than doubled
and tripled. At some point in time, you cannot continue to do more with less. You
are going to need additional people. In the long run, if you hire additional people in
some of those areas, you can reduce your overtime because you have them on duty.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Ms. Rapozo: I just wanted to clarify for Councilmember
Kagawa that the "Other Pay" column is not only overtime. That does include their
subsidized vehicle differential and their SOCD pay, so it is not all overtime in there.
Councilmember Kagawa: If it was that important to differentiate what
was not overtime, I think we should have had further columns. When you just show
"Other Pay," it just looks like overtime.
Ms. Rapozo: I am not sure what the question was on what
came over.
Councilmember Kagawa My question is can we reduce salary
inversion by eliminating some of the "Other Pay" because I think that is the way to
have a sustainable inversion number if we can try and keep everybody as close to
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 33 MARCH 2, 2016
their maximum salaries, especially if they are upper management. One could say
that if you are making one hundred thirty thousand dollars ($130,000), how much
more overtime do you need to be well-paid? One could say that is a nice salary
already. Do you have to make one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000)?
That is a question that the public is asking, not me. The public is asking, "Are we
paying too much in overtime?" If we need to get further columns for overtime,
please do so because I think we need to show the public transparently what is being
made in overtime and how do we tackle that, for Fire as well? Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think we have other questions, but we hit
12:30 p.m., so we are going to have to take lunch. We will come back. We let Mary
talk because she is here in her official capacity with specialized information on the
police salaries and Police Commission. That is why we are able to ask her
questions. We will come back. Human Resources will still be up here if we have
any further questions, and then once that is done, then we will take public
testimony. With that, we will take our lunch break.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:31 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 1:40 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are in the Budget & Finance Committee
and we are on the Salary Commission Resolution. We are going to continue taking
public testimony.
Ms. Yamauchi: The first registered speaker is Norma Doctor
Sparks, representing herself, followed by Michael Contrades, representing KPD.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
NORMA DOCTOR SPARKS: Good afternoon. Norma Doctor Sparks. Last
week as we were talking about this issue, I remembered that you mostly talked
about qualifications and whether or not that made a difference. Today, I heard
from the Administration that they are looking at performance goals as well as
service. I have been an administrator/director for about twenty-five (25) years, both
in Hawai`i as well as in California. In California, I actually worked in two (2) of the
larger counties, one being Los Angeles County and the other one being Santa Clara
County, which is Palo Alto down to Gilroy. At that time, what I have found is that
government employees are very committed and I have been very privileged to work
with many of them. I have always felt that the salary might have guided their
application to these jobs, but definitely their ability to do their work, regardless of
the level of their salary, really showed their commitment to stay. The retention
issue is a huge one because the loss of experienced and excellent managers is
something that should be encouraged in this County. I do think that the County
needs to look across the board in terms of all of the departments, not just the
departments that are listed here, but also the other departments that might provide
more administrative or executive work. I actually started in Santa Clara County
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 34 MARCH 2, 2016
when the recession hit Silicon Valley and Santa Clara County has been known to be
a very rich County. We actually tax millionaires in that County. When I came
onboard, we did not have the budget that we had, so I had to reorganize the whole
department. The department is comprised of about two thousand five
hundred (2,500) people. What we did was to really look at trying to do what the
Chair has talked about, which is consolidating, as well as reallocating or redefining
positions so that most of the dollars that will go to different positions will be more
effective. I do encourage the acceptance of this report. I think it is an important
report. Thank you very much for this afternoon.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Ms. Yamauchi: The next registered speaker is Michael
Contrades, representing KPD, followed by Jan TenBruggencate, representing
himself.
MICHAEL CONTRADES, Executive Chief of Police: Good afternoon Chair
and Councilmembers. For the record, Michael Contrades, Executive Chief of Police,
Kaua`i Police Department. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you with
regard to the proposed salary increases. For the record, I am not affected by the
proposed salary increases and therefore not speaking with self-interest in mind. I
am here to humbly ask for your support for Resolution No. 2016-1 on behalf of the
Chief of Police, as well as the other department heads and deputies. In 2012, I was
assigned to the Patrol Services Bureau as a Captain. I accepted an appointment to
the position of Deputy Chief of Police in December of that year. I accepted a
position knowing that I would take a cut in pay; however, with altruistic motives, I
decided at the time that it did not matter. I was being given an opportunity to help
Chief Perry move our department forward and I accepted the responsibility the
reduction in pay. Over the next three (3) years, we have worked diligently to
improve our processes, become more fiscally responsible, and guide the department
towards becoming a progressive organization. While initially the pay did not
matter, as time went by, it became difficult to ignore. I bore the burden and
responsibility for the actions and inactions of subordinates who are being
compensated at a much higher rate. During the three (3) years as Deputy Chief of
Police, we estimate that I forfeited well over one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000). While I have no regrets for a loss of income, the reality is that
the inversion in pay weighs on you over time. When an assistant chiefs position
opened, I stepped down a received a large increase in pay that closes the inversion
between me and my subordinates. I commend Chief Perry for his sacrifices. He has
been here for eight (8) years and has committed to at least two (2) more. Since his
appointment in 2007, he has received a meager three (3) pay raises. Our officers
during the past eight (8) years have received nine (9) pay raises. This does not
include the step increases that officers receive every three (3) years. Presently, we
have two (2) assistant chiefs of police that make more than the Chief at base pay.
When you include overtime and standby pay, we have six (6) police officers,
seven (7) sergeants/detectives, five (5) lieutenants, three (3) captains, and three (3)
assistant chiefs of police that make more than the Chief. The span of difference
ranges from approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000) to forty thousand
dollars ($40,000). I have worked closely with Chief Perry for the last four (4) years
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 35 MARCH 2, 2016
and there is rarely a day he does not stay longer than his shift. Not only does he
work overtime all the time, but as the Chief of Police, he is always on standby;
however, he is not compensated as is our officers. Given the inversion pay and
inequity in benefits as compared to subordinates, when the Chief decides to retire,
we may not be able to recruit anyone from within the department and we would
have serious concerns about the quality and qualifications of applicants for the
Chiefs position at the current level of pay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mike. You can have another
three (3) minutes after everybody gets a chance to speak.
Mr. Contrades: Thank you.
Ms. Yamauchi: Our last registered speaker is Jan
TenBruggencate representing himself.
JAN TENBRUGGENCATE: Thank you, Councilmembers. My name is
Jan TenBruggencate and I am speaking for myself. We live in an inflationary
environment and inflation has gone up every year in the last eight (8) years, which
means effectively that department heads who do not receive pay increases
effectively receive pay cuts. It is clearly difficult to keep good people in that kind of
an environment and it will be even harder to attract new, good people to help run
our County. I urge you to consider correcting this inequity. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak
for a first time? Lonnie, you may come up.
LONNIE SYKOS: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. I understand
and I am sympathetic to the arguments made about pay inversion, but the pay
inversion in the Police Department, for example, is the direct result of decisions
made by the Administration and the County Council that are ahead of the
detectives, for example. We charge the Police Department and ask them to create a
Cold Case Unit, so our detectives now have an entirely new area of which they have
been very successful at and they have solved crimes, but we did not provide one (1)
hour of manpower for the increased service. We did not hire one (1) detective, much
less whatever was required to actually fulfill the mission of the Cold Case Unit. So
a big part of our problem here is the fact that the County has decided not to hire
more police over the years as their caseload and our population has increased.
Until you address this systemic issue that it appears there is not enough police for
what we are asking them to do, then we are going to keep paying more and
overtime, and this pay inversion will not go away. You can temporarily alleviate it
by increasing the pay for the senior management, but the underlying driver is still
there. This is a systemic issue that needs to be looked at, greater than just the
immediate observation that there is a pay inversion. In regards to recruiting off-
island, the Fire Chief was recruited off-island and the Chief of Police was recruited
off-island. Chief Perry came from the Honolulu Police Department. I believe I
heard in testimony that previously the Fire Chief was brought in many years ago
and we have very successfully got Mr. Dill to come here as our head of the
Department of Public Works. It is not either impossible to recruit people from off-
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 36 MARCH 2, 2016
island or to find good talent off-island. The argument that we need to hire within
ourselves is an argument, but it is not one that is finite. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else?
JOE ROSA: For the record, Joe Rosa. I worked for the
government and there was a time back when an issue came about the rank and file
making more than the department head. I, myself was involved in one of those. I
remember the Tax Director here on Kaua`i for the State who worked thirty (30) plus
years was making more money than the director of the State in Honolulu. But
remember, the Kauai had been working thirty (30) plus years to get to the position
he was through probably union negotiations and also being the department head. I,
myself at one time when they hired a new engineer who was my immediate boss on
the job made a remark that I should do more work than he does because I was
getting more pay than him. I told him, "Hey, remember this: I have worked
thirty (30) plus years to be in the position that I am to make the pay. I deserve it
more on merit on my work and doing my work because I did my work the way it was
supposed to be done. You are just starting. You are green behind the ears yet. You
have a lot to learn. What I am forgetting, you still have to learn. Next year, when
you have a raise in July, you will pass me by a few bucks." So you have to prove
yourself and work. Sometimes you get paid just for doing nothing. Give the guy
credit that works thirty (30) years like a captain; if he worked twenty-five (25)
years, they can retire in the Police Department. If he worked twenty (20) years, he
might be up in a higher category and he might make more than the Chief, but
remember he has been working for years while the Chief just got appointed and
might in for two (2) years or so, provided that he does his job and the Mayor does
his job and does not get defeated. Those are the kinds of things that you have to
look at. When you sign up for civil service jobs, the pay scale is there and it tells
you what you are going to make, like two thousand dollars ($2,000) a paycheck or
whatever. So you figure out, "Hey, I can live on that," and you take the job. Some
of these guys are not starving. They go to the store and they buy a loaf of bread, the
same price that I pay for a loaf of bread. Why do they need eighty thousand
dollars ($80,000) a year when the small worker who makes twenty dollars ($20) to
thirty dollars ($30) an hour is satisfied? We pay the taxes. They pay taxes, but to
me it is not equal and not being justified.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Joe. Your first three (3) minutes
is up.
Mr. Rosa: Those are the kinds of things you need to
consider. Look at it and you get paid by way of merit also. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Mr. Taylor.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and Members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. I am sorry that I was not at the last meeting on this subject and I
have not had time to look at the replay of the meeting, so my questions are based on
documents here today, but I am reading from this memorandum from Nadine to
Chair Rapozo that was dated yesterday, March 1st. The first question is, "Please
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 37 MARCH 2, 2016
provide a list showing the comparisons between the County of Kaua`i and the
private sector," and the response was, "The Salary Commission did not commission
a study to compare salaries with the private sector. The Salary Commission
members believe that comparing salaries with other counties in the State of Hawai`i
was more useful and relevant." I really have a problem with that because Maui, for
example, with a one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) population has a tremendous
tax base compared to the seventy thousand (70,000) population of Kauai. There is
no way in the world that you can compare salaries without looking at the tax base
and how that is generated. On page number 4 of this item again...we can solve the
problem and pay for this by playing a shell game of shuffling a five million dollar
($5,000,000) cost to a twenty (20) year mortgage, and then we have enough money
freed up to pay for this. Well, I am sorry because I have trouble buying into these
kinds of shell games that create a problem because the taxpayers are going to end
up paying. Before you approve this document, I think you should do an honest
search of looking at where our moneys are going. For example, you get about ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) a year in fuel taxes and we are only spending a couple
million dollars a year on roadwork. Where is the rest of that money going? Where
are all of these things going? There is a lot of money that is coming in that seems
to disappear and we need to know where all of this is going and get a better idea
before this and the quarter cent ($0.25) sales tax increase and everything. It is
totally out of line until you do a thorough investigation of where the money is going
that is already coming in. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Glenn.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Committee Chair Kaneshiro.
For the record, Glenn Mickens. There is obviously something very wrong with the
system when a police officer has to step down from a higher position to another
position to make more money. There is something radically wrong there. Thus,
this salary inversion has a serious flaw, but it is obvious that we do not have the
funds there to change the system completely now. It has happened over the years.
Certain people have collective bargaining rights and some do not. As it has been
pointed out by Joe, some people work for thirty (30) years and they have earned
their pay, so somebody cannot just come along and expect to be making what they
are making at that stage of the game. Something is not right with that. You folks
have a big job. I do not have an answer. I am not sure what the answer is to make
everybody equitable. I do not think it can happen. Committee Chair Kaneshiro, as
you pointed out before, and I believe Councilmember Kagawa said it also, that the
funds are just not there. We are scraping the barrel to try and find how to make
ends meet at this stage of the game. This is going to take salary and some
manipulation. Anyway, thank you for your efforts.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else in the audience wishing to
testify for the first time on the Salary Commission Resolution? Does anybody want
to use their second three (3) minutes? Mr. Contrades, please come up.
Mr. Contrades: Thank you. I just wanted to finish up my
testimony. For the record, Michael Contrades, Executive Chief of Police. I would
also like to take this opportunity to briefly discuss our County Attorney and Deputy
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 38 MARCH 2, 2016
County Attorney's positions. In my current assignment, I have had the privilege to
work with Mauna Kea and his staff. I was taken aback last week when I heard him
say that his office receives less pay than the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Having
worked closely with the County Attorney and his Deputies, I can honestly say that
in my opinion, this is unjust. The County Attorney's Office works diligently every
day to protect the County from various claims and there has been a tremendous
improvement in overall services to the County since Mauna Kea's appointment.
While I know there are not enough deputies to do the jobs that we ask of them, each
one of them strive to provide the highest level of service. Mauna Kea's
reorganization of his department to include both a litigation team and advice and
counsel team has been very beneficial to the County overall. With the experts he
has assembled, we are not afraid to litigate cases. Furthermore, with the advice
and counsel team he has in place, they provide competent and trustworthy counsel
that helps us to avoid the need to go to court in the first place. Police work is
litigious, and regardless of our efforts, claims will be made. However, the job done
by our County attorneys in conjunction with our Department of Human Resources
is invaluable to fighting and preventing such claims. They are no less worthy than
the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and should receive compensation commensurate
with their counterparts. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testier and I
humbly ask that you support Resolution No. 2016-1 and increase the pay for
department heads and deputies. Mahalo.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anybody else for a second time? Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of Council, my name is
Ken Taylor. Earlier today on another item, I talked a little bit about development
fees and the impacts that it is having on the community. I know that development
fees cannot take care of year-in and year-out activities, but if we had good
development fees and if it was well documented, for every so many thousands of
people you need another policeman, another fireman, another park, and another
this and another that. Development—if we would have done this over the last
ten (10) years, we would have accumulated certainly a lot of money to help offset
some of the costs to buy a new firetruck, police car, or whatever. A prime example
of the poor activity took place just recently when the Fire Department was looking
for a new fire truck for out in the Po`ipu area to deal with the high rise apartments.
I do not know how much of the developments paid development fees towards the
seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) that the County had to put into that
firetruck, but probably little to none. Those are examples of why we are spending
money and giving it away to developers and the local people are paying the price for
all of this. Again, we would have the money if the proper development fees were in
place. We have been dealing with this lack of development fees for many, many
years, so it is time to grab the bootstraps and let us get with it. Again, until we
have a better idea of where all the money that is being brought in is going...we, the
public, have not seen it. You may have, but you are not sharing it. I think it is very
important that it be shared with all of the people of the island before we go and
spend this kind of money. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
on this item? Seeing none, I will bring this meeting back to order.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 39 MARCH 2, 2016
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us go over this again. The motion right
now is to receive and I think if Councilmembers want to make a change...we can
either vote on it now as-is or we can make changes to it and we would have to vote
on each part and we would say we would be rejecting it in part. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just for clarification, we cannot change the
number. We can only reject it or accept it one way or the other, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, I just wanted to clear that up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have another process question. What is the
deadline for us to vote on this? I think before we take any vote, it would be good to
have all seven (7) Councilmembers here and Councilmember Kagawa is not present.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It needs to pass by April 5th. If it gets
deferred, I believe we have one (1) more meeting that we need to make the decision
on and that would be our very last meeting for our decision. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have another process question. One way to
help us make the deadline is to push it through to the Council so that we do not
have to go through another Committee and then Council, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there is going to be more work to be done,
then I would say to send it back to the Committee. The Committee is seven (7)
members, so more than likely the action of the Committee will be the same action
that will result in the Council. You are not losing any time by sending it to
Committee because we still need to wait two (2) weeks for the Council Meeting
anyway. I am just suggesting that if you have more work to do and if there are
more questions that we need answers to—I think we have the information that we
need. I do not know of anything else, but if there is more information and if we
want to do more comparisons with someone else, then I would suggest that we send
it back to the Committee. If we can get through the work today, have a discussion,
and feel comfortable that the decision is imminent, then I would just say to send it
to the Council.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 40 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Just to be clear, if we are going to be voting
on this today, I am going to have a very difficult time supporting the Resolution to
receive, so I would be inclined to vote against that. If the Committee wants to have
further discussions and itemize it, I am going to have a difficult time supporting it.
Acknowledging the hard work and the qualifications of all the various directors and
deputy directors, the next item on our agenda I believe is to raise the General
Excise Tax (GET) equivalent of twelve percent (12%) or so we are going to hear
about the dire need for money to fix roads, bridges, and other facilities. We also
have an item on our agenda to fund another position in the County Attorney's Office
for another deputy county attorney and we have not even gotten to our budget
process yet. We have been informed that taxes will be going up for residents unless
we lower tax rates. So given all of those parameters and considerations, it is very
difficult for me to start spending more money right now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just for clarification, I am looking at the
calendar now. We would have one (1) more Committee Meeting on the 16th and if
we were to defer it and get more information, we would have a Committee Meeting
on the 16th and then the very next following week, the 23rd, is when it would be at
the Council and we would vote on it there, too. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just wanted to reiterate also what I heard
here. For me, I think it would be difficult to move towards a decision to receive at
this moment. I could vote on it to reject it in part, meaning that I could favor some
of these on the list; however, I think it could be even more favorable if I were to hear
and receive where these will be sustained over time, which has not been identified
yet by the departments. We know that there are some funds to start this, but I
would like to see that work also, which I think would open the doors to some of
these other positions for me. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just based on what I have been hearing, I
think we would look to defer this until our next Committee Meeting, which is on the
16th. Prior to that, all of the questions that you guys still have in your head, I think
we need to start E-mailing them out to the Administration so that they can be
prepared to answer it at that meeting. For me, I think it would be in our best
interest to try and get a very good handle on how comfortable we are on it in our
Committee Meeting prior to it going next week to the Council Meeting. That is just
my own opinion. I think if we have the extra week, we should hash it out in
Committee. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I kind of do want to really have some
discussion today though, because I kind of want to get an idea of where the
Members stand. I am just looking at these documents and much has been said
about retention and that we need to boost the pay. I think the trend in any county
government is during the mayor's final term, department heads start looking for
other jobs because they know that when the next mayor comes, there is no
guarantee. I have asked staff to contact Human Resources and I am waiting for
that information. I do not know if I will get it today. I wanted to find out about the
departures and when they occurred in relation to the term of the mayor. I am just
relying on recollection and memory, which is not very good, but I believe that most
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 41 MARCH 2, 2016
of the departures occur when everybody is looking for opportunities to arise during
the last few years of the mayor's term so that they can secure work. The other thing
is if you look at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, they have fifteen (15)
attorneys and out of those fifteen (15) attorneys, seven (7) of them are paid
seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) less than the cap. Sixty percent (60%) of them
are paid less than the cap. I am not sure that we can justify that retention or
recruitment argument because people are coming even at that pay that is much
lower than the cap. I am ready to discuss this. I think we should discuss this as
much as we can today, and I understand that we have of a tough agenda, but this is
a very important item. I have highlighted some of the positions, which I could
support. The reality, and this is for my colleagues, is that we have to determine if,
in fact, these raises are fair and equitable. If they are, then money does not become
the issue. If we believe that these raises are necessary, important, and vital, which
I believe in some of these positions they are, then it is not about the money. We
have to find the money. The question for all of you is if the Mayor folks are not
going to come across with some position cuts that will accommodate the
sustainability, then are we willing to do that in the budget? Are we willing to tell
them that we do not believe they need this position or that position? It is always
better to come from the Administration because you folks know your operations
much better than us. But if we do not have that and it is going to be, "Well, we just
have to wait and see and hopefully we save some money here and there"—that is
not good enough for me. I want to know how we are going to fund these positions
after next year. For me, I am prepared. I could find the cuts and I am talking
about cuts that are forever cuts, not dollar-fund where three (3) months after the
budget passes, money gets transferred in there, and a person is hired. No, I am
talking about removal of appointed positions that are in the upper level that we do
not really need. I do not want to get into an argument or I do not even want to
hear, "We need everybody that we have." I will use an example of this office. We
have not filled three (3) analyst positions and everyone said, "We need them," but
no we do not. If the money is so tight, then we have to make those adjustments and
I look to the Administration to do the same thing. You go through your larger
departments and find where there is overlap. Unfortunately if you want to fund
these raises that are going to be forever, you have to come up with a way to pay for
it and not expect the taxes to pay for it. Again, I have my list that I am ready to
discuss and I can tell you that it is public health and public safety. That is for me.
