HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2015 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2015
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to
order by Council Chair Mel Rapozo at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street,
Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:36 a.m., after which
the following Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser (present at 8:39 a.m.)
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Chock moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Hooser was excused).
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
August 19, 2015 Council Meeting
September 2, 2015 Council Meeting
September 16, 2015 Public Hearing re: Resolution No. 2015-57 and
Bill No. 2596
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve the Minutes as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Hooser was excused).
INTERVIEW:
1. BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY:
• Wallace G. Rezentes, Jr. — Term ending 12/31/2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Good morning, Mr. Rezentes. Can you
identify yourself for our captioner and give a brief overview of yourself? The
Councilmembers can ask you questions afterwards.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR.: Wallace Rezentes, Jr. I am a former
County employee, working in the Department of Finance for a number of years.
Now I am at First Hawaiian Bank as a Commercial Loan Officer, doing business
loans and somewhat involved in different community groups and various boards. I
COUNCIL MEETING 2 OCTOBER 7, 2015
currently sit on the Kaua`i Economic Opportunity (KEO) Board, as well as the
Board of Waipa Foundation and the Kaua`i Museum. That is it. Short and sweet.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Any questions for Mr. Rezentes?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi Wally. Good morning.
Mr. Rezentes: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: What makes you interested in the Board of
Water Supply?
Mr. Rezentes: In my past life working for the County, we
were involved in working with the Department of Water on some of their financial
matters, specifically in the area of helping them finance through bonds and various
capital needs. I was kind of on the frontend of what is hanneninE now in helping
them set up their Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds (RZEDBs) and
Build America Bonds (BAB) in the last bond issue. I see some of that money coming
into fruition today with some of the infrastructure taking place, and hopefully I can
be part of that discussion, if you will, and provide any assistance I can in working
with the Board of Water Supply on structuring policy, et cetera.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is your thinking about the goal of the
Department of Water with respect to land use and planning?
Mr. Rezentes: Well, because they are semiautonomous and
may not be as "coordinated a function" with the other functions that you folks
ultimately oversee at the Council, I think it is important that they work in tandem
with the County Council and the Administration on similar visions, and hopefully
go after and attack problems or address their vision in the same way so that it is as
coordinated as it could possibly be, whatever the policy decision is of the County
decision makers.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you aware that the County has
embarked on updating the General Plan?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: As a Board of Water Supply Commissioner,
would you be tracking that process?
Mr. Rezentes: I think you would have to, yes. Absolutely.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Do you have any idea what the main
challenges of the Department of Water will be for your term of three (3) to five (5)
years?
Mr. Rezentes: Even on the closer end of the three (3) years,
in the next few months to one (1) year, I understand that the Department of Water
is planning a pretty significant revision to their various fee schedules. I understand
that they are also doing some community outreach to various business groups to
COUNCIL MEETING 3 OCTOBER 7, 2015
discuss what their plans are, what their goals are, and what their financing needs
are. How do they justify what they are going to be proposing or what they have
proposed? I am not one hundred percent (100%) sure if it is set in stone what they
are going to be proposing, but I understand that something is in the works and it is
a pretty significant rework of their current fees and costs. I am sure that whatever
is decided will have an impact on the construction industry and developer industry,
et cetera.
Councilmember Yukimura: My understanding of the underlying purpose
of relooking at the fee schedule is to make sure that the Department of Water will
be fiscally viable into the future and that there will be questions about who pays. Is
it new growth pays for its own or do existing customers pay for new growth? What
are your thoughts on that matter?
Mr. Rezentes: Well, I think like anything else I want to
review whatever studies they have done so far in recent years to support or justify
whatever new schedules or fee schedules they are going to be proposing. I think you
need to look at where the costs are associated with the fees. Where do they lie? It
will probably be at the end of the day, a balancing act between new and current, if
you will. I am sure there are infrastructure needs and requirements that they need
to place funds towards that are associated with the existing infrastructure. I am
sure and I hope that there are that justify and support whatever the Department of
Water and Board of Water Supply...I am just hoping it will be in line and hopefully
I can see that the costs are going to be in line with the schedules that will
ultimately be passed.
Councilmember Yukimura: So any person or body that is concerned
about County infrastructure will have to look at this issue of aging infrastructure.
Is that something you plan to look at?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes. I have been on O`ahu the last few
weeks and I always used to complain about our road systems here because
sometimes the potholes get pretty ugly, especially some parts where I live where it
rains a lot. I was taken aback at how bad the O`ahu roads are, so I cannot really
complain too much about Kaua`i anymore because I think we are a couple steps
ahead of O`ahu, at least in the last few weeks being there. I know they had a lot of
ugly weather come through there for the last few months, but I know it is a
catch-up. For everyone, you can never do enough. There is always more that you
can do, but there is only so much money available to provide it. It is about properly
prioritizing what you do and hopefully we put the emphasis and the funds in the
right place for the benefit of the people.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you feel that you will have any conflicts of
interest in being on the Board?
Mr. Rezentes: If one arises, I would have to properly
declare it to the County Attorney's Office and deal with it. There may be a case or
two where a customer of First Hawaiian Bank is working through something with
the Board of Water Supply, which I would have to properly declare that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, yes. Are you still with the bank?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 4 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember
Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Good morning.
Mr. Rezentes: Good morning.
Councilmember Hooser: I apologize for coming a few minutes late and
if I ask something that you have already answered...
Mr. Rezentes: I can just raise my hand?
Councilmember Hooser: I was looking at your application and I
noticed that there are some blanks there. You did not mention your employer, your
occupation, or anything like that.
Mr. Rezentes: I am a Commercial Loan Officer at First
Hawaiian Bank.
Councilmember Hooser: I guess the application is intended to have a
history of employment. How long have you been there?
Mr. Rezentes: About three (3) years.
Councilmember Hooser: Three (3) years. Before that?
Mr. Rezentes: The County of Kaua`i.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Rezentes: Before that, First Hawaiian Bank, and
before that, the County of Kaua`i.
Councilmember Hooser: Another question that you did not answer
was, "Are you currently an official registered and/or card carrying member of any
political party?"
Mr. Rezentes: Democrat.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I believe the question that
Councilmember Yukimura was asking had to do with potential conflicts of interests.
So with First Hawaiian Bank, I imagine that if they were financing or funding some
project dependent on the Board of Water Supply's decision or the availability of
water then...
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, I would definitely seek the advice of the
County Attorney's Office and properly declare if there is an instance where the bank
has a banking relationship with an entity or individual.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
COUNCIL MEETING 5 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Chock: Wally, thank you for being here. I think
with your experience in finance and the bank, infrastructure needs are going to be
really important, so I am glad you are tuned into that as we move forward with our
growth. The Supreme Court ruling of Kaua`i Springs has brought up a question of
responsibilities for the County. I was just wondering from your perspective if you
think the County should be looking a little deeper into what the delineation or
definition of what that ruling is so that we are clear about our responsibility. If so,
do you think you might support a discussion at the Board of Water Supply?
Mr. Rezentes: I am sorry, you mentioned a ruling on what?
Councilmember Chock: The Supreme Court ruling on the Kaua`i
Springs case. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Rezentes: Vaguely.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. In essence, what we need to be
looking at is how it might affect our decision making on Kaua`i and what our
oversight is. My hope is that we can continue to have that discussion.
Mr. Rezentes: Sure.
Councilmember Chock: You being in that position would put you
right in the seat to be in the middle of that, so I am looking forward to that. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Wally. I appreciate you coming
forth and being willing to serve with your financial background and knowledge of
the County. I think whenever you have a utility monopoly, the taxpayers,
residents, and commercial kind of wonder how our rates compare. I was just
wondering if you had any perspective right now on how Kaua`i rates compare to
O`ahu, Hawai`i, and Maui. Are we about the same or do we pay more?
Mr. Rezentes: Unfortunately, I missed a meeting that I was
asked to attend by the Contractor's Association within the last week. I believe the
Department of Water personnel attended that meeting where they discussed some
of their rate schedule planning and where the other Counties were. From what I
heard, secondhand, right now the County of Kaua`i's rate schedule is by and large
lower than the other Counties. I believe the rate schedule being proposed would put
Kaua`i on the higher end of the scale, if not the highest. Again, that was
secondhand information. I do not have the specific details.
Councilmember Kagawa: Right now we are lower than everybody else,
but there may be some changes coming forth that may put us higher.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct. That is what I understand.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 6 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Just to say that for ethics issues, it usually
goes through the Board of Ethics, though the County Attorney can give you some
preliminaries. But really, it is the Board of Ethics that makes definitive rulings.
Thank you.
Mr. Rezentes: I am sure Mr. Trask is going to help me if we
need to take anything to Ethics.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sure. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Wally, does the
Department of Water currently have any financial dealings with your bank?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe they may have some depository
accounts with First Hawaiian Bank. I think their primary relationship is not with
First Hawaiian Bank.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did you write any commercial loans for the
Department of Water?
Mr. Rezentes: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Rezentes: I think most of their financing sources are
bonds, just like the County.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: You do not really have to answer this, but I
just want you to share your financial management and accounting background and
try to make sure that water meter hook-up fees do not become too outrageous,
because at the end of the day, if those hook-up fees become too outrageous, I think it
will be even harder for our local families to start building a house and start a
beginning. Again, I do not know what the plan is. It is what I heard might happen,
which a large increase is coming. I think you provide that financial background
that can hold the Department of Water accountable to make sure that we are not
overpricing that area.
Mr. Rezentes: I think Councilmember Yukimura spoke
about this earlier, that the Department of Water is semiautonomous and over its
history they have been self-supporting, and I believe they will continue to be that
way; they need to be that way. What is going to happen in the near future is going
to have to be in-line with that vision of being self-supportive.
Councilmember Kagawa: I guess if I can follow-up, part of the question
is how much of the financial end do you want the hook-up fees to be paid for, rather
than the rate payers pay for? If you are Mark Zuckerberg and you are asked to pay
a large hook-up fee, then it is no problem. But if you are a young adult that just got
out of college and is trying to build a house, that hook-up fee could make or break
their plans.
COUNCIL MEETING 7 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Rezentes: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to make sure that you provide
that oversight on that end as they move forward to look at increasing those hook-up
fees.
Mr. Rezentes: Sure.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Council Vice Chair Kagawa raises a good
point, which has come up before in our housing discussions, whether second homes
and vacation rentals should be entitled to the same resources at the same price as
primary homes for people who live here. I guess my question is whether you would
look at that issue in the setting of fees and others. It is a difficult one, as most of
our public policy issues are pretty complex. It seems to me that the resources of the
island should first go to local families. Will you be looking at that issue in light of
the resource of potable water?
Mr. Rezentes: I would definitely be open to doing that and
hopefully there is good, solid information that the Department of Water has that
would assist us in making decisions along those lines if it is possible, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am glad you are talking about good, solid
information because the more I am in this business of public policy, it is having
good data that is really important.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So I am glad that you will be there, kind of
guiding the Department of Water to get good data.
Mr. Rezentes: I hope to be of help.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, thank you very much,
Mr. Rezentes. We will have the vote up on the 21St. Anyone in the audience
wishing to testify? If not, next item, please.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: The next item is on the
Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2015-245 Communication (09/01/2015) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Condition of the County Treasury
Statement quarterly report as of August 7, 2015: Councilmember Chock moved to
COUNCIL MEETING 8 OCTOBER 7, 2015
receive C 2015-245 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item would be Communications.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2015-246 Communication (08/25/2015) from the Chief of Police, requesting
Council approval to purchase two (2) new K9 vehicles, at an estimated amount of
$75,000.00, through the Hawai`i High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
Initiative, for law enforcement purposes and the Kaua`i Police Department's canine
program: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2015-246, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a question for the Kaua`i Police
Department (KPD).
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I will suspend the rules with no
objections.
Councilmember Hooser: I think it is probably an easy question. I
know the memorandum said something about not revealing the description of the
vehicle because it would be used by Vice, but what is a K9 vehicle? I am assuming
it is not a vehicle that dogs drive.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
RICHARD W. ROSA, Assistant Chief: Assistant Chief Richard Rosa,
Investigative Services Bureau (ISB).
KAREN M. KAPUA, Lieutenant: Karen Kapua, Lieutenant. No, it is
utilized to take the dogs along.
Councilmember Hooser: So it is a vehicle that can...
Ms. Kapua: House the dogs.
Councilmember Hooser: How is it different from a regular vehicle
that dogs go in?
Ms. Kapua: It is going to be specifically for the K9.
Councilmember Hooser: So it would be dedicated for them?
Ms. Kapua: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Is the seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000) through a grant?
COUNCIL MEETING 9 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Ms. Kapua: Through the Hawai`i High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) grant, yes.
Councilmember Hooser: So those are not County operational funds
directly; these are from outside. Are those federal funds?
Ms. Kapua: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi. Thank you both for being here. When we
purchase vehicles like this under a grant, then they become part of the Kauai Police
Department's vehicle inventory, right?
Ms. Kapua: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would guess that repair and maintenance
are our costs.
Ms. Kapua: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Then they are treated like a regular
vehicle, so when they get to the end of their useful life they go through the same
process.
Ms. Kapua: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the estimated life of a vehicle like
this? Do you know?
Mr. Rosa: I would assume at least ten (10) years
because that is almost what we using our vehicles for right now. Vice had one (1)
truck that is not operable anymore for the K9 unit, so they are down to one (1)
vehicle, which always has to go in the shop for repairs. It is costly and it affects
operations.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is time for a new vehicle.
Mr. Rosa: Yes, Ma'am.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, thank you. Any
public testimony on this item? If not, I will call the meeting back to order. Further
discussion? No discussion?
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-246 was then put, and unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING 10 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there going to be a lot of discussion on
C 2015-247, C 2015-248, and C 2015-249?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a couple of questions on C 2015-247.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. If there are no objections, I would ask
that we take up C 2015-250 because there are members of the public here who
would like to testify on Bill No. 2600. If we can accommodate them so they can
leave, it would be much appreciated. Is there any opposition or objection to that? If
not, thank you. Can you read C 2015-250, please?
There being no objections, C 2015-250 was taken out of order.
C 2015-250 Communication (09/24/2015) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, proposed amendments to Chapter 5A,
Section 5A-11A.1, Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to the beneficial
tax rate for property used for long-term affordable rental, to provide a one-time tax
credit to owners who received the beneficial tax rate pursuant to Section 5A-11A.1
for tax years 2015 and 2016.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have two (2) registered speakers.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion to receive, please?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-250 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to provide a brief clarification
of the proposal. This came up in a regular communication in a Committee Meeting
and we talked about this issue a little bit. It was a very weird situation because the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rates is
eighty percent (80%) of the median income or less, and what happened was in 2015
a lot of people applied for it and got the exemption. The exemption allows you to
pay a three dollar and five cents ($3.05) rate instead of a six dollar ($6.00) rate, and
that proves beneficial for a lot of people in order to keep their rents down and rent it
out to what they say are our local families. What happened was that normally the
HUD rates, the eighty percent (80%) always stays the same or goes up. In this case,
this year for 2015 and 2016, the amount went down. In order to qualify for the tax
break, you would have to reduce your rent. Where do you see deflation of anything
in America nowadays, especially in rents and real estate? My proposal says let us
at least keep it the same and you can still get your break. If you had it last year
and you want to rent at the same amount, let us keep it the same. Another way of
looking at it is to play with the rates and go up to ninety percent (90%) or one
hundred percent (100%) because when you apply it to Kaua`i, something went
wrong. Like I said, where do you see deflation of real estate in Hawaii? We want
to be fair. We do not want this to be a loophole for us to lose out on revenue to the
County, but we want to see our working families be able to afford rents that really
allow them to move out of their houses that they are sharing and what have you
and still allow the homeowners to get that nice three dollar ($3) tax rate because it
serves as a homestead and serves as a (inaudible) for our working families. I just
think that we need to do something. The September 30th date has passed, but we
are still able to do something. We can push the date to December 31St. That is what
COUNCIL MEETING 11 OCTOBER 7, 2015
this Bill does. Like I said, there are several proposals we can play with. The
Housing Director said if we move it to ninety percent (90%) or one hundred percent
(100%), we could affect those rents that are really low at thirty percent (30%) to
forty percent (40%) and would give incentive to those owners of those rentals to
increase their rents, and then we will really be hurting the ones that we want to
help, if that is true. It is kind of deciphering what is true and not true. I think for
some people, they know the homeowners and they feel for them, so they keep their
rents really low because they care about them and they can afford to. It is really a
touch situation, but hopefully we can at least work something out that is fair. We
always look for something that is fair and takes care of our families and gives them
a fair playing field to do business with the County of Kaua`i. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question for Vice Chair. First of all,
I just want to thank you for introducing the Bill. I think as former Councilmember
Tim Bynum said, the affordable rental tax rate is one of the most important
programs because we have a lot of local families renting at affordable rates and it
encourages them to do so. It is "win-win" to me all around and we found this
problem with the HUD rates that needs to be addressed. Just because we always
need to know, what are the financial consequences of this refund? Do we know?
Councilmember Kagawa: Sorry, no, I do not. I can have those
responses ready for Committee.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, that would be great.
Councilmember Kagawa: I will have that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I also have a question for the introducer. Is
Finance Department going to be here later today?
Councilmember Kagawa: Well, this is only first reading, so we will
have them here for Committee, if that is okay.
Councilmember Hooser: I mentioned before that my wife and I have a
small rental and we were enrolled in this program, so I am at interest with full
disclosure. We were in the same situation, basically. I am just using myself as an
example because other people would be a similar example. September 30th came
and we were faced with the decision to lower our rents to meet the new rent
guidelines or do nothing and have our taxes increased or we could have raised the
rents, I suppose. So we choose to do nothing. I imagine that other people may have
been in this situation. I did not fill out the form on September 30th to do anything
at all, so my rate as we sit here today, and other people, would revert to the
Residential rate. If this would pass, does that give people like me another bite at
the apple? Can I go in there and reapply, basically? Is that the intent of this?
Councilmember Kagawa: This is what that exactly does.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 12 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Kagawa: We are going to extend the date from
September 30th to December 31St.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Since we have not raised the rent and
do not intend to raise the rent, then we would qualify to maintain that benefit?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Again, I do not mean to focus on myself, but I
think it is a good example because a lot of people are thinking the same thing.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think we had the totals at that Committee
Meeting. It was not the end of September 30th yet, but we could see that there were
going to be a lot of people that did not qualify for it that had it the prior year, so
there is a big void that we are filling. Again, if they are going to keep the rents the
same, deflation should not affect this tax benefit.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser, I would
suggest that before we get to the first reading bill that you chat with Mauna Kea
because I think that would be a conflict because you would stand to gain a benefit.