I cannot see how department heads that have no real requirement, no licensing
requirements, and no real college requirements be paid the same amount as an
attorney that has all of the licensing requirements. For police officers and the Chief
of Police, I will say it again; he has to carry a gun and live with the exposure to
liability that everyone in his department can create. If something goes down, the
Chief is going to get sued. He goes to bed at night not knowing what the heck is
going to happen overnight and when he wakes up in the morning. I have seen it,
not just with this Chief, but a lot of chiefs that end up with lawsuits where they are
named because of the nature of the job. I can see those positions getting the pay,
but the fact that we are going to give everybody a pay raise because everybody else
is getting pay raises—I cannot buy that argument. The County Engineer—even if
we do not have an engineer, what the heck do we do? That is a requirement to be a
licensed engineer. That is another position that I believe warrants an increase, but
not for everyone. I am prepared to discuss that today. Committee Chair Kaneshiro,
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 42 MARCH 2, 2016
you use the term "kick the can down the road"—we have the data today and we
have the members today...not all...I do not know where Councilmember Kagawa
is...but we have the data so let us start discussing some of these things. If, in fact,
this body is considering rejecting some of the raises...but if we are really not ready,
then let us...I think we have enough material to start that discussion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am open to hearing from other
Councilmembers. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I agree with some of the sentiments of the
Chair; however, I also have a couple more questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For the Administration?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you want your questions answered now?
Councilmember Kuali`i: It makes sense now if we only have this
meeting, another Committee Meeting, and then the Council Meeting. We need to
get to a decision in three (3) meetings, this one being already going.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If you have your questions prepared, I can
suspend the rules and bring the Administration back up.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules. Who would you like
to come up to answer your questions?
Councilmember Kuali`i: The other thing I think as far as needing
more time, obviously...Mr. Furfaro gave us a whole bunch of information, so I will
review that for the next meeting, but in case it makes more sense to ask now for
additional information that could be provided for the next meeting.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: You can ask your questions now.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes. I want to ask a question to the Salary
Commission about one of the appendixes back to "Exhibit A" regarding the data
from the different counties.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can the Salary Commission come up?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I never really got an answer to this question
and maybe there is not actually a broad policy in how we compare, but when I went
through all of the data, the positions varied as far as where we align with the rest of
the counties. I am pretty sure in all we are lower than the County of Hawaii; in all,
County of Maui; and in all, I think we are lower than the City and County of
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 43 MARCH 2, 2016
Honolulu. With the County of Hawai`i, some were above, some were below...where
do we actually fit and how was that determined? What are we comparable to?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present at 2:18 p.m.)
Mr. Furfaro: Jay Furfaro, Boards and Commissions
Administrator. I do want to say that there are many variables and you are right,
Councilmember Kuali`i. Obviously the material I shared with you was discussion
items. For example, without doing more than a summary, one of the questions was,
are Hawai`i Island Councilmembers under a lower pay rate than the County of
Kauai Councilmembers? But just as a reminder, you are not comparing apples to
apples here, because the County of Hawaii Councilmembers are run by districts,
where are a lot smaller in what they have to respond to as far as their citizen
inventory. For Kauai, everyone is at-large. On Maui, it is pointed out in the 2014
schedule I gave you, but they have three (3) engineers that are appropriately
division heads, where our County Engineer really addresses all areas like water and
sanitation, and in collaboration with the ad hoc committee of the Department of
Water and sanitation. So you are correct in that every scope for each job is not
comparable. Those were discussion items. Those were not actual objective facts
that we could compare "apple a" against "apple b" against "apple c." So I would
share with you that those were discussion and study items and that there are
varying degrees of the amount of staff that they have, amount of registered
engineers they have, and certainly different levels of public services that deal with
health and wellness, such as landfill or public safety.
Councilmember Kuali`i: In this chart when there is no information, is
it because no information exists as far as there being a comparable? For this
Transportation Director for Kauai, eighty-eight thousand three hundred ninety-two
dollars ($88,392), I do not see anything from Maui, Hawaii, or the City and County
of Honolulu.
Mr. Furfaro: I can tell you that the Transportation
Agency...as one example, we wanted to put that information out there, but
currently that department is not part of the salary review and the fact of going
forward, as you are talking about continuity, there is consideration of, "Will that
position become something that is subject to the Salary Commission review one
day?"
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is that the same case for the Civil Defense
Agency Manager and Director of Elderly Affairs?
Mr. Furfaro: Yes. Elderly Affairs and Civil Defense is the
consistent answer.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So what you are saying is that item you are
looking at from internal comparisons and is listed here on this county-by-county
comparison, but there are no positions in those other counties that compare?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 44 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Furfaro: I would not say that we had eliminated those
because there is nothing to compare to. Obviously on Hawaii Island, they have bus
transportation and so forth and there was something to compare. What I was
sharing with you and the Council is the fact that currently that position is not
subject to and there were questions directed that way, but they are not subject to
review by the Salary Commission.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Including the Transportation Director?
Mr. Furfaro: Transportation, Elderly Affairs, and Civil
Defense.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But it is on this chart and it says "2014-2015
Current Salary - $88,392" and then it has "Potential New Salary - $109,560." Why
is it included in here?
Mr. Furfaro: Because as it says there, it is for the
possibility of looking for the Charter Review Commission to make that change
eventually. It was part of the study group. That is all.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. The more general question, and you
kind of alluded to it, but I want to see it and maybe it is in the paperwork that you
already provided, but for each of these positions, I would like to see how they line up
with the data for each position as far as we know what department there is, the
number of employees in that department, the number of employees under the direct
supervision of that position and the direct supervision, and the number of
employees under overall supervision. You have department directors who maybe
have divisions under there and you have division managers and it starts going down
like that. But the direct supervision of the director may only be of the three (3)
division managers, and then those division managers have direct supervision of
those under them. I would imagine that is all part of the formula in coming up with
these salaries. I do not want it to be that just because the word is "director," that
means you automatically get one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). A director
of no divisions with ten (10) employees is different from a director with five (5)
divisions and seventy-five (75) employees. It is hard to justify one hundred
thousand dollar ($100,000) salaries to all of these directors if they are really not the
same, other than the title. I just want to see the background information, the
backup.
Mr. Furfaro: I would like to share with you that you
already acknowledged that you were not present for that meeting, but a very brief
definition was provided about the tiers and what was required in the various tiers.
Secondly, I want to say that for your request I would have to refer to the
Administration for some kokua because I do not necessarily have staffing files that
identify the number of people under various job classifications, but I am sure with
the Administration, that we can work that out with Human Resources. The other
portion I want to remind you about is in the very beginning, we were looking at, and
I think the County Attorney said it best at the last meeting, that we are looking at
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 45 MARCH 2, 2016
comparables; so although we gathered the information, at the end of the day the
Salary Commission wanted to focus on the kind of requirements that are at the
County level, not necessarily the private level. I just want to reassure you that we
did look at that and perhaps Mr. Crowell would like to add something more to that.
Mr. Crowell: Bob Crowell. Something I mentioned at the
last meeting when you were not here is that the Commission looked at the directors
in general. I hope you do not get lost that just because a department is small, that
they do not deserve what a larger department gets. I think you should also look at
what it produces. I heard a lot about Economic Development last week. I believe
that the Department of Economic Development is very small. However, I think it is
the driving department for this County. They are the ones that drive the tourist
industry and the film industry that I think brings money to the County. A lot of
what I am saying is my own personal feelings. I kind of threw this out to the
Commission previously. The other thing I mentioned last week was that we do not
want to get too far behind the ball. I have seen it where we are coming in...and
come next year or even when the new mayor comes in, we are going to be behind the
ball. I am not that confident that the new mayor will have that easy of a time
attracting very qualified department heads to come in whether we wait for a new
mayor or not. Again, those are just my personal feelings. I just wanted to relay
that.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just have one quick clarification. When you
say "behind the ball," what is the "ball?" When I look at the other counties, we are
paying better than the County of Hawaii. Are we behind a ball that they are
further behind of? Is that what you are saying? What is the "ball?"
Mr. Crowell: Quite possibly, because we are not sure what
their Salary Commission may recommend this year. We are only talking about the
money part. Where the money comes from is what you and the Administration
decide. I mentioned the last time that I was on the Salary Commission in 2007 and
at that time, we were way behind the ball. To come up to the equivalent of the
lowest county, we had to come in with a twenty-five percent (25%) recommendation
to become equal to the lowest-paid county at the time; twenty-five percent (25%).
That was tough. Vice Chair Kagawa mentioned there was a surplus and yes, it was
a little easier. It was definitely easier to accept it back then. Definitely. But when
putting it off for too many years, we are going to get caught behind, and that is the
"ball' I am talking about.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right. What I have always wanted was proof
of the "ball"; the justification. What I asked for before and asked for now is to show
me that the salaries, as they currently are set, have us in such a terrible position
that we cannot hire anybody and everybody is leaving; so attraction and retention. I
think I have asked HR before. I do not know...we should do a better job of doing
exit interviews when somebody leaves and you get their honest opinion of why they
are leaving. Better opportunities come along all the time and people are in their
career ladder and they move. But if they stay with us for a full term of a mayor or
two (2) terms, then I think their connection is to the term, like what Chair Rapozo
was talking about, and that most people are not doing this job probably for the
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 46 MARCH 2, 2016
County on this beautiful island in the middle of...we live in paradise and part of the
reason we do it is besides money. To always make it about money...so the "ball" to
me is not just about money and the proof that money is a problem and needs to have
more money is are we failing miserably to attract new people, because we have all
these vacancies in these director positions or are we failing miserably of keeping
good people? For me, I have not seen that and I have not heard from the citizens
that, "You folks better get your act together and raise those salaries because we are
losing good people or we are unable to attract good people." We have good people
and they are with us.
Mr. Furfaro: I would just like to respond to two (2) parts
of your question. First of all, the salary levels that these department heads are at
right now are basically eighty-eight point eight percent (88.8%) of the salary that
they were recruited at. Many of them have gone seven (7) years and some of them
five (5) years, without any increase. Therefore, we used the Consumer Price Index
laid out in the materials that were turned in here and in particular, we looked at
Hawai`i, California, and Nevada. Those indexes required us to level the playing
field on those indexes. Therefore, I would like you to put that on as a high retention
issue that you would be recruiting new people at a salary that many people were
adjusted to in the year 2009. The second part is part of retention is also about how
to replace people. You will then get, not a high performance review from
individuals who get hired new because somebody has left; they, in fact, will have a
six (6) to eight (8) month learning curve on the way business is done in the County.
The third particular part is...and that actually might be more difficult during an
election year when there is the possibility that in thirty-six (36) months there will
be new leadership due to the fact that the Mayor cannot run another term. Those
are all factors that are put into retention and recruitment. I appreciate the
questions, but if there could be more specifics, I am sure we can work with Human
Resources to get you those answers.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is just really a follow-up to what
Councilmember Kuali`i brought up regarding the Director of Transportation, Civil
Defense, and what was the third one?
Mr. Furfaro: Elderly Affairs.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Furfaro: We considered the possibility that at some
point in time, with the demand that is being put on the fact that we have an aging
population, there is going to be more services required to be delivered of our
population as we have an older citizen group. There might be more needs as it
relates to expectations of services and those services being delivered. That one was
considered. Transportation...
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess my question is about on the Salary
Commission documentation where it talked about proposed new salaries. Do any of
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 47 MARCH 2, 2016
you know if that the proposed salary increases are going to be in the budget coming
up?
Mr. Furfaro: No, they are not. I can tell you though that
with the aging population and the demand on public transportation going forward,
if we had hoped to recruit competent people to expand services both the Elderly
Affairs and the Transportation Agency, that would be a number that we might have
to be looking at. That is the only reason it was there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Is it the intent of the Administration
at this time to include those potential increases in the upcoming budget?
Mr. Furfaro: To my knowledge, I would say no, but I
would have to defer that to the Administration.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does anyone know?
Ms. Rapozo: Janine Rapozo, Director of Human
Resources. The Executive on Aging and the Executive on Transportation are
currently excluded managerial employees, so they are afforded the raises of
collective bargaining, so they are not on the Resolution right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: I understand that, but the numbers that
were stated by Councilmember Kuali`i, the one hundred nine thousand
dollars ($109,000)—is that going to be reflected in the new budget?
Ms. Rapozo: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: So there are no increases?
Ms. Rapozo: There will probably be an increase based on
collective bargaining, but not based on the Resolution.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is going to be one hundred nine thousand
dollars ($109,000)?
Ms. Rapozo: I do not believe so.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Furfaro: And they are not in the Resolution itself.
Council Chair Rapozo: I understand that. I am just curious if, in
fact, aside from the collective bargaining, which is required through that Execute
Order, that the excluded people move with the collective bargaining people. Are
there any proposed increases in salaries for any of the positions that are not on this
Resolution?
•
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 48 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Furfaro: No, Chair, there is not. Again, I tried to
explain the fact that we were just looking at them as a future possibility.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the
Administration? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just to put a broad point out there because it
is staring me in the face now and it may be a question for Nadine as opposed to you,
but has any thought been given to...because like in these three (3), there is
Transportation Director, Civil Defense Agency Manager, and the Director of Elderly
Affairs. Has there been any thought to, instead of in essence, creating those or
having those be three (3) separate departments with one hundred thousand
dollar ($100,000) heads that they all be one (1) department like we kind of had
before— Community services that included Transportation, Civil Defense, and
Elderly Affairs? Has there been any consideration also to other examples of that
like administrative services that includes a small department like Human
Resources, and Finance and these different departments? The opposite can happen,
too. We have been breaking down, breaking apart, and splitting and creating more
of these one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) positions, but have we been doing
the opposite?
Councilmember Yukimura: Point of order, Committee Chair. This is not
on the Salary Resolution.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It is relevant to the proposal.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it is not on this Resolution.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Transportation is not, but Councilmember
Kuali`i is asking if there is any way to consolidate some of these top positions.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Maybe it is not for Mr. Furfaro, but for
Ms. Nakamura.
Mr. Furfaro: I can try and contribute to answering that
and I will turn it over to the Administration. You have an early worksheet. Again,
I answered you that we were looking at those things. I was also on the Council
during the time that the Office of Community Assistance was broken out so that we
could have a separate supportive Housing Agency, and that is the best I can answer
for right now. I will turn that over to the Administration.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Nadine Nakamura, Managing
Director. Can I just go back to Council Chair's question to clarify? I believe your
question had to do with other appointed positions, not included in this Salary
Resolution, and if we intend to have their salaries increased.
Council Chair Rapozo: That was the question.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 49 MARCH 2, 2016
Ms. Nakamura: The answer is that previously, the year
before, we forewent increases and this year, those appointed positions that are not
on the Salary Resolution would receive similar increases to those of their
counterparts in their unions.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is a very different answer than I just
got.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes, I am sorry. Mr. Furfaro is not involved
in that portion of the budget deliberations at this point.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am not going to stretch it because it
is not on this Resolution, but that is a communication that I would ask staff to
prepare because I am interested in seeing what those will be as well.
Ms. Nakamura: All of the details would be in the March 15th
submittal.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I need to know before we vote on this.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know it is coming, but do you have a
ballpark figure of what those raises are?
Ms. Nakamura: I do not have that, but we can get that for
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Staff can make a note and send that over.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the
Administration? This is your last chance. Seeing none, I will call the meeting back
to order.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am not sure how we want to tackle this. If
some Members still have questions that they think cannot be answered here and
they want to E-mail it and not sure how they want to vote, then please get those
questions to Jenelle. For now, we may as well have as much discussion as possible.
If Council Chair has the direction he wants to go and he wants to start the
discussion, we will start the discussion there. I will give everyone five (5) minutes
to kind of state where they are at on it and we can kind of get an idea of where
everybody is on this, whether they want to just vote on the whole thing as-is or if we
are going to actually go through and start rejecting some of them. I just want an
idea of where everybody is at on this. Council Chair Rapozo.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 50 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Like I said earlier, I still have not gotten the
information as far as the departures from the department heads, but...like I
said...one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7),
eight (8)...eleven (11) of the fifteen (15) Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys are getting
paid under the cap. The Boards and Commissions Administrator is currently
getting paid under the cap. One (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5) Deputy
County Attorneys are currently being paid...out of ten (10), fifty percent (50%) of
them are getting paid...one (1) of them is fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) less
than the cap. Every other department head is getting paid the maximum. I do not
know if there is a progression. I do not know if there is a progression...weed them
out...but as I go down the list of the positions, I think it was stated by Joe Rosa that
when you look at the collective bargaining, civil servants. To get to that level of
pay, even in the Police Department, it is twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) years of
service to have gotten that pay. It is different with the County Administration
because you do not have that much time...you have eighty (8) years under the
mayor in that term. The Managing Director is relatively new. The former County
Engineer, Larry Dill, was here but he is no longer here. The Director of Finance is
relatively new. The County Attorney is new. The Prosecuting Attorney is only
three (3) years. Human Resources is relatively new. The Chief of Police has been
here for a while. The Planning Director...I am not sure what he has...I do not know
if he got appointed right after the Mayor got elected or not. For the Department of
Water, we have experienced a change in that department as well. The Fire Chief
has been here for a while. Economic Development has been here. The Liquor
Control has been here...relatively new. The Department of Parks and
Recreation...I guess my point is when you take these positions...when you come and
the Mayor says, "Hey, I want to hire you for this position," you understand that it is
a term position; a finite positon. You are not protected by civil service. To expect a
multitude of raises in that period of time, when your civil service counterparts have
worked twenty (20) to thirty (30) years to establish that pay when they first started
with the County...at a very low rate in many cases—as I just stated a few minutes
ago, it really boils down to whether or not this body thinks or believes that these
raises are warranted and that they are fair and just. I think like Councilmember
Kuali`i said, the fact that you carry a position of a director or deputy, that should
not automatically qualify you...and I appreciate what the Salary Commission did
with the tiers because I think that really separated some of the departments.
Nonetheless, I am struggling with raises to where...again, I will use the attorneys
versus the others where nothing else is required other than work experience...how
they can even get paid the same amount annually, considering the responsibility of
these certain positions. I can tell you right now, and today is first draft, but as I go
through this, what I am reading and hearing, the Mayor, County Engineer, Deputy
County Engineer, County Attorney, First Deputy County Attorney, Deputy County
Attorneys, Prosecuting Attorney, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorneys, Police Chief, Deputy Chief, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief—I
am not going to ask to bring the Chief up, but earlier he said he was going to
reclassify the deputy, so he will not have a deputy so I am not sure...I am assuming
that we will remove that off of this because that is going to be civil service if what
he is saying is going to happen. I think if we had to prioritize salary increases, that
is where I would lean to today. Again, if this should pass and if this Council feels
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 51 MARCH 2, 2016
that we need to provide some raises and if the Administration is not going to
provide the perpetual funding or the mechanism to fund these raises, then that is
something that we have to discuss in budget. Are you all willing to do that? It is
very easy to say, "Yes, we are going to make the cuts," and then come budget time
these salary raises are already in place and we will just move on and expect the
taxpayer or the General Fund to pay it—that is what I am afraid of. I do not know
what the other raises that Nadine just talked about amounts to. I have no idea
what that involves, but again, additional costs. I just want to make sure that we
understand that whatever we decide to do, we or the Administration and us
collectively have to figure out a way to pay for it. Not with, "Hopefully, this will
save us enough money to fund it." No, but with some concrete vehicles of funding
this. That would be my only suggestion. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I completely understand what the Chair
said. If you look at it, we are not the ones that are granting the raises in actuality.
This Resolution came in and it sets the ceiling. So I think for us it is real hard to
make a decision on it when we are not sure what is going to happen. When we look
at it, we almost have to assume that everybody is going to get the raise because that
is where the ceiling is. I think that is where a lot of the hesitation comes in because
I think for most of the Councilmembers, you would want to see people step up based
on work experience or how well they manage their department and things like that,
and have them get bumps as they do better, rather than just say, "Here is the
maximum and everybody gets it." Again, we are not the ones granting the raise.
That total control is at the Mayor's Office and I think that is the sticking point on,
"Hey, do we allow all of them to possibly get the raises or do we just keep it as-is?"
Does anyone else have any feelings on how we are going to go through this? At the
next meeting, if the Councilmembers want to go through and say that we are going
to vote on particular positions that we want to keep as having a raise, then we will
do that, but we need to have an idea of how we are going to proceed. If you are
willing to vote on it right now as-is, that is good, too, and say that, but if we are
thinking about going through line item and say, "We will accept this or not accept
that," then have an idea for next week with what you want to see. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I said it before that I think executive-level
leadership is crucial and the quality of leadership is crucial, too. I do not think we
judge by time on the job like how long they have been in this particular position. It
is more about how much experience they have in the subject matter, their
judgment, and their ability to work with people and get things done. I think the
Committee Chair is correct in that we are not setting salaries according to the
people in the position. That is the job of the Mayor and the appointing bodies so we
have to set it at the level of a position that we feel, given the number of people they
have under them, the level of expertise, the breadth of the department, and the risk
management that is involved. Right now, the salaries before us are not even raises.
They are cost of living adjustments basically right now, I think. We see that they
have not had a raise for seven (7) years and we are going to give them according to
cost of living, which is eleven percent (11%) simply added and the collective
bargaining groups have had twelve percent (12%) to twenty-nine percent (29%)
compounded increases over the years. If we approve collective bargaining, we have
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 52 MARCH 2, 2016
to be willing to approve the executive pay raises to some extent. We cannot go
totally out of proportion. I do not think these raises are out of proportion. We have
not asked on collective bargaining, "How are we going to pay for the second year
and the third year and fourth year?" I have not really heard that question be asked,
which is why now we are trying to figure out how we are going to pay for them.