Councilmember Hooser: I will talk to the County Attorney, but I do
believe that in tax issues, raising or lowering taxes, we all benefit or whatever, so it
is what you would call a "broad conflict," but I will get clearance from the County
Attorney. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion before we
open it up for public testimony? If not, I will suspend the rules with no objections.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registered speaker is Dorothea
Hayashi, followed by Tina Sakamoto.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
DOROTHEA HAYASHI: Good morning, Councilmembers. Dorothea
Hayashi. The Council looks like they are all in pink today, so I feel out of place. I
like the colors. First of all, I wanted to thank you for at least trying to fix this
problem that is affecting so many of us locals who are trying to keep the rent so that
we can rent to our local people. I appreciate the intent of this Bill and I do not know
if I read it wrong, but when I initially came to this Council, my concern was the
drop in the rental rate, as Councilmember Kagawa had explained. I do not know if
the intent of this Bill is to bring it back to the 2015 rental application rates, because
if the intent is to help us along, I would rather see it at that 2015 rates because at
least it gives us that allowance to benefit from the rate increase because it dropped.
If you are going to keep us at last year's rental rate, then I think it may affect some
of our renters. I would appreciate it if we could go back to the 2015 rates. I applied
for it and I knew I was going to be rejected, but the thing was that I am really
interested in knowing how many people from the prior years applied and were
rejected. If we could get those numbers, I think that would be a very interesting
analysis of the effect of this new drop in the HUD program. I was called and I was
COUNCIL MEETING 13 OCTOBER 7, 2015
told that I was rejected, even if I went with the 2015 rates. With that, I would
appreciate it if you look into that matter. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Dorothea, as I address you I have to correct
myself. In this Bill that is currently drafted, if you did not apply by the
September 30th date, then this Bill would not cover you. Is that how you read that?
Ms. Hayashi: No, I am talking about the...
Councilmember Kagawa: I understand, but in answering
Councilmember Hooser's question, we need an amendment at some point because I
think what we want to do is open it up again for those people that said, "Hey, I
cannot reduce my rent to stay in this program, so I am not going to apply by
September 30th." Basically, I think this Bill recognizes that we made a mistake...or
HUD made a mistake, as far as applying lower rents and the Real Property Tax
Office using lower rents the next year, like deflation in real estate as being correct,
and it is not. Dorothea, I think the amendment you are asking for is for us to go
back to recognize that 2016 was a mistake and go back to the 2015 rates, which in
effect accomplishes the same thing. Again, that can be another amendment and we
can see if it has the votes, but we probably need to hear from Housing, too, and their
take if we go back to that. We definitely have a lot of work to bang out in the
Committee Meeting, Chair, but hopefully we can do it in that day.
Ms. Hayashi: That is why I applied also, even if I knew I
was going to be rejected because I was not sure what was going to be introduced, so
just to protect myself. In that sense, I applied. Whether it was rejected, that was
what was going to happen. Thank you very much.
Councilmember Kagawa: Hopefully after this Bill passes, then you will
be accepted again.
Ms. Hayashi: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next speaker is Tina Sakamoto.
TINA SAKAMOTO: Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, and
Members. I am Tina Sakamoto and I am here this morning to offer testimony for
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2600), as related to the beneficial tax rate for property used
for long-term affordable rentals. If the intent of this Bill is to preserve, maintain,
and increase the availability of affordable rental housing on Kaua`i; if the intent of
this Bill is to meet the economic rental housing needs of Kaua`i's residents; if the
intent of this Bill is to encourage a County partnership with private real property
owners who offer affordable housing; and if the intent of this Bill is to provide a real
property tax incentive to real property tax owners who offer affordable housing,
then I am in support of this Proposed Draft Bill and I thank Vice Chair Ross
Kagawa for introducing it. Although I am in support of the intent of this Proposed
Draft Bill, I would ask you to consider an alternative to apply the allowable tax
rates of 2015 for the tax year 2016, and the passage then would encourage real
property owners to offer immediate long-term affordable rental housing for Kaua`i
residents. That is it.
COUNCIL MEETING 14 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi Tina. Thank you for being here and for
your "bird-dogging" this Bill and this issue. You said to apply the 2015 tax rates or
is it the rental threshold?
Ms. Sakamoto: The affordable rents.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is the affordable rental threshold, right?
Ms. Sakamoto: Yes, the allowable that was provided for the
2015 tax year and to have those same applicable rent rates for 2016.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think there might be some legal issues. I
understand why you want to do that. I think if we go back, then we are going to
have to open it up for everybody to apply based on a new different rate, but we can
inquire and talk to our legal people about that. I understand the intention.
Ms. Sakamoto: Then the alternative would be an
amendment to this proposal where you would allow a one-time tax credit equal to
the difference between the real property tax at the three dollars and five cents
($3.05) rate for Homestead and the six dollars and five cents ($6.05) rate for the
Residential. So that value amount would be the amount of tax credit.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, that is why I asked what the fiscal
implications are. I believe that is what this Bill intends to do; it is talking about a
tax credit.
Ms. Sakamoto: I think it would be neutral, except with
increasing assessed values or the net assessed values. Then it would not only be
neutral, but it would probably be a positive move towards the total taxes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, defining the class and going backwards
is a little difficult. We will have to consult with both the Tax Office and the
Attorneys, but I think we know what the goal is so we will have to work out the
mechanics. Thank you.
Ms. Sakamoto: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: No further speakers.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify on this
matter? If not, we will call the meeting back to order. Further discussion? Again,
this is just the communication. We will have a discussion on the Bill later. I am
not sure if anyone has...I know Councilmember Hooser asked if someone from the
Tax Office is going to be here. If they can be available, have them come by because
I believe it is important to get as much information out before the public hearing so
that the public can have a little more information. That is why we take the
communication out of the Consent Calendar. I understand it is late notice, but if
they are available, can they come? If not, that is fine as well. With that, the motion
to receive was made.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 OCTOBER 7, 2015
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2015-250 for the record was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we go back to C 2015-247, please?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes.
C 2015-247 Communication (09/21/2015) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive, expend, and indemnify the State Executive
Office on Aging for Federal Funds for the Fiscal Year 2016, in the amount of
$543,186.00, which will be used for the provision of Title III services of the Older
Americans Act and includes the following:
• Title III B (information and referral; outreach; legal
assistance): $215,890;
• Title III Cl (congregate meals): $178,191;
• Title III C2 (home delivered meals): $88,900;
• Title III D (evidence based programs like EnhanceFitness or
Better Choices, Better Health): $7,358; and
• Title III E (caregiver support services): $52,847.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2015-247, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I will suspend the rules with no
objections. I assuming it is Kealoha.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LUDVINA K. TAKAHASHI, Executive on Aging: Good morning. Kealoha
Takahashi, Executive on Aging with the Agency on Elderly Affairs.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Kealoha. Thank you for
being here. Thank you as always for the good work of your Agency. This is five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) plus that we are getting Elderly Affairs
through your grant writing and programing, so thank you. The five hundred
forty-three thousand dollars ($543,000) will be used for information and referral,
outreach; legal assistance; congregate meals; home delivered meals;
EnhanceFitness; and caregiver support. For the home delivered meals and for the
legal assistance, we do that by contracting, so do we do a Request For Proposal
(RFP) process?
Ms. Takahashi: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. How do we measure performance?
COUNCIL MEETING 16 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Ms. Takahashi: We do have surveys that we serve to the
clients, the participants, of those programs to see if the services that they have
received or the meals that they have received are of help.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, that is good. Just recently, I have
gotten some concerns about the quality of the meals that are being delivered. I was
just wondering how we monitor that. I do not know if that is showing up in your
surveys. As the grantee that is required to provide the services either by our actual
action or by contracting, I am sure we want to be certain about the quality of the
services provided. For your caregiver support services, can you describe that? It is
a really innovative and wonderful part of your programming.
Ms. Takahashi: Sure. Our service provider is Alzheimer's
Association, Aloha Chapter.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they are the contractor?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Takahashi: We also have Grandparents Raising
Grandchildren, which is a small contract that Child and Family Services provides.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Takahashi: Basically, they do support groups for
caregivers, telephone or person-to-person counseling, training sessions, and
informational activities where they will bring in speakers to help with several
aspects of caregiving throughout the year.
Councilmember Yukimura: For your Alzheimer's caregiver support
services, is that only for caregivers who are supporting Alzheimer's patients? Is it
for any caregiver?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: If people out in the public watching are in a
caregiving situation and feel like they need support, they can call the Office on
Elderly Affairs.
Ms. Takahashi: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Do you want to give us the number?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes. It is 241-4470.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Kealoha. Can you tell us how
many meals this budget will provide?
COUNCIL MEETING 17 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Ms. Takahashi: The estimation is about three hundred (300)
plus.
Councilmember Chock: Three hundred (300) plus meals? Okay.
Thank you. Do you know what the cost per meal is?
Ms. Takahashi: I need to get those figures for you.
Councilmember Chock: I am just curious. I know that last time we
were concerned about not having enough services, so I am trying to see where we
are going to end up with on this.
Ms. Takahashi: I will need to get that.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that three hundred (300) meals a day?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Hi Kealoha. What is the difference between
congregate meals and home delivered meals?
Ms. Takahashi: With congregate meals, they meet at a
specified location.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay, so like at neighborhood centers?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes and the meals are provided there. It is
for socialization and bringing people together. Home delivered meals are for those
that are unable through frailty or mobility issues where they are homebound and
cannot get out. Their meals are delivered.
Councilmember Kuali`i: These programs are all delivered with
federal funds?
Ms. Takahashi: No. For the home delivered meals, we have
State funding and part of our County funding also helps.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So what we are showing here is just the
federal portion.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. My next question is I think in the
first bullet, it talks about legal assistance and I was reading the description of what
that is and I am wondering if we provide any assistance to our kupuna homeowners
who live on their own property, as far as applying for the real property tax
exemptions that they are eligible for. I know when they apply based on their age,
they only have to go in once because they meet that sixty (60) year old or seventy
(70) year old threshold. Obviously once they put their record on file as their
birthday and as they get older and go up to the next category, the County
COUNCIL MEETING 18 OCTOBER 7, 2015
automatically continues their exemption and increases their exemption based on
them getting older. With the low income exemption, a lot of seniors are only living
on social security and they more than qualify for the low income exemption, but
they have to go in every year and do all kinds of paperwork. I think it is a little bit
cumbersome for the average senior. I am hoping that as a part of this legal
assistance or the type of assistance that we give that we might do that, and if we
are already doing that, that we increase that and do our best to get one hundred
percent (100%) of our seniors who need it to qualify, to get applied, and to take
advantage of the exemption that they are entitled to.
Ms. Takahashi: Right now, I am not sure what those services
would entail. It is basically that they do event directives and living wills. I will
follow-up and see if they do provide under our contract, real property tax assistance.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Good morning.
Ms. Takahashi: Good morning.
Councilmember Hooser: I know the meals are an important part of
these people's, your clients if you would, lives in many respects, right?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Years ago, I had the privilege of going on a
trip around and delivering the meals and realized that it is an important way to
keep in physical contact with people. We go to people's houses and no one had been
there all day and there might be a single person or older person there, so it was a
way of checking on them and they were happy to see us. I thank you for the work
that you and everyone that you work with do. My question is about the three
hundred (300) meals a day. Does that mean three hundred (300) people?
Ms. Takahashi: Well, we serve three hundred (300) people
throughout the year. As far as the meals per day, I am not sure exactly. That may
vary between two hundred (200) in between. Yes, they are individuals.
Councilmember Hooser: So there are about three hundred (300)
individuals that take advantage of this program throughout the year?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Is that usually one (1) meal a day or more
than that?
Ms. Takahashi: It is one (1) meal, a lunch meal.
Councilmember Hooser: A lunch meal?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 19 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: The quality of the food...what is a typical
meal? Is it meatloaf or fish?
Ms. Takahashi: It varies. They have to follow the dietary
guidelines. I do not have a menu, but I can certainly get you one.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I know school lunches sometimes are
the most controversial topics around the schools sometimes. Are the clients
generally happy with the service and the food?
Ms. Takahashi: Generally, yes, according to our surveys.
Like Councilmember Yukimura mentioned, she has received negative feedback
about the quality, so if they make their voice known to us then we can certainly get
back to the service provider to make corrections.
Councilmember Hooser: I do not want to stray too far, but it seemed
like the last year or so I have been hanging around with a lot of people who have
fruits and vegetables. From my house, I brought in a bunch of limes today. If we
had a whole bunch of limes, oranges, or tangerines, can we bring them down and
have them included? I am not saying me personally, but farmers and people. Is
that possible for fresh fruit?
Ms. Takahashi: I guess we would need to check with our
service providers to see how they would be able to incorporate that into the menu.
Councilmember Hooser: It might be a nice treatment once in a while
from some generous farmer or gardener.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: If someone is out there in community and
they are watching this or maybe one of our millions of viewers who cannot sleep at
night and are watching us right now, an elderly person says, "I would like that. I
live on my own and I do not get out that much. It would be nice to have a meal
delivered every day." Where do they apply? Who do they call?
Ms. Takahashi: They can call us at 241-4470 and there is an
eligibility criteria that they would need to meet.
Councilmember Hooser: So there is an income eligibility criterion?
Ms. Takahashi: Not income, just more of mobility, activities
of daily living, and instrumentals. We would assess them through various
components to see if they really do qualify for the meals, but they can certainly call.
Councilmember Hooser: If they wanted to pay for the meals, is that
possible?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: How much is that? Do they pay the full
price?
COUNCIL MEETING 20 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Ms. Takahashi: I hate to say, but anywhere from seven
dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) to eight dollars ($8).
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, for a delivered meal at the door?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Takahashi: You are welcome.
Council Chair Rapozo: They operate off of donations, right? It is not
so much...they cannot call and order a meal and pay, right? I do not think they can
do that. What they do is when they drop off the food they drop off a white envelope.
Ms. Takahashi: Right or you have those that can private pay
and call ahead and reserve.
Council Chair Rapozo: But that does not come out of the three
hundred (300) that we fund, right?
Ms. Takahashi: They are asked to make a voluntary
contribution to the program.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but let us say this grant funds three
hundred (300) meals to service three hundred (300) people. If someone calls in and
wants to do a private pay or private order or whatever, that is in addition, right?
They are not taking away our...
Ms. Takahashi: No, it is separate.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I am saying. They are going to
prepare extra meals for those people.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Is there a waiting list?
Ms. Takahashi: I will need to get back to you on that. To my
knowledge, no.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we still can accommodate people if they
need meals?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know in the past they were and that is why
the Council in the past has actually supplemented the budget so we could take away
the waiting list. Eighty-eight thousand nine hundred dollars ($88,900) is sufficient
for the need on this island?
Ms. Takahashi: No, the contract is larger than eighty-eight
thousand dollars ($88,000).
COUNCIL MEETING 21 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Takahashi: This is only federal funds.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, okay. What is the total cost? Do you
know?
Ms. Takahashi: No, but I will get that to you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. The fact that there is no waiting list
is important. How do you administer the legal services? We used to have the senior
law program.
Ms. Takahashi: We do requests for proposals.
Council Chair Rapozo: Who is doing the services now?
Ms. Takahashi: Right now, we have Legal Aid Society.
Council Chair Rapozo: Legal Aid?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we pay Legal Aid?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Legal Aid is there to provide free services
anyway, right? Legal Aid is an organization that provides free service to the public,
right? The reason I ask is because I have had some complaints from seniors that I
guess in the past we had an attorney and the attorney met and did all of these
things. Unfortunately right now, we have a service, Legal Aid, who is actually
tasked with providing legal service to the people that cannot afford it. That is just
what they do. We are in a situation now where the County funds that organization
to provide a service that they already provide for free. I have a problem with that.
I am not sure how much use we get. I do not know if we track the services.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes we do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do we know how many wills, power of
attorneys, and advanced healthcare directives Legal Aid has provided? Do we get a
report from them of the services?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes we do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have you folks received any complaints from
the senior population?
Ms. Takahashi: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Out of the two hundred fifteen thousand
eight hundred dollars ($215,800), how much goes to Legal Aid?
COUNCIL MEETING 22 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Ms. Takahashi: Off the top of my head, around sixty
thousand dollars ($60,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Sixty thousand dollars ($60,000)?
Ms. Takahashi: Sixty-eight thousand dollars ($68,000) to
seventy thousand dollars ($70,000). I can get that information.
Council Chair Rapozo: They provide the same services that the
Senior Law Program used to provide or the other attorney? Has there been a
reduction in service, I guess, is what I am asking.
Ms. Takahashi: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: So they are getting the same service?
Ms. Takahashi: It is depending on what same...
Council Chair Rapozo: "Same" means what they got with the last
program, are they getting it again? I am hearing that they are not. This is what I
am hearing, that they are calling...in fact, I did not even know that Legal Aid was
providing this...they call and Legal Aid says, "Unfortunately, we are busy," or,
"Unfortunately, we are understaffed." That, to me, is a problem. My only request
would be to follow-up on that and make sure that they are providing our seniors
because we are paying for it. I have a problem paying an organization that is
tasked with providing the free legal services to the community. That is what Legal
Aid does, but yet they are able to get paid for what they are obligated to provide
anyway. For me, it is difficult. I am not even sure how that happened. That is why
Legal Aid is there. Basically, they are providing a free service and getting paid by
the County, by the taxpayers, for a service that they should be providing for free
anyway. That is just one of my concerns.
Ms. Takahashi: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am glad you raised that Chair because I too
have been getting feedback from seniors. Some of them remember how it used to be
when there was another contractor and he was focused on legal services for seniors,
so he sort of knew all the areas of senior of law. There was a very personalized,
focused service and now it does not seem to be that way. Also, there are a lot of
people being turned away, both seniors and non-seniors from Legal Aid. I am a
former Legal Aid attorney and kind of appalled that that is happening.
Ms. Takahashi: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: We will send something over to get an
update from you regarding that program.
Ms. Takahashi: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a vital program, but it is frustrating
when we are paying for something and the seniors are being turned away. That is
not supposed to be happening. Even if we were not funding it, Legal Aid should not
be turning them away anyway, because that is their function in this world that we
live in. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Back to the meals, KEO is the contractor for
that, right?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Where are the meals prepared? I am just
curious.
Ms. Takahashi: In the Immaculate Conception School
kitchen.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, by KEO employees?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, thank you
Kealoha.
Ms. Takahashi: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify on this
matter? Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record, Glenn Mickens. I just want
to sincerely thank these people for their hard work towards the senior citizens, me
being one, and other people getting there. I think you all have asked some great
questions. Councilmember Chock asked about the cost of those meals. I think that
is important and I think we should know what it is costing per meal. Is it
competitive with somebody going down to Tip Top Cafe or someplace else getting a
meal? I think that is highly important. I think the questions that Council Chair
and Councilmember Yukimura were asking are important so that there is not
duplicity here. This grant is for that kind of money and there are other things that
Council Chair and Councilmember Yukimura asked about like Legal Aid. We want
to see that we are not duplicating things that we are paying for in this grant and
that they are also getting other things. I supposed it is really going to take
oversight to really look into each one of these things, and you are trusting people,
because there are so many people that are doing good work. I really do want to
thank these people for what they are doing. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Mickens. Anyone else? If
not, I will call the meeting back to order. Further discussion? I just want to say in
relationship to the quality of the food, I can tell you that my mom was a participant
with Meals on Wheels and she had no complaints about the food. It is all relative, I
guess, to who you are. I think with the lack of income restriction, you have some
people that cannot afford it and who are used to much better food may not like it.
But for my mom, whether it was a sandwich, fruit cup, and salad, which I would see
her eat quite a bit, she was always very appreciative and enjoyed it. I just wanted
COUNCIL MEETING 24 OCTOBER 7, 2015
to make that known. I am sure not everybody is happy with that, but it is free,
healthy, and delicious.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-247 was then put, and unanimously carried.
C 2015-248 Communication (09/23/2015) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval of the Agency on Elderly Affairs' 4-Year Area Plan on
Aging (from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2019), which serves as the
blueprint and framework for the next four (4) years in the planning and
development of aging services and programs for the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2015-248, seconded by Councilmember
Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure. The rules are suspended with no
objection.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right now, we are approving the 4-Year Area
Plan.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Takahashi: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Did you provide that to us earlier?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: We will approve it because we know you do
good planning, but it also contains very important information. Is there something
that maybe in another Committee you could actually present us the basic highlights
of the plan?
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can do that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Especially because we are an aging
population. I think in the General Plan process, they are looking at the increase in
percentage of elderly, which has a lot of implications for how we plan our
communities. There are other issues as well; we addressed it in our Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee the other day, too, so I think it would be useful for the
Council, as well as the public, to see what you are projecting and how you are
proposing to provide programs.
Ms. Takahashi: I would be happy to do that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL MEETING 25 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. We will have the Clerk work
with your office to schedule a future Committee Meeting in the Committee of the
Whole. Thank you.
Ms. Takahashi: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, I will call the
meeting back to order. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: As Councilmembers, for us to gauge
performance, a lot of it is complaint-based from the public and I have to tell you
that in almost the three (3) years that I have been here, I have received zero
complaints about the Office on Elderly Affairs, which tells me that they are doing a
good job. I think the seniors appreciate them, even if maybe they wish that in a
sense that something could be better, they do not even bring it up because they
know that they are doing the best they can and they do not complain. Maybe they
just go straight to the office instead. I have to say that I appreciate the work that
the Agency on Elderly Affairs does and keep doing that good job where we do not get
complaints. We appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: All you really have to do is visit the centers
or pass by the centers when you have the senior events and senior activities and it
is quite clear that your office is doing significant work. I think Councilmember
Kagawa brings up a good point. A lot of the seniors by nature just do not complain;
they are very appreciative, even if what they are getting is not, like I say, an
elegant meal. They love being at the center, they love the County programs, and
they love what you folks are doing for them. That is the majority. My one comment
about the legal service was really the only one and it was because they were turned
away and I think that is a problem. I would agree that your office has done a great
job, Kealoha. Keep up the good work. We will be able to discuss more of the
successes at the Committee Meeting, because I think that is important, as
Councilmember Yukimura has said. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Agency on Elderly Affairs has always
been the model for County departments in my mind, the way you plan and the way
you implement programs. I do not want to take away from that at all. But if we do
get concerns, that is part of our responsibility and I appreciate your openness to
receiving it and investigating. I want to say that Elderly has been very
forward-looking like the EnhanceFitness classes and those kinds of things, and not
staying static in what we think elderly programs should be, but they are looking
ahead and recognizing that the different generations of elderly as they come up are
changing and they have different interests and concerns. You move to shape your
programs accordingly and all of that is very exemplary, something that all the other
departments could model. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I, too, just want to thank you all for your
work with our kupuna. I am going to follow-up with the comments that I made
earlier about the Real Property Tax filing for exemptions because I really want to
COUNCIL MEETING 26 OCTOBER 7, 2015
see us look closely at that and see if there is something we can do with minimal
time and effort, as far as maybe once a year having an informational workshop,
maybe a couple of months before the September 30th exemption filing deadline. I
will send something over in writing and I will help however I can with that. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. We do have a registered
speaker, so I will suspend the rules with no objection.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The registered speaker is Doug Smith.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Smith.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
DOUG SMITH: Hello everybody. It is nice to see everybody.
I hope you are all doing well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you just state your name for the
captioner?
Mr. Smith: I am sorry. Doug Smith. Anything else?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is it. We will reset your time.
Mr. Smith: Short-term memory loss.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have the same problem. We will reset your
time. You have three (3) minutes.
Mr. Smith: I am really having trouble hearing these
days. I believe that I got word from the Lord this morning for you folks that this
island is to be "The Garden of Eden," and that every decision you make needs to be
consistent. With that, there is gold. That it is. Everything else falls into it...the
houseless...we are going to have to change the system folks. On the mainland, I am
for Native Hawaiians and I hope they win in international court. That is their
issue. I am not Hawaiian; I am a haole. I am another haole for Hawaiian
Sovereignty. With all of the different nationalities here, it is a perfect place for the
Lord to show what the world can be when people come together and start
cooperating instead of competing or being divided. Do you know how much talent
there is out there to transform this island into an agricultural paradise? I come
across it all the time. Master...whatever they are called...farmers...they have
unbelievable ideas of putting it into effect. This can be "The Garden of Eden." This
can be the birthplace of the transformation of the world. That is what the Lord is
trying to do, which is establish his "kingdom," here on Earth. That is what the
peaceful revolution was about during the 60s. The spirit moved. We came together;
we shall overcome. What do you want? Peace. When do you want it? Now. I have
been a part of that and it sucked in 1971 when Eugene McCarthy, the "love, peace
candidate," lost to George McGovern, the "system, machine political candidate." We
were inexperienced, but we had the vision; we had the dream. Some day you will
join us and the world will be as one.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Sir. The meeting is called back
to order. Further discussion? If not, the motion is to approve.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 OCTOBER 7, 2015
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-248 was then put, and unanimously carried.
C 2015-249 Communication (09/25/2015) from the Fire Chief, transmitting
for Council consideration, proposed amendments to Ordinance No. B-2015-796, as
amended, relating to the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i, for the
Fiscal Year 2015-2016, by revising the amounts estimated in the General Fund to
annronriate funds to meet Kauai Fire Department's 10% match for Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s Assistance to Firefighters Grant to
purchase an Aerial Apparatus vehicle. (Kaua`i Fire Department, Aerial Apparatus
Vehicle 10% County Match — $71,909.00): Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive
C 2015-249 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. This is the
Communication for Bill No. 2599, which will be coming up later. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Since the Chief is here, can we ask him some
questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure. With no objections, the rules are
suspended. That is the purpose of doing the Communication outside, so that we can
ask any questions and have the discussion.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ROBERT F. WESTERMAN, Fire Chief: For the record, Robert
Westerman, Fire Chief.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chief, can you explain this aerial apparatus?
Mr. Westerman: Yes, it might be confusing. It is not an
aircraft. It is an engine that has a ladder that can extend up and out, and also has
a nozzle. That is why they call it an "aerial apparatus." It is to be able to rescue
people out of buildings and it is also to put water in a farther distance because the
elevated platform is raised up higher. It is actually called a "quint." That is the
proper name for it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do we have something like that right now?
Mr. Westerman: No, we do not.
Councilmember Yukimura: Have we ever had one?
Mr. Westerman: No, we have never had one. It has several
kinds of uses. One of the kinds of uses is because of the taller buildings that are in
Po`ipu, so it can get higher on top of roofs where you cannot just shoot water from
the ground. You need to get elevated to get on top. The hotel condos have that
issue. Also, it could be used anywhere on the island. An example would either be
COUNCIL MEETING 28 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Nawiliwili or Port Allen. Again, to get an elevated water up above and we could
spray down onto the fuel tanks. I am sure you have seen those kinds of pictures.
The most recent use is used in places like Seattle because of the build of the town.
They have a lot of alleys in between sections of housing and they are not designed
for the fire apparatus to get down the alley ways. So you could get on the next
street, raise the elevated waterway, and shoot across a house onto the back of
another house on the next street. There are multiple uses for it. We have had
incidences where we could not get a second engine in, so if you can get on the second
street over and spray or get to a location where you could raise the apparatus and
get it, that is the reason for that type of apparatus.
Councilmember Yukimura: How often do you estimate needing
something like that in the normal course of firefighting?
Mr. Westerman: Well, I would say probably once or twice a
year that you absolutely would need that type of apparatus to help out with the
firefighting, but the apparatus will operate every day. It can still operate
functionally as an engine and not raise the elevated platform.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are we purchasing it for that purpose? To be
used every day, just as a regular transport?
Mr. Westerman: Yes. It will be replacing an engine as a
matter of course of business, only this one, since we were able to get a grant to fund
it to improve the capabilities in that particular engine. We have that all over the
island. Not every engine is exactly the same. Some have special purposes. The
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) truck in Kaiakea, for example, and the smaller
engine in Hanalei, for example. The rest of the engines are fairly similar, but they
all are kind of designed for a little bit of different use. The pump in Hanapepe is
different because of the Port Allen requirement and the pumping capabilities of that
engine. They are all different in some fashion and some of them have some very
specialized use, in addition to their normal use.
Councilmember Yukimura: It sounds like good planning to have the
different specialties, but also being able to use them as regular vehicles or trucks.
Mr. Westerman: Absolutely.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do remember, which shows my longevity
here, of the Port Allen fuel tank fire, which was pretty severe.
Mr. Westerman: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does it cost more to operate a specialized
truck like that?
Mr. Westerman: I would say yes, only because there are some
special inspection requirements that come along with it. Other than that, the basic
frame as an engine that it has a pump on it and has all of the standard equipment.
The fuel use is comparably the same because none of them gets good gas mileage. It
will have a little extra cost in getting the ladder certified.
Councilmember Yukimura: Then you also have to have extra training,
right?
COUNCIL MEETING 29 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Westerman: Yes, and that is actually part of the grant.
The training to certification and the initial certification for that is all part of the
grant. After that, it will just be part of our annual recurring training.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so you are going to train some trainers
or incorporate the training into your regular training overtime so that new
generations of firefighters can learn how to use that truck.
Mr. Westerman: Yes, we do that annually with all of our
drivers.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is good. Our ten percent (10%) match is
about seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000), so what is the total cost?
Mr. Westerman: Seven hundred twenty thousand dollars
($720,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. That is a lot of money.
Mr. Westerman: Yes it is.
Councilmember Yukimura: The operating costs are what we will also
carry as a County, right?
Mr. Westerman: Yes, and we are carrying them currently
with the engine, because like I said, it is not adding to. The engine that it is
replacing will push something down, which is part of our ongoing plan, but right
now we have no back-up spares. Engine 2 just hit the island; our brand new one
from last year just hit the island yesterday, so it will take about three (3) or four (4)
days or even one (1) week or so to get it into service. That engine that it is replacing
in Station 2 will now be a back-up for us right now, a reserve that we really do not
have right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
(Council Chair Rapozo was noted as not present.)
Mr. Westerman: You are welcome.
Councilmember Kagawa: Further questions? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Is this quint going to be
stationed at Po`ipu?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Do we know how many actual buildings
would be able to utilize this new apparatus? Have we identified how many
structures the outreach would be to?
Mr. Westerman: Well, all of the condos that are three (3)
stories, which is right now our current limit in recent years, but also the hotels that
are four (4) stories.
COUNCIL MEETING 30 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Chock: So if it was needed in Lihu`e for instance, or
the Marriott, then that will not have to be taken out of service.
Mr. Westerman: It would transfer to wherever it was needed.
We do that routinely on a fire or not every day, so we try to respond with three (3)
engines, so two (2) districts lose their engine, and then we reallocate engines and
resources in the interim while we are waiting to finish the operation.
Councilmember Chock: This apparatus requires an additional
fireman for the job?
Mr. Westerman: No.
Councilmember Chock: So we can still retain the same amount.
Comparative to what the cost of...if we were to just replace an engine for instance,
what is that comparison?
Mr. Westerman: Comparatively, if I remember correctly, we
paid about five hundred eighty thousand dollars ($580,000) for the current engine,
so it is about one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to one hundred sixty
thousand dollars ($160,000) more.
Councilmember Chock: Yes and we get to respond more
appropriately in specific instances.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Mr. Westerman: Plus, it is free minus our matching.
Councilmember Kagawa: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: My question kind of goes along the line of
Councilmember Chock's question. I know we have a fire truck replacement
schedule and in the past, how have we paid for the firetrucks? Was it out of our
Operating Budget or did we receive grants for them in the past?
(Council Chair Rapozo was noted as present.)
Mr. Westerman: We have done both actually. We have moved
and that is the dilemma that we are having right now, coming to you about this is
that we had moved to put all of the vehicles on a lease program so that as they start
to age and they come off, the lease is paid off and they might be one (1) or two (2)
years and we purchase a new vehicle, so we kind of keep the budget on an even keel
all the time and replace vehicles. Where we can. we fund as many as we can
through grants. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) has been very good
for us: the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) has been good to us; the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant here has been good to us to
purchase vehicles and put them into the schedule. The example here is that we
were actually going to purchase two (2) Engine 1 type of replacements this year, but
we are only going to replace one now that we have to take this money for the
matching over, because we do not want to get too many vehicles all in the same
COUNCIL MEETING 31 OCTOBER 7, 2015
years, otherwise eight (8), nine (9), or ten (10) years from now, we are going to be
trying to buy three (3) or four (4) vehicles at a time. We want to try and just keep it
even and keep it going. Yes, wherever we can, if we are available to get grant
funding...
Councilmember Kaneshiro: So we have a mix or purchase vehicles and
lease vehicles?
Mr. Westerman: Well, we own them all. It is just a way we
fund it is a lease.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay.
Mr. Westerman: Does that make sense?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is like a "rent to own."
Mr. Westerman: Yes, it is like a "rent to own," but the
banks...it is kind of like a bond, I guess. We get a loan from the bank and we pay
for our vehicles, yes.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: If you look at our schedule, we are actually
saving money because we are getting a truck that we would have had to lease at
five hundred eighty thousand dollars ($580,000), we are getting it for seventy
thousand dollars ($70,000).
Mr. Westerman: Yes. If I may, I have to give kudos to the
grant committee that wrote this because the word that came back from FEMA was
that, "You are the first County to ever get a first time purchase of an aerial
apparatus." It is usually a replacement because it is easier to justify a replacement,
so justifying this since we did not have any of it was pretty good. They did a great
job in justifying the need for the apparatus.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Good morning, Chief. I have two (2)
questions, one being a budget related question. Has the seventy thousand dollars
($70,000) been budgeted for something else? Are you moving it within your budget?
Mr. Westerman: Yes. This is not new money; it is within the
budget. The dilemma was that because we have gone to lease, we zero funded the
line where we purchase. If we had dollar funded it, then we could have just moved
the money. But because it was zero funded, we had to come back to you and ask for
it to be funded, but the funding actually comes from another line item in the budget.
Councilmember Hooser: I think it is important from the public's
perspective and from mine also to know that the Fire Department is not asking for
additional money for the budget, but rather reallocating money within their budget
for this purpose.
Mr. Westerman: Yes, but it requires a money bill to do it.
Councilmember Hooser: Right. I understand that. My second
question is a follow-up to some of the earlier questions. Occasionally what happens
COUNCIL MEETING 32 OCTOBER 7, 2015
is that someone will buy a truck, an airplane, or a helicopter, and then all of a
sudden six (6) months later, we have to come in to build a building, in which to put
that helicopter or truck, or have more staffing to staff it. The questions had been
about additional costs. It might be unnecessary in the future to maintain this
vehicle, operate this vehicle, or store this vehicle. Is there any significant items?
Will it fit in the Po`ipu Fire Station? Does it fit over the roads and bridges?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: I am not meaning to be facetious, but these
things happen and we spend one million dollars ($1,000,000), then we have to build
a warehouse around it or something.
Mr. Westerman: Yes, we have looked at all of those issues.
The staffing is adequate. No station is adequate to house it because of its length
only, so it would require a small extension on whatever station we put it in. The
best fit for that vehicle is in Koloa, so we will be looking at what it is going to take
to make that happen. Other than that, it is certified to operate on all of the roads.
We have bridge issues no matter where we go with any of our vehicles. The tonnage
is about the same. Most of our vehicles are about twenty-four (24), twenty-six (26),
to twenty-eight (28) tons, so we monitor what bridges and their capacities are, and
we work with the State and County to ensure that if we are going over a bridge that
is not rated for that, we do not go over it unless we have to. They give us special
instructions on how we can transverse it. Even if it is overweight, it is like anybody
else applying for an overweight permit. They tell us, "You can go over it, but only
for emergencies, and this is the only way you can transverse it." There are some
that we just cannot go over.
Councilmember Hooser: So it will not fit in the existing...
Mr. Westerman: In any station.
Councilmember Hooser: In any station right now.
Mr. Westerman: We were hoping that we could get it small
enough to fit in the Koloa Station, but the length is just not going be to be able to.
Councilmember Hooser: I thought you said it was going to be based in
Po`ipu.
Mr. Westerman: Yes, Po`ipu. I am sorry, Koloa-Po`ipu.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. What would it cost to modify the
station to house the truck?
Mr. Westerman: I hate to say that I do not have an answer for
that yet.
Councilmember Hooser: Is it a ten (10) feet extension? Twenty (20)
feet? Thirty (30) feet?
Mr. Westerman: It is about five (5) feet, within about five (5)
feet.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chief, I just googled right here and saw that
a quint is "a fire service apparatus that serves a dual purpose of an engine and a
ladder truck." I just wanted you to point out in the picture up there what the
difference is between a regular, normal firetruck and this quint truck. Does this
truck look like something we will get?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: You painted a picture of how it would service
going over a building or what have you. Is the hose attached to the ladder?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can you show how it would extend?