Neither have we asked that on the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center, which one
million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) of operating costs. Nobody has
said, "Okay, how are we going to pay for the second year, third year, or fourth
year?" Around this table, it has been said that it is not about lack of money. It is
about whether we put priority on the issue. Selection and evaluation is the second
part of securing quality executives. Like I said, that is the Mayor and the
appointing bodies. I have to acknowledge the Mayor that in the past few years, he
has really been dedicated to finding and recruiting competent executive leadership
and I think about Kamuela Cobb-Adams, Larry Dill, Steve Hunt, Ken Shimonishi,
and the Managing Director. We have to think about supporting quality. I have
some questions about these tiers and how they are applied, but overall, I think we
have to support some executive-level increases, otherwise we will not have a set up
for a well-functioning County.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to put the bug in everybody's ear,
but Council Chair said it also that we are not looking at this as who is there now
and do they deserve a raise. Council Chair said that he is looking at public safety.
We need to look at the position as, "Do they need certifications?" If we are going to
end up going through by line item, it cannot be because we like the person or we do
not like the person. This money is not for that particular person; it is for that
position. I am just throwing it out there. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you, Chair. I will go back to my
earlier remarks and I differ with some of my colleagues on this. I think the large
extent is about the money and there are good, hardworking people all over our
community who deserve to earn more, but the businesses and the organizations
cannot afford to pay more. Whether someone deserves to earn more or whether the
positions deserve more or whether other people get paid more, that is only part of
the equation. A huge part of the equation is the ability to pay. If the County does
not have the money to pay without raising taxes on residents whose taxes have
increased every year for the past three (3) years or more, ever since I have been
here, then that is a consideration that is very important. We have to look at the
ability to pay, as well as what people deserve and what the needs are. The ability to
pay has to be considered. Again, right after this item, we are going to have another
item on the agenda that calls for a very large increase in the General Excise Tax.
We are going to be told that the roads are falling apart and our bridges are in dire
need. We are going to hear that because we heard it before. We have needs for
additional personnel. There is no shortage of needs and we have to look at the
ability to pay. Unless I can hear from the Administration that these raises or any
raises can be accommodated in the budget without raising taxes for residents, I will
be unable to support those increases. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 53 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: First of all, I would like to thank the
Members of the Salary Commission like Camilla, Bob, and Sheri. To come out
today and speak and share with us your beliefs and feelings on this shows to me
that you are very committed to what you have accomplished and what you are
trying to do for the betterment of Kauai. It is a very impressive group. I know
Sheri from the State. She is top-gun when you talk about knowing employee
finances for the State, for Kauai. She is a remarkable addition to the Salary
Commission, so I think the Boards and Commissions has done a great job on the
Salary Commission. What they have done is they have come up with not something
that is beyond what they should get. I think they have come up with something
that they think that the Council can bite on, that we can afford, and that is eight
hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). I think the fact of the matter is that I think
this Council is in the predicament that it has never been in for a while and it is
about finances and what we are going to do to be sustainable moving forward. We
have proposes before us for a General Excise Tax increase. In the previous years, as
mentioned earlier, we have had increases to the fuel taxes and car registration fees.
Guess what? There is another increase. Senate Bill...I do not have the number in
front of me, is proposing to increase car registration fees and fuel taxes from the
State that will increase every vehicle by eighty-three dollars ($83) next year on
Kaua`i; eighty-three dollars ($83) for every car that is out there is going to go up if
this Senate Bill passes. How much can the residents bear? It is not only rich people
that drive cars. There are a lot of poor families that have more cars than people in
the middle-class families. Why? They need to get to school, work, and wherever
and the bus is not reliable for them. When you talk about regressive taxes, let us
not only talk about the General Excise Tax. The fuel tax and the car registration
tax hits the lower class just as hard as everybody else or harder. If you drive pass
the low-income housing, there are more cars that are nicer than we have in our
residential areas, and this is not a joke. It is serious. They need it to get around,
pick up their kids from school, or do whatever they have to do. That is just the way
we have life in rural Kauai. Having said that, we are looking at an eight hundred
thousand dollar ($800,000) increase when estimates have us at maybe six million
dollars ($6,000,000) profit after we pay our Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant or anticipated pay raises for next year.
Basically, for a two hundred million dollar ($200,000,000) budget to have six million
dollars ($6,000,000) in our savings with all the bridges and roads that need to be
fixed urgently, I would say that we are broke. What do we do? Do we do what the
Salary Commission tells us, where we need to do this or we could lose some good
managers? Do we hold off, wait until the budget, and try and maybe give those
salaries that we really know we need to keep? I have a list of them right here. I do
not know if it is appropriate or not, but I am a straight shooter: I think the County
Attorney needs a raise; I think the Director of Finance needs a raise; I think the
Planning Director needs a raise. I am talking about just based on what I think is
impactful in the community. I think the Chief of Police needs a raise. I think the
Fire Chief needs a raise. I believe the County Engineer needs a raise. Beyond that,
I would say let us hold off. I am one (1) vote out of seven (7) votes and I just believe
that I hope that those raises could come out of reducing existing overtime within
those budgets. I think management-wise, it is upon the manager to be able to say,
"Hey, this is not really necessary overtime." I believe they can make those cuts if
needed. I just read off a few and I may have missed a couple, but I am reading off
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 54 MARCH 2, 2016
those that I feel are urgent in order to correct salary inversion. Of course, we have
a Mayor and Mayor Baptiste set the precedent—he needs a raise. The head of
Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) makes over four hundred thousand
dollars ($400,000) and our Mayor makes one hundred twenty thousand
dollars ($120,000). This Mayor is all over the place listening to everybody's concern,
taking in all the complaints every day. Mayor Baptiste set the precedent and he
has gone equal or beyond that precedent. Does he deserve a raise? Of course. Does
the Managing Director receive a raise, given what the County is facing right now
with all the problems and all the complaints like Transient Vacation Rentals
(TVRs), Bed and Breakfasts (B&Bs), and whatever? I think they all deserve a raise.
How do we balance the budget with the limited resources that we have? We have
six million dollars ($6,000,000) in the bank and we have a two hundred million
dollar ($200,000,000) a year budget— we are broke. Yes, it does come down to
finances, period. We want to do the right thing and we want to respect what the
Commission members did. We do not want to waste their time. Why should we
have a commission if we are not going to listen to them? Can we afford it? Maybe.
I do not know. I think the solution is working together. That is where I am at. If I
had to decide today whether it is yes or no, I am a no. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? As far as I go, I think the
Salary Commission did an excellent job in their analysis and presentation. I
appreciate all of their hard work. I did watch the meeting from last week and looked
through our itinerary and all of the information they provided, and I think they did
a really good job. Of course, they have no skin in the game. They are here just
trying to look at and say what is fair and where it should be. They do not have any
relationship to the Mayor or anything to say, "Oh, I want this person to be higher
and that person to be lower." It is just what does it look like in the State and where
do we think our County people should be? We have to take that. All of us have our
own opinions on where we think everybody should be, but we actually have a
commission that is set up to look at it objectively and say, "This is what we believe
is right and fair." I carry that with a lot of weight. Last year I said, "Oh, I am not
going to do it because it is not the right time." Then from last week or whenever I
heard it about it, I started thinking about it and I thought, "I do not think there is
ever going to be a right time to increase salaries." Do you wait until the Mayor is
gone, and then the new mayor is in and say, "Hey, the new mayor is in, so those
people should just get higher than what they are at, then we will not increase it
again." Who knows? I could not think of a right time to do it. I think the threat of
kicking the can down the road is real. We have seen it with a lot of stuff in our
budget. We have seen it with our roads—one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) behind. It is very hard to swallow a one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) repair or upgrade of our roads. Just like this, I think the
longer we wait, the harder the pill is going to be to swallow. Again, it is going to be,
"Oh, it is not the right time." For me, I am open to the discussion and listening.
Definitely, as far as the Council's salaries, if we want to scratch that, then I am
open to that. Again, I am open to hearing what is going on. My fear is that we are
going to end up with such a huge gap that it is going to be impossible for us to
swallow the pill of saying when do we ever get them back up towards where they
should be and the Salary Commission put in the time and effort to say where it
should be and we just reject it every time because we do not want to see any
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 55 MARCH 2, 2016
increases. I think the Administration heard it loud and clear; there are valid
concerns. What is our ability to pay for this increase? What are the appointed
positions? What are the other increases going on in the County that the County has
control of? I think those are the things that we are going to see next week as we go
through this deliberation. If there are any other questions from the Members,
please get it to Jenelle as soon as possible so that we can get it answered. I am not
sure how we are going to get through this because I think we need to approve it
altogether. If we start crossing off positions or doing something and not everybody
is in agreement, it could possibly go without us in agreement on what it should be.
That is my one fear. I think our goal in the next meeting should be that we are all
comfortable on voting on it as-is. I would hate to see us not be able to pass
something or reject it in whole. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there a consensus or do you want to try to
see a consensus on some of these positions today or would you rather wait? If you
are honestly not ready, then let us not do it, but if some of you are ready on some of
these positions...I think Councilmember Kagawa named a few. I did also. I am not
sure what is going to change between today and next week is what I am trying to
say. Let us just go down the list and if there is a consensus to reject or to keep, then
we move forward and only discuss the ones that we are ready on. If you are not
ready, then you are not ready, but I think for some...we will just start with the
Mayor. Is anybody opposed to the Mayor having a raise?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Is anyone else opposed to the Mayor
having a raise?
Councilmember Hooser: As I mentioned before, I cannot support any
raises until I see that the budget is balanced without raising taxes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Those are my feelings also.
Council Chair Rapozo: Trust me—like I said last week and I think I
restated today, if there is no vehicle to fund these raises, then I am not supporting
anything. But we have to know what that number is. We know what the number is
and I know Councilmember Kagawa talked about eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000); it has since been reduced to six hundred thousand
dollars ($600,000) because they took out the Department of Water Manager because
that is not funded through the General Fund. What is that number? If there is a
consensus...again, you start off by saying what you believe is fair and equitable,
then what is not fair and equitable you kick out. At the end of the day, you will
have the positions that this Council agrees should get raises and then you will have
a number. Next week, you determine how you are going to fund it. Today is only a
Committee Meeting, so basically what I am trying to do is refine the list down to the
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 56 MARCH 2, 2016
positions that we believe should get the raises. If we cannot agree on that today, I
do not know what will change between today or next week that is going to make a
difference.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Again, you can have reservations pending
the total effect on the budget, but if we really want to move forward on it, we could
go in seriatim and at least water down this so it is not such a large number or we
can just wait and do it all in two (2) weeks. I am either way, but if you want to see
if we get a feeling here on this body as far as which ones are in and out as of today, I
think we can accomplish that because you still have your vote at the Council
Meeting to say no to everything, but at least you will be working with a smaller
number.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, my request to the Administration has
not changed. The response that was provided is not sufficient for me because it
talks about one (1) year funding. I am looking at the permanent funding. How do
we sustain this? That is the question that I want to give them an opportunity to
respond to if, in fact, they are going to make any changes. Again, is this body
willing to make the necessary cuts in the budget, permanent cuts, that is going to
be able to fund this beyond year one of the raise? As of today, it is six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000) plus, which would equate to maybe six (6) positions
that would have to be cut if we are talking about the upper-level positions, even
more if you go down to the lower-funded existing positions. If we are not willing to
do that, then I am not sure how we pay for it. I did want to address the collective
bargaining. We do not question how we are going to fund the raises when the
collective bargaining raises come to this table, but the reality is that those
negotiations are done at the contract negotiation level at the State and binding
arbitration. Basically, this is what the arbitrator said you folks will pay. We have
an opportunity at that point to state our inability to pay and we never succeed.
That has already been vetted through the process. We do not have that
opportunity, but today we do. We can make that request—how we are going to pay
for it?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to say my understanding of the law is
that it comes to the Council because it is about whether the Council has the money
to pay. If it is set by arbitration and we cannot change it, then it would not come to
us.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want to go back and forth on the
collective bargaining either. I just want to concentrate on the salaries we have in
front of us. If you folks want to, we can through them one-by-one. Hopefully our
opinions do not change next week. We will have to go through the whole exercise
again. I have a few Councilmembers that will probably vote no on the entire thing
and we have some that would probably vote yes on it if it was only some particular
positions. It is so hard when we have to try and figure it out right here on the table
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 57 MARCH 2, 2016
right now. I think any way we can get it closer to where we are going to end up, I
am willing to try it. I guess we can try and go through each one and see who wants
to keep the position. I think it still would be prudent to go through it next week
again. I do not know if you are going to look through more information and say,
"My priority has changed." Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: As I look at it, there are some that deserve a
raise, but maybe not as much. Just a procedural question is if we reject it, can the
Salary Commission come back with another proposal?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am not sure. I know from our standpoint,
we cannot change the number.
Councilmember Yukimura: I understand that.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is either to accept or reject. I do not know
if they will have enough time to come back with something else.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. The other thing I wanted to say was
about the deputy county attorneys, you cannot compare them with a seasoned
manager at the department head level because some of them are right out of law
school and they are sort of in training and some are highly seasoned. That is why I
think many of the deputy county attorneys are not set to the maximum because it is
a very different situation than a department head, just so we understand that. I
think we need to give the County Attorney and the Prosecuting Attorney the
discretion to set it at the level they think is appropriate and we need to give them
that unless there showed to be some abuse, which I do not see at this point.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: How would we like to proceed?
Councilmember Kagawa: I would just like to defer if that is okay with
you folks. I will make the motion when we are ready.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are not going to hash it out in this
meeting, but I would like to get it hashed out in the next meeting so that when we
go to the full Council, at least we have an idea of where we are heading when it gets
there. We will not have any more time once it gets to the Council. We will need to
pass something at that time. As of right now, some people need more information
and I think with more information, maybe we will make a better decision on if we
are going to go by each line item and really come up with which one we want to
keep and which one we do not want to keep.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just have a real quick question. I guess
what I am interested in is what more information are we going to be requesting and
will we be able to get it from whoever we are asking it from. Would we be able to go
around the table to find out what the reasons are, what we are waiting for, and
what information we are waiting for? Let us get it on the record so that there is not
this, "Oh, I did not get the question last week." What information is prohibiting you
folks from voting today? If you need more information, then I will definitely support
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 58 MARCH 2, 2016
the deferral, but if it is just because we feel uncomfortable because there are a lot of
people in the audience, I do not buy that. If we do not have information that we do
not have today that we need to make this decision, then let us go ahead and state it
so the staff can note it so that we can get the communications out today so that we
can have the discussion and not just another roundtable discussion. That is all. I
am just trying to move this forward.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: There was two (2) main questions that I
heard and if there is any more, please vet it, but one main question was how are we
going to fund these raises and the second question was what other raises in the
County that the Administration has control of, what are the increases over those
positions? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I think in addition to that, what I heard was
where are these cuts going to come from? We want to know where they are going to
come from in the Administration in terms of ongoing annual costs. At least from my
perspective, and mine is very similar to Councilmember Kagawa's in terms of
support as it is right now, but I do believe that would expand if I was to hear about
where these cuts would come from. That is why by next week it could change if we
get that information.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Mr. Furfaro provided a lot of information and
I have not been able to read through it yet, based on some of the questions that I
asked. The other question I asked, and I do not think I am going to get answers to,
is justification on where we are having problems with attracting good folks for
vacancies as directors or deputy directors and where we are having problems with
retaining good directors and deputy directors or any of these positions. We heard
the obvious of the Deputy Fire Chief and Deputy Police Chief, but where else? My
last question was about, and Mr. Furfaro said he was thinking it would take a little
bit more help from the rest of the Administration, is the question about for each
position, how many number of employees in that department, how many number of
employees under the direct supervision of that position, and how many number of
employees under the overall supervision for that position. That is something we
should have that should not take more than a few days to put together.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So I would like to do some addition and see
what kind of total sums come out and I also just want some time to think about this
because I was not anticipating going position by position. I can see some possibly
bright dividing lines. I think we also have to factor in if there is going to be
increases to excluded employee-managers that is going to increase inversion for
some of the positions on the salary that may not exist right now. Those are the
kinds of things I would like to be able to really look at all perspectives before I make
a decision.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 59 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just have one other question for the Fire
Department. If they are going to reclassify and they are not going to have a deputy,
then obviously that would be excluded or removed. I will share with you this report
from Human Resources. I did get it. It shows all the prior department heads that
left the County and I can tell you that the ones that left did not leave because of
pay. The names that I have here did not leave because of pay. Whether they
retired or they moved on...our Mayor was one that left the Department of Parks
and Recreation to become the Mayor, Steven Hunt may have been for...a lot of these
were just that they retired. I will share this list with everybody so they can take a
look.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Just to add to the discussion and ongoing
decision process, for me, the current list that I am looking at involves the need to be
competitive in certain positions right now. For me, this is about budget still so it is
about addressing the most needed right now, because I believe all of these needs to
be addressed. We need to figure out how we are going to get here to increasing
these salaries. If I had to make a decision right now, based on competitiveness on
salary, that is my first. The other is trying to address the inversions. I did look at
it as time in position, but not so much from a standpoint of performance. It was
really about...like I said, everyone deserves it, so who has been in there longer that
we could attribute that salary. I think performance is an issue, but that is not our
huleana.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, we cannot make these decisions based
on the current person there. The decision is based on the position, what kind of
credentials that person needs in that position, and if we feel that pay is right for
that position. We also need to be aware that if we cannot come to a consensus next
week, there may be some compromising as far as you may not want an increase in
that one, but if we cannot come to an agreement then it is going to pass as-is. That
is the reality that we may have to face also. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Along those lines in the comment you just
made, to me, for next week it makes more sense for us to take the big votes because
if the big votes succeed, we do not need to start picking this apart. If you took the
vote to reject in whole and it did not get five (5) votes, then you move on to the vote
to accept or receive as-is. If it does not get four (4) votes, then that fails also. Then
we get to that last painful exercise of picking this apart position by position and
trying to get five (5) votes to reject the raise for each position. If we were to vote
today, and only Councilmember Hooser and I are principally against all raises
because we need more time and because we do not see the ability to pay and all of
that, you might have five (5) votes to deal with it today, but I think these big votes
starting next week would be better to do prior to position by position. That is just
my suggestion, process-wise.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 60 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do not count my vote. I am just kidding. I
just wanted a little more information. The other pay line, if the Director of Finance
and Human Resources can break out the other pay line for Police and Fire. I am
just curious. I put it up on the board what the other pay was and I called it
"overtime" and you clarified and said that some of it is not overtime. I think we
should be fair, too, to see to the public what the overtime for each of those is. I
think to be fair, I think with the Police you can expand and maybe goes up to
thirty (30) employees because you went thirty (30) on the Fire and you only went
fifteen (15) on the Police. Let us take the top thirty (30) of each and let us see what
we have and what kind of overtime we are looking at for all of those as we decide
what is a reasonable number for salary inversion. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion?
Council Chair Rapozo: You keep referencing next week. Are we
going to defer this?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, two (2) weeks if anything.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, it is going to get deferred to the next
Committee Meeting, so we will actually be looking at this two (2) more times
because there will be another Committee Meeting and then it will be our Council
Meeting.
Councilmember Chock moved to defer C 2016-44, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa, and unanimously carried.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will take a ten (10) minute caption break
before we get to Bill No. 2610.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 3:22 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:52 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back to the Budget & Finance
Committee Meeting. Clerk, can you please read the next item?
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 April 13, 2016.)
Council Chair Rapozo moved to receive Bill No. 2610 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 61 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I know we asked a lot of questions of the
Administration. I do not know if we have any more questions for them. I know we
do have an amendment as a housekeeping item, so if you want to go through the
amendment, Councilmember Chock, you may.
Councilmember Chock: I move to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think you can have a motion to
amend on a motion to receive.
Councilmember Kagawa: I will withdraw my second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, so we need to withdraw then. We have
an amendment ready to be introduced.
Councilmember Kagawa: Move to approve for discussion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Second.
Councilmember Chock: I move to amend as circulated.
Council Chair Rapozo: I did not withdraw my motion. I want to see
the amendment. I do not know what that is.
Councilmember Chock: To form that account.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have to change the motion to look at the
amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, if you remove the second then there is
no motion.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, I removed my second.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is fine. There is no second, so there is
no motion.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve Bill No. 2610, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Chock moved to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, as shown
in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Chock: This is on request, so I am just introducing
this. It is on Section 5.3.2, addition of a Special GET Surcharge Fund. I will just
read the whole section. It says, "All moneys received from the State derived from
the imposition of the surcharge established under this article shall be deposited
into, rather than the Highway Fund, a Special GET Surcharge Fund and expend it
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 62 MARCH 2, 2016
for the following purposes authorized by the State law," which are roadways and
transit.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Basically, the money was going to go into the
Highway Fund and the Administration wanted us to change it to the Special GET
Surcharge Fund where if the GET passes, the fund would be set up as a Special
GET Surcharge Fund so they can keep track of the money in that fund.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a process question. That fund has to
be created in the budget before you can assign the funds, right?
Councilmember Chock: I would suggest that the Administration
answer that question, because the amendment is by request.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know if this amendment creates the
fund. I do not believe we can just create a fund with an amendment, but I could be
wrong.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair, just to let you know, I did second the
amendment.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Shimonishi: Ken Shimonishi, Director of Finance.
Typically, we take directions from the ordinance to establish a fund, and in this
case, if we are establishing a special fund, then we would do so accordingly.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does this establish the fund?
Mr. Shimonishi: I am sorry, I do not have that in front of me.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what we need to clarify before we
pass this thing.
Mr. Shimonishi: We could add that verbiage. I would
recommend that we add that language to establish a fund hereby known as the
"GET Surcharge Fund."
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why I was asking because I do not
think we can just create these funds just like that. It is a process to
create...typically when we create a fund in the budget, it comes with an explanation
of what you can do, what you can use it for, and all of that stuff, and that has not
been done. Anyway, whatever you folks want to do. I am just suggesting that we do
it right, because the fact that we are saying that money is going to a fund—that
fund does not exist until this Council establishes that fund.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 63 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, that would be correct and as part of the
ordinance to establish the fund.
Councilmember Kagawa: Shall we withdraw the amendment if it is
incorrect?
Councilmember Chock: Can I have more discussion? It is like the
"chicken and the egg," right? If we do move down this road, I guess the question for
me is does this need to be in the current ordinance now in order for them to move in
the direction of establishing the fund? That is the question that I have. Again, this
was by request, so I need some help here from the Administration to understand
and give us the direction about the importance of this. I would appreciate that.
Also, the timeliness of it. If this can come in later, that is fine. Is it imperative in
passing this Bill that we are looking at?
Mr. Shimonishi: So the Bill can be passed and at a later date
we would establish a fund to receive the GET moneys, if it so passes. That is what
was done on O`ahu, so we could also follow that course. Again, I am not trying to
compare Kaua`i to O`ahu in terms of what the GET moneys are used for, et cetera,
but that was kind of the research that we did, that a special fund was established
subsequent to the passage of the ordinance. It would be desirable to have it done
upfront, so I apologize to Councilmember Chock for not getting that connection
straight.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you folks still want it in?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, we want it in.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? We are just going to
take a vote on it up or down. Ken, as far as the verbiage goes, does it need to say
that a new fund shall be created or is this verbiage appropriate?
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, I believe we want it to say, "A new
fund is established" or "a new fund is created."
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So this amendment would need to be
corrected.
Mr. Shimonishi: I believe the language could be read, "All
moneys received from the State derived from the imposition of the surcharge
established under this article shall be deposited into a newly established Special
GET Surcharge Fund."
Council Chair Rapozo: I believe that you cannot just create a fund.
That would require a whole separate process that would require the public process.
In other words, you need to have it noticed and not just inserted in the middle of a
bill. Jade can correct me if I am wrong. If you are going to establish a new line
item in the budget, it has to be done in a separate proceeding, as I recall. I guess
that is what I am trying to say. We cannot just go, "Okay, let us create this fund
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 64 MARCH 2, 2016
and sneak it into this amendment." I know that is not the intent. Maybe Jade or
Scott can help me. I believe that would require a whole process in itself. When we
created the park fund, we went through the whole process. Jade, can you help me
out?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I researched the bill that Maui's Mayor
Arakawa sent to the Maui Council with an excise tax proposal. He did it in the
same bill; he did it in one (1) bill. But the Chair is right that you have to have
language that creates a fund. The bill that the Mayor sent to Maui Council created
the fund in one section, and then specified the use and the amount. He actually had
a blank amount. I believe you can do it that way. I do not think it needs to be a
separate bill, but there has to be language separately creating it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So my suggestion would be to just withdraw
the amendment. If the GET passes, then we will go through and add the language.
If it does not, then we do not need to worry about it.
Councilmember Chock withdrew his motion to amend Bill No. 2610 as
circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment. Councilmember Kagawa
withdrew the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we need another motion?
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion is to approve, so we are working
on a motion to approve.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We have some questions for the
Administration, so the rules are still suspended. Do we have further questions for
the Administration? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I do not know if you wanted to have
Councilmember Yukimura do her presentation first, but I know that the
Administration had several other options for us to consider that they have been
working on. I would like to be able to hear those as well. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Committee Chair Kaneshiro, I do have a
presentation regarding this subject.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will give you five (5) minutes for your
presentation.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the rule?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Five (5) minutes for your presentation.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will do the best I can.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 65 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, we will have the
light on for five (5) minutes. Unless you are going to provide an amendment to this,
you could state your point very quickly.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am going to provide an amendment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you have an amendment prepared?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I do. Aida has it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Should we take the amendment first, and
then have the presentation? I need a motion for your amendment.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, as
shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 2,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want a twenty (20) minute
presentation on this.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is about a motion that I am making, so it
is relevant if you would please allow me to proceed.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Please just be considerate with all of us. If
you are going to go over all of the information we have already heard just state
what your amendment is and the changes. The amendment is here.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am proposing to reduce the one-half
percent (0.5%) to one-quarter percent (0.25%) and to make up the difference with
motor vehicle, fuel, and vehicle weight taxes. May I proceed, Chair?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, so if your amendment is to reduce the
GET number, then please proceed with your presentation.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, it is. Can I have the first slide,
please? I appreciate the opportunity to suggest an alternative to the Mayor's
proposed one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax. His proposal contains some good
points, which I have tried to incorporate. One the problems with the Mayor's
proposal is a lack of clarity about what the priorities are and my proposal organizes
the funding around what I believe our community's key transportation priorities are
like fixing roads, reducing congestion, and expanding our bus system. My proposal
also suggests a fair and equitable way to fund these priorities. We must solve our
transportation problems and these are the top three (3) priorities as I perceive them
to be and I would welcome input: reducing traffic congestion or increasing the
functionality of our roads, fixing our roads—if we do not fix this, the bill will get
bigger as the roads deteriorate and if we do not fix our roads, we will have to fix our
cars. Finally, bus expansion is the key to providing affordable transportation
options into the future. Councilmember Kagawa talked about how low-income
families have many cars and that is very expensive, about eight thousand dollars
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 66 MARCH 2, 2016
($8,000) to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) a year. If we can expand the bus system,
we are giving affordable alternatives for them. It also benefits members of the
community, whether or not they ride the bus in terms of health, safety, and climate
change. The time for funding is now while gasoline prices are low and before road
conditions and traffic congestion worsens.
So the first priority backlog of road and bridge repair and maintenance—the
Department of Public Works has a comprehensive list of roads and bridges, a total
estimated bill of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) and the County needs
eight million two hundred thousand dollars ($8,200,000) per year to eliminate the
backlog in ten (10) years. Thereafter, the County needs enough revenues to keep
the road repaired at a preventative maintenance level or we will accumulate
another one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) bill. Reducing congestion—no
one has yet proposed a really viable plan of reducing congestion, especially in the
most congested stretch of Wailua-Kapa`a. Here is a plan, which I present for input,
critique, partnership, and problem-solving, which is an additional north-south
fourth lane, fronting Coco Palms is in progress under the State of Hawai`i
Department of Transportation's (HDOT) jurisdiction. Bus expansion—Wailua-
Kapa'a shuttle that provides convenient and affordable alternatives for short trips
will help so like people from Coconut Plantation do not have to get in a car or vice
versa, people coming to Kintaro Japanese Restaurant; every half hour mainline
service will help and the shuttles in the various areas will also help; and short
bypasses to move traffic from Kapa'a Town to Wailua Houselots and locating
affordable housing close to job centers. The Multimodal Land Transportation Plan
and expansion of the bus contains an eleven (11) page chapter on implementation.
Included are periodic increases to bus fares. These are the top priorities that are
included: extension of weekday schedule to weekends every hour, satellite
baseyards on the north and west side will save a lot of money so that the drivers are
not driving the buses out to the endpoints to start, every half hour mainline service
during peak hours regional shuttles in our chief visitor areas and Lihu`e, and bus
shelters. Bus expansion will provide affordable transportation options and critical
service for thirty percent (30%) of our population that does not drive, including
elderly, young, and disabled. If you are not in that group, I am sure you have a
grandmother or a young student who is in that group. Protecting the rural
character of Kaua`i—if you think six (6) lane highways, which are some of the
proposals, are going to protect the rural character then I think you have to think
again. Maximizing existing road space, increase health, lower the cost of living for
families, road safety, and fossil fuel use reduction. Please note that road expansion
does not provide any of the above benefits. The bus is a much more cost-effective
solution than road expansion. If you talk about cost effectiveness, that is it. For the
cost of widening two (2) miles of highway, which might improve congestion for
two (2) to five (5) years, we can operate the bus on the weekends and later hours for
eighty (80) years. For the cost of widening the highway to the Tunnel of Trees, we
could operate the bus on the expanded hours specified for three hundred (300)
years.
How do we pay for these three (3) priorities? It is fundamentally unfair to
use the GET to fund road repair. The poorest families will pay proportionately
more and I have passed this out separately...I think it is attached...it is a colored
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 67 MARCH 2, 2016
sheet showing the percentage of income that poor families have to pay GET taxes.
If not, it will be passed out separately. I know that a big thing is about reducing
waste in government and I commend Councilmember Kagawa for trying to reduce
overtime, so we are looking for ways to save money, but the savings that have been
found are not large enough to cover our three (3) priorities. New tax revenues will
be required and the road users who benefit the most should provide funding in
proportion based on use and wear-and-tear. The County has been granted GET
power and that is a logical revenue source for the bus expansion because the people
who will be hurt most will benefit the most from bus expansion. A lot of people
have been saying, "Let us tax rental cars," and I am not sure how much it will
generate, but I know at this time that the County does not have the power to tax
rental cars.
So my proposal for new transportation revenues is one-quarter
percent (0.25%) excise tax to pay for transit expansion and implementation of the
Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, because that plan is the key to
well-functioning and sustainable land transportation systems, and while it
proportionately hurts lower income families, it also helps them save more. If they
get rid of one (1) car for a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) mortgage and if they save
money for the life of their child until they are seventeen (17) years old, until the
child becomes an independent, they can save one hundred thirty-eight thousand
dollars ($138,000) that could pay for a college education. Transit expansion will
benefit the whole community. That is why an excise tax on the whole community
makes sense. Finally, there is a proposal to increase the fuel tax by fifteen
cents ($0.15) per gallon and vehicle weight tax by one point three eight
cents ($0.138) cents to eliminate the one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000)
backlog, and then we can remove the fifteen cents ($0.15) after we have done away
with the one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). This is the typical impact of
combining fuel and weight vehicle increases. A compact car will pay thirty-four
cents ($0.34) daily or an annual amount of one hundred twenty-four dollars ($124),
which is a monthly average of ten dollars ($10). That is assuming that they fill up
once a week, which will vary of course, depending on the car. A blockbuster truck
will be sixty-seven cents ($0.67) a day or two hundred forty-six dollars ($246)
annually or twenty dollars ($20) a month. I hope that people are willing to pay that
much to keep our roads in good condition. If it seems like a lot, it is because we
have had ten (10) to twenty (20) years of not paving and not charging ourselves
what it takes to maintain the roads. We cannot continue this way. We have to
address road repair and I think the fairest way is to make the users pay. I do not
think it will be that much. It will be a definite time period to do it, and then we can
go back to something that will allow us to have sustainable roads.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Can you please summarize your
amendment? From what I see, you are basically reducing the General Excise Tax
from one-half percent (0.5%) to one-quarter percent (0.25%), eliminating any work
for roads, and adding work for transit systems and pedestrian and bicycle
improvements.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not adding. That was already included
in the Mayor's proposal that some of the excise tax moneys would be used for transit
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 68 MARCH 2, 2016
and for walking and biking facilities. They were put into Complete Streets
category, but they are included.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a question for Councilmember
Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a question for the introducer. So
absolutely no funds for paving?
Councilmember Yukimura: Repaving...all of the moneys from the fuel
and weight tax would go to...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, I am not talking about fuel and weight.
This is for the GET.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want to interrupt, but the GET is
basically...
Councilmember Yukimura: You are correct, Chair. I have said that...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are not talking about the fuel or weight
taxes. We are talking about the GET.
Councilmember Yukimura: But my proposal reduces the amount of GET,
so I am proposing another way to fund it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I understand, but that is not in here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I asked the question.
Councilmember Yukimura: But I can talk about it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I asked the question. I had the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: Come on.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: I asked the question if this amendment...I
understand that she has an alternative and she talked about it...those alternatives
may not pass, so we cannot assume that anything is going to pass, but I am just
saying that if this passes today, then there will be no GET money for road paving.
Councilmember Yukimura: Of course. We can...
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 69 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: That is all I needed. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I would like to respond. We can defer
this Bill. I have two (2) bills to introduce that would implement a fuel and vehicle
weight tax and we can have the discussion in the community about whether those
are viable, and then we can pass all three (3) bills at once. It is just like with the
tax cap, we kept the tax cap bill alive until we had the assessment cap and we were
able to look at both of them and we chose one over the other.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Councilmember Yukimura, yesterday the
Senate of Ways & Means Committee passed Senate Bill No. 2938 that will bring in
seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) more to the State of Hawai`i by increasing
fuel taxes in the amount of, I believe, six cents ($0.06)...three cents ($0.03)...it is
going to go up from sixteen cents ($0.16) to nineteen cents ($0.19) per gallon and
also car registration fees. It will increase every typical motorist about eighty-three
dollars ($83) per year in the State of Hawaii. I am wondering if they beat you to
the punch on this or do you want to increase the fuel and weight taxes in addition to
the eighty-three dollars ($83) per vehicle that the Senate is planning to increase?
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not supporting the Senate Bill. We do
not know what is going to happen. They are both proposals. I will tell you that if
we pass ours and they do not pass theirs, then we will be able to repair our roads. If
they pass theirs and we pass ours, there would be this additional burden on both
places. If you just take the fuel taxes alone and you say six cents ($0.06) plus
fifteen cents ($0.15) is twenty-one cents ($0.21) a gallon. Drivers are now saving
about two dollars ($2) a gallon from would two (2) years ago, so now is the time to
raise the fuel tax so that we can repave our roads before oil prices go up. Now is the
time. Let us not wait until oil prices go up, and then try to repair our roads. To
repair our roads then, asphalt will cost more, too. It is a window of opportunity to
repair our roads. The question is how else are we going to repair them?
Councilmember Kagawa: Is eighty-three dollars ($83) per year, per
vehicle not enough taxes is one (1) year? We are going to add to the eighty-three
dollars ($83) per year and say that, "Oh, because fuel is low, you can pay more than
eighty-three dollars ($83) per year, per vehicle." We have to be realistic with what
the taxpayers' bills are.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will go and oppose the Bill if you like, but it
is six dollars ($6)...
Councilmember Kagawa: I will, too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, I do not want to get too far down this
road because...
Councilmember Yukimura: So eighty-seven (87) divided by...
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 70 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, we have to repave our roads, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, the fuel tax and
vehicle weight tax is not in this Bill.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is related and as long as it is related, you
can talk about it. Otherwise, you cannot have a decent discussion.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair...
Councilmember Yukimura: If Councilmember Kagawa can speak about
it, I can answer it.
Councilmember Kagawa: You did your presentation about it, so I
asked you about it.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know.
Councilmember Kagawa: I did not bring it up out of the blue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, but Committee Chair Kaneshiro
allowed you to speak about it, so I should, too. So eighty-seven (87) divided by
twelve (12) is seven dollars ($7) a month. I agree...I do not want to do it either way,
but how are we going to fix our roads?
Councilmember Kagawa: Cut our Operating Budget.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: That is enough.
Councilmember Yukimura: Should the users of the roads...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, you answered. If
you look at this Bill, we do not have money for our roads, it is just we are reducing
GET to one-quarter percent (0.25%), and the money is going to transit. Do we have
any further questions on this amendment?
Councilmember Yukimura: It is going to transit...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want to continue going down the
road of asking questions about vehicle weight tax or fuel tax because that is not
part of this amendment and we have no clue whether that will come up in the
future or whether it will pass or not. We have to take the information that we have
now and do the vote on what we have now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, I am creating a comprehensive plan,
by which to address key priorities of this community. We should be able to discuss
it as such. I am almost responsible...if I drop a source of funding that was going to
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 71 MARCH 2, 2016
be used for road repair, I have the right and it is related to the topic so that I should
be able to speak about it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: You generously gave her that opportunity to
speak a lot more than the five (5) minutes. So what is on the table right now is the
amendment. The amendment as you just pointed out reduces the GET and removes
the ability for the County to use that for road paving.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is on the table right now...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura...
Council Chair Rapozo: I am going to call for the question and I
would ask that you entertain that. I need a second. Make the call. It is five (5)
votes. I am not going to argue here and be calling points of order for the rest of the
afternoon. I think it is clear what Councilmember Yukimura wants to do. I have
made the motion to call for the question.
Council Chair Rapozo called for the question, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The amendment is on the table. Let us take
a roll call vote on it.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are supposed to vote on the motion to
close debate.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are not voting on the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. I am voting to take the roll call for
the...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, roll call vote to vote.
The motion to call for the question was then put, and failed by the following
vote:
FOR MOTION: Kagawa, Kuali`i, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Yamauchi: Four (4) ayes.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 72 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can I have a roll call vote for this
amendment?
Councilmember Yukimura: Motion fails.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. You need five (5) votes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Oh, I need five (5)? Okay. Any further
discussion on this amendment? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would just like some additional
clarification. The amendment is intended to reduce the proposed one-half
percent (0.5%) to one-quarter percent (0.25%) and further narrows the use of those
funds specifically for transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and
excludes road paving. Is that a correct interpretation of the amendment?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, it is. It is part of this overall plan that I
proposed. This amendment assumes another way to pay for road repair.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I have a comment, so I will wait until
you are ready for comments.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions on this amendment?
If not, I will open it up for discussion. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I am not in support of raising the General
Excise Tax, but I will be voting in support of this amendment because I think it is
an improvement over the situation that I am not supportive of in general, because it
does focus the funds on an area that I support and it does cut the amount of the tax
in half, so I will be voting for the amendment at this time and reserve the option of
voting against at the end of the day. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion from the Members?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am going to vote for it as well. However, I
know that there are other options to be considered that should be talked about, so I
am willing to move this forward, but in the end, this needs to be much more
complete for me of a package in order to be able to support it in its entirety, along
with other questions. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not going to be supporting it, simply
because the community that supports this GET is supporting this because they
want to see improvements to the roads. That is what I am hearing. There is a
person here who will hopefully come up and testify later, but that is what they
want. They want improvement to the roads and improvement to congestion. This
takes away from that. I am not going to support this. The fact that it reduces the
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 73 MARCH 2, 2016
GET collected does absolutely nothing to the people...what I believe are the
majority of the people that are supportive of better roads and easing up of the traffic
congestion. Even in Councilmember Yukimura's slide, she listed congestion as the
number one concern, but this removes that and I simply cannot support that going
forward. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: This is an easy no for me. If the one-quarter
percent (0.25%) were to go to roads and bridges that are in dire need of repair, I
would be more inclined to support this amendment. For me to increase more to
transportation, would I have to see more proof that the current funding for
transportation is being utilized to the best of our ability, and I have not seen that.
There are County roads all over Kauai...not just congestion...I am talking about
Olohena, Hanapepe Road going to the stadium, and Kawaihau Road. It is like
driving with landmines of potholes all over the place, while trying to keep your tire
from popping and it is bad. I think the County Engineers have said that and they
tell us that the more the roads deteriorate, the costlier it will be because we have to
go down to the base costs, et cetera. Look at what we did on Hardy Street with the
curbs and whatnot, and now we are going to Rice Street with the TIGER grant.
There are big needs all over the island and it is literally avoiding these potholes all
over the creation on heavily traveled roads. I do not know how much cars drive on
Olohena Road a day. The traffic is even getting worse...just hundreds and
thousands...we are talking about adding more buses with tax money when we do
not even know how we can make the current buses more efficient. I see a lot of
empty buses. Are they all empty? I do not know, but I sure see a lot of empty
buses. Until we get those counts...it has been said that we do not even have really
true counts as to how many different people ride the bus, because I guess it is too
big of a job for the bus drivers to keep track. We have to do periodic audits to see
that and do specific counts. Even if we have a guy that is not driving the bus to
count how many different people/residents are using it to see and give the Council
some good, useful information that we can rely on that tells us, "Many people are
riding the bus." I have not seen that. Like I say, the bus is great for the people that
use it once in a while, just for experiment-wise, but do they use it continuously? I
would say no. Kauai people like to drive. We need to fix the roads. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: For one thing, I want to invite
Councilmember Kagawa to ride the bus with me because they are actually really
crowded, especially the ones to the west side. They use it every day to go to school
and work, so it is not just occasionally. Also, this is a congestion relief measure. If
you remember the photos, which you did not want me to show again, there were
three (3) photos where sixty (60) people; sixty (60) who rode the bus, sixty (60) who
drive sixty (60) cars, and sixty (60) who rode bicycles, and the amount of road space
that is freed up by bus transportation is truly a way to reduce congestion. Then to
not allow me to speak about an alternative way to fund roads—because I am totally
committed to funding road repairs, and I hope you are, too—and then say that this
proposal does not address road repairs is not fair. It is part of a comprehensive
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 74 MARCH 2, 2016
program that addresses everything. I want to show you this study that shows the
percentage of...you will see the red...it goes from lowest twenty percent (20%) of
income...do you see it here? This is the lowest twenty percent (20%)...the second
lowest, up to the most...the richest people. These are for share of family income of
non-elderly taxpayers. This is the General Excise Tax for low-income families. It is
ten percent (10%) for the poorest people. It is one percent (1%) for the richest
people. That is how regressive it is and that is why I cannot justify it to pay for
roads when users of the roads...the huge, heavy trucks that cause—on Puhi Road,
most of the damages are from the really heavy trucks, and you are going to put it on
poor families—that does not seem right. That is why I want us to consider an
alternative that I think is much fairer, because to use the excise tax to fund road
repair is not fair. We all get together the support the United Way, the charity walk,
and we want to help all of our families, and we are going to be causing another one
hundred twenty dollars ($120) per year to these low-income families when we could
charge one hundred twenty dollars ($120) a year to somebody who drives a Corolla
that uses our roads. That is why. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion from the Members?