Mr. Westerman: This is a very good picture. They pretty
much all look the same and if you took the ladder, this whole piece here, off of the
top, you would have an engine.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Westerman: Therefore when you add this ladder, which
now is articulating; it could go up, and you see that it has one (1), two (2), three (3)
extensions on it, so I am assuming this is a seventy-five (75) foot aerial apparatus.
It can extend out or up seventy-five (75) feet. Here is the elevated waterway that
comes with it. Internal in this mechanism here is the...yes, the hose, but it is
actually metal that slides so that you can get the water up, and then you can
operate that from down below to either foam, straight-stream, left, right, up, down,
or all of the different angles that come on it. Other than that, that is really the only
difference. It has a pump here, just like a regular engine does, so even without
using the apparatus, if it responded and you did not need the ladder or the elevated
waterway, you would still have hose connections to run your regular fire ground
operations.
Councilmember Kagawa: Maybe I am asking the same question, but
that yellow hose at the end goes up with the ladder?
Mr. Westerman: That goes up with it; that is attached to the
ladder, yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: If it is extending seventy-five (75) foot
outwards with the full water, does that still hold a balance and does not flip the
truck over?
Mr. Westerman: No, it does not. Here you cannot really see
them because they are buried inside of the vehicle. There are legs that come down
to counterbalance and stabilize legs so that once it goes up, it stabilizes the tire.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you for that educational piece. I
appreciate it.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Westerman: Just to let you know, these also end up
having...because if the fireman could be up there fighting, it can kind of get into
smoke more so than on the ground. It has the capacity to have pumped air so that
they can stay up there longer, because they are not really doing a lot of work up
there, but they might be managing something from up there, so we can pump air to
them also.
Councilmember Kagawa: My last question is that it could be used
where we do not have the capacity now to avoid even damaging other properties as
you attack something, so that could be the other big benefit.
Mr. Westerman: I am glad you asked that because this is very
important to be able to get that extended water somewhere. All of our engines
currently, since 2005, they came out with a modification that fits right on the pump
panel that can get only like ten (10) feet in the air a nozzle like this so we can spray
a little bit, but really does not get very far. We move to that, so we have a close in
aerial water, but it does not go very far. This now will get the nozzle high and far
enough in the air that we can get distance and volume out of it.
Councilmember Kagawa: So it could even help with brushfires by
having more distance.
Mr. Westerman: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: How heavy is this? Is this twenty-eight (28)
tons?
Mr. Westerman: I would guess, but it is more than
twenty-eight (28) tons.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is there going to be a problem accessing the
hotels in Po`ipu?
Mr. Westerman: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Will the hotels get a lower insurance?
Mr. Westerman: I do not know. The Insurance Services
Organization (ISO) has not been...we have not had an ISO rating change in about
five (5) or six (6) years, but we are coming up for a one hundred percent (100%)
review in the next two (2) years, so it could possibly have an effect to reduce the ISO
for the hotels in that area.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you explain "ISO?"
Mr. Westerman: "ISO" is the "Insurance Services
Organization." In Hawai`i, we actually use the Hawai`i Insurance Bureau (HIB),
which follows the same principles. Basically, what they do is come out as an
independent third party and evaluate the Fire Department. They look at how many
COUNCIL MEETING 35 OCTOBER 7, 2015
stations we have, how they are staffed, the equipment that is in it, the age of the
equipment that is in it, the amount of firefighters that is in it, and the kind of
training that the firefighters get. They look at our dispatch center and how the
dispatches are dispatching. They also look at the Department of Water and how
they are operating and how they are maintaining our fire hydrants. They have this
huge formula of things and when they get done, they say, "Okay, based on all of this
information, this fire district of our eight (8) fire districts on Kaua`i can rate," and
the numbers are zero to nine, zero being the absolute best—nobody has a zero, but
some of the major metropolitans are one (1). We are 5-5-9, which is if you are
within a certain distance of the fire station and you are within a certain distance of
the hydrant, you can get a five (5), which lowers your rate. Once you get beyond
that, you are nine (9) and you get a lower rate. They evaluate all of that and the
insurance companies base your policy on that. When we put in Kaiakea, several
folks called us and said within a year, they actually got a lower insurance rate
because of the placement of Kaiakea; houses that actually move closer to...or were
closer within the five (5) miles.
Councilmember Yukimura: How often do they do this resetting or
setting?
Mr. Westerman: Well, they normally try to do it every three
(3) to five (5) years, but now ISO, the international organization, actually changed
to add some things to it to help improve it like fire prevention. It looks at our fire
prevention program, but does not really add a lot of value to the overall matrix, so
they are allowing that this year, so they have done that. They are now going to
come back and evaluate us to do that. I believe they are actually working in
Honolulu right now. It takes a while; it is quite a concerted effort. I am sorry that I
do not have it, but they do not let us have the portfolio, other than we do the review
after it is done, because it is a product that they then sell to the insurance
companies to establish their ratings.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions for the
Chief? If not, thank you, Chief. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. First, I want
to say how much I appreciate all that Bob Westerman and his fire crew do for this
island. I really appreciate it. I am just trying to understand this match. The
engine he showed up there had that ladder on it. Is our seventy-two thousand
dollars ($72,000) we are paying to retrofit our engines for that ladder? What would
the total price have to be? Seven million two hundred thousand dollars
($7,200,000)? If we are paying ten percent (10%), our ten percent (10%) is
seventy-two thousand dollars ($72,000), then the total amount would have to be...
Council Chair Rapozo: Seven hundred twenty thousand dollars
($720,000).
Mr. Mickens: Ten percent (10%) to be seventy-two
thousand dollars ($72,000)...
COUNCIL MEETING 36 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: You add one more zero to the end.
Mr. Mickens: So it is seventy-two thousand dollars
($72,000). Again, is that for the whole engine?
Council Chair Rapozo: The whole truck.
Mr. Mickens: Okay. I thought Bob said first that it was
not a vehicle, it was a ladder.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a whole truck.
Mr. Mickens: Oh, so that truck you showed up there?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Mickens: That truck costs seven hundred twenty
thousand dollars ($720,000), okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Do you have a
question for Glenn?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, I have another question for the Chief
after the rest of the public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience
wishing to testify? If not, Chief, can you come back up? We have one more
question.
Councilmember Yukimura: For the seventy-two thousand dollars
($72,000) that you are taking from another account, are you going to be able to
manage without that money? What are you subtracting from the budget that you
will not be doing this year?
Mr. Westerman: Well, the line item that we are moving it
from is currently one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) and that was
estimated...
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the line item?
Mr. Westerman: It was one hundred twenty thousand dollars
($120,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Westerman: That is for the two (2) Hanalei engine
Type ls. The estimate was that it was going to be sixty thousand dollars ($60,000)
for each one of those engines, so we are actually taking a little bit more than half of
that. There might be the outside chance that we need to move internal funds when
we go to purchase that engine for just this year...maybe a fifteen thousand dollar
($15,000) or twenty thousand dollar ($20,000) movement of funds internally.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you going to be able to do that? You are
not going to be back here asking for that money?
COUNCIL MEETING 37 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Westerman: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Chief. I will call the meeting
back to order. The motion on the floor is to receive. Any further discussion?
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2015-249 for the record was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: At this time, it is 10:20 a.m. Let us take our
caption break now and we will come back at 10:30 a.m., so we will have two (2)
straight hours until the lunch break.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 10:19 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:32 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. Can we
have the next item, please?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, this is on page 3, claims.
CLAIMS:
C 2015-251 Communication (09/14/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Carol Adolfson, for
damage to her vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2015-251 to the County Attorney's Office
for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
C 2015-252 Communication (09/21/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Pinky R. Malama, for
damage to her vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2015-252 to the County Attorney's Office
for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
C 2015-253 Communication (09/25/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Nester Cachola, for
damage to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2015-253 to the County Attorney's Office
for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item would be your Committee
Reports.
COUNCIL MEETING 38 OCTOBER 7, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2015-13) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2015-06 Communication (09/15/2015) from Councilmember
Hooser, requesting the presence of the County Engineer, to provide an update
on the status of the Kekaha Landfill to include, but not be limited to:
• The plans to close and relocate the new landfill;
• Development of a Materials Recovery Facility;
• Efforts to pursue other solid waste solutions
including new technologies; and
• Anticipated timeline for each of these projects,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have one (1) registered speaker.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I will suspend the rules with no
objections. Who is the speaker? Is it Mr. Mickens?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes it is.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. These are
basically just my thoughts on this Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which is part
of this communication or this Public Works / Parks & Recreation Committee Report.
The MRF and landfill problems have been ongoing for years with no definitive
solution happening. To close the existing landfill, open a new one, and build a road
to a proposed new site would cost about five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
This would be to close the old one, open a new one, and the road that we were not
talking about...I think that was something like fifty million dollars ($50,000,000). I
think Ray McCormick had that figure. In my opinion, at least one part of the
four (4) bullets points here on this agenda can be addressed, which is the MRF. I
was once given a tour through the Garden Island Disposal facility and it appeared
to me that this is a MRF paper, cardboard, glass, cans, and trash that were
separated and sold on the open market for the best price. Why is it not possible for
our County to either work in conjunction with Garden Island Disposal or send out
an RFP to solve this major problem? It just seems that since Garden Island
Disposal has been running a facility like this for so long, they would certainly
expand and become a full blown MRF. Would it not be far more cost effective for
the County to work financially with Garden Island Disposal than to spend millions
to site and build a MRF? Plus, Garden Island Disposal is located at the harbor now
and everyone agrees that this is the ideal place for the MRF. I had a long
conversation with Steve Kaui, who you all know, and he said that they would be
happy to work something out with the County. Having a private enterprise run this
operation would, in my opinion, be far more efficient and cost effective than having
COUNCIL MEETING 39 OCTOBER 7, 2015
the government run it. Since they have been in operation for so long, it would seem
prudent to get their input on a long-term solution to all of our solid waste problems.
These are just my suggestions and we keep spinning our wheels and going on and
on about this MRF, putting it up in an area where the watershed thing...we are
going to contaminate it and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is still being
done. They will have to finish that before they can...then we are going to have to
come up with huge bucks to be able to get this, whether it is going to be on private
land or public land. Anyway, it just seems like it would be prudent to go ahead and
at least talk to these people over here. I would presume it is like a MRF, right? I
guess they do not have the thing that goes around and they take this stuff off at
the...I remember that they had the people down there separating all of this stuff.
Councilmember Yukimura has been one of the pushers of this thing and...
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Mickens, that was three (3) minutes.
You have a question from Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In a proposed County MRF, Garden Island
Disposal would definitely be one of the bidders to manage it, but what about...if
they were to own and manage it, they would have a monopoly, which would be hard
to control, in terms of price. Why would they have a low price or even close to the
low price if there is nobody else?
Mr. Mickens: Well, like you said, you have to put out a
request for a bid on this thing...
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, but the County would be doing that
and have a facility that the County owned and that the County would have control
over. Then the management would go out for proposal.
Mr. Mickens: As you know, anything that the County has
their hands on generally gets to be more involved, more cost effective or not cost
effective, than having a private enterprise run it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Not if the private enterprise is a monopoly.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are on the minutes or Committee Report
of the last meeting. We are not into the debate of the MRF and who is going to run
it.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Your point is well-taken, Glenn, and I think
the gist of your testimony is why we are not looking at the things that we can do in
the interim, which is pretty much in agreement with Councilmember Yukimura.
Mr. Mickens: Right. Where is the five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000) going to come from, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. Thank you.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Mr. Rosa. Just for everybody's
information, this is the minutes. Typically, what this is for is that if any
COUNCIL MEETING 40 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember read the minutes and there are some errors or corrections in the
Committee Reports, that is what this is really for. With that, go ahead.
JOE ROSA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Rosa.
During last week's meeting, I gave a testimony about the so-called "MRF." A MRF
can start at the home of the residents. I mentioned how they do it in California, as I
saw when I visited my family up there. You had a container for your cans, plastic
bottles, and green waste. Separate individuals would come and pick it up. That is
why I also mentioned that like here on Kaua`i, we have Garden Island Disposal and
Reynolds. You could split the island up and use people who want bottles to pick up
the bottles and who wants cans to pick up the cans. Maybe Kaua`i Nursery might
bid for the green waste. Why should the County get involved? Let us lower the
financial...the County has to look into wages, equipment, and all of that. To me, a
MRF can start right at home because there are many people who collect plastic
bottles and cans that go to dispose it and get money back. Those are things that can
be started. Why should the County get involved? They are going to need to hire
people. How many people would want to be sorting out rubbish and garbage?
Think about that. I would not like to be in a big rubbish dump and smelling all of
the trash and everything else. At home, they can do it cleanly and put the cans and
bottles in and separate it. That is your MRF right there. You do not have to build a
big warehouse or anything to separate any of the items. Start it at home, and then
the person who is going to pick it up can put the thirty-two (32) gallon trash cans
back. They want the business and they are going to bid on it, like Councilmember
Yukimura said, "monopolization," but you can split up the island. How many
disposal companies do we have that take care of the aluminum recycling? We just
have Garden Island Disposal and Reynolds. Those are the kinds of things to look
into. Start it at the source, which are at the homes of residents. The MRF can be
started right then and there. If they do it in California and other places, I am
pretty sure they do it because it cuts down the county government expense.
Separate the things at the Convention Hall, for example, recycled cans, bottles, and
trash. It can be done in government facilities like that there in the parks. Start it
at home. Maybe it will ease the time that the County would do for picking up the
trash collection, which I see now that they come way after 8:00 a.m. That would
help if people start it at home. Then the County would not have the worry about it.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Ms. Cowden.
FELICIA COWDEN: Thank you. Felicia Cowden, for the record. I
watched the discussion two (2) weeks ago on the television or the computer, and I
know these are the minutes. I just want to say that I think it is really important
that we are cautious. Eleven (11) years sounds like when the new facility could be
opened. Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000) is an awful lot for infrastructure. I like that Garden Island
Disposal is being brought up. It seems like we have a mountain of a problem in
Kekaha right now and there needs to be something in between. Maybe we could
start working more with Garden Island Disposal. From what I understand, from
having studied the Kekaha Landfill and why it is important that it is on the edge of
the island and not above the aquifer, like what we are going to have there on Ma'alo
Road; what happens in one hundred (100) years when that plastic gives up or
maybe gives up earlier? That is prime agricultural land and wetland. We have to
find a place to put it somewhere. On the edge of the island might be a little bit
better than inside. I appreciate all of the work that has gone into this and that it is
being considered, but I like that we look at what Garden Island Disposal has to help
COUNCIL MEETING 41 OCTOBER 7, 2015
with. Maybe there can be something that goes along with both because it is an
immediate challenge and it is very expensive for eleven (11) years out. I know it is
not simple. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
If not, I will call the meeting back to order. Further discussion? Councilmember
Kagawa.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. After hearing some of the
testimony, I hate to use this communication to communicate some concern that I
recently got from our State Legislature. One of our colleagues at the Legislature
just informed me that they had a meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and they said that the Ma'alo site we will be denied, period, because it is
within the six (6) mile radius, due to the Hudson River accident. I think Glenn
talked about spinning our wheels with the landfill issue; the wheels will be spinning
for a while. We need to find another solution. If it is going to be denied, do we
continue to spin our wheels on Ma'alo when the FAA is telling our legislators
directly that it will be denied because of the bird problem with the Hudson River
accident. Anyway, it is a mess, but we here need to fix it. I think we have to put it
on our shoulders and make sure that our future is safe. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you for that update. Did we get
something in writing as well or not yet?
Councilmember Kagawa: I think the Mayor and the Department of
Public Works is aware of the recent verbal communication that I got. They got that
same communication as well. It is from the FAA official directly, who said that any
landfill across the United States that attracts birds within a six (6) mile radius of
an airport will be denied, period. There are no exceptions. I believe Ma'alo is four
point five (4.5) miles. It is sad that we have put in so much effort and time into it,
but if we need to move on, let us move on. Let us stop beating a drum. The federal
government will make their decision and we cannot do anything about it. If that is
what they are going to do for the safety of people riding in the airways, then I do not
think there is anything that we can do, really. Seriously. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: There is a written communication. I am not
sure when we had that issue here the last time, but the Department of
Transportation, FAA, sent a letter to the County saying that they will not support
the location because of that six (6) mile radius. There is a law that says you cannot
build a landfill within six (6) miles of an active runway. They said, "If you decide to
move forward, you have to come up with a mitigation plan." That is where the
County has chosen...the frustration is that we spent a lot of money on a consultant
that apparently did not know about that federal law and moved forward on a
location that is going to be opposed aggressively by the federal government. You
are right, Councilmember Kagawa. At some point you have to make a
determination. Are we going to take on the feds and fight them or do we accept the
fact that we may have made a mistake because our consultant did not do their job
and look for somewhere else? I share your concerns and I apologize for not being
here at the last meeting, but we are in a dilemma right now. What do we do? There
COUNCIL MEETING 42 OCTOBER 7, 2015
is some interpretation that the federal law does not apply to Lihu`e Airport because
it is a different type of airport, but we got it clear. We have the communication in
the file and I would ask that if anyone is interested in seeing that in writing, our
staff should have that, as it was part of the attachments presented at the last
meeting here a few months ago. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Chair, I would like to suggest that an agenda
item be placed for this. I think we have strayed a little bit off and it is a bit of a
bombshell that has been thrown out, so I think we need to have the Administration
here to give us their side to see whether or not a decision has been made or if it is
just speculation and what the reality is. Then we can move forward. Two (2) years
ago, you and I talked about that letter that was here, and I know with my wife
working for the airline, I am especially sensitive to the airport issue and expressed
those concerns two (2) or three (3) years ago, whenever that letter first came out. I
think it was about two (2) years ago.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, it was a while ago.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. I think we need an agenda item to
properly discuss it.
Council Chair Rapozo: It will be a budget item, I can tell you,
because whether it is mitigation or litigation, it is going to cost us money. We will
definitely do that. Also staff, please send over a communication to the FAA and the
Department of Transportation because I think we need to get their position on this
as well. The letter is quite old, but I believe the opposition still stands. It would be
a good idea for this Council to get involved now because it is going to involve money
later. With that, any other discussion?
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-BF 2015-32) submitted by the Budget & Finance
Committee, recommending that the following be Approved on second and final
reading:
"Bill No. 2596 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-796, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2016, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS ESTIMATED IN THE SOLID WASTE
FUND AND GENERAL FUND (Kaua`i Police Department,
Abandoned/Derelict Vehicle Coordinator— $140,122.00),"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item is on page 4.
COUNCIL MEETING 43 OCTOBER 7, 2015
RESOLUTION:
Resolution No. 2015-57 — RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ECONOMIC
JUSTICE FOR HAWAII'S WORKING FAMILIES: LIVING WAGE, PAID SICK
LEAVE, PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE, AND RIGHT TO ORGANIZE:
Councilmember Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-57, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, I have a floor amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Hang on real quick. Councilmember
Hooser, do you have one, too?
Councilmember Hooser: I will wait so that we can do one at a time.
Council Chair Rapozo: How many floating amendments do we have?
Three (3). Do we have registered speakers? No registered speakers. Was anyone
interested in testifying? Okay. I would suggest that you wait until we do the
amendments, then you can testify on what is in front of us. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Resolution No. 2015-57 as
circulated, and as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto
as Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is one of the disadvantages of the
Sunshine Law, where Councilmembers do not have an opportunity to discuss this
prior to the meeting, so everybody gets to see it for the first time and it is probably
duplicative.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I explain my amendment?
Council Chair Rapozo: Please.
Councilmember Yukimura: These amendments are based on the
testimony and the evidence that we received in the process of the public hearing.
Basically, it gives the two (2) sides of the fifteen dollar ($15) minimum wage
proposal, showing that it can help working families, but it also could lose jobs for
low wage workers, possibly when the jumps are so high and so drastic like four
dollars and ninety cents ($4.90) in one (1) year increase from ten dollars and ten
cents ($10.10) to fifteen dollars ($15) in one (1) year, that it could have some really
negative impacts on small businesses. That was testified to in very specific terms
by the small businesses here. It proposes instead, and I will read this, "Request the
State Legislature to regularly and gradually overtime raise the minimum wage to
fifteen dollars ($15) per hour." It does not give a specific deadline for that to happen
because we are not the ones to do it and it really is a balancing act that has to be
done by the final decision maker, which is the State Legislature, but it talks about
asking the Legislature to be in consultation with all stakeholders, including but not
limited to, large and small businesses and large and small labor unions, and also to
create separate and lower wage tiers for students, seniors, and trainees, as in the
COUNCIL MEETING 44 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Minnesota model, and to set different thresholds for large, small, and midsize
businesses. You may or may not know that in New York City where they just
passed the fifteen dollars ($15) an hour minimum wage, it only applies to fast food
restaurants. Even there, there are some distinctions between the kinds of
businesses that are capable of handling that or not. It just urges the Legislature to
look at all of these parameters in the making of a decision, which I feel we heard
very strongly and clearly from our community. It does acknowledge, in the second
"whereas" amendment on the first page on the bottom, that the testimony from
businesses on Kaua`i showed that they value and care about their employees. They
are already paying more than minimum wage and are providing benefits beyond
that are required by law. They were not averse to increasing the minimum wage
over time if the increase was gradual and if there was a tiered approach. I also
added a paragraph that talks about how we can help working families not only by
increasing minimum wage, but by lowering the cost of living for working families
through measures that would benefit all of society and not just burden small
businesses, such as providing frequent and convenient public transportation, more
affordable housing, and requiring solar water heaters on new single-family homes,
which is I want to point out what the uncles did in Kekaha. For sick leave, it asks,
"...the State Legislature, in consultation with business and labor, to develop for
consideration a paid sick leave policy which would allow workers in workplaces of
ten (10) or more employees to earn paid leave starting with two (2) or three (3) days
per year for sick leave for self or minor children or two (2) or three (3) days of
personal leave, which could be used for any reason," including family leave. I left it
pretty general because I do not feel we had a very thorough discussion about that
issue. As is the case with many of these issues, it is a very complex issue and we
have to really understand how sick leave pay will affect small businesses and other
businesses. On the family leave thing, there was even less discussion, but the bill
that was attached was for anybody that is sort of like family. The question with
family leave is who bears the cost of sickness and illness, and I do not think it
should only be the businesses. I think there is a lot more to learn and discuss about
this, so I thought starting small, but having consultation with all stakeholders...it
makes a lot of sense to me that people would not be forced to come to work if they
are sick or forced to send their children to school if their children are sick from a
public health standpoint. There are a lot of compelling reasons to try to start the
sick leave, but we did not have input from the business community and they need to
be heard as well, so I am leaving it general. Then I have left in the right to form a
union to affirm an existing law and policy, but I have taken out the resolution for
calling for congressional labor law reform, because I have not heard any discussion
on what that actually means. I do not believe we should be taking positions that we
are ignorant about. I am sorry, but I did not even have a chance to circulate this to
either pro-labor or pro-business because I did this in the last couple of days,
although I did walk down to the Chamber Office yesterday, but it was closed. I
have done the best I could with the information I have, trying to respect all
stakeholders in this matter. It is up for discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. I appreciate the amendment. I
will just say that all along, my interest has been in getting this moved forward for
the discussion at the State level. I can agree to the changes and additions here. I
think what is most important for me is to get a stronger voice from the Council, so I
would like to support where the votes are in getting this forward and if we can get
as many as possible. For those who had issues with this, if this is looking more
favorable, then that is what I would like to hear. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 45 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I cannot support this amendment. I think it
totally guts the original Resolution, which was my Resolution. To be so
general...you could say "I support world peace," but what are you actually doing in
any kind of specific way to at least move a resolution of support in that kind of
direction? I appreciate what Councilmember Yukimura is trying to do and a lot of
the verbiage does sound good, but it does take away specifics that actually only
suggest to the Legislature to look at what they have looked at before, and whether
we tell them or not, I think they realize that they will have to look at it again. Paid
sick leave—in the instance, we can put some of these details here, but what they
actually work out...they will have to do the further study and the further analysis.
We can just make a decision on what we already know. We are never going to know
all of the information we need to know. We all have different ideas of how much we
need to know. I think we have twenty (20), thirty (30), or forty (40) years of history
of where things are at and where they need to be, as far as supporting our working
families. To me, the amendment totally guts the original Resolution. I can accept
pieces of it, like maybe being more flexible with the January 1, 2019 date and
having it be more gradual, but to take out all of this and replace it with just
nonspecific, general kind of language...I cannot support that. I do hear that we
have two (2) other amendments, so I would like to see the other amendments as
well. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Again, I do not know what other
amendments coming out will be. I had hoped that someone would be introducing a
more tiered version like the Minnesota model and I think Councilmember Chock
will hopefully be introducing something like that. I will explain my reasons of why
I may have had a change of position, simply because...anyway, I will discuss that
later, but I am not going to support this amendment. You actually had me until you
got to that paragraph talking about transportation, affordable housing, and solar
water heating. We control that now; the County controls that. We control public
transportation, affordable housing, and the zoning and planning on new
construction. So why are we telling the State, "You folks do that." No, that is our
function. It is the State's function to set the minimum wage, but to use this as a
vehicle to move forward the agenda on transportation, housing, and solar water
heaters—it is like me putting in a paragraph to say to go and fund public safety or
the Police Department. That is our function. I agree with Councilmember Kuali`i
that it is general and really takes away the meat of the original Resolution, which if
this was the original Resolution coming forward, it probably would be a lot easier to
move forward because it was the original language, but this one here takes out a lot
of the meat the Councilmember Kuali`i put in. I will say that I think the State
needs to take a very hard look at the minimum wage, and there were really
profound experiences on the mainland in last couple of weeks that made me
consider this Resolution differently, because people up there can survive on the
existing minimum wages, but they cannot over here. Maybe it is time that the
State takes a look at it. You are paying two dollars ($2) a gallon for milk in the
mainland versus eight dollars ($8) a gallon here. There is a significant different. I
cannot support this. I want to see a tiered, "Minnesota model like" amendment.
Hopefully that is a clue to some of you who want to see this pass. You can get my
vote if it is more designed on that level, the tiered approach. Councilmember
Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 46 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: I cannot believe you are saying that
affordable housing and public transportation are not within the State's jurisdiction.
The money they gave for our bus shelters shows that it is indeed and affordable
housing is clearly a State function. It is a dual function; we are both responsible for
it. So to say that it is not their function does not make sense at all.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just saying that it has absolutely
nothing do with them setting the minimum wage. It is a whole different issue. I
agree with you that the State has to play a better role in affordable housing and all
of that, but not in a minimum wage resolution. These are two (2) different things.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: The federal minimum wage is currently
seven dollars and twenty-five cents ($7.25) per hour and the State's current is seven
dollars and seventy-five cents ($7.75) an hour, so we are fifty cents ($0.50) higher.
With the arguments you made, Council Chair, yes, the State should consider every
factor. We heard Representative Morikawa, the only brave one that showed up at
the request of Councilmember Kuali`i during the other communication where we
really talked at-length about this issue, but she said that at the State Legislature,
and I am sure that Councilmember Hooser when he was there knows that, we look
at the minimum wage every year and they go through that due diligence. She said,
"We will do it again." In 2016, it goes up to eight dollars and fifty cents ($8.50),
which is a seventy-five cents ($0.75) jump. In 2017, it will go up to nine dollars and
twenty-five cents ($9.25), which is a seventy-five cents ($0.75) jump. In 2018, it will
go up to ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10), which is an eighty-five cents ($0.85)
jump. To specify the four dollars and ninety cents ($4.90) jump to 2019...to me,
sure we want that to happen when we look at our current residents here and the
cost they have to pay. I think Kaua`i is the most expensive island, really, of all the
other islands to live on. Again, this is the State's job. They do the due diligence.
Representative Morikawa stated here, "Let us do our job. We are doing it already."
As a matter of fact, I went to the Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Meeting last week, as your alternate, Chair, and that is specifically what the other
three (3) counties asked me, "What is going on with your fifteen dollars ($15)
minimum wage Resolution?" To be honest, they are not supportive of taking this
action at the County level, even in a resolution, by specifying that amount. Again, I
kind of agree with Councilmember Yukimura's amendment and willing to support
it, but if the maker is not going to support it, then I think the unanimous vote is
out, so let us see what the other amendments look like, but I will not be supporting
it. Again, I said this before and I will say it again that I will support a broad
statement that the State Legislature continues every year to look at how we can
improve the lives of our people by playing with the minimum wage without putting
more people on unemployment. The State is the one that pays unemployment. If
more people get unemployed, the bigger the tab will be for the State. That is why
they do the due diligence. It is their fiscal responsibility when they play with that
minimum wage with the pros and the cons. It is not our job here. If it was, we
would spend the due diligence, but it is not. Therefore, I say let us keep it broad
and maybe a tiered approach, but in a manner that does not tell them what to do.
Without doing the due diligence, I do not think we are in a position to tell the State
what to do. I think the State and the congressional leaders are the ones that should
address this issue and they have ignored it, quite frankly. Now they are trying to
play catch-up with seventy-five cents ($0.75) jumps. It is quite small, like inflation,
seventy-five cents ($0.75) a year. Definitely the arguments for it are good and the
arguments against it are good. I just do not want Kaua`i County to be the only
county to make the wrong move and try and tell the legislators what to do, because
COUNCIL MEETING 47 OCTOBER 7, 2015
I do not think that is how you get positive results, by telling them what to do when
they are the ones that spend their due diligence. I will not be supporting this
amendment, just because that maker is not going to be supporting it. Thank you,
Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would support legislation that would
require or prohibit the Legislature from granting any raises to State level
department heads or employees that are greater in percentage than the minimum
wage increase. Then they would get the picture. I just read recently that they are
going to give someone in the Department of Education (DOE) another big raise. So
State, Dee Morikawa or whoever you are, if you really mean what you say,
introduce that legislation, that no State employee will receive...obviously, the
unions are different because they are different, but any nonunion cannot receive a
raise greater than what the minimum wage increase was. Then I think they have
the right to say what they want to say. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Are you going to make that amendment,
Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have spoken to numerous legislators like
Dee and everybody and everybody says the same thing. How do you get that across?
I am telling you that it is tough for businesses to take that four dollars and ninety
cents ($4.90) an hour or five dollars ($5) an hour hit. The State has to take into
account that they find no problem paying themselves. Again, maybe I just had an
enlightening experience the last couple of weeks. I do not know. When I looked at
things differently and I realized that there is something we have to do and I am not
sure how you do it. Councilmember Kagawa, I agree with you one hundred percent
(100%). It is not for us to dictate and I would agree that a tiered, more general
approach, asking the State to look is something I am looking for as well.
Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I believe that I agree it is the State's
responsibility or legal responsibility, if you would, or legal purview, to barring any
new legal opinions, I should say. In some places, the counties have the right to do
that and that has not been vetted in here. As we sit here today, most would believe
that legally the State is the one in charge of raising the minimum wage. I think
just like we look to our constituents for what they want, the State looks to their
constituents. When I served there, you ask people what they think. As our role on
the Council, we should not limit ourselves from telling the State Legislature what
we believe, just like what we did with school lunches and others. If we feel strongly
about an issue, we should add our voice to the people's voice. It is up to them to do
it or not do it. I, for one, believe that we should make a strong statement on behalf
of working people. People are way, way behind in keeping up with cost of living
with the existing minimum wage, so I believe our position should be a strong
position, and then the State can react. If enough people made strong positions,
perhaps the State Legislature would act more boldly and move more quickly and
more decisively towards a higher minimum wage. I am not in support of watering
this down and just saying, "Well, we want you to raise it, but whenever. There is no
timeline and no parameters." I would want to support a stronger statement on all
aspects of this Resolution. There are four (4) points that are being addressed. I
want to commend Councilmember Kuali`i for introducing it and I would like to stay
strong on all four (4) points. We will look at the tiered approach and be open to a
compromise. I think we all need to be open to compromise. I am open to that. Even
that, I am a little hesitant. I will wait to see the amendment, but when we start...I
COUNCIL MEETING 48 OCTOBER 7, 2015
will wait to see the amendment before I comment. At the end of the day, I think we
need a strong statement to let the Legislature know that working people are
important to us and we want to move aggressively and boldly in support of those
people. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I can appreciate what Councilmember
Yukimura did in trying to make it broader because I think she heard from
testimony and from the other Councilmembers that voted it down last time that we
are uncomfortable put a number in there. Even for me, I went through the struggle
of, "Should I propose an amendment or not?" I think what it comes down to is that
there are people with different attitudes on how the Resolution should be. Some
people want it stronger and some want it broader. For me, I thought that if I make
it too broad, then the introducer probably will not even want it, so why even
introduce an amendment? Ultimately, you want the introducer who introduced it to
be able to vote on it. For me, I decided not to make an amendment. I will be
interested to see what the other amendments are, but I think we heard a lot of
testimony earlier and I think I made my point clear that I am in favor of increasing
minimum wage, but I do not think we should be putting numbers in and keeping it
broader. Again, it may not go with what the introducer would have wanted it to be,
so I am just going to kind of see how the amendments go and let the cards fall
where they fall. We have four (4) real complex issues in this one (1) Resolution. For
me, I was thinking that you can amend some things, but we can probably work on
this forever, trying to tweak it so that everybody will like it and maybe nobody will
end up liking it because we have tweaked it so much in certain ways. For me, I am
kind of just going to sit back, see what the amendments are, and kind of let the
votes fall where they fall. I will not be supporting this. We have heard that the
introducer does not want it. I know we added a lot of information to...
Councilmember Yukimura: The introducer of the amendment is me.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: The introducer of the original Resolution.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I will not be supporting it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Many of you said that you could not support
the original Resolution, but could support more general language and this is what
this Resolution is trying to do. It does not tell the Legislature, "Do this by this
time," but it does say, "Let us target fifteen dollars ($15) per hour." But how we do
it, I think we all heard that people are willing to do it if it is more gradual. To
expect a business to jump from ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10) an hour to fifteen
dollars ($15) in the next year is a four dollars and ninety cents ($4.90) increase,
which is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) more per employee in a year. So if you have
three (3) employees, you have to pay thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). If there are
people over the minimum wage earners, you are going to have to pay them more
than the minimum wage earners, so it is impossible. In fact, I do not think there is
any state or county that has done that big of a jump in one (1) year. So the original
Resolution is not reasonable. Also, it does include the tiered approach, without
going into specifics, so it is really conveying to the Legislature what we learned
COUNCIL MEETING 49 OCTOBER 7, 2015
from the small businesses, that this is what they want, too. They cannot start
students and brand new employees at the same wage that they would an
experienced person. That is what Minnesota recognized and I think it is important
to do, and recognizing three (3) different kinds of businesses as small, medium, and
large is sort of what New York City was trying to do and distinguishing that all
businesses are not the same. To say that cost of living is not part of this discussion
is quite hard to understand. Chair, you just said, "I went to the mainland and I see
that they can survive on minimum wage there, but not here." It is because of the
high cost of living. To ask businesses to carry that high cost of living, which they
still have to carry in the high cost of doing business, is not right. We need to make
functional communities where transportation, housing, and energy are affordable.
That is part and parcel of this effort. Why would we want people to have a living
wage? It is so they can live here and address the cost of living here. I really do not
think that we can put it all on the minimum wage to do that. We should do it in
part, but we also need to look at the systems that we build in this community and
we need to work on affordable transportation, affordable housing, affordable energy,
affordable health care, and affordable food. We need to pay attention to those and I
think it is very important in the discussion about minimum wage to acknowledge
that there is that part we have to address as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I just want to clarify my position a little
more. I know that when I mentioned Councilmember Yukimura making this
Resolution a little broader, and there are plenty of people who cannot see the
amendment, but there are a lot of changes. I think we have six (6) new paragraphs
of verbiage, deleted four (4) paragraphs, and edited one (1) paragraph, and we have
only got, I would say probably, twelve (12) paragraphs in this whole Resolution. It
is not only just making the verbiage broader. We have made a lot of changes to the
Resolution and I think that is why it feels like we are getting farther away from
what the intended original Resolution was, and for me, I do not know. It is hard. I
do not know if anybody is going to be happy with any amendment. When I said we
made it broader, we did make it broader, but we also added a lot to this Resolution
and took out some, so it is not just small changes; there are a lot of changes to it. I
think we could probably argue a lot of the paragraphs even further, which I do not
want to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: I was going to ask everyone to testify after
the amendments, but I think it is important to have the public chime in on each
amendment as they come if they would like to. Does anyone want to testify on this
amendment? I will suspend the rules with no objections.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes?
Councilmember Kagawa: Are you going to allow testimony after every
amendment?
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I believe I have to because they will not
have an opportunity to speak if we vote it down.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair?
COUNCIL MEETING 50 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes?
Councilmember Yukimura: May I make a suggestion that even though
we are only considering one (1) amendment, that the other amendments be
proposed so that we can at least know what is coming, for both the audience and
the...