For me, I will not be supporting this. I completely understand what your entire
plan is, but again, I think most of the concerns we have received was that people
want to see the roads fixed, at least, our existing roads and there was a lot of
hesitation on the bus expansion...all of the employees that they would have to hire.
Ultimately, the buses are going to be riding on these roads that we want to fix. I
will not be supporting this amendment. Councilmember Yukimura, this is your
second time. Do you have discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I am just trying to remember what you
said right now. Go ahead.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am just going say that I support the part of
the amendment that lowers it one-quarter percent (0.25%), but I do not support the
part that takes away any of those funds being allocated towards roads because I do
believe that is what we are hearing from the public, and that is why the Mayor
made his original proposal of the seventy-five percent (75%) and the twenty-five
percent (25%). Maybe there will be other amendments, but for this amendment, I
cannot support it. The idea about the one hundred twenty dollars ($120) a year to
low-income families versus one hundred twenty dollars ($120) a year to vehicle
operators—I do not think it is a direct relation because the GET is spread wider by
more, including visitors, and the vehicle weight is only by residents who own
vehicles. You are paying it based on the vehicle.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, this is your
second time.
Councilmember Yukimura: The difference is that if we do a fuel and
vehicle weight tax, it is based on the people who use the roads, the extent of their
use, and the amount that they damage the roads, rather than on families that if
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 75 MARCH 2, 2016
they use the bus, do not really contribute that much to the problem with the roads.
Even if there is a bus, you divide it by forty (40) passengers, it is very much less
impact on the roads compared to really big trucks, but it would be by weight. The
excise tax makes sense because it has so many benefits to the total community;
many, many more benefits than building roads does, which only really supports
road users. We have to make this shift. We all voted for the Multimodal Land
Transportation Plan, or if we did not and do not support it, then we should move to
not adopt it. It is the way to a future with functional roads and the key is bus
service, which we know is very much needed and also allows people to save a lot of
money. Councilmember Kuali`i, you wanted to raise the minimum wage to fifteen
dollars ($15) an hour for the purposes of helping the families, but if you can help
them lower their costs of living, and you can have a similar impact as well. That is
what the bus would do.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just to make a quick point about families
who use the bus, I agree with Councilmember Yukimura's points about saving
money and that they would not be affected by paying either the fuel tax or vehicle
weight tax. The problem is that I think as we saw from our Transportation
Planner's presentation is far, far too few of our families that actually use the bus.
Even for our working class poor families—they would, maybe in a multiple family,
share a car necessarily currently before they use the bus. So in a perfect future
world where more families were using the bus, the numbers might work out, but it
does not now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, you spoke two (2)
times already.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, but I have a very relevant thing to
say.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, you had two (2)
times and it is the rules.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I am asking you to use your discretion
and allow me to say something.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are going to follow the rules.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why do you want to stop a debate?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, we are going to
follow the rules. I still have one (1) more chance to talk, which I want to say
something, then we are going to take the vote on this, unless anybody else who has
a second time wants discussion. That is how we do it; that is how we have always
done it. We are going to be fair to everybody.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have not always done it.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 76 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The GET going directly just for buses—
again, roads is a major concern. Everyone uses the roads. Whether you are on a
bus, bike, or walking, somebody has to get somewhere on a road. For me, I think
the GET is a spread out tax between everybody. If you look at the bus, we currently
provide four million dollars ($4,000,000) from our General Fund to subsidize the bus
and that is coming out of real property taxes. Homeowners are subsidizing the bus
by four million dollars ($4,000,000). We also provide almost three million
dollars ($3,000,000) out of the Highway Fund. So anybody that drives a vehicle,
that money is going into the bus. For me, it is not about, "Hey, let us just expand
the bus and we will save traffic." It is, "Is the bus running efficiently now? If so,
show me and why they need to expand." Again, the bus is being subsidized by the
General Fund and the Highway Fund already. The bus makes one million
dollars ($1,000,000), so pretty much five million dollars ($5,000,000) of subsidized
costs is going to the bus. Again, it is not free. Anytime we do bus stops, it costs us
money. We have information here that every bus trip by an individual is subsidized
by five dollars and twenty-one cents ($5.21) and every bus trip by paratransit is
subsidized by twenty-three dollars and forty-seven cents ($23.47). That is the
reality. Again, I think we do need road improvements. It is all about first priority,
which are current existing roads for me. That is my number one priority.
Everything after that is taken on an individual basis. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I think it is only fair to point out that this is
public transportation and virtually every public service is subsidized. When police
officers go to someone's home for a domestic abuse call, they are not sent a bill. The
public's property tax pays for that. When the Fire Department goes somewhere or
when lifeguards are out there, every public service that we offer is subsidized. None
of it that I know of pays for itself, so public transportation falls into the realm of
"public service." I do not believe we should require one public service to pay for
itself, unless we talk about all public services if we are going to start charging fees
for every single person. Bus riders subsidize themselves that public service, so I
just wanted to point that out for the record. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just want to clarify, too, that there is a
limit on everything, depending on how much money you have. Are we subsidizing it
enough? Some of us think yes and some of us think no. It is all about finding
balance, and for me, adding twelve million five hundred thousand
dollars ($12,500,000) more to the existing bus—I do not think we are capable of
running efficiently; not with the current management and staff. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: There being no further discussion, can I get a
roll call vote on this amendment?
The motion to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, and as shown in the Floor
Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 2 was then put, and
failed by the following vote:
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 77 MARCH 2, 2016
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Kagawa, Kuali`i, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The amendment fails. We are back on the
main motion.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we have public testimony?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I know Councilmember Chock had a
question, but I know people have been waiting since 1:30 p.m. for it, so I will open it
up for public testimony on the current bill.
Ms. Yamauchi: We have registered speakers. The first
registered speaker is Glenn Mickens on behalf of Walter Lewis, followed by Larry
Arruda.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. You have
copies of Walter Lewis' testimony. Bill No. 2610 states that it is, "A Bill For An
Ordinance To Establish A General Excise Tax And Use Tax Surcharge For The
County Of Kaua`i." This one-half percent (0.5%) tax is stupid generate two hundred
fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000) over ten (10) years of which ninety-eight
million dollars ($98,000,000) is for road and bridge work and related facilities.
Ninety-three million dollars ($93,000,000) is proposed for new transportation
initiatives and sixty-four million dollars ($64,000,000) is for bus expansion and
facilities. A few Councilmembers will simply read our deceased Auditor, my friend
Ernie Pasion's, audit of County capital project road management program, Fiscal
Year 2006-2007, Phase 1, on pages fifteen (15) to twenty-seven (27). You will see
just one of the many reasons why we do not need any new excise tax for our roads
and bridge repair. A chart shows that we are taking in six million
dollars ($6,000,000) to probably twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) now since the
weight tax went up per year from our vehicle fuel and weight tax, and yet we are
using only one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) to two million five
hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) to resurface our three hundred (300) miles of
roads. So by using these tax moneys for what they were designated for, we would
not need any new excise tax. If this audit under "Sub-Finding 2.2" it says, "The
Highway Fund is comprised of moneys subject to restrictions such as fuel and
vehicle weight taxes and utility fees. The funds are comingled and used for various
purposes, including non-highway purposes so the County cannot ensure that the
funds are being used as required by law. For recommendation in Sub-Finding 2.2,
we recommend that the Department of Public Works and the Finance Department
amend their existing policies and procedures to include detail policies on the
Administration and use of the Highway Fund to ensure compliance with State law
restrictions on the use of fuel and vehicle weight taxes and public utility franchise
fees. We also recommend that the Department of Public Works and Finance
Department develop a chart of accounts dedicated strictly to operations funded by
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 78 MARCH 2, 2016
the fuel and vehicle weight taxes and public utility franchise fees. Audit finding on
page number 26 pretty well sums up our dilemma. In office, a recommendation
should have been activated when Ernie finished this audit. Why not get the Mayor
and the department heads in here to assist that they abide by the
recommendations. All of these audits show that we spend a lot of money and shows
the County is not having a chart of accounts dedicated strictly to funds allocated to
highway uses. The lack of a dedicated chart of accounts, combined with a general
understanding of written administrative policies and procedures regarding the
Highway Fund have provided the Administration with freedom in using the
Highway Fund for non-highway activities. Additionally, the intent of the legal
restrictions may not be served...I guess I will have to come back. Thank you.
Ms. Yamauchi: The next speaker is Larry Arruda, followed
by Norma Doctor Sparks.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: They are both not here.
Ms. Yamauchi: The next speaker is Jeanne Saya, followed by
Matthew Bernabe.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just state your name and that light will turn
green. You will have three (3) minutes and when it turns yellow, that will be your
thirty (30) second warning.
JEANNE SAYA: Jeanne Saya. I think that after hearing
what I have been hearing here and I was not...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can you please state your name again?
Ms. Saya: Jeanne Saya. After hearing what I heard
here today, I understand that the roads are in horrible disrepair. I think the roads
need to be completely rebuilt. Considering what I have seen on the roads with
sump holes and stuff like that—I took some geology and things of that nature that
made me understand that there is a structural problem with our roads that goes
beyond filling potholes and repaving. So if the money is going to be spent from
anywhere, it should be spent to build a road, and then maybe from there the real
things can be addressed like the traffic congestion and how good transportation is or
if it is not good. I have ridden a bus since 1992 on and off; I have had a car and
done the park and ride thing. Sometimes, it is extremely crowded and there are all
kinds of people at certain hours of the day because they are on running back and
forth to work and everybody is trying to get their things done, and then there is no
bus service like not to speak of at certain hours of the day at certain routes, because
it is like older women and whoever, people that are not working. For the workers,
the bus is a necessity, and if they did not have it, and then they had the five dollar
($5) gas thing, there would be people hitchhiking on the road to get to work because
the minimum wage is not big enough. If you look at the issues, they are so dramatic
all across the board and it is not just Kauai; it is everywhere. There are things
happening here, especially now with global warming and all the flooding and
everything that is going on. We have to look from the perspective of"if you do not
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 79 MARCH 2, 2016
have a really good road system, period, no one is going to be driving their beautiful
cars and big trucks or their buses." They will barely be able to walk down the road
if we have some tremendous thing of rain or something that is happening like what
is going on the mainland. Kaua`i has been known to have these rains. I have been
here for it since 1989. I saw tremendous flooding and things happen like sump
holes, cars falling in, and stuff. I think that if the money that is appropriated for
the highways and the very beginning...if they were not just black-topping it and
filling in holes and just really put it together to put even one really good road for a
certain amount of miles that people would go, "Yay, maybe we can give them some
taxes and make another road." If you give the people incentive to put their money
somewhere, they will do it. I cannot say that I am against taxes because I am not,
but I think that there has to be a better plan for the taxes and just like you want to
see someone show you why would we need this better bus. Well, I would like to see
why we need the better road. Mahalo.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Your first three (3) minutes is up. If you
want to come back, you can have another three (3) minutes. Next speaker.
Ms. Yamauchi: The last registered speaker is Matthew
Bernabe.
MATTHEW BERNABE: Matthew Bernabe for the record. I would
like to start by saying that following O`ahu's example is bad. Their example shows
how to waste money, dragging it and dragging it, and keep taxing the people. They
are slowly getting the rail, but everywhere around the board, they are not a good
example. I had all kinds of stuff that I was going to talk about. I was going to
hammer on due process. We are sitting here, talking about reducing the amount
before we even accept that we are going to charge the people with the amount. That
is ridiculous. Do you folks even hear yourself? I wish you folks could really listen to
yourselves. I want to go to this Multimodal Land Transportation Plan that I have
not been aware of, which is the driver of the disproportionate allocation of funds
that has led to this conundrum that we keep talking about bicycle trails and
sidewalks. As far as I am concerned, I do not want these folks to get any money
because they should have already been filling in these potholes, rather than wasting
their time chasing TIGER grants for one of our best inventory roads, which is Rice
Street. I just drove it this morning and there is nothing wrong with it. I even saw
an illegal park once again parking there, so all I did was veer in the center and veer
back in my lane. I did not even miss a beat. They want to rip that up and waste
our time? That is why we do not have any roads fixed because they are too busy
doing illegal bike trails. I have to tell you something—I have been educating the
voting public on why we have all of these problems. I am connecting the dots for
them. People are thanking me; shy, little people that have a hard time talking and
I have to tell them, "It is alright. I am not going to bite," while me and my mother
are our having lunch. This is one of many, so you folks better change the way you
try to pander to a few individuals, because I am a homeowner and vehicle owner. I
have never ridden the bus once. The fact that you want to talk about...no, we are
not even going to talk if you accept the tax...what I want to do is just go and say,
"My bus rider click will only have to pay twenty-five percent (25%) and we will
make the drivers pick up the difference." Well, lady, the buses weight a lot and if
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 80 MARCH 2, 2016
our roads deteriorate anymore, you are going to have to be repairing buses like the
rest of us are repairing our cars. I will come back because I see the yellow light. I
am not too happy with this subject. It is one thing that we are talking about tax,
but the way you folks are talking about using it and the history of how we used it is
embarrassing. Legendary.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Matt, you can refer all of your comments to
me, too. Anyone else willing to testify?
Mr. Rosa: For the record, Joe Rosa. The roads that
they talk about are not State highway roads; it is all the County roads that was
neglected from 2004 up to 2014, which includes the area where I live, which was
supposed to be paved in 2004 and was not paved until 2014, ten (10) years later. It
is twelve (12) years already that...I have never seen what the resolution that was
stated for the proposed bike paths to ease the traffic situation, which has nothing to
do with the traffic situation from Kapa'a to Lihu`e. Again, somebody pulled the
blinds over somebody eyes and did what they did and everything backtracked to the
problem that the County faces today, the neglect of the County roads all over the
island. Buses are like trucks. It has twelve (12) wheels. Why does it have twelve
(12) wheels on a bus? Basically, it is to disperse the weight of the vehicle and the
pedestrians that ride those buses. The weight of those big vehicles causes the
deterioration. When I was working, it was one inch and a half (1.5) of pavement
that the State could get ten (10) years until all of the trucking companies came on
Kauai. We had Neilson and Rego, you name it. Then the roads started to
deteriorate faster. So the State went into the criteria of two (2) inches, ten (10)
years. Then the State came out to even weigh those trucks to see if they were
within the weight of what the gross tonnage is supposed to be on those trucks based
on per axle. So talk can be said about the roads, but the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) states that when you talk about complete streets, those
complete streets are supposed to be designated as to which ones are going to be
made with bike lanes and sidewalks. I do not see the County designating the
highways. They are just go at random...we are going to make improvements and
complete streets. That is not the right way. Complete streets say that the County
or the State will have to designate which is going to be a complete street. Is it being
done here on Kaua`i? No. I have not heard of it. The County has never designated
any complete street. They just go ahead and say, "Improvements...complete
streets." That is extra money on the County and the taxpayers. Why do we need
more taxes?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Mr. Rosa, your three (3) minutes are up.
Mr. Rosa: Do the right thing right. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Next speaker. Thank you for waiting.
Please state your name.
ALFY SPRENGER: Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name
is Alfy Sprenger. This is my first time here. I came with notes, but I have a lot of
thoughts so I will just try to get my thoughts out. After sitting here for a few hours
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 81 MARCH 2, 2016
and listening, I will just speak from the heart, but when I first learned of this
one-half percent (0.5%) GET increase, I did not even blink an eye at it because I
know that our County needs improvement. As a real estate broker, owner of a large
company in Arizona for many years, I have been doing business here for several
years now and I hear a lot of it from my clients coming from the mainland and from
my neighbors. I live in Kalaheo, mauka of Pu'uwai Road. I have been all over this
island. Like I said, I do not really think that even the people that I speak to have
an issue with it. I am a firm believer that as elected officials, you have a
responsibility to educate your constituency. I have heard some testimony up here
that if you speak to the community and you give them the issues at-hand, then they
will understand. I have two (2) sons and a daughter. Both of my sons ride the bus.
I have not really heard a whole lot of issues with the bus system. My son attends
Kaua`i Community College (KCC) and rides it all the time. He had a car and had
an option of paying for his own fuel, but he chose to ride the bus. He said that it
was no big deal. Overcrowding I disagree with, because as a matter of fact, I just
texted my two (2) sons while sitting here and asked them if it is overcrowded and
they said, "No, it is not." I have ridden the bus myself and I do not have an issue
with that. I do not really understand it as a whole; I will be honest, but that is my
perception. Really with regard to the roads, I think it is extremely critical and
urgent that it gets done. We are seeing an increase in tourism. I really do believe
that GET is, across the board, fair and maybe we can get more revenue from the
tourists themselves. If you look at the numbers of increase in tourism in comparison
to what it was years ago, we are doing pretty well and they need to pay for that as
well. I do not have a problem with paying it either as a resident. We really need to
do it now or we are going to be in trouble.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: That is your first three (3) minutes. We are
going to let everybody speak for three (3) minutes and if you want to come back, you
have another three (3). Anybody else wishing to testify? Lonnie.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. I am opposed
to increasing the GET for the sole reason that I do not see a coherent plan of what
we are going to do with the money. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the
government to collect tax money and tell us that down the road, we are going to
figure out what we are going to do with it. That is why we are bankrupt today. We
had a forty million dollar ($40,000,000) to sixty million dollar ($60,000,000) surplus,
which we spent on things that the money was not appropriated for. At this point, I
agree with Councilmember Yukimura that the obvious, most sensible way to reduce
the number of cars on the road is to get people out of cars and into public
transportation. What I do not agree with is that we have the money or the
expertise within the Administration to do that in a timely and cost-effective method.
Again, not to dog the leader of our Transportation Agency, because I think Celia has
done a great job given who she is and the mess that she was handed. But we do not
have a leader of our Transportation Agency who is experienced in managing and
planning transportation. So until this County decides to change how it decides who
is qualified to have senior management positions, it is hard to rationalize just giving
tens of millions of dollars to the County and hoping that they will make better
decisions in the future than they have made in the past. I am very unhappy to hear
people dogging Mr. Dill and the other people from the Department of Public Works
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 82 MARCH 2, 2016
because they did a great job. The Department of Public Works said that our roads
are a mess and they are a mess in no small part because we had an unlicensed
County Engineer for twenty (20) plus years, according to public testimony. Mr. Dill
came up with a plan and the question is whether or not we are going to go follow
through with the plan that we came up with, which right now there is nothing but
discord, so no money until you get your ducks in a row. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else wanting to testify? Ken.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. First of all, I would like to look at a couple of figures from a
document that was passed out at the Lihu`e Business Association meeting last
week. In here are some comparisons on fuel tax: County of Hawai`i-eight
cents ($0.08) and the County of Kauai-seventeen cents ($0.17). Yet when you go
over there and drive on those roads, they are much, much better than anything we
have, yet their tax is considerably less. With the vehicle weight tax, they are closer,
but there is still a seventy-five cents ($0.75) difference per pound on the weight tax.
There are some problems out there that I am not sure what it is, but what is
troubling me is that the State takes our TAT tax that comes from tourism, then
throws us a bone, which we are to be happy with to tax the residents? None of this
will stop traffic congestion. I am sorry to say that. In the document that was shown
earlier about providing a critical service for thirty percent (30%) of the population
that does not drive...this is bus expansion...thirty percent (30%) of the population
that does not drive, so how does that eliminate congestion? A lot of the figures that
were in this document, I do not disagree with, but some of them I do, and that is one
of them and the other one is in the cost of building new roads versus transit.
Two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes in Lihu`e Town—approximately two (2) miles, eighty
million dollars ($80,000,000). Half of that was for the rebuilding of two (2) major
bridges so that number is correct, but it is not correct. The real problem is that
congestion will not be resolved with any of this. I think until you get, as was said
earlier, your ducks in order, none of this should be approved and we will talk more
about it. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else in the audience wishing to
testify for the first time? Second time? Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. The lack of a
dedicated chart of accounts combined with a general absence of written
administrative policies and procedures regarding the Highway Fund have provided
the Administration with freedom in using the Highway Fund for non-highway
activities, as being pointed out. Additionally, the intent of the legal restrictions
may not be serve because of the vehicle weight taxes diverted to non-highway uses.
Taxpayers who pay these taxes and fees may not see the full extent of the road
repairs and improvements that should result from their payments. As far as the
ninety-three million dollars ($93,000,000) for new transportation (inaudible) and
sixty-four million dollars ($64,000,000) for bus• expansion and facilities, they are
being proposed on a very flawed assumption that people will abandon their vehicles.
By the Administration's own numbers, they show that by 2035, nearly eighty
percent (80%) of our driving public will still be in their vehicles, so why are we
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 83 MARCH 2, 2016
spending millions of dollars on wrong research that has no basis and fact? Stay
with reality and expand and fix our roads, as people like Dr. Patterson are saying.
Also, get us a county manager who will change the course of our downward spiral.