Council Chair Rapozo: It makes it difficult for the staff. You can
circulate the amendments. That is not an issue. Only one (1) amendment can be on
the floor at any given time. We have to think about that. I would just ask that the
public be brief so that we can help this process move forward, and then you will
have the opportunity to testify at the end.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Cowden: I am Felicia Cowden and I am going to speak
in broad-brush strokes that my testimony will pretty much apply to all of them. If
there is something specific that comes up in another one, I will speak again. Today
is 2015 and we are talking about 2019, so that is four (4) years. I am not sure at
which date it happens. It might be three (3) and a few years and a few months. If
employers are given four (4) years, your target is to basically almost double the
wage that is currently there, the seven dollars and seventy-five cents ($7.75) going;
that would be fifteen dollars and fifty cents ($15.50), so it is almost double. I
support that. The thing is that when it happens year-by-year, people can go with
what State has said or they can be making appropriate adjustments in the
meantime. I appreciate that Councilmember Rapozo is talking about the cost of
living, and even just in tying things to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). When we
just have an arbitrary seventy-five cents ($0.75) per hour, per year increase, that is
pretty small. As I have said in many other testimonies, a good business plan should
not build its foundation on the exploitation of workers. That is the fundamental
policy that we now have in place at seven dollars and seventy-five cents ($7.75) an
hour or seven dollars and twenty-five cents ($7.25) an hour. I do also want to say
that I very much support a tiered approach to allow the inclusion for under-skilled
workers. That helps business as well. With sick leave, I think that is a very
difficult area and somehow it needs to be used only for those truly sick and not
accrued or used for extra vacation time. This is where abuse comes in, and most of
the time I know people who have those kinds of benefits who regularly abuse it.
The family leave is also something that is pretty delicate in the same way. If we
have employees who abuse family leave or sick leave, it does really help to shut
down business and it creates a difficult climate for working. But right now, our
minimum wage is so below what is appropriate, and fifteen dollars ($15) an hour, if
it was in the present, it is probably appropriate. The thing is that it is too hard of a
change to make immediately. With four (4) years' notice, it is not. There will be
inflation and people can adapt and adjust, which we do all the time, whether it is
fuel prices or other things. Taking care of our people is essential. I think this
testimony will inform many of these amendments. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
RAYMOND CATANIA: I am Raymond Catania. I support the
original Resolution, but taking into consideration Councilmember Chock's
amendments very seriously. I would not support Councilmember Yukimura's
amendment because I think it is too general and too broad. Last week, I believe
COUNCIL MEETING 51 OCTOBER 7, 2015
there was a conference in Princeville with all of the business people, getting
together. I have an article here that I am just going run through real quickly
because I do not want to take up too much time. There was an economist by the
name of Jack Suyderhoud, who was saying that Kaua`i's main engine for business is
tourism and is doing very well. So I think that we have to take into consideration
that these guys are making money compared to this time last year. They made
more than one hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000), just in the tourist
industry alone, the increase. Mr. Suyderhoud was saying, "My advice is take
advantage of the good times while they last." What about the good times for
working people? Will we be able to get some of these benefits? It is not just for the
business class, large and small. What about the working class people? Also in the
same article, which was written by Bill Buley, that came out in our newspaper here
was that the Kaua`i Shrimp Company and other companies like Kaua`i Coffee and
KOloa Rum Company have been doing well also. Why do they not increase their
wages for their workers? What about First Hawaiian Bank? Why do they not
increase those wages for their tellers, the people that are up front? I really think
that if the businesses are doing well, they have to spread the wealth around. I want
to thank Councilmember Kuali`i for bringing up the first Resolution and also the
amendment and the tiered system for businesses and their size, and thank you,
Councilmember Chock, for your proposal...I should say your amendment and taking
a look at the tiered system, because all of the businesses cannot be treated the
same. Walmarts cannot be treated the same as somebody who is making bikinis,
for example, with just a few employees. I think that approach by Councilmember
Chock is a good one and kind of realistic. That is it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Raymond, can you say for a fact that these
businesses will not be raising wages in the good years?
Mr. Catania: Well, none of the workers that we talked to,
as we went to their homes door-to-door throughout the island, said that there was
no move on their businesses' part for most of them that they are not going to be
raising wages. They have not heard anything yet.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, some of them are collective bargaining,
right?
Mr. Catania: Most of the workers that we talked to are not
unionized.
Councilmember Yukimura: They are not?
Mr. Catania: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: The visitor industry unions...
Mr. Catania: Like I said for example, tourism is the main
industry and restaurants depend upon the tourists, shrimp companies and Kaua`i
Kookie. A lot of these places depend upon the tourists' dollar. These guys at the top
are going to be making some money and it has to spread throughout the community.
I think the workers deserve more money so that we can survive. We are not talking
about putting these folks out of business or anything like that, but we think this
gravy should be shared with the rest of the working class.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Catania: You are welcome.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a question real quick. I agree with
what you are saying, but there is also like the hotels where they are paying their
people more than minimum wage already, so this Resolution is not going to...I said
this at the last meeting, but the big corporations, the corporate America like
Walmarts; this Resolution, although it will be like a hemorrhoid, is not going to kill
them. They can absorb it. It is the little companies. That is why I like your
somewhat at least openness to looking at a tiered system because that does create a
level playing field.
Mr. Catania: We have to look at the tiered system because
we cannot treat every business the same. They are not all the same.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why I said I think you want to target
these...they are not going to pack up and leave because the minimum wage...the
majority of their employees are being paid over the fifteen dollar ($15) an hour rate
now.
Mr. Catania: Yes, eighteen dollars ($18) to twenty dollars
($20) an hour.
Council Chair Rapozo: One position out in Princeville is
thirty-seven dollars ($37) an hour. It is almost career changing for me. I want to
get the heck out of this and go do that. That is eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) a
year.
Mr. Catania: But there are some businesses that are
making money and can give their workers more.
Council Chair Rapozo: I agree.
Mr. Catania: I do not want us to waive the flag of
protecting small business and in the process the Walmarts, Kmarts, and big
corporations get away with it. We just cannot protect small businesses and let the
guys who are making the billions of dollars "scot-free." You have to take that into
consideration.
Council Chair Rapozo: I agree. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: We had three (3) businesses come and testify
and I talked to a lot of other businesses who do not want to come because they do
not want to seem like cheapskate business or what have you, but they strongly
oppose it. We had Kaua`i Kookie Company, the Right Slice, and the bikini company
and they all said that it would negatively affect their business, possibly leading to
closure or unemployment. What is your feeling on that?
Mr. Catania: I do not want to see these businesses close
either, but if they can give more, why not? That is why we have to get the
discussion going. That is the way I feel because I have relatives that work for these
small businesses.
COUNCIL MEETING 53 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Kagawa: So when Representative Morikawa said that
they discuss it every year, you believe that she is lying?
Mr. Catania: I know her personally and I am not saying
that she is lying, but I do not think they are discussing it in strong enough terms.
Councilmember Kagawa: They raised it in 2016, going up to eight
dollars and fifty cents ($8.50); 2017, going up to nine dollars and twenty-five cents
($9.25); and 2018, going up to ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10). Do you think they
are not discussing it?
Mr. Catania: Well, it is manini. It has not kept up with
the cost of living. I have told her that already.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Catania: She is in my union as well, the Hawai`i
Government Employees Association (HGEA), so we are union comrades, and I do
not like the way that the Legislature has been approaching this situation.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do you think that this Resolution is going to
change it?
Mr. Catania: I think what it will do is start discussion and
get the ball rolling. I think that our County representatives like you folks are
listening to what the people are saying and we can tell our legislators that they
have to get on the stick.
Councilmember Kagawa: We here are also listening to the business
owners that come and tell us that it is not a good idea.
Mr. Catania: Yes, but we have to take a look at what is
happening, too, because the tourist industry is making money right now, so we have
to share some of that.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Catania: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Good point, Councilmember Kagawa. There
are so many different positions. Unfortunately, Ray, there are people out there that
disagree with you.
Mr. Catania: That is okay. Mahalo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken, if you are going to come up here, you
have to smile. You are going to have to leave that ugly face back there. You cannot
come up here and be so grumpy.
KEN TAYLOR: Good morning, Council. Ken Taylor. It is
really sad that we have to argue about making wages that give an individual a
living wage. Even at fifteen dollars ($15) an hour, you cannot pay the rent for a
market rate unit here on the island and be in the affordable category. So what you
COUNCIL MEETING 54 OCTOBER 7, 2015
are doing by saying, "Well, we do not want to burden the businesses"—there are
some businesses that should not be in business. The burden should not be put on
the workforce. We heard talk about "we have to make transportation affordable,
housing affordable, and this and that affordable, but we cannot solve any of those
problems until we get to the root of the problem, and starting at the top discussion
and working down does not work. What is creating the problem is the only way you
are going to solve any of these issues, but I think it is really sad that you put the
burden...how many minimum wage jobs would one have to have to pay the rent on
a two (2) bedroom unit at market rate? This is one of the problems that we face
here on the island with families and it creates a whole social issue because when
mom and dad are out working and the kids are left alone or whatever, they have a
chance of getting into trouble. That is costing a lot, socially. There is a lot involved
that has to really be looked at very carefully and it is not just waive it all off and say
that it is somebody else's problem because we are all paying for it, one way or
another. We need to get a real handle on who we are subsidizing and why we are
subsidizing them. I am not in favor of this Resolution as it stands because you
put...
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken, that is your three (3) minutes.
Mr. Taylor: Okay. Fifteen dollars ($15) an hour
twenty (20) years from now or five (5) years from now does not cut it either. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have a question from Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Ken, I just wanted clarification because you
said that there are some businesses that should not be in business. What did you
mean by that?
Mr. Taylor: Well, there are a lot of people going into
business without a good business plan and you look at a particular business or
whatever you are looking at and say, "Yes, I can make some money doing this," and
then you open up the business. You see it happen all the time where businesses
come and go because they are not really looking at the full picture of operating the
business, and part of the operating the business is looking at all costs, insurances,
rents, and wages. These are all important aspects of looking at how you are going
to make this business viable. If we are going to say, "Well, it is important to have
more small business," I do not disagree with that. But if we have to subsidize those
small businesses on the back of the employees, then there is a problem and the
taxpayers are paying big time, subsidizing affordable housing for people to keep
these small businesses in business. I think it is time that we take a look at it. If
you go back twenty (20) to thirty (30) years and look at the inflation rate and where
minimum wage was, how inflation rates have gone up, and how little wages have
gone up, they have not kept it together at all.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I have one more follow-up. So you are saying
if we as a government said that minimum wage is set at thirty dollars ($30) an hour
to pay for a living wage, it is a business' fault for not having a good business plan to
accommodate the thirty dollars ($30) an hour?
Mr. Taylor: I think we have dropped the ball in the last
fifty (50) years in keeping minimum wage in line. It is unfortunate that we have
COUNCIL MEETING 55 OCTOBER 7, 2015
done that. How we resolve that problem is very difficult. At some point in time, I
am not saying to jump to thirty dollars ($30) an hour, but in reality that is probably
where it should be. The point is that...
Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to make sure that you just get
the questioned answered.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: He answered your question.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ken, you said that it should not be fifteen
dollars ($15) in five (5) years.
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry?
Councilmember Yukimura: You said that it should not be fifteen
dollars ($15) in five (5) years.
Mr. Taylor: It should be, but the...fifteen dollars ($15)
sometime in the future, and I am saying no.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are saying that it should be fifteen
dollars ($15) in five (5) years.
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Please come up.
LEEONA HOOSER: Good morning. Aloha. My name is Leeona
Hooser. I just have a few topics that I have heard that kind of resonated with me
here in this discussion this morning. One of the Councilmembers stated that it is
not our problem, but it is the State's problem, and it actually reminds me of a story
I heard in church last week, which is very relatable. I promise not to preach
religion on you folks right now. It pretty much states that a new king took over
land, and overtime his advisors came to him and said, "King, our land is in
drought." The king said, "Well, I really do not care. I have my fresh apples and my
water here." Months later, the advisors came again and told the king, "Sir, your
people are starving and they need help." "Well, it is not my problem. I have my
food here. I am good. Who cares?" A fisherman comes to him and invites him to
come out onto a boat and tells him, "Bring all of your advisors. We are going to put
you on this new yacht that I built for you." So they go and they are out in the
middle of the lake and the fisherman begins to put a hole on the bottom of the ship
and the king said, "What are you doing? You are going to drown us all. You are
going to kill us all." The fisherman goes, "It is not my problem. I know how to
swim." That really resonated with me. The king realized, "Oh, it is our problem."
As leaders in this County, it is your problem. I feel like perspective can be viewed
differently on this topic. Just because Kaua`i introduces legislation that does not
pass, it does not mean that we are not a martyr and a light for the rest of the State.
I feel like Kaua`i should be more of a leader. We have amazing minds on this
COUNCIL MEETING 56 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council and throughout our community that we could do this. I think Kaua`i is
good for introducing legislation, even if it does not pass. It brings our problem to
the State to make it their problem. Third, a lot of people were saying up here that
small businesses were completely against this Resolution, but I sat in a public
hearing, and if I am not mistaken, Taryn with Kaikini Bikinis said she agreed that
if there was a tiered system, it would be fine. It is just jumping four dollars ($4)
from one year to the next is unreasonable, which I agree with that. I think
Councilmember Chock's amendment here is fantastically written. I think it is
aligned with what our State is doing and our people deserve more. It is our
problem. Working class families not being able to survive is your problem, all of
you. That is why you are elected. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: So is worrying about the sustainability of our
small businesses that employ a lot of these workers...are they our problem?
Ms. Hooser: No, that is a very important issue,
Councilmember. Sustainability of our small business is what helps grows our
economy.
Councilmember Kagawa: So when they testify against this Resolution,
is it not our job to listen to them as well?
Ms. Hooser: Absolutely.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is what some of us are doing.
Ms. Hooser: Also, Councilmember Kagawa, those small
businesses also stated that they could work with a tiered approach. I was here
sitting in this room at the same spot with that Kaikini Bikinis girl. She said that a
tiered approach would work, just not an increase from one year to the next in that
high amount, which I agree that no small business can do. No small business can
sustain that way, but with a small tiered approach over five (5) years, I think it is
extremely sustainable and business plans can be realigned and line items
readjusted to accommodate a living wage, because that is truly what it is; it is a
living wage. People are barely making it. If you go through Hanamd'ulu...I do not
need anyone to tell me differently. I know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Leeona, I know we are not talking about
Councilmember Chock's one, but when you said "tiered approach," I just wanted
clarification. Do you mean the tiered approach as far as having a gross dollar value,
and then a certain minimum wage or the minimum wage increasing?
Ms. Hooser: Both. I think for a small business to work
with an increasing minimum wage cannot be thrown at them and expect them
overnight or in a year to increase, but over five (5) years at a tiered pace,
seventy-five cents ($0.75) a year, I think that is accommodating, even for a small
business practice. The second part of that, the volume, I think that is extremely...it
needs to be in consideration because Kaikini Bikinis' business compared to Kaua`i
COUNCIL MEETING 57 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Kookie's business, they are both small business, but they bring in completely
different volumes of sales, so they should be treated differently.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: If the increase is four dollars and ninety
cents ($4.90) for businesses that are over one million dollars ($1,000,000) in one
year, then that would be okay?
Ms. Hooser: It is not in one year though; it is 2020 with
the amendment that...
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, it would go from the State proposal to
having it at ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10)...sorry...in 2018, it would go to fifteen
dollars ($15) in two (2) years if it is 2020.
Ms. Hooser: If they are making over one million two
hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000), I think they can afford it.
Councilmember Yukimura: My understanding of tiered was the
Minnesota approach, which we had training of being less and I think students being
less. Do you agree with that proposal?
Ms. Hooser: I think it absolutely could be considered,
negotiated, and amended into this Resolution, absolutely. Someone who has been
working for a company for twenty-five (25) years should not be earning the same
pay rate as an eighteen (18) year old with no job experience. That is a smack in the
face.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Council Chair. Glenn Mickens.
It sounds like there are two (2) types of tiered things. I think Councilmember
Chock's amendment is right on target. The Minnesota model is the other type of
tiered system and I think that is good, too. Like Felicia said, somebody who is
entering the market, for crying out loud, they should not be getting the same pay
rate as somebody who has been there for five (5) years and has experience. I think
that is the thing that you are going to have to take into consideration when you
make any of these amendments, but I compliment Councilmember Kuali`i for
introducing this Resolution. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we will call
the meeting back to order. We are on the amendment. The motion is to approve.
Roll call.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I presume that we are going to be taking
stands if this amendment does not pass on family leave, sick leave, and all of that
without any changes to the Resolution.
COUNCIL MEETING 58 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going to address every amendment as
it comes up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Well, I just want to point out that
Councilmember Kaneshiro pointed out that this amendment changes a lot, but it
changes a lot in order to support economic justice for Hawai`i's working families in a
way that would work in the totality of everyone. Even HGEA says that they
support something that is good for everyone. I do not think people know the
ramifications of the family leave and sick leave provisions in the Resolution and this
has tried to make them start small, but put sick leave in there to see how it would
work, and then expand it as it works well, but with input from the businesses that
are affected, because some people seem to think that businesses can just survive, no
matter what the costs of doing business are. That is not true. Actually, the
congressional budget study, which was on a twelve dollars and twelve cents ($12.12)
proposal showed that some working families would get benefits, but actually there
would be jobs lost for low wage earners; there would be a drop in the number of jobs
for low wage earners, and that would drastically affect them. They would turn
homeless, basically. There are a lot of factors going on here. What we want to be
careful is that these things that we support do not actually hurt working class
families. I think that is why a gradual approach is advisable and we need to get
really specific fiscal impacts and input from businesses before we take positions on
these things. This is what this amendment tries to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Again, I am going to repeat myself because
sometimes people do not hear or whatever. My mom had a restaurant for
twelve (12) years, "Sue's Snack Shop" in the `Ele`ele Shopping Center and she had to
close down because she was not making money. There was too much money going
to taxes and rents, so I can talk because I have lived through that. Many of you ate
there at Sue's Snack Shop because she had `ono food. The bottom line is that when
the business owners approach me and talk to me, I listen and I can relate because
my family went through that. Raising the minimum wage to any amount that we
pull out of the sky does have negative effects, like Councilmember Yukimura talks
about. The balance must be dealt with by the Legislature, which is why they have
to do the due diligence every year and make sure that they are looking at all of the
factors. You do not want to raise the wage of everybody and put a lot of people out
of work. That does not work. Again, it is easy to not be a business owner or not
employ people and talk, but to actually live it, to employ people and to see the kind
of effect that a five dollar ($5) raise would have in one (1) year is very difficult if you
own and run a small business. Again, talk is cheap. I am not supporting anything
on this issue. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to share some information from
the United States Department of Labor's website. It is three (3) different myths
and dispelling those myths: "Myth number one (1), increasing the minimum wage
will cause people to lose their jobs. The Department of Labor says that a review of
sixty-four (64) studies on minimum wage increases found no noticeable effect on
employment. In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a
minimum wage increase, more than six hundred (600) economists, including
seven (7) Nobel Peace Prize winners wrote, `In recent years, there have been
important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the
COUNCIL MEETING 59 OCTOBER 7, 2015
minimum wage on employment with the weight of evidence now showing that
increases in the minimum wage have had little or no effect on the employment of
minimum wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.' Myth
number two (2), increasing the minimum wage is bad for business. Academic
research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover, which can
reduce employment and training costs. Myth number three (3), increasing the
minimum wage is bad for the economy. Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has
been increased twenty-two (22) times. For more than seventy-five (75) years, real
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita has steadily increased, even when the
minimum wage has been raised." Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Councilmember Kuali`i, what were the
assumptions of the minimum wage increase of those studies?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have no idea. This is information from the
United States Department of Labor. I think there will always be some negative
impact, but is it a prevailing problem that prevents us from improving society as a
whole, right? We can always find an example of maybe...and maybe that is what
Mr. Taylor was talking about when he was testifying that some businesses will fail,
for whatever reason. They do not have the right plan or the right mixture of what
they are providing to the community for what price and fair wages. We are not
saying that the increase in the minimum wage may not impact a single business; it
might, but is it an overwhelming problem where we should not move forward and
improve things for our society for working families? That is what I am saying.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is this a question?