That is Walter Lewis' testimony: "Bill No. 2610 would impose an increase of
one-half percent (0.5%) of the General Excise Tax for Kaua`i to fund road and bridge
improvements, transportation initiatives, and bus service expansion. I oppose its
enactment for the following reasons, any one in which would be sufficient: first, the
Bill should increase total taxes paid by County residents by over ten percent (10%)
from already heavy burdened level, which includes wasteful expenditures. Our
efforts should be to reduce taxes by working to eliminate poor practice, rather than
seeking tax increases. Second, the excise tax is the most regressive of our taxes and
its impact is most heavily felt by our lower-income tax payers. This imposition is
economically troublesome and should be avoided. Third, the proposed bill is
earmarked for expenditures of road and bridge improvements and related
equipment and facilities, thirty-eight percent (38%); for transportation initiatives,
thirty-six percent (36%); and for bus service expansion, twenty-six percent (26%).
These allocations may well be altered. While there is general consensus that the
road and bridge expenditures are needed, no broad scale acceptance exists for
transportation initiatives, whatever that might be or for bus service expansion. No
earmarked tax should be adopted unless its purposes uses for popular approval.
Fourth, our State Legislature adopted Act No. 240, providing for County enactment
of the one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax increase maneuver to avoid allocating the
counties their fair share of the revenues from the TAT. Kaua`i should not fall for
this ploy and instead insist on receiving its reasonable share of the TAT revenues.
Please vote no on Bill No. 2610." Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
for a second time?
Mr. Rosa: I am going to continue my testimony.
Another thing that somebody mentioned to me is that when the County talks about
roads, they mention roads a lot of the times, but they do not specify whether it is a
County road. Kuhio Highway is a State road. Kaumuali`i Highway is a State road.
Yet, they mention the roads. Is that tax going to be for Kuhio Highway resurfacing
or Kaumuali`i resurfacing? Nobody knows. You have to be more specific as to what
the roads are. A lot of the roads that I know when I was working, we designated it
as County roads on the tourist maps, namely Kipu Road and Puhi Road. Why all of
a sudden it was on a jeopardy list of the County roads? Where did it get lost? It
was County roads officially, but when it was neglected, the liability came upon
those roads...the County says, "Oh, that is not our road anymore." It is a liability
that was caused by the constant neglect of taking care of the roads, more so when
the bike path came into Kapa`a. If you look at it 2004 to 2014, that is ten (10) years.
The roads deteriorated so bad that the County did not want to take the liability, so
they said the roads are in jeopardy. That is another big road that the County is
going to get to look into, which is Kipu Road, because it is one of those roads that
was recently listed in jeopardy by the County. In the olden days, it was given to the
County by the companies like plantations or whoever and told the stakeholder
companies, "You were the caretakers," so the County inherited all of those roads,
yet to say there was not anything legal in writing. That is why now a lot of these
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 84 MARCH 2, 2016
County roads have problems. Puhi Road is one and was always listed as a County
road. Now, when they started to talk about it, "Oh, that is not our road." Jay
Furfaro said that Kipu Road and Puhi Road are roads in jeopardy because of the
liability. They do not want to take it. That is where the County has to let the
public know why the problems come about also. Do not try to shove it under the
table because I have been coming here to council meetings for over fourteen (14)
years already. I have a mind like an elephant. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mr. Rosa.
Mr. Bernabe: Matthew Bernabe for the record. Where I
ended earlier was in the County General Plan, in the dialogue I hear, and from the
actual manifestation of what occurs out on the road, the percentage going to these
bike trails is out of whack. I really think you folks should relook at this Multimodal
Land Transportation Plan and reassess if that is really...we are wasting our money
and our time...every time these folks have to go and make like the bike path or go
and plan Rice Street, they could have been taking better inventory or actually going
out and taking care of the roads. With that said, the funny part of this irony is I
actually really do think the transportation within this discussion, the bus, had the
best presentation out of that whole thing. I do not think that we should be charging
a fuel tax and I am adamantly against the GET, strictly on how they are conducting
themselves in real world time. I said it once and I will say it again. Those are not
the only ones. There is the donkey one down by Donkey's. Due process is so put to
the side in everything that I have been watching going on in our County that, that
is what I am really upset about. I am really upset about, "Well, we need the money,
so let us just go with it." Like today, we jump from even the discussion if we are
going to even accept the new tax to, "Let us split the tax like this because we do not
want the poor people..." Well, I take great offense as a middle-class person because
what you folks do not realize is that every day we are still struggling. You think
that just because you make one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) that you are
middle-class on Kauai? It is not, you are not. I like the buses. I advocate for the
buses. I want some ADA stops and I want good routes. Out of any of this...Roads
Division, they sounded the best. I even told the guy, "I was expecting horrible." As
a whole, these folks are wasting our money, getting us into legal binds. Whoever
said "let us go and re-rip up Rice Street" should be terminated, even if that is the
Mayor. I am sorry. I do not care who said it. That is a bad plan. You go down by
Kapa`a High School, passing Mahelona, you have to lock the hubs; it is four (4)
wheel drive over there. If you are drinking coffee, you are going to burn yourself or
you have to do five (5) miles an hour and crawl over the road. I think you need to at
what you are doing because the public is getting smarter. It is the technology age;
it is at the fingertips.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Alfy, did you want to speak
again?
Mr. Sprenger: Alfy Sprenger for the record. Just a few
more thoughts—I spent several years on Maui. My family has been there over
sixty (60) years. I moved here with my wife and three (3) children. Back to
congestion and road improvements, it is really bad. If you go to Kahului Costco...l
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 85 MARCH 2, 2016
lived in Napili Bay...tourism...when the whale season is up, you are sitting in
traffic for a total of one (1) hour and fifty-five (55) minutes from the time you leave
Kahului Costco to the time your arrive in northwest Maui. It is getting bad here
with the amount of people coming in, moving in, and our kids are having kids.
Over the years, coming and going from the Mainland to Hawaii, obviously a lot of
opposition to some "Mainland thinking," if you want to put it that way, but I think
overall, we are in pretty good hands with the individuals who are looking at what
needs to be done with the infrastructure. I know a lot of people probably in this
room travel. I travel a lot. I have been all over the world. I am proud of Kauai. I
am proud of the United States of what we have accomplished, but when you look at
a country like Panama, their infrastructure is pretty darn good and a lot of
Americans are moving there and even folks from this island that I know and Maui
that have moved to Panama. They are looking at it going, "Why are they doing
better?" We need to think about that and those situations. After all, we are
Hawaii. Everybody in the world almost pretty much knows about our islands. I
have friends, family, and clients alike that come and visit and one of their questions
or comments always is, "What are they going to do about the infrastructure? Why
are they so far behind?" We are so far behind and we are going to be sitting here
going, "We screwed this up." Passed away now, a good friend of mine, Dick
Andrews, was responsible for transportation in the City of Seattle for many years.
He tried to get me involved over there, but I did not want to move to Seattle. He
said, "If we would have educated the people on the issues, they would have come
out." Look at this room. Where are all the young people? Why are we not
educating them? We need to do that. They need to be sitting here listening to this.
You folks need to get them here. I need to get them here. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Next speaker.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. The only thing
I want to say right now is that I use the bike lanes and so the County does not have
one dollar ($1) budgeted to clean the bike lanes. You cannot ride a two (2) wheeled
bicycle or moped over crushed glass, crushed rock, mud this thick, and grassroots
without it going out underneath you. You go sideways and you slide into the traffic
and get killed. The State does an equally horrible job of maintaining their bike
lanes and what they do is they run the street cleaner about once a week down the
street and the street cleaner blows everything off the highway onto the bike lane
where it stays. So riding on the bike lane is always an experience because you
never know when you are going to come round a turn or whatever and be faced with
having to slam to a stop or get hit by the traffic or crash. This is my observation
about saying, "We need all of this money to do these things." You have an idea, but
you do not have a plan. This is like when Economic Development comes in and tells
us, "Oh, we have this big plan for a butchering facility," and then they do not even
know what a business plan is. The document you take to the banker to get the loan,
not a series of talking points. So what we are upsetting the public about is even
people who are poor like me...I am an entrepreneur...I have written a real business
plan, because I went twice to the Small Business Association and went through
their business plan program. We want to see the business plan. We want to see the
metrics that we can judge the outcome against, not a bunch of talking points about
why you should give us all of this money and vote for us because of all the good
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 86 MARCH 2, 2016
things that we are going to do. We want our roads paved. We know we have to pay
for it, although many of us think that our business community and especially our
tourism community should be picking up a huge part of this bill, not the general
public. Nonetheless, we know this needs to get done. We just will not agree to the
taxation without a good plan. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Next speaker.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. I do not want any of you to think that I would not like to see better
roads and a better bus system on the island. I would love it. Can we afford it? One
of the reasons why I am concerned about this is that if you go back to the audit that
was done on the capital project management, road maintenance program, on page
number 15 it shows income of anywhere from six million dollars ($6,000,000) to ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) a year over a ten (10) year period and that we are only
spending about two million dollars ($2,000,000) a year. Where is the money going?
This is the problem. As I pointed out earlier, the fuel tax in the County of Hawaii
is point eight cents ($0.08) compared to our seventeen cents ($0.17). Why are they
capable of putting a good road system in place and we are not able to? Where is the
money going? That is the question that needs to be resolved. My personal feeling is
that I would much rather see an increase in gas tax that went to fixing the roads
than this one-half percent (0.5%) sales tax, because when I buy my five hundred
dollars ($500) worth of groceries every month, I have no choice. I like to fudge a
little bit and buy a little cheaper this or a little less of that, but for the most part, I
have no choice. If I have a gas tax, I could make a determination on whether I want
to ride my bicycle or buy more gas. I think that is what we are trying to get at. So
gas tax, yes; sales tax, no. At this point in time, I think what is before you, you
have to say no to, and let us take another look at it. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
on this matter that has not spoken twice? We are coming up to a break, so we may
as well just take our ten (10) minute caption break right now.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 5:24 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:34 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back to the Budget & Finance
Committee. We are on Bill No. 2610. I am going to call the meeting back to order.
Any discussion from the Members? Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, and
as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 3,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 87 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Chock: Chair, I made a request to hear from the
Administration's proposals/options and I think my interest is getting all of these
options on the table at the very least. I do not expect that I will be able to make a
decision on it, but I think for discussion and looking at the best options, I would like
to be able to see all of those options up front. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: First, can I ask that you withdraw the
amendment, and then ask the question and have them come up.
Councilmember Yukimura withdrew the motion to amend Bill No. 2610 as
circulated, and as shown in the Floor Amendment. Councilmember Chock
withdrew the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The rules are suspended. Can the
Administration come up?
Councilmember Chock: I do not know if I have a question per se, but
I wanted to give you the floor in order to share the different options because I know
you had three (3) that you were talking about.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Shimonishi: Ken Shimonishi, Director of Finance.
Listening to the various meetings that we have held on this wide-ranging impacts of
the tax, we came back to actually look at a few different scenarios. I will run
through the scenarios and if you have questions, by all means, we are prepared to
answer them. One of the first scenarios we looked at is titled seventy-five
percent (75%) roads and highways, twenty-five percent (25%) transportation,
incremental. Basically, what this scenario does is it takes the GET surcharge in the
beginning three and a half (3.5) years at one-quarter percent (0.25%), and then goes
up to one-half percent (0.5%), so you can see that the total revenue anticipated to be
generated is two hundred sixteen million dollars ($216,000,000). It is roughly forty
million dollars ($40,000,000) less than what was initially proposed at the one-half
percent (0.5%) right across, ten (10) years. This is just an incremental type of
approach. If you look at the table in the middle left, this first section of the table
shows you what we were proposing to use the GET of two hundred fifty-five million
dollars ($255,000,000) for; the first being sixty-three million three hundred
thousand dollars ($63,300,000) on roads, twelve million five hundred thousand
dollars ($12,500,000) equipment and so on. This is the same data. If you look to the
right of that table, these are the new numbers that we are coming up with—we
would still be able to do our roads, sixty-three million dollars ($63,000,000) of GET
going towards our roads resurfacing and repair. Our equipment...if we were to
forego the consolidated auto shop, we would get rid of that, and then the bridges
and the new transportation initiatives there with the one million nine hundred
thousand dollars ($10,900,000) and the seventy-five million four hundred thousand
dollars ($75,400,000), so consolidated, we would still have that much money going
towards that initiative, and below that the transit capital expansion and the transit
operation expansion. Obviously, those being reduced. The lower left of that
worksheet, just for reference, I have shown the 2017 budget as far as transportation
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 88 MARCH 2, 2016
where four million three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($4,350,000) is funded by
General Fund and two million eight hundred sixty thousand dollars ($2,860,000) is
funded by Highway Funds. So a total of seven million two hundred thousand
dollars ($7,200,000) is what is currently in the Fiscal Year 16 budget. On the lower
right is just a chart of the transportation budgets that have been submitted from
Fiscal Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. You can see up to Fiscal Year 2017. The
department requested eight million four hundred thousand dollars ($8,400,000).
Thus far, through our Mayor's review process, we have been able to reduce that to
seven million six hundred thousand dollars ($7,600,000), so still higher than what
was submitted in prior years. That is just the first scenario.
The next page shows what if we did a one-quarter percent (0.25%) across the
entire ten (10) year period and what if we used this one-quarter percent (0.25%)
revenue, which is now at one hundred twenty-seven million dollars ($127,000,000),
half of two hundred fifty-five million dollars ($255,000,000)—if we use it all towards
roads and highways type of projects, what could we do? Again, in the middle where
you see the ten (10) year scenario table, we could still do our sixty-three million
dollars ($63,000,000) in roads and still get the highway equipment. Again, we
would forego the auto shop and have some moneys in terms of our bridges and our
new transportation initiatives; nine million two hundred thousand
dollars ($9,200,000) and forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000) that we could
consolidate and prioritize between what projects need to get done like our bridges
and so on. That is just a straightforward one-quarter percent (0.25%) across the
entire ten (10) years, going one hundred percent (100%) towards the roads piece of
the equation. Lastly, the worksheet that is one hundred percent (100%) General
Fund and Highway Fund recovery for transportation at one-quarter
percent (0.25%), so still we were looking at doing a one-quarter percent (0.25%) for
the ten (10) year period...we still end up with one hundred twenty-seven million
dollars ($127,000,000), but now we would say, "Let us use this to fund our
transportation operations," which currently means if you look at the lower left, we
could recover four million three hundred thousand dollars ($4,300,000) in general
funds because we would use this GET as a sole funding source for transportation.
We could recover two million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000) in
highway funds that is currently going towards transportation. So the combination
of the two million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000) and the one million
two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) would now give us four million
dollars ($4,000,000) that could be applied towards our roads resurfacing component,
at least. The flipside would be that transportation now has a dedicated funding
source and we alleviate some of the expenses in the General Fund and Highway
Fund, so we basically increase our road resurfacing capacity from one million two
hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) a year to a little over four million
dollars ($4,000,000) a year plus whatever federal matching we can get, and then we
would also see an increase in the Transportation's Operating/Capital budgets of
three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000). I think we have looked at
it from the one-half percent (0.5%) on one side to one-quarter percent (0.25%) on the
other, and try to give the Council at least some different looks at what might be
more palatable.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 89 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: In all of these scenarios, will you be able to
repair the roads within ten (10) years and do away with the one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) backlog?
Mr. Shimonishi: No, that is not correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Really?
Mr. Shimonishi: In the last scenario, we would basically be
able to put roughly four million dollars ($4,000,000) a year towards the roads and
that would be forty million dollars ($40,000,000) against the one hundred four (104).
Councilmember Yukimura: So in the last scenario you would get four
million dollars ($4,000,000) to put towards the one hundred million dollar
($100,000,000) backlog?
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you wanted to complete the elimination of
the backlog in ten (10) years, we could consider a fuel or vehicle weight tax to do
that.
Mr. Shimonishi: That would be at the discretion of the
Council and the Administration, correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. I think what I was proposing does
produce another four million dollars ($4,000,000). Thank you for the clarification.
Ms. Nakamura: What this last scenario does is free up
general funds for additional needs that the County may identify.
Councilmember Yukimura: Have you verified that three million
dollars ($3,000,000) a year is going to be sufficient for the bus expansion?
Mr. Shimonishi: I think what we are saying is that three
million dollars ($3,000,000) a year is what we would apply towards some sort of
expansion or some sort of capital improvement. I think what is the definition...are
we saying that we are trying to go to every half an hour or whatever that is? I think
we have to look at it as three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000)
more towards the bus operations is a forty-four percent (44%) increase in that
budget. I see that as a significant increase and this scenario provides a dedicated
source of funding.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I ask another question? So does that
mean that you are looking at using it all for operations and you are not considering
the capital expansion needs of the bus?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 90 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: I think we are saying that would be a
combination of both capital and operating expansion.
Councilmember Yukimura: And you are saying that you are not sure
whether it would actually provide enough money to implement the Multimodal
Land Transportation Plan and all of our shuttle systems?
Ms. Nakamura: I think because the studies are currently
being done now, we will get the results of the shuttle study this summer, possibly,
and then the Short-Range Transit Plan later this year, which is going to really give
us some good guidance on how to improve our system, and then expand the shuttle
system. I think the deliverable on that will be what it is going to cost to operate
expansion and what the capital costs are going to be as well. That will provide some
good data and unfortunately we do not have that today.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, the funding source will not be available
until 2018, so you are going to have the whole year of 2017 to figure it out, and the
question is whether you are constraining yourself—I looked at Chapter 7 of the
Multimodal Land Transportation Plan and the implementation is specific enough
for you to figure out what the needs will be for the next ten (10) years. Certainly,
you will refine it with a shuttle system report. I feel like there are some
assumptions being made here that I would like to have it really clear what those
assumptions are. The assumption in the last scenario is that three million dollars
($3,000,000) is going to be sufficient. How will you fund multimodal land
transportation implementation, which I trust the Administration has as a major
priority? If we are not on the same page, then I need to hear that, too.
LEE STEINMETZ, Transportation Planner: Lee Steinmetz. Transportation
Planner with the County. In terms of the question of whether three million
dollars ($3,000,000) is going to be sufficient to fully fund expansion of the bus
service; as Nadine mentioned, we are in the middle of doing our shuttle study and
we are starting our short-range plan, and the result of both of those studies is going
to be a menu of expansion opportunities that are prioritized so that we can do those
expansions based on funding that is available. We are going to end up with a menu
and the cost those is going to be variable, so we can tailor the expansions to be the
most important in terms of the funding that is available. I also want to stress that
we are not just looking at additional funding; we are also looking at ways that we
can make the existing system more efficient and use the resources that we have
better, which includes both looking at fixed route service and paratransit. As was
mentioned earlier, there is quite a heavy subsidy of paratransit so we can reduce
some of those paratransit costs that will also free up funds that can be used for
expansion. In addition to that, we are also looking at other potential revenue
streams. For example, we just had some very preliminary discussions and there is
nothing really to report yet, but in looking at potential ways that resorts can
contribute to shuttle service, so we are not looking at the GET to fund all of the
potential transit expansion, but looking at other funding sources that can
complement and support County funds and really look at other sources for some of
the shuttle expansion.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 91 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you mean resort area or resorts for
additional funding?
Mr. Steinmetz: I do not really want to be specific yet about
what we are looking at because we are in very preliminary discussions. We just
started talking with the resort industry on this idea, so let us just say that we are
looking at some options that we think we can generate support for.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is good. I hope you look at the
correlation between receipt of services and allocation of costs.
Mr. Steinmetz: Yes, we are looking at that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Shimonishi: I think the overriding principle behind this is
that we live within our means basically. Obviously, we want to take other
initiatives to try to improve our transportation systems, but we are saying that this
is what we want to live within and this is how much we can apply towards our
transportation and have it as a sole source of funding, including outside revenue
sources, if available. Again, this is just looking at the current year. If you look
going out, you can see that there is some growth potential on the GET revenue side
of the house, so we are not saying that it is limited to just these ten million
dollars ($10,000,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: That is a good point.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: How much would go towards operating funds
once it gets moving; the second, third, and fourth years. What are the annuals?
Mr. Shimonishi: I am sorry. Are you talking about the GET
surcharge or are you talking about the General Fund and the Highway Fund.
Councilmember Hooser: The GET surcharge allows some of the funds
now being used to go back to the General Fund, right?
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: So it grows the General Fund revenue.
Mr. Shimonishi: It would not grow the General Fund revenue;
it would reduce the current General Fund expenditures. It would free up General
Fund expenditures. If we are using the 2016 budget—I am sorry, it says 2017—but
if we are using the 2016 budget, right now the General Fund is funding four million
three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($4,350,000) ,towards transportation. That
would obviously be freed up to go towards whatever facilities improvements in the
General Fund and what have you. In addition to that, the Highway Fund currently
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 92 MARCH 2, 2016
is funding two million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000) toward
transportation and that could go towards our roads resurfacing. All of this would be
subject to the operating annual budget approved by the Council.
Councilmember Hooser: So the four million three hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($4,350,000) would be taken away from transportation projects
now and given back to the General Fund, so that would be four million three
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($4,350,000) of revenue from the GET that is not
going to new transportation. So we are not expanding the investment in
transportation and roads by four million three hundred fifty thousand dollars
($4,350,000) because it supplants money that is already being spent.