Councilmember Yukimura: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why not?
Council Chair Rapozo: Why not what?
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, I will wait.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, if you have a question for him, then you
can continue, but Councilmember Hooser was next in line.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. We are in discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Here we go. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you, Chair. I want to just restate my
support for the original Resolution. I am anxious to hear the rest of the
amendments. Also, I want to restate the need for us to make a strong and bold
statement to support working people, and to also restate that anyone who was here
at those hearings that we had or looked at the testimony, it clearly indicates that
the number one objection was the suddenness of it and the lack of a tiered
structure. I think thirty-five percent (35%), if I am remembering correctly, the
Chamber of Commerce members did not have an objection to it, period, and the
COUNCIL MEETING 60 OCTOBER 7, 2015
others from the large business to a small business were talking about the sudden
nature and the lack of a tier. The vast majority said that they believe that we
should raise minimum wage. We will talk about the next proposal when it comes
up, in terms of easing it up and having it as a tier. I am supportive of that. I spent
fifteen (15) years in small business and had employees, and know very well the
struggles of small businesses and how stressful it is. My partners and I came close
to going out of business and got way behind at periods of time, but managed to stick
with it and pay our bills and earn profits, so I have some direct experience with this.
I have been recognized by the Chamber of Commerce, the Kapa'a Business
Association, and by others for achievements in business, so I think what I say here
matters, as much as anyone in terms of experience in business. We need to be able
to pay workers what they deserve. Fifteen dollars ($15) an hour is not a living
wage, but we need to get there as soon as possible and we need to make that
statement. Again, the businesses that did testify said clearly that they supported
paying people more money, but they just did not like the sudden nature of it. I
manage an organization now. We have two (2) employees and we pay both people
an excess of fifteen dollars ($15) an hour, because it is the right thing to do.
Manufacturers are at a disadvantage and that is why we need a tiered approach.
Certainly, the hotels and all the large employers...we all play on the same level
playing field. If you are going to shop at a store, all the stores have to pay the same
wage. The competition...everyone raises the rates to accommodate that. Hotels will
pass this on to the visitors. If you look at most of our areas where we compete in
the visitor industry, major centers of population like New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo,
London, and all the other places that get lots of tourists, pay far more than we pay
here in terms of the basic level of wages. This is just a recommendation to the State
Legislature to take strong action. I think we need to back up and remember that.
This is just a recommendation and I believe we should make a strong
recommendation. We have done the due diligence. We have listened to the
business community and people representing the working people. We need the vote
in support of the Resolution that proposes a fifteen dollar ($15) minimum wage and
move on. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro. This is only on
Councilmember Yukimura's amendment.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, I think when we talk about that
fifteen dollar ($15) increase, there needs to be some balance. I know we have heard
about the Department of Labor and their economists stating how an increase would
not affect businesses, but I think the last time that we met on this, I talked about it.
The economists were talking about an increase to ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10).
So it is a little different to compare their increase to ten dollars and ten cents
($10.10), which the State already has stair-stepping up to, compared to a jump from
ten dollars and ten cents ($10.10) to fifteen dollars ($15). So I am just trying to
compare apples and apples. We all want an increase in minimum wage, but there
has to be a balance. We cannot just full-force it on the businesses and say, "Here is
your increase. Deal with it. If you cannot handle it, then go out of business." If
that happens, then we lose jobs. There has to be something that everyone can
handle. For me, a broader statement is better. Again, leave it up to the State to do
the research and say, "What can we do to increase the minimum wage while not
affecting the business owners?"
Council Chair Rapozo: Any more discussion on the amendment? If
not, roll call.
COUNCIL MEETING 61 OCTOBER 7, 2015
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2015-57 as circulated, and as shown in
the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1 was then
put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Yukimura TOTAL — 1,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL— 6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: The amendment fails. Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock moved to amend Resolution No. 2015-57 as circulated,
and as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as
Attachment 2, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Chock: I will read it briefly. This is the tiered
system as was spoken about. It begins in 2020, which is two (2) years after the
proposed current increases. "Item (A), fifteen dollars ($15) per hour for employers
whose annual gross dollar volume of sales made or business done exceed one million
two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000); Item (B), twelve dollars and fifty
cents ($12.50) per hour for employees whose annual gross dollar volume of sales
made or business done in between five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) and
one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000); and Item (C), eleven
dollars ($11) per hour for employees whose annual gross volume of sales made or
business done is less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)." The addition
from the last round that we had on this amendment is this, "The Council further
requests that the Legislature substitute an alternate effective date, alternate dollar
amounts, or other details, if deemed appropriate upon further investigation." I
think it is well-known that this is a suggestion to our legislators and that they do
take this into consideration on an annual basis. I think that what this is trying to
accomplish is just to provide some structure to what it is that we are looking at and
want to support in the larger message, and recognizing that ultimately that
discussion needs to occur for them. So it does provide a little bit more of a cushion
to what was previously introduced and the only other thing I would say, as was
stated earlier, is that this is a recommendation. We have talked about this fairly
enough. I said that I want to support something that will continue to represent the
messages that we should all be supporting and have that discussion at the State
level. My hope is that this is what it does. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question for Councilmember Chock.
Does this follow another city?
Councilmember Chock: The idea was referenced to the Minnesota
municipality, which it does have a tiered system. I think Councilmember Yukimura
mentioned that in her amendment as well, and had further tiers actually involved
in it. I chose not to introduce those.
COUNCIL MEETING 62 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Kagawa: Is there any other cities besides Minnesota
that adopted this?
Councilmember Chock: I believe there are other cities. I do not have
record of those for you right now. This one was primarily modeled after Minnesota.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: What is the basis for the annual gross sales?
Councilmember Chock: I think we went with some information we
received. I am going to ask Councilmember Kuali`i because I think there was an
amount that we were looking at from research that we received. I do not have that
information in front of me.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I guess when we originally looked at the
Minnesota model you could do it based on the number of employees or the gross
annual sales. Councilmember Chock is choosing gross annual sales. The one thing
I got as a piece of data, and I think I shared it with everyone the last time, was from
Infogroup. It just basically broke down the businesses in Hawai`i, both for Kaua`i
and also for the State of Hawai`i. They had a total of fifty-four thousand seven
hundred (54,700) businesses in this survey for Hawai`i and three thousand eight
hundred (3,800) for Kaua`i. Then they broke it down by the gross sales. Actually,
over one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) is twenty-three percent
(23%) of Kaua`i's businesses. Less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000)
is twenty-five percent (25%). Less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) is
fourteen percent (14%). So forty percent (40%) of Kaua`i's business is under five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). The other twenty-one percent (21%) is
between five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) and one million two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($1,250,000). Then twenty-three percent (23%) is over one million
two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000).
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate the effort to propose a more
tailored approach. Do you know how the businesses who testified before us will be
affected by this proposal?
Councilmember Chock: I do not. I only know the testimony that
came in, in support of the tiered approach rather than all at once.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, so we do not know how they will be
impacted. What was the reason for not including the Minnesota tier for students
and training?
Councilmember Chock: When looking at it, it did get convoluted in
our discussion, initially. I brought the Minnesota discussion slide up and we talked
about it and there were some questions about fairness, as could be stated within
these tiers as well. Therefore, I decided to stick to one aspect of it, which were the
gross sales.
COUNCIL MEETING 63 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. For me, that distinction between
training and students and others is a really key thing, because as was pointed out,
it is a practical problem for businesses to give someone who does not have
experience, as much as somebody who does have experience and not be able to make
those distinctions. Also, not knowing how our businesses here specifically will be
affected is something that is very critical to me, so I am not able to support this
without knowing what the actual impacts are.
Councilmember Chock: Sure. I understand your point and I actually
agree with you. Again, when I created this, I was looking for addressing the issues
that were surfaced in order for us to move this forward, and we have talked about
this in a lot of different ways. My core goal is to move it forward, as I mentioned
previously. So that is why I chose not to convolute it further, unless it was brought
up. Of course, I would be open to additional amendments if that pleases everyone
and will make a difference for us to move from this.
Councilmember Yukimura: Your goal was exactly my goal with my
amendments to enable us to move forward without taking positions that we are not
really informed about the impacts of. I share your goal, but I am very
uncomfortable with passing something specifically that we do not know the impacts
of.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I found my notes from the Kaikini Bikinis'
testimony and she said that their entry level pay is ten dollars ($10) an hour and
after one (1) month they have one hundred percent (100%) health benefits and after
three (3) months they get a raise. They have six (6) to ten (10) employees. When I
asked about the gross sales, I asked in categories: five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) or more, no; two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), yes. Kaikini
Bikinis would be in the lowest tier of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or
less.
Councilmember Yukimura: I remember all of that and I did apply it to
Kaikini Bikinis' proposal, but that does not tell me about the other businesses or
about the importance of training and experience.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to thank the introducer of the
amendment for putting it forward. I think compromise is something that we could
all do more of around here and I think this is a good faith attempt at that. I think
everybody should earn fifteen dollars ($15) an hour or more, regardless, if they are
all doing the same work. I am willing to support this compromise because I would
like to move the issue forward. I think the value of someone's work, whether they
are working for a big company or small company, the value of that person's labor is
the same; having said that, I am willing to compromise that thought to move
something meaningful forward to the Legislature. That is number one. If we are
looking for a really loose compromise, the last paragraph allows...the Legislature
can do whatever they want anyway when we give them the resolution. They do not
have to listen to us; we know that. The last paragraph says that, "The Council
further requests that the Legislature substitute an effective date, different
numbers, or other details as deemed appropriate upon further investigation." This
is the reality of how the process works. The Legislature, if they move an issue like
COUNCIL MEETING 64 OCTOBER 7, 2015
this forward, will have hearings, businesses will come forward, and they will vet out
whatever tiers that they decided they want to tier. This is a recommendation to the
Legislature essentially saying, "We want and believe that the workers in our
community and our State deserve fifteen dollars ($15) an hour. We think a tiered
approach, based on the size of a business, is a reasonable one. Here are the
examples of those tiers we think are reasonable. You guys figure it out. It is your
job." say reasonable one and here is examples that we think are reasonable. You
guys figure it out, that is your job. That is what this is saying and I think it is
perfectly reasonable. We cannot expect to sit here and have a year's worth of
hearings to come up with precise language that drives a resolution, which
ultimately will just be a statement to the Legislature. I think this is a very
reasonable and thoughtful request. Again, this is a statement. I think we should
move forward and provide such a statement on behalf of the working people in our
community. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do think it is better than the original
Resolution, but it does not address a lot of things like family leave or sick leave, and
I think taking stands on that, the wording of it, needs to be addressed as well if it is
to represent a real, true position of this Council. I will not be supporting it, but I
will be floating this to the business community to get their feedback on it between
now and the next meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: Between now and what?
Councilmember Yukimura: Our Council Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is it. Today is the Council Meeting,
Councilmember Yukimura. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, then I cannot support it.
Councilmember Kagawa: I appreciate the creativeness in trying to
follow a model from Minnesota and the fact of the matter is that Minnesota is very
different from Hawai`i. We are an "island-state," separated by the Pacific Ocean.
We do not have any professional sports teams and we do not have the "Mall of
America." It is a very different economy. It may be funny to you, but it is real to
me. I cannot support something that we do not know the outcomes, as
Councilmember Yukimura talked about. Just because the bikini place is okay, then
it is okay? There are a lot of businesses that do not want to come forward and
sound like cheapskates and oppose this Resolution, merely a resolution now. I
think if it was at the Legislature and it was under serious consideration, you would
see a lot of businesses coming forward because then it would really affect reality,
whatever decision comes out. To say that businesses have not come forward...it is
because this Resolution does not have any teeth. Why should they stick their neck
out and say, "This Resolution is going to affect us negatively." It is not the
appropriate time for them to come forward. We all have different circles of friends.
I have a lot of businesses tell me that this Resolution is very dangerous and that it
is not realistic. Our job is to not compromise knowing that it may have some
harmful effects. We have to support something that we feel strongly is a good thing,
but we do not have enough information. Councilmember Yukimura is hitting it
right on the nose for me, as far as her concerns. For me, it is just a resolution. It is
a statement to do more for the Legislature to seriously consider it, but on a matter
COUNCIL MEETING 65 OCTOBER 7, 2015
such as this that affects everything, all the businesses, and the future of Kaua`i and
the State, I think if we want to support a resolution like this, then we have to have
the information, and I do not have it. I think the information will come when
Minnesota shows that there are positive effects that came out of it. I do not want to
just follow Minnesota. We are not Minnesota. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, I will not be supporting this because I
would support something that is broad, as I have said before. I will support
incremental increases to minimum wage. I like the language that Councilmember
Yukimura used in her other amendment where she said "develop for consideration,
a tiered approach." I can live with those types of words, but when we start putting
in numbers, it is very hard for me to support it, because for me, I look at just the
total gross annual dollars. It is hard for me to say what the economic impact is by
putting in numbers like that. You can have a company with one (1) employee that
makes one million dollars ($1,000,000) and it may not affect them that much, or you
can have a company making over one million dollars ($1,000,000) and only netting a
little bit of money, but they have a lot of employees, which it will affect them. Those
are the things that I think need to be vetted out more, as far as information and
how this would affect other companies. With that, I could support a broader
statement, but I know that is not what I think the introducer of the original
Resolution would like. For me, I cannot support it right now. I am not comfortable
supporting something with arbitrary numbers. We talk a lot about Walmart and I
do not want to just single out a company and say, "We are doing this just for them,"
but how much gross income do they make? Do they make ten million dollars
($10,000,000) here? Do they make twenty million dollars ($20,000,000)? Why not
increase the gross amount to something where...but we should not be targeting
anybody either. Again, I am just not comfortable the way it is because I think we
will still be affecting small businesses at this type of rate. There are businesses
that make over one million dollars ($1,000,000) or one million five hundred
thousand dollars ($1,500,000), but their net income at the end may be very small.
Are we going to say, "I do not care if you folks have a little bit of net income?" For
me, it is a success if a company can make over one million dollars ($1,000,000) or
over one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000), pay all of their
employees, and still have some money at the end. For us to say, "You make over
this, so now you have to increase your minimum wage." It may make them go
upside down. They may be in the negative now. Is that the precedent that we want
to set? "It is good that you are paying your employees now and your business model
works, but we are going to force you to make it work with fifteen dollars ($15) or
some number." That is the struggle that I have, as far as being able to support
something like this. Again, I think we need to be broad and look closely at
incremental steps. I think this puts in arbitrary numbers and I am not comfortable
with it. I will not be supporting it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: As I said before, I think we have talked
about this long enough last time. My hope for this body is that we can problem
solve to ensure that the messages that are most important to move forward are set
forth. It can be too broad, too detailed, or whatever it is. There are so many
reasons for these things not to pass. The importance is the message. At least what
I get from Councilmember Kagawa is, "I am not supporting anything that is going
on this." I can appreciate that. Do you know why? It tells me where he is and
COUNCIL MEETING 66 OCTOBER 7, 2015
there is no more negotiating on that. I do not need to hear anything else. What I
want to do is move a message forward of the importance of this, and I think that he
with can all agree that this is an important message. I want to vote already
because we have had this discussion before and if you cannot support the
amendment or anything of it, then that is what I want to know. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are moving forward, Councilmember
Chock, with positions on family leave and sick leave that we have not really vetted
and we have not really worked on. If you want to move forward, you need to
address these issues as well in a really responsible way, which means getting input
from the business community about it. If you really want to move forward, I would
defer this matter and work on all of those pieces, so that it is a document that we
can really say, "This is what we support," and we support it based on solid input
from the community. At this point, I feel like we are being expedient and ignoring
some of the really major policy positions that people are going to say, "You stood for
this and you stood for this," and we are going to say, "Yes, in order to move ahead,"
whatever that means. I think if we really want to work on this and come to a
position, then we need to work on it. I tried in addressing the whole Resolution.
This is not just a minimum wage resolution; this is a resolution with a lot of
different parts. Even this is not the Minnesota model and it does not address a key
thing that the small businesses raised, which is a working matter for them. It is
not the same work to have an inexperienced person do something as an
inexperienced person. Those are the realities. If we are going to be responsible, we
have to address them, I believe.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. I want to say that six (6) others
had the opportunity to provide amendments on the other components of the
Resolution, so I think to call Councilmember Chock irresponsible—he is comfortable
and doing what he believes is responsible. The only thing that he wanted that he
felt the compromise needed to be reached was the minimum wage. I just want to
say that every one of us had an opportunity. If there were problems or issues on the
other components of the Resolution, we could have done an amendment. I am not
going to support a deferral, I will tell you right now. I think this has been discussed
and deferred enough. Let us just move forward. I agree with Councilmember
Chock. Let us just get it done. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: That is okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, it is offensive and I do not like when
people say, "It is irresponsible," or, "It is not responsible. You want to do the
responsible thing." He is offering an amendment, which is very responsible. The
irresponsible thing is to sit back and not do anything. I agree with Councilmember
Chock that Councilmember Kagawa has made his point perfectly clear and we
should respect that. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I just wanted to remind the Members that
we are speaking on a specific amendment. We are not speaking on the entire
measure, so the criticisms of whether you like or do not like the amendment, I think
we should discuss, not the entire measure. To not support the amendment because
there is something else in the measure is...