Mr. Shimonishi: It supplants money; however, the GET
revenue at one-quarter percent (0.25%) is significantly more than what is being
funded towards transportation.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. In round numbers, I am looking at an
annual eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) to twelve million dollars ($12,000,000)
the GET is generating. So the reality of it is that money only eight million
dollars ($8,000,000) would be going towards expanding the highway improvements,
because we are already spending the four million three hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($4,350,000), which we are going to be taking way. So we are supplanting;
we are not adding...you are not adding eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) on to
transportation because you are taking four million three hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($4,350,000) away.
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Shimonishi: We are not adding on because if we were to
add on, you are saying we would go from seven million dollars ($7,000,000) to
seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000), which is like a two hundred fifty
percent (250%) increase on that operation, as some would like, but no we are not.
Councilmember Hooser: So the four million three hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($4,350,000) could be used to balance the budget or pay for other
costs.
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: It effectively comes out of the GET increase,
depending on how you want to look at it, I guess. I think "supplanting" is the word.
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, that is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 93 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members? I
have a question. Besides the first scenario, it is like an all or nothing, either one
hundred percent (100%) roads or one hundred percent (100%) transportation. Is
there way to do a mix and have a scenario where you just reduce? I think we heard
it from some of the Members that they might be open to reducing the GET from
one-half percent (0.5%), but the split is still seventy-five percent (75%) and
twenty-five percent (25%).
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, we could do that. I am taking it as what
you are saying is the first scenario, but to keep the one-quarter percent (0.25%)
across for ten (10) years.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Correct.
Mr. Shimonishi: So that would just mean that we would have
half the revenue in that Fiscal Year 2022, and beyond we will just have half that
and whatever that is would be split seventy-five (75)/twenty-five (25).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: But then you cannot take away the moneys
from the General Fund or the Highway Fund for operations of the bus because
otherwise there would be virtually nothing for bus expansion.
Mr. Shimonishi: That would be the assumption that would be
in addition to what is currently funding.
Councilmember Yukimura: So how much would that give to the bus for
expansion?
Mr. Shimonishi: Well, if you look in the beginning years on
that second colored line, you would see that the first year is half a year at one
million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), the next year is two million
seven hundred thousand dollars ($2,700,000), two million eight hundred thousand
dollars ($2,800,000), and two million nine hundred thousand dollars ($2,900,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: So it would mean that you would be funding
roads rather than by users; you would be funding it on a regressive tax.
Mr. Shimonishi: We would be using the GET, correct.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does the one million two hundred thousand
dollars ($1,200,000), the next year is two million seven hundred thousand
dollars ($2,700,000), and two million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000)
meet the requirements of your plan for transportation?
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 94 MARCH 2, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: Again, it is what are we willing to do to live
within our means? Do we go for the one-half percent (0.5%) and reallocate that
money fifty (50)/fifty (50) or keep it at seventy-five (75)/twenty-five (25)? The
Administration has put forth the one-half percent (0.5%) at seventy-five
(75)/twenty-five (25) and we have tried to listen to some of the feedback that we
have heard from the Council. We are just trying to propose some different scenarios
that you guys can massage around.
Council Chair Rapozo: For me, if we are going raise a tax, then it
has to be for a specific purpose. If it is just going to be because we can and we are
not going to be able to accomplish what we want to, but it is an opportunity. We
have this window that the State said you have to pass, so we are just going to pass
it because we can and however we can massage it to make it pass, but if it is not
going to serve the original goal, why would we do it? There is no shortage of roads.
I do not care what you put in there...there are roads to pave. If you are going to
allocate these funds to transportation and it is not really going to create the desired
outcome, then yes, you are giving them more money and they are trying to make the
best of it, but you cannot do a complete route management program because we do
not have enough funds. Again, we are just throwing the money in and hoping that
it works. I guess for me, I would much rather see a more comprehensive plan that
is there and if we cannot make it happen, then we do not tax the people. But just to
tax because we can...again, I am really point disappointed with the State that they
have put this timeframe on it that you have to do it or lose it. That is pathetic, but
it is what it is. That is how our State Legislature extorts the counties. It is
frustrating. I do not want to see us...because we can, we are going to tax...when we
are taxing and the moneys is not reaching the desired outcome, it is just going to sit
in that line item bank account and that is where I think I have some concerns.
Ms. Nakamura: The only other option to address that concern
would be to not to specify the percentage and to keep it broad, and then to use the
annual Operating Budget to figure out how you want to allocate.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you would come before us and make the
proposals and we would be able to judge whether it is worthy of funding, whether it
is going to move us towards our goals, et cetera, right?
Ms. Nakamura: Just because of the timing of the transit
studies, Chair Rapozo, we are not going to be able to have the information by the
deadline that this ordinance/bill needs to be passed by because the deadline set by
the Legislature. We are not going to have complete information and unfortunately
that plan is not going to be in "black and white" at the time of the deadline.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to say as someone who lobbied for this
tax and talk to the two (2) Budget Committee Chairs, in response to Chair Rapozo's
questions about why they are setting a deadline, if we were them, we would
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 95 MARCH 2, 2016
probably set a deadline because they asked the mayors who were lobbying for a one
percent (1%) and the mayors were saying, "We might not use it." Sylvia Luke said,
"We are not going to give it to you and maybe you will use it and maybe you will not
because we might want to use it and we cannot use it if it is out there for you to use
it because then cumulatively, it is going to get too much on the people." That is why
they said, "We want to know whether you are going to use it or not," is what the
explanation was from them. I know it puts us in a bind, but it also makes us
sharpen our pencil because we have to show or figure out how we are going to use it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Has Maui or Hawai`i Island progressed on
trying to pass a surcharge? I have heard no.
Ms. Nakamura: Not that we are aware of.
Councilmember Kagawa: So we are the only bright ones that are
trying to take advantage of the "poison apple?"
Ms. Nakamura: Aside from Honolulu.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. Okay. I am getting confused on the
vehicle weight tax. I read that today earlier that each car is going to go up by
eighty-three dollars ($83). They are increasing the vehicle weight, the fuel, and the
car registration fees. I remember two (2) years ago that we raised all of those fees
on Kauai. I did not vote for it. We taxed the car on both ends; the State and the
County, and we just add it all onto the bill. Is that how it works for the cars? I feel
like we are giving the cars a concussion with taxes. The people who every year pay
say, "Why did it go up again?" It must be about three hundred dollars ($300) to four
hundred dollars ($400) right now for a typical car.
Mr. Shimonishi: I think it depends on the car you drive. I
believe if it was a Honda Accord, it would be a little over two hundred dollars
($200), both State and County portions of your registration.
Councilmember Kagawa: Added together is two hundred dollars
($200)?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: So the State and the County has the ability
to charge increases on all of those like the car registration, vehicle weight, and fuel
tax?
Mr. Shimonishi: So typically, the State has a registration and
a vehicle weight and the County has a vehicle registration fee, County weight, and I
think there is a beautification fee, and maybe a decal fee or something.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 96 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As I look at this, I am looking at the one
hundred percent (100%) roads, twenty-five percent (25%) GET surcharge is the
second scenario, and if I calculate twenty-five percent (25%) of that amount, I get
thirty-two million dollars ($32,000,000). If we just took the Bill as-is and reduced
the one-half percent (0.5%) to one-quarter percent (0.25%), then based on the
calculation, you would still have sixty-three million dollars ($63,000,000) for roads
resurfacing, twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) for highway equipment, nine
million two hundred thousand dollars ($9,200,000) for bridge repair, so you would
end up with thirty-two million dollars ($32,000,000), which is an extra three million
dollars ($3,000,000) for transportation, and I would see that the new transportation
initiatives and projects would go down to ten million dollars ($10,000,000). That is
what I think the adjustment would be. For me when I look at it, what do we need to
do now? What we need to do is our existing roads. That is my main priority. As far
as the sixty-three million dollars ($63,000,000), I do not really want to budge on it,
but are we able to live with ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for new transportation
initiatives, rather than forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000). At least then you
will have roads funded and some money for new roads, which right now we have
zero money for new roads anyways, so it does not matter, and then you would have
money for transportation also.
Mr. Shimonishi: Really, that transportation and that bridge
project should probably be combined because we would just prioritize those moneys.
We are not going try to do something on a stub out road or something if we have our
bridges ahead.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For me, ideally our existing bridges that are
in need of work would be the number one priority. Any further questions from the
Members? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So on the bridges, the eight million two
hundred thousand dollars ($8,200,000) that I was looking at in my presentation was
covering bridges and repaving, right?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, that was covering our bridges and
repaving, but we would also need to factor in that we would in theory get some
federal matching dollars with that money, correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. That is good thinking to maximize the
federal match if we can. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the
Administration on their scenarios? I will bring the meeting back to order. Any
discussion? Councilmember Yukimura needs to introduce her amendment.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 97 MARCH 2, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, and
as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 3,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, do you want to
say what your amendment is?
Councilmember Yukimura: My amendment would reduce the amount
from a one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax to a quarter-percent (0.25%) excise tax, but
would leave all the purposes that the money could be used for as it is stated in the
State statute, so it would not restrict it to just transit.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Discussion from the Members?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think this is a nice amendment and I think
that is where the decision should come, to have it all done during the budget so that
is what would happen under this scenario, which the decision is about how to best
utilize the surcharge would be left during the budget for the Council to either
approve, amend, or agree with the Administration's budget proposal. Although I
think this is a great amendment, but I will still not be supporting it because I feel
we are better off trying to fight for the Working Group's proposal of the TAT. I
think if we give up on that and by approving any GET increase, whether it is
one-quarter percent (0.25%) or one-half percent (0.5%), we are going to send the
message to the State Legislature that you can take Kaua`i's portion of the TAT. I
think that is what would happen, we would be biting the poison apple and we would
be suffering the consequences. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Similarly to the previous amendment that
was offered, I will not be supporting any increase at the end of the day, but because
this reduces this by half, in the off chance that this does pass, I would much prefer
to be half as much, so I will be supporting the amendment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to let Councilmember Kagawa know
that he can vote for the reduction, and as Councilmember Hooser, vote ultimately
against it. I think once Council Chair said he had learned that he could vote for the
best amendment and still vote against the bill ultimately, because the amendment
does get it closer to what you want.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am supportive of this direction as well with
this amendment. There have been a couple of options and a lot of different
scenarios that we can juggle with and play with still moving forward. I guess for
me, I am hearing some of where the concerns are with focusing our time and energy
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 98 MARCH 2, 2016
on the TAT. I could be open to putting our efforts there. However, I still think we
should continue to look at these options and continue to work towards a contingency
plan that we can all...because in the end of the day, we need to have the kind of
support on this Council to pass something, so that kind of problem-solving needs to
continue. At this point, I can support this. I also probably want more time to
consider some of the variables and options moving forward before we move it
forward out of the Committee. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will make this comment, too. I think the
big question is if we are going to fight for the TAT and see what happens, I do not
know if we want to decide to defer it until after we get whatever the State decides.
If the State does not give us anymore TAT, I do not know if that is going to push us
to say that we need the tax or it is going to push us more to say that we are not
going to pass it and blame the State. I do not know. I am willing and open to
whatever way we want to go. I can say that I am comfortable with this. I am kind
of in the position...I seriously think we need to do something, put our foot down, pay
for our roads, and stop the bleeding. If not, ten (10) years from now, we are going to
have a two hundred million dollar ($200,000,000) liability and we are going say,
"How do we pay for this?" I do not want to be the one sitting there saying to my
kids or to people in the future, "You folks are going to be stuck with the bill," which
I do not want to do. I think with reducing it, we heard a lot of comments about
accountability for the money, and I remember when the total number was like nine
million dollars ($9,000,000) at first and everybody was kind of happy. But when it
became two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000), everybody kind of took a step
back and was like, "Whoa, that is a lot of money. We have more money. Is that not
better?" That is more money to manage and more money to figure out what we are
going to do. If we are not comfortable with the bigger amount of money...for me, I
think we need to do something about our roads and we need the money from
somewhere. If it is not in the GET, it is going to have to come out of something else.
The GET spreads the cost between everybody, including visitors. If we do not do the
GET, it is going to be real property taxes, which are only homeowners or businesses.
If it is not real property taxes, then it is just vehicles, anybody who owns vehicles.
You kind of reduce the amount of people you are spreading the tax over to. That is
just my comment. Again, if we do want to wait and see what happens at the State,
whether we are going to get more TAT money or not, I am open to that also.
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to express where I am leaning
and I am not fully decided. I feel like for starters, because the GET is a regressive
tax, for me it has always been important to address who is going to be hurt by this
the most. I have been talking to the Administration about targeted relief and I still
want to put that forward; I just do not see any way to put it forward as an
amendment in this Bill, so it would make more sense in the future with a resolution
and maybe during the budget process. I do think it will be important if the GET is
passed, that there be targeted relief for the most vulnerable in our society like the
elderly, youth, and disabled. For the people who can afford even the little tax that
it might be, I think it was one hundred twenty dollars ($120) in a year, twenty
dollars ($20) a month. For some people, that twenty dollars ($20) a month is pretty
intense and it would affect them severely. I want to find a way to offset that for
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 99 MARCH 2, 2016
those people. Yet, I still have this feeling that the GET is not the way to do this.
There are other vehicles, starting with tightening the budget even more. Because
this amendment at least brings it down from one-half percent (0.5%) to one-quarter
percent (0.25%) and does not put all of that money to transit—there is still money
for roads and transit systems—I can support the amendment, but it still does not
mean that I will ultimately support the end bill. I like what you said, Chair, about
putting this decision further back and seeing what else we can find out about TAT.
For now, I am willing to support this amendment and I will just let you know that I
am still working on targeted relief and that is really important to me.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: In addition, I guess the question comes up in
the direction that we are headed which is, "Can we do more work on this? Should
we or how far in advance should we defer it?" I do not want to lose sight of some
testimony and what Council Chair said about the fact that we also have to keep in
mind where we need to go and what the goals are that we have. We still have a one
hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) deficit, so we need that plan to act
accordingly. I think it is kind of that balancing act of what we can get support for
here and what we can truly accomplish in the end. I think that needs to be more
thoroughly thought out and if we could take the time to work on that, we will be
better off in May when we find out where TAT is.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: The "Yukimura tactic" is that you support
the amendment, but you do not support the Bill. I will never forget that day...I
freaked out and thought she was nuts. She did all of that work and supported the
amendment, but when it came to the Bill, she did not vote for it. After the meeting,
I asked her, "Why would you do something like that?" She said that even though
she did not support the bill, she wanted to make it the best bill and I appreciate
that, because that does make sense. This is where I will utilize that tactic because I
agree. I do not support the GET. One of my main concerns is that there has been
such an emphasis placed on transportation and the paving, but again, there is
nothing to address the congestion. The bus is not going to solve the congestion. We
can argue all day long on whether or not Kaua`i can handle bus routes every half an
hour or one (1) hour, but we do not have the volume and the ridership. We just do
not. We do not have one million (1,000,000) people here and I think we have to
understand that. Anyway, I will have my discussion for when we get to the main
motion, but this does make it a little more palatable, I guess, to drop the percentage
to one-quarter percent (0.25%). Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion on the amendment?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will wait for the main motion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. With no further discussion, let us get
a roll call vote on the amendment.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 100 MARCH 2, 2016
The motion to amend Bill No. 2610 as circulated, and as shown in the Floor
Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 3 was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kuali`i, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL– 7,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: None TOTAL– 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL – 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL – 0.
Ms. Yamauchi: Seven (7) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We are back to the main motion as
amended. Any discussion? Councilmember Yukimura
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to say with respect to the TAT
issue that is before the State Legislature, based on my discussions with
legislators—admittedly it was last year; I have not been there as much this year. If
we can really show clearly that we deserve the TAT as an offset to tourism impacts,
and I know the Administration has done a spreadsheet to show what parts of our
budget are tourist-related, I believe we can make a good argument because when I
went forth to argue for a GET for transit, which was my stance, they understood the
need for transit moneys and I do not think they like us using tourist moneys for any
and everything. They much prefer that we use it to offset the impacts. One of the
reasons why we are different from the other islands—I am sorry that Ken Taylor
just kept looking at the Hawai`i Island fuel tax at eight cents ($0.08), because Maui
is at eighteen cents ($0.18), we are seventeen cents ($0.17), and Honolulu is around
sixteen cents ($0.16). Honolulu and Maui have a bigger population base, and even
like the State, they can go one cent ($0.01) vehicle weight tax and they get millions
of dollars, whereas because we have a smaller population, we just get much less.
That is why it is hard for us and we are so spread out. It is a very costly system to
support. If we exercise this excise tax, I think the Legislature will understand that
we really are trying to be good stewards of the money and we are trying to use it to
move Kauai forward. I think we have established a foundation for that, so I just
want to say that.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I am not supporting the GET increase for a
variety of reasons. It has been stated earlier how regressive the tax is. There are a
couple of reasons why I am opposing this: one, I think it is the surest way to make
sure that we do not get any future consideration for the TAT. If we vote to do this,
the Legislature is going to say, in my opinion, "Well, they got it covered. They do
not need the money." That is one reason. The other big reason is we discussed this
at the last meeting that, in my opinion, this will have no impact at all on traffic
congestion. The public may scream and feel like that is the number one problem,
which I agree it is a huge problem, but it almost occurs on State highways, from
Kawaihau Road to Lihu`e, to the Tunnel of Trees. Those are all State highways. I
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 101 MARCH 2, 2016
also think that those are the worst roads with the most potholes that I see when I
drive every day, go forty miles per hour (40 MPH) or whatever. This is for County
roads, not for State highways. It is not going impact congestion on our main
highways at all, in my opinion. I think we should put our energy and the public
should put their energy into pressing the State Legislature to do their job and
improve those highways, especially on the eastside that has been waiting for years
and years, and plans are in place for that. In addition, this whole proposal has been
framed around roads like improving our roads, highways, and transportation. But
the reality of it is that one-third of the money will be diverted back to the General
Fund to pay regular operating funds. So one-third of the funds will be supplanted,
taking money that we are already spending on highways and transportation and
moving them back to the General Fund to pay for things like salary increases, quite
frankly, keeping the lights on, and doing other daily operating functions. I just
want the public to be clear on that. For those reasons and many others, I will not
be supporting this. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to clarify that the main motion is
as amended. As we went through it, I do not think there was any plan to take
money to supplant the money into the General Fund. If not, transportation would
end up only having the same amount of money to operate. So I think with the
one-quarter percent (0.25%) it was to get transportation an extra three million
dollars ($3,000,000) a year with the same money coming out of the General Fund
and the Highway Fund.
Councilmember Hooser: It was my understanding from the
Administration's proposal that the intent was to supplant general operating funds.
That is in this proposal here. It was my understanding that by reducing the tax in
half, that the similar formula would apply; it just would be half the tax instead of
the full tax amount and that they would still be supplanting. At the end of the day,
it comes down to the budget process and the budget process will occur when we
have a new Administration and when we are not here. Some of us may or may not
be here, depending on the future elections. So the ability to supplant the funds is
there. The Administration has presented and that was their intent and every
reason to expect that that intent will stay as we move forward and is increasing
demands on our operating funds.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to clarify that that was their
intent when they were going to transfer all of the one-quarter percent (0.25%) to
transportation. It was just an option. They were going transfer all of the money to
transportation, and then supplant the rest the money back out so that roads would
be some money. I think in the proposal that we are looking at, I do not think we
discussed that. It was just to keep it at seventy-five (75)/twenty-five (25) at the
lower percentage.
Councilmember Hooser: Just real briefly, the ability to supplant is
still clearly there. We are still using operating funds for these other purposes. We
get new funds that are dedicated only for these transportation purposes. The
ability to take them away and put them back in the General Fund is there. That is
my point.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 102 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I share Councilmember Chock's thought and
I guess it is floating around this table in general that we are going to ultimately
defer this Bill today so that we can keep it alive and look at other options, as well as
see what happens at the Legislature.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not know how votes will go, but I think
from what we have heard we will give everybody a chance to discuss that and if
people want to make the motion to defer then we can defer it. From the calendar
that we saw, the Legislature closes on May 5th. We can have a Council Meeting late
April on April 27th and we should already know what the State is going to do by
then. We have through June to get something in because it needs to pass by July,
so we would still have about two (2) months to work on this, if we wanted to defer
and wait to see what the State is going to do. Obviously, we feel like we are playing
poker here on who is going to do what.
Councilmember Yukimura: It seems like it would work to defer to the
meeting after the Legislature closes, unless we have a need to have more thinking
and open discussion on the floor because we cannot discuss it otherwise.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We could and it would be May 11th.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I want to briefly talk about my feelings about
the TAT first. The TAT is about nine million dollars ($9,000,000) a year if we go
with the Working Group's recommendation to Kauai County. One idea I had, and
you folks can use this idea, is that we lobby our Legislature and let us try and get
Hawaii Island and Maui onboard so that the three (3) of us can say, "We will not
bite the poison apple and we will take the Working Group's recommendation, if you
so allow us, and you can leave the City and County of Honolulu out." The major
portion of the TAT is the City and County of Honolulu's portion so maybe that is
something more palatable for the Legislature to offer that to the three (3) of us who
do not have the one-half percent (0.5%). I think that was one angle that I had.
Whether it is workable or not, I know that it is a better option because the
Legislature is already frustrated that they had to give the City and County of
Honolulu an extension on the current rail excise tax. That was my thought on the
TAT. As far as the GET, whether it is twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) or
twelve million five hundred thousand dollars ($12,500,000), if you look at the
impact by just dividing it among our residents, divided by seventy
thousand (70,000), you come out with twenty-five million dollar ($25,000,000)...it
would be three hundred dollars ($350) per person. For a family of four (4), that is
one thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400). That is a huge tax increase. For the
twelve million five hundred thousand dollars ($12,500,000), you are looking at one
hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) per person; for a family of four (4), that is seven
hundred dollars ($700). This is not a small, manini one-half percent (0.5%), "nobody
is going to feel it" kind of tax. This is big time. When we talk about eighty-three
dollars ($83) per car, I am sure the public is going to be calling our Legislators,
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 103 MARCH 2, 2016
because I am not sure if everybody gets to read the Star Advertiser, but eighty-three
dollars ($83) per car compared to one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) per child,
whether you are one (1) month old or ninety-nine (99) years old, everybody needs to
buy food to eat, buy clothes to wear, and pay taxes when they travel. The GET is all
around us, whether you are rich, poor, middle, in-between, or whatever. This is the
worst kind of tax that you want to do. This kind of tax is only meant when there
are no other options. For me, I really feel like I am not one hundred percent (100%)
sure that if we raise the GET that we will see the results as to where I feel the
public wants to see the results. Right now, you look at what we currently fix when
we have major potholes on Olohena Road. The patch jobs that we do with the dry
mix looks like Mr. Potato Head. I do not know if it comes like that because a rain
occurred after we did the patch, but it is like Play-Doh or something. I do not know
what we are doing. With a two hundred million dollar ($200,000,000) budget, if
there are major holes that develop on heavily travel roads like Olohena, I think we
can do a little better. You folks should go out and see. It really looks like
Mr. Potato Head. It is all over: it is in Hanapepe and Puolo Road right along the
stadium. There are bad roads all over the place. I seriously think we are spending
too much or our efforts in trying to determine, as Council Chair said, how to
accommodate bikers and walkers. I want to accommodate everything, believe me,
like buses and so, and my comments about the bus are not just to the management,
but they need the tools in order to be effective. For Celia, when employees are
calling in sick and stuff, she is not a private business owner where she can just fire
them. It is tough to manage an efficient public transportation and if you do not
have the tools like the private sector, it is very difficult because they have got more
than three (3) strikes. I think we have to work on giving Celia the tools if we want
her to succeed with the expansion. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to clarify that the General Excise
Tax is a tax on everyone. It is not just the seventy thousand (70,000) people
population of Kaua`i, but on all visitors and visitor spending. So the net is spread
out a little bit more. Anyone else? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: The seventy thousand (70,000) is the vast
majority. You get a tourist population of about fifteen thousand (15,000) a day, so it
might be a little high. Nonetheless, I get really frustrated when I hear people say,
"Well, it is only this much per year." Maybe the circle of people I know are maybe
different from some of the people that you know, but some people do not have
twenty dollars ($20). Some people are making decisions between medication and
food today as we speak, people I know personally. Then you add that to the other
increases throughout the County and the State. We look at these little increases as
individual increases, but that is not true. When the GET goes up, the pyramiding
effect of this tax is going to affect people. It is not just going to be four percent (4%)
or four and a half percent (4.5%) at the end sale. That product is going to have
generated a higher cost to the people that sell the product or the service and it is
going to be passed on. You do not need to be an economist to put in the impact and
I am not that smart. I think I said it already, but the congestion—when you look at
the documents that were provided, the numbers will be skewed a little bit now
because of the cut in half, but when you look at page number 4, the new roads and
sidewalks, then it references "Attachment F" and you look at "Attachment F," and
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 104 MARCH 2, 2016
you folks can follow along and there is nothing on that list that is going to address
congestion. Maybe the Wailua Houselots connection to the Kapa'a bypass, which I
am getting a lot of E-mails against that because they said it is going to take the
congestion from the bypass into the Houselots. Everything else are bridges,
preventive maintenance, replace that bridge and this bridge, sidewalks, and bike
lanes, but there is nothing that is going to address the congestion. On page number
5 on the list, which are the new initiatives...in talking about the new town entry to
Kilauea, connector roads between neighborhoods and so forth, Lihu`e mauka leg and
northerly leg of the K5loa Western Bypass, and it says, "Decisions will need to be
made about developing projects to provide the most traffic relief. The County could
pursue it if GET funding is available," but there is no more funding. All of the
dollars are accounted for in the existing plan. I do not know what that means. On
page number 6, which is something that bothers me, are the personnel
requirements, the increase in positions. I do not know what the Department of
Public Works' four (4) positions would be limited terms, civil service employees. I
am not sure how you do that, but nonetheless, it is there. There are also thirty-four
(34) positions for Transportation: twenty-four (24) bus drivers, three (3) dispatchers,
two (2) mechanics, and five (5) more administrative positions. I have a problem
with that and I shared that before. Again, those additional costs will have to be
paid for going down the road later. Somebody has to pick up the tab on that when
the tax runs out. Obviously, I do not have enough time to discuss the issue about
the TAT, but I have said it at last meeting that we are not getting our fair share. At
some point, we have to make that position known and I think by passing the GET,
the State will feel satisfied that they have given the counties the ability to generate
the revenue so they will stop jumping on our back about the TAT. Until we stand
up, all four (4) counties, I think Hawai`i Island is going entertain the GET, but
when I last spoke with Maui, they are not. They are not even going to put it on the
agenda; they are not even going to address it. Maui is the lone wolf in this right
now, as far as fighting for the TAT, but I am at the point that I think the other
three (3) counties have to jump onboard and support Maui's efforts to share with the
general public why the TAT is so important for the counties, because based on the
discussions I have had with the leadership at the State level, we are not going to see
a substantial, significant increase this year. That will make it really difficult for us.
Whether we defer this or not, I am prepared to vote today because my position will
not change. I do not see us moving down the road of trying to ease up the
congestion. Obviously, that is just my position. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Council Chair mentioned those making
choices between medicine and food, and those are the ones I am thinking about
when I say that the GET is really regressive and should not be used...these people
should not have to pay for road repairs that are caused by big trucks and a lot of
people who drive on the roads. It is better to go by use. Councilmember Kagawa
graphically described the need for road repair and I think we all agree that we have
to repair it. Eighty-seven dollars ($87) a year more is seven dollars ($7) per month
and surely we can pay that much to get our roads repaired. The reason we have the
one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) bill now is because we have been
subsidizing cars, trucks, and users of the roads. They have not been paying what it
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 105 MARCH 2, 2016
takes to keep it up. People are grumbling about bus subsidies, but we are
subsidizing roads big time and as Committee Chair said, we are passing it on to our
kids and we just cannot keep doing that. I will some other time describe how buses
will help address congestion, but I want to say that bus drivers are green jobs
serving a very important function. It depends on how we are looking at these
things. If as Councilmember Hooser said, bus is a service that we need for people
who are choosing between medicine and food. We have to think about providing it
and providing it on a greater level so more people can save money.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to say that it is great to have
seven (7) people on the Council where you get advocates for different constituents,
and I am here advocating for the people that cannot ride the bus, cannot ride a bike,
and cannot walk on a sidewalk. There are many people that because of life in this
rural community that have to drive and time is money. If you are driving from
Kapa'a to Lihu`e—I still say that the west side traffic is much more severe and
much worse than the Kapa'a traffic. The Kapa'a traffic is a much shorter distance,
but the west side traffic is ridiculous. The worst part about the west side traffic is
that you do not have an opportunity to come around that. You are stuck on that
highway. In Kapa`a, everybody is cheating through the Marketplace or everywhere
that they think will make a difference and it may save thirty (30) seconds off of
their commute. As I spoke to the lady that was here earlier today when she
brought that up, at some point on this island, we have to build a new road. We
cannot expect to resolve the traffic issues with Kuhio Highway and Kaumuali`i
Highway, and the State has basically said, "Sorry, Kaua`i, we do not have the
money." At some point, the County is going to have to do something, whether it is
addressing the needs by looking at alternate routes that we can either condemn or
using the network of old plantation roads, something has to be done at some point.
The longer we wait to even address that—I think that is the frustration, that we
have consultants and planners looking for everything else. We see it here. We
spend a lot of money on the bike lanes and everything else and we conveniently can
ignore the issue by saying that it is the State's problem and that is the State's
highway, so we cannot really do much about that. We have to at least make an
effort to figure out if there are any other alternatives for the County to alleviate the
congestion, because it is not going to get any better. You can fill up the bus. You
might take a few cars off the road, but that is not going to alleviate the traffic.
Remember, the population is growing. If we do not start addressing that...that is
what I hoped to see in here that there would be some funding that would address
that, but we have to start someplace. When we talked earlier about being behind
the ball when we were talking about the raises, we are certainly behind the ball
when it comes to the highway traffic. That is all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question for the Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are in discussion, so there are no
questions. I thought the Chair was going to say, "Something needs to be done and
he was ready to vote for the tax." Just kidding.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 106 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I am ready to vote. We should vote today.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think what it comes down to is what is our
responsibility? If we have a liability, what is our responsibility to fulfill it? It is
easy to say that we are not going tax anybody, but again, it is going affect our
quality of life on Kauai. Are we going to be complacent with holes in our road? If
we do not want to pay to fix it, then we are fine with it, but if we want better roads,
then it is going to cost money. Right now, we obviously see that the gap is huge.
We cannot just put a little money to it and fix the road problem. We need a huge
infusion of money to get the roads back up to par before we can even move forward.
What is my responsibility? I do not think I ever wanted to run and say that I want
to raise taxes on anybody. When you look at the financials, our budget, and how we
are able to generate money, I think the more we sit back, the more we are going to
get punched in the face, because we increased fuel tax two cents ($0.02) a few years
ago, and then the State comes in and increases it a whole bunch now and it is like,
"Hey, it is going to be even harder for us to do it," and our money goes to Kauai.
The State's money goes all over the place. It can go to O`ahu, Maui, Hawai`i Island,
but our money stays here on Kauai, so I would hate to get so far behind on the ball
that the State takes advantage of everything and we basically get stuck saying...I
mean I feel bad for our taxpayers because the State raised the taxes on vehicles, so
if we are not going to raise anything, we get zero dollars. "The State is not going to
give us anymore TAT," then what are we going to do? For me, we really need to
look at what kind of a future do we want and do we want to be more financially
stable and do we want to know that we have money for our roads? I agree with
Council Chair Rapozo that I think we will need a new road eventually. For me, it is
where is that money going to come from? The money is not going to fall out of the
sky. Again, the only way we can get money is TAT from the State, real property
taxes, fuel tax, or vehicle weight tax. Those are the only four (4) ways we can get
money, or a GET, which would be spread through everybody. Again, the GET
spreads out to everybody that spends money on Kaua`i. Real property tax is only
our tax base for homeowners and hotels. The vehicle weight tax is only for vehicles.
So you are basically spreading the net out wide with the GET, and as we start to
look for money, the tax burden is going to be a lot higher if we start saying, "Not
GET or real property tax." If we start going just to vehicle owners, then the smaller
amount of vehicle owners are going to have to bear the larger amount of tax. I do
not know. It is not an easy decision and it is not easy. I feel for the people who will
be affected by the tax, but I also feel for us. Is it fair that we are in this position? I
do not think so? Is it our obligation and responsibility to do something about it? I
do think so. That is just my feeling. Again, we do have time on this. The State is
done May 5th, so if we want to see what they do with the TAT...from my
understanding, too, I heard we are not going to get any much more. Then what do
we do? Are they going to beat us to the punch on more vehicle weight and fuel taxes
also? Then what are we going to do? Our money stays here on Kauai. It is just
hard. We have future obligations and we need to take care of it and we cannot
continue to kick the can down the road. I am open to waiting. We look at our
toolbox, leave the toolbox open as long as possible, and see what the State does.
Still, I do not know where the votes would go, if we want to close GET after we find
out what the State does and say, "Well, we do not want to do GET either." That is
fine, too. Again, I think we should leave our toolbox open and see what options we
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 107 MARCH 2, 2016
have as long as possible because I do not know how we are going to get money to
help fix our roads or bridges. That is my main priority. Again, when the money
was small and everybody was like, "Yes, that is okay. We can figure out what we
are going to do." But when the money was huge, it was like, "Wow, how are we
going to manage all of this?" My main priority is existing infrastructure. Then for
anything else, we look at it on a case-by-case basis. If we need to put in a new road
for traffic, then we need to look at it on case-by-case what is the best way to spend
our money. That just my opinion. Would somebody want to make a motion to defer
or are you folks ready to vote on it? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: To me, there might be a difference between
dealing with this today and after the period May 11th or whenever it is in the future
before our deadline, if appropriate then start a new bill. What does that mean
procedurally? What is the difference between having this Bill be deferred or having
a new bill in May or June?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think if you are going to change the intent
of the bill, then a new bill would come up separately and we defer this and look at
two (2) bills, but I am not sure.
Councilmember Kuali`i: In many ways, I think we need to see the
new details on what we have now. How is the money being spent? Is it just half of
everything that we just amended? This simple amendment changed all of this; even
some of the things that Chair Rapozo was questioning that was based on the
one-half percent (0.5%), so where is the whole new proposal based on the
one-quarter percent (0.25%)? Why not just dispose of this today and have that new
bill in the future after we work on the Legislature? The same way we are watching
the Legislature, the Legislature is watching us, right? If we have a GET bill
hanging, it is kind of implying to them that we are going to pass it at some point.
How does that look?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just thinking timeline because the
deadline for the passage of the GET Bill is when?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: July let, so we need to pass it in June.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you would have time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If we defer it to May 11th, we have May and
June.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, but I think what Councilmember Kuali`i
is saying that if we just receive it, and then wait for the State, and then give the
Administration an opportunity to come up with a new bill or details. Just the
personnel requirement now is going to change because you do not have the funds.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 108 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For my opinion, I think I would rather have
it get deferred and they just come in...if we want to defer it to an earlier date and
have them present on a revised project list, I am open to that also. I think just by
reducing it, the Administration is really going to have to prioritize further and say
the projects they are going to do and what the projects are that we cannot live
without. I think they have said that the auto shop is something they would pull if
they did not have the money and things like that. We could look at that list with
the current amended bill. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it might be worth it to defer for a
shorter period. Even in the middle of our budget, we may have things, but also for
more discussion. I really do not want to receive this Bill and start a new one
because a new one would require a public hearing again and it is just the
timeframe. It is better to have a bill existing, but that does not preclude other bills
from coming forth. I will tell you that the Legislature will feel that we are
responsible if we are trying to address our needs. We should never frame the TAT
request as something that is going to help us pay for anything. They are not going
to like that. I think we have to say that we are paying it to offset tourist impacts.
That is a very powerful position for us, I believe. I do not see the pending GET Bill
being a big problem. They have other reasons that they are not going for it. If we
are the County with Honolulu that are exercising a GET, they are not going to be
able to exclude those two (2) and include...if they are going to give us TAT, they are
going to give it to everybody. We still have impacts from tourism. That is our
grounds for asking for TAT.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: The amendment today did not put a split, so
there is no split. It is going to be very difficult for the Administration to come up
with a project list because there is no split. It is going to be determined by the
Administration and the Councils of the future. It is not like how it was where we
get "x" amount of dollars for capital improvements because there is no split
anymore. One-quarter percent (0.25%) will come to the County and whether it is in
that GET line in the budget, the Administration at that time, which will be a new
Administration and the Council at that time, which will be a new Council, because
at least two (2) of us will be off that Council.
Councilmember Yukimura: Not in 2018.
Council Chair Rapozo: You and I will be gone in 2018 and the crowd
roars.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, the election is in 2018, but we will be
selected, right? I mean that we will not be running for.
Council Chair Rapozo: You love to argue with me, Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We will be there in January 1, 2018.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 109 MARCH 2, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, the budget is in March though.
Anyways, there is no real...what is the plan? It really is irrelevant to the discussion
because we know what the money will be, but there is not going to be a required
appropriation for bus, roads, or whatnot. I just wanted to make that point.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, as Councilmember Kagawa said and
also the Managing Director, they would come up with projects and justify the
projects as being the highest priority for those moneys that has a certain rationale
to it. As we continue the discussion, because I am going to be proposing other
revenue-raising sources, we can see how that is going to work, too. So we can
always re-amend the Bill and that is why I wanted to present a comprehensive
plan. Even with Committee's Chair priority of existing infrastructure, I do not
know that we are going to be able to address that with the one-quarter
percent (0.25%). We still have problems to solve, so let us just leave all the tools on
the table and let us see how we can pull it together as we can go through further
discussion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am still on the deferral. I could go for a
sooner date because I think there is more work to be done, but if the body would
prefer to move to May 11th, I just think the work needs to get done anyways. We
would just be able to do it here and problem-solve together. If not, then everyone
will work on it individually and come back in May.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: How about April 13th? We can just defer it to
then and if we do not want to have any discussion then we can just defer it again. If
we happen to have other things to talk about like new developments that have
happened or something that has come up in our budget reviews, we will have a
chance to integrate all of that by having it on the agenda.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am open to what the Committee wants to
do. I think if we are going to have the meeting then we should probably specify
what we want. I think it would be prudent to have the Administration go back and
reprioritize. Even though that may not be what follows through into 2018, I think it
would probably be a good stepping stone if the new Administration comes out;
rather than redo all of the plans, they could at least look at it and it may adjust
somewhat, but at least we can kind of have an idea of what the priority is now and
maybe it might have the same Administration and maybe not. If I was coming in, I
would be more than happy to see that information than have to create it myself.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to defer Bill No. 2610, as amended to
Bill No. 2610, Draft 1, to the April 13, 2016 Committee Meeting, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
BF COMMITTEE MEETING 110 MARCH 2, 2016
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can I get a roll call vote?
The motion to defer Bill No. 2610, as amended to Bill No. 2610, Draft 1, to
the April 13, 2016 Committee Meeting was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR DEFERRAL: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST DEFERRAL: Kagawa, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Yamauchi: Four (4) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This is deferred. Seeing no further business,
the Budget & Finance Committee is now adjourned.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
444)- A
I
Codie K. Yamauchi
Council Services Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on April 13, 2016:
ARRYLal • ESHIRO
Chair, BF Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
(March 2, 2016)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2610, Relating to Establishing a General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge
Introduced by: MASON K. CHOCK (By Request)
Amend Bill No. 2610, SECTION 2, Section 5-3.2 to read as follows:
"Sec. 5-3.2 All moneys received from the state derived from the
imposition of the surcharge established under this article shall be deposited into
[the Highway Fund] a special GET Surcharge Fund and expended for the
following purposes authorized by state law:
(a) Operating or capital costs of public roadways, pedestrian
paths, sidewalks, bicycle paths, compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, and safe routes to school (75%); and
(b) Operating or capital costs of public transit systems,
including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(25%)."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored. All
material is new.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2016\2016-210 fa 2610 MC AMK_mn.docx
ATTACHMENT 2
(February 3, 2016)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2610, Relating to Establishing a General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge
Introduced by: JOANN A. YUKIMURA
Amend Bill No. 2610 as follows:
1. Amend proposed Sec. 5-3.1 to read as follows:
"Sec. 5-3.1 Pursuant to Section 3 of Act 240, Session Laws of Hawaii,
Regular Session of 2015, codified as Section 46-16.8 of the Hawaii Revised
• Statutes, there is hereby established a [one-half percent (0.5%)], one-quarter
percent (0.25%) general excise and use tax surcharge to be used for purposes of
funding the operating and capital costs of public (transportation] transit
systems and pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the County of Kaua`i
as specified herein. The excise and use tax surcharge shall be levied beginning
January 1, 2018."
2. Amend proposed Sec. 5-3.2 to read as follows:
"Sec. 5-3.2 All moneys received from the state derived from the
imposition of the surcharge established under this article shall be deposited
into the [Highway] Fund and expended for [the following purposes authorized
by state law:
(a) Operating] operating or capital costs of [public roadways,] public
transit systems and other improvements related to pedestrian paths,
sidewalks, bicycle paths, compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act
of 1990, and safe routes to school [(75%); and
(b) Operating or capital costs of public transit systems, including
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (25%).] as
authorized by state law."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored. All
material is new.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2016\2016-100 fa 2610 JY_,9MK_mn.docx
ATTACHMENT 3
(February 3, 2016)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2610, Relating to Establishing a General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge
Introduced by: JOANN A. YUKIMURA
Amend Bill No. 2610 as follows:
1. Amend proposed Sec. 5-3.1 to read as follows:
"Sec. 5-3.1 Pursuant to Section 3 of Act 240, Session Laws of
Hawai`i, Regular Session of 2015, codified as Section 46-16.8 of the
Hawai`i Revised Statutes, there is hereby established a [one-half percent
(0.5%)] one-quarter percent (0.25%) general excise and use tax surcharge
to be used for purposes of funding the operating and capital costs of public
transportation within the County of Kauai as specified herein. The excise
and use tax surcharge shall be levied beginning January 1, 2018."
2. Amend proposed Sec. 5-3.2 to read as follows:
"Sec. 5-3.2 All moneys received from the state derived from the
imposition of the surcharge established under this article shall be
deposited into the Highway Fund and expended for the following purposes
authorized by state law:
(a) Operating or capital costs of public roadways, pedestrian
paths, sidewalks, bicycle paths, compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, and safe routes to school [(75%)]; and
(b) Operating or capital costs of public transit systems,
including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 [(25%)]."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored. All
material is new.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2016\2016-100 fa 2610 JY_1MILmn.docx