Council Chair Rapozo: Do not use that word.
COUNCIL MEETING 67 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: I will not use that word, but I agree that we
need to move on. I for one am prepared to vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. We are on Councilmember
Chock's amendment. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to remind you folks about that
one point where fifteen dollars ($15) is not a living wage and far from it here in
Hawai`i. It is less than half. The National Low Income Housing Coalition showed
in their study that with the fair market rent for a two (2) bedroom rental unit, the
wage would need to be thirty-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($31.61) an hour.
Somebody testified about parents having to work two (2) and three (3)jobs, and that
is why. If you need thirty-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($31.61) just to afford a
two (2) bedroom home for your family, clearly both parents have to work.
Hopefully, they can at least work in a minimum wage job of fifteen dollars ($15), so
they can get close to that thirty-two dollars ($32) an hour. A raise to fifteen dollars
($15) or more will help low income families afford rent, fewer children will be on the
streets, and more than two hundred twenty-nine thousand (229,000) Hawai`i
workers will be lifted out of poverty. I support the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The final paragraph in this
amendment that Councilmember Hooser talked about is basically what got my
support for the amendment. The fact that we are telling the State, "You go ahead
and do what you need to do. You may need to change dates and numbers based on
what your investigation shows." To me, I think that is what allows me to support it
because we are given them what we believe and we do not know about none of these
numbers. Let me read the final paragraph again. It says, "The Council further
requests that the Legislature substitute an alternate effective date, alternate dollar
amounts, or other details, if deemed appropriate upon further investigation." That
gives the Legislature the flexibility. I think Councilmember Kagawa talked about it
earlier where you are telling the State what to do. This takes that edge and
pressure off. I know because I think I work with the Legislature probably more
than most. They do not like that. We try to get the message. Like I said, that final
paragraph takes that edge off and gives the Legislature the right to do what they
are going to do anyway. This Resolution will not really change any legislators'
minds, but at least they will have an ability to have some position from the County.
I will be supporting this amendment. With that, roll call.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2015-57 as circulated, and as shown in
the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 2 was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 4,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Four (4) ayes. We are back to the main
Resolution. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify? I want to get this done
before we take the lunch break, so I appreciate the audience sitting back. Any
further discussion? If not, roll call.
COUNCIL MEETING 68 OCTOBER 7, 2015
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-57, as amended to
Resolution No. 2015-57, Draft 1, was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 4,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Yukimura TOTAL — 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Four (4) ayes. Resolution No. 2015-57 as
amended to Draft 1 passes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carries. With that, we will take a
lunch break.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:28 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 1:38 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called to order.. Can we have
our next item, please?
SCOTT K. SATO, Deputy County Clerk: We are on page number 4, Bills
for First Reading.
BILLS FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2599) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-796, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND (Kauai Fire Department, Aerial
Apparatus Vehicle 10% County Match — $71,909.00): Councilmember Kuali`i moved
for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2599) on first reading, that it be ordered to
print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for November 4, 2015, and
referred to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Public Testimony? If not, roll
call.
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2599) on first reading,
that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
November 4, 2015, and referred to the Budget & Finance Committee was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
•
COUNCIL MEETING 69 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2600) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 5A, SECTION 5A-11A.1, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BENEFICIAL TAX RATE FOR PROPERTY
USED FOR LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE RENTAL: Councilmember Kuali`i moved
for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2600) on first reading, that it be ordered to
print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for November 4, 2015, and
referred to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Chair, during our earlier discussion I
mentioned that I have a small rental property that prior to September 30th was
benefiting from this tax break and would benefit from this. I did consult with the
County Attorney and the general feeling is that there is no conflict based on other
opinions that have been issued, but with an "abundance of caution," as they say, I
am going to be asking for a proper opinion. So I will not be voting today. I do hope
to that have opinion before the next time we vote on it because of my personal,
direct experience with the way the law works, I will have something to add to the
conversation. But I will not be voting on it today. Do I need to leave the room or
just say that I am recused? I will just say that I am recused.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I am not sure where the "leaving the
room came in.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: "Recusing" simply means that you cannot
participate.
Councilmember Hooser: I will not participate in the vote, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I am not sure where that started where
if someone is recused then they have to leave the room. It has just been the
practice.
Councilmember Hooser: Just to be clear, this is a voluntary thing. No
one is telling me that I have to do this. In fact, the general feeling is that I do not
have to do it. Unless some members have other issues with it, that is how I am
going to handle it this morning. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think there is a conflict of interest
because, for example, we are all affected by real property taxes. But if you are
deciding to withhold your participation until you get an official "okay," the recusal
was designed so that there is no participation in the discussion or vote. So you are
either in or you are out until you decide otherwise.
Councilmember Hooser: May I respond?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Hooser: I think that is my decision to make until I
am told differently by the Ethics Commission. I already participated in the
COUNCIL MEETING 70 OCTOBER 7, 2015
discussion today, but I will refrain myself from voting. In moving forward, I can
decide whether I want to follow the advice of the Ethics Commission. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Public testimony?
Any questions for Ken? The rules are suspended with no objections. I was going to
ask you something if nobody else did because you have been here waiting for a long
time.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KEN M. SHIMONISHI, Director of Finance: It does not matter. I am
not offended. Ken Shimonishi, Director of Finance.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for being here. Have you read the
Bill?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does the Administration have a position on
it?
Mr. Shimonishi: I think the position would be whether or not
this truly serves the majority of the applicants in the program. There is a response
provided to Councilmember Kaneshiro following up on affordable housing as to the
number of applicants, where they fall, and so on by a unit type. The majority of the
applicants, based on the 2015 application data, fall below the lower level of the
affordable rent market. I think that is one concern. The other concern is that I
think some of the language in here is a bit vague on calculating the credit and how
this credit would be applied and so forth.
Councilmember Yukimura: Has that communication been made
available to all Councilmembers?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I thought it was, but if it is not, we can make
it available.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Shimonishi: I have some copies that I brought. Is that
something that you want to look at?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, whatever you have.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we need all the information that we
can get. One of the questions was what the fiscal impacts would be of this proposed
credit. Have you or your department made any calculations?
Mr. Shimonishi: No, we have not and I think we are unclear
as to what that amount is actually calculated per unit time, per month, per year,
and whatnot.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. That is paragraph "C," I guess. "D?"
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct, the last paragraph in "D."
COUNCIL MEETING 71 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: And that is not clear to your department.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Will you be proposing language that
can clarify it and make it workable for you folks?
Mr. Shimonishi: I think we could, but I think the bigger
question is what is the true intent of this Bill? Is it to calculate a credit between the
2015 and the 2016 monthly rent by the unit type by twelve (12) months? We are
not sure of that. Could that credit actually exceed the real property taxes that are
due from the owner? If it is a one hundred dollar ($100) a month credit, that is one
thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year, but what if the taxes are one
thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200)? How much are we actually crediting to the
owner? That is where we need clarification.
Councilmember Yukimura: Would you not be crediting the amount that
they would have gotten with a lower tax rate?
Mr. Shimonishi: Well, it says, "The tax credit shall be equal to
the difference of the allowable monthly rent for tax years 2015 and 2016, and shall
be based on the size of the unit, (i.e., number of bedrooms). The owner shall file an
application with the Department of Finance, Real Property Tax Assessment
Division, by December 31, 2015 for the tax credit." It is just the difference between
the monthly rent. It does not say it is the annual amount of the monthly rent or
whatnot.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see. Okay. Are you able to explain what
your charts are showing?
Mr. Shimonishi: Actually as I mentioned, the response was
provided to Councilmember Kaneshiro on a communication. I did add a table on the
bottom, but based on the 2015 applications that we received...
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we put that on the overhead so that the
audience can see? Thank you, Ken. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.
Mr. Shimonishi: The top chart just says "Based on the Total
Applications" of one thousand three hundred two (1,302) applications. The type of
unit counts were: in the studios, we had fifty-four (54) applications; in the one (1)
bedroom, one hundred eighty-five (185); two (2) bedroom, three hundred ninety-one
(391); three (3) bedroom, six hundred twelve (612); four (4) bedroom, fifty-four (54);
and five (5) bedrooms, six (6). That gives us the spread of how the applications
came in based on 2015 applications. The chart below was just an attempt to see if
we could kind of carve out what would be related party type of deals. If the rent
was less than one hundred dollars ($100) a month, we tried to exclude that. You
can see that the pattern is still relatively the same, as far as the spread of the
affordable rental applications and per unit. The bottom table there is probably best
used in conjunction with the subsequent charts that are three (3) a page on the next
segment, which I will explain. The counts by unit monthly rent range chart, which
has the blue bars followed by a red diagonal bar, then blue bars and red diagonal
again. So this is the studio unit. It is the next page, sorry. I should have sent over
a file on this. Basically if you look at that, what it is telling you is that we have
COUNCIL MEETING 72 OCTOBER 7, 2015
nine (9) applications that are one hundred dollars ($100) or less; nothing from the
one hundred dollars ($100) to two hundred dollars ($200). Each one hundred dollar
($100) increment is the count of the applications that they fell in to each monthly
range. The nine hundred forty-five (945), that first red diagonal bar, is the lower
limit of the 2016 rental amount, according to the affordable long-term rental
program. Basically if the tenant pays any of the utilities, nine hundred forty-five
dollars ($945) is the highest that the owner can charge based on 2016 rates, where
the other applications fell for 2015. Then the one thousand two hundred eight
dollars ($1,208) is basically the upper limit, so if the owner pays all of the utilities,
that is the amount that the rent cannot exceed. Basically if you look at everything
left of the first red diagonal bar, we would say, "This is where majority of the
applications are, which is roughly forty-seven (47) applications or eighty-seven
percent (87%). That is the table on that first chart. This is where you can see the
bulk of where the participants are. Keep in mind though that the application
counts do not take into consideration whether the tenant or the landlord is paying.
It is just what was stated on the application that we gleaned the data from. Again,
if you look to the next chart in the middle, the one (1) bedroom, you can see where
the majority of the applications fall, typically below the 2016 lower limit of one
thousand eighty-seven dollars ($1,087). Basically, that is eighty-three point eight
percent (83.8%) of the applications, or one hundred fifty-five (155) of the
applications fall below that line, and then the same thing going forward for each of
the subsequent charts.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Ken, for 2016, we had a rough count of how
many? So for 2015, we know that one thousand three hundred two (1,302) people
got their three dollar ($3) rate by participating in this program.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: So in 2016, what is that approximate
number? I know we are still counting.
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, we are still counting and compiling the
applications, but it is believed that we will be between nine hundred (900) and one
thousand (1,000) applications.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think that answers your question as to why
would we want to pass this Bill, which is because we feel that maybe three hundred
(300) or four hundred (400) people may have kept their rent the same as 2015, and
because of the HUD percentage going down, in order for them to qualify for this
rate, they would have to reduce their rent. I guess the Council does not find it right
that you would have received an exemption as "affordable" a year prior and expect
that that same rent amount is no longer affordable. Where do you see deflation in
the housing market? It is unheard of. That is to answer your question. I think it is
pretty clear. I do not know what part we need to fix, but all we are trying to do is
keep those people that qualified in 2015 at a specified rent amount, if they were
exactly at the eighty percent (80%) level, and if they kept the rent the same, that in
2016 they would not be affected by that weird circumstance that happened with
HUD in the median income going down.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right. I think we understand that, but I also
think that if you were a landlord or owner and you actually lowered your rate to
COUNCIL MEETING 73 OCTOBER 7, 2015
meet this new amount—you signed a lease with your tenant and now you are not
getting this credit that the others are getting because they kept their rent the same.
I think there is some inequity in that as well. Just as a footnote, the prior year in
2014, the applications were at about nine hundred (900) applicants, so it is similar.
I think it is just the fact that the market is what it is and people decide to charge
higher, and they can, and they pay the real property tax that goes along with that.
Councilmember Kagawa: If a person has a five hundred thousand
dollar ($500,000) house and if you have a six dollar ($6) tax rate, then you are
paying three thousand dollars ($3,000) a year. If you have a three dollar ($3) tax
rate, you are paying one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. The
consequence of not qualifying for this affordable rent is that one thousand five
hundred dollar ($1,500) difference is going to be passed on to our local renters. For
us, the benefit is that we want to keep rents down for those tenants that need it the
most. I just ask that you help work with us on the language, so that it is not
difficult. We do not want to pass a Bill, which I feel like we have support here, that
makes it difficult for your office to enforce. The Tax Office always says, "Well, if you
do not qualify for the rate, it is the Council's fault." We are trying to do something.
The Council is doing something that seems right, but yet we want to work with you
folks so that we have this amendment that you can work with and that it is not
really confusing for you or the applicants. I do not know if you can help us as we go
along. It still needs to go to the public hearing and Committee Meeting, so we have
some time, but I just ask that whatever language you come up with and in talking
to Steve Hunt to see how we can make it work. That is all we are trying to
accomplish. This is for one (1) year. Let us hope that in 2017 we do not run into
this same problem because I think it is a weird circumstance that this median
income went down. Can you work with us?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes. Steve provided some questions that we
can forward on to kind of help address some of the concerns that he has when
looking at this. Unfortunately, Steve could not be here today, so you are getting a
"second string."
Councilmember Kagawa: I appreciate the Administration's view of
this. There are two (2) sides to looking at it. For us, I think we want to encourage
lower rents for our residents that are renting. Not everybody can buy a house and
we are just trying to keep the rents down. By providing a lower Homestead tax
rate, it allows the rent to be low. That is why I think some of us, most of us, are
pushing for it. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Ken, thank you for the charts. I understand
that at looking at the two (2) bedroom chart, the first red line directly under the
word "bedroom" represents that one thousand one hundred eighty-seven dollars
($1,187) is the maximum for a two (2) bedroom in 2016.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct, if the tenant pays any of the
utilities.
Councilmember Hooser: And everybody to the left of that, that is
2015, so they are all not impacted by this new limit.
COUNCIL MEETING 74 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct, provided that they kept their rents
as is.
Councilmember Hooser: So it is the people to the right of that...in
that particular example, there are about one hundred (100) people. Eighty-six (86)
on that one bar...there are other bars...approximately one hundred (100)
people...homes I should say, who in 2015 charged a higher rate than the 2016
allows. So those are the folks that would be impacted by this change.
Mr. Shimonishi: You would think that is what it would
reflect. Again, that is assuming that all of those are where the tenant pays any of
the utilities and none where the landlord pays all of the utilities, because it could be
that some of those are actually where the landlord is covering the utilities for some
reason.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Mr. Shimonishi: So with that caveat, correct.
Councilmember Hooser: So in round numbers, all of those lines to the
right of that red bar are ones that will either have to reduce their rent to go below
the red bar, or raise or pay more taxes and raise the rent.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right, or make a decision to...
Councilmember Hooser: But we are impacted by this whole thing.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: So that is a good indication. If you add all
those up, that would tell us how many people...approximately anyway...do you have
that by any chance?
Mr. Shimonishi: Actually, on the first worksheet. If you look
at the first set of numbers, the below, and you go right across, that is everybody to
the left of the bar. Between would be everybody within those two (2) bars and above
would be anybody over the final segment.
Councilmember Hooser: So the above column totals one thousand
three hundred (1,300). Those above would be the ones that would be impacted in
general by the change.
Mr. Shimonishi: Well, if you are looking at the above and you
see it starts off with a studio, two (2) bedroom...going across, that is eight (8)
applicants that would have been affected that are over and above that upper limit.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Shimonishi: That next set of numbers above that, the
between, those are the numbers that are in between the two (2) red bars, two
hundred forty-four (244).
Councilmember Hooser: So "the between" are impacted?
COUNCIL MEETING 75 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: And "the above" are impacted.
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, so that would mean two hundred
forty-four (244) and eight (8), so that would three hundred fifty-two (352) or
something, approximately.
Mr. Shimonishi: Assuming that it is none of where the
landlord pays all of the utilities below that bar.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Where is the line that says if the HUD rents
had not gone down, then everybody on your charts would be okay?
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes. Again, we did not differentiate between
the tenant paying utilities or the landlord, but basically those red bars would just
shift to the right and you would have more of the blue bars within or in between.
Councilmember Yukimura: So was that an oversight on our part to not
define utilities or how utilities work?
Mr. Shimonishi: Well, I think this information that was
captured was really just one of the employees took it on themselves to track this
information. It was not part of something that is inherent in the system as we...
Councilmember Yukimura: And they tracked it only as to rents?
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct. I guess application, rent, unit
count, and so on.
Councilmember Yukimura: What about those who did not apply this
year because they felt they did not qualify, even though they qualified last year?
Mr. Shimonishi: I guess we would have to try to do a
comparison between this year's applications and last year's applications and see
where the mismatch is.
Councilmember Yukimura: To find out if there were...I know there were
some people who did not apply because they felt clearly that they fell above the line,
right?
Mr. Shimonishi: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Would this Bill theoretically allow them to
reapply and be recertified? That is not clear in the Bill either.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right. It just says "currently enrolled." It
does not say that you can go back and enroll because the deadline has passed.
COUNCIL MEETING 76 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I think it was meant that way, but I do
not think it has been written to implement that intention, so it would have to be
amended to implement the intention. If so, would that be workable for your
department?
Mr. Shimonishi: I would actually need to check with Steve on
that. I am not sure if it gets into the timing of the certified roll and all of that other
stuff as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. So that is sort of a key piece that we
have to look at in this Bill. If the intention is to let people who did not apply
because they thought they were above the line in rents, who want to now apply,
which would be only fair if people who did apply are getting credits. It would be
good to get an estimate of how many that is, which would also mean that people
who never wanted to apply or had not applied might also apply, too. Although, I do
not know what the rental agreement has to be for next year, I guess.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right. I believe it has to be a year that
covers September 1st through August 31St
Councilmember Yukimura: September 1st of this year.
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they may already be done if they have
one (1) year. Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just to clarify a little bit, because my
experience is if you do not qualify then you cannot apply. You go down there, give
them the form, and if you are not qualified then they are not accepted, so this would
not impact anyone unless we allowed people to reapply.
Mr. Shimonishi: Right, I would agree.
Councilmember Hooser: So we would have to amend it to be clear
that you can apply. Otherwise, it is not going to impact anyone because they will
not accept it unless you have the lease and everything else on September 30th. We
have had tax credit bills in the past where they have been conducted after the
certification, rules, et cetera. It is just a matter of how much work and how much
money, right?
Mr. Shimonishi: I would have to say yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Ken? If not, thank
you. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify?
Ms. Cowden: Felicia Cowden, for the record. I am really
glad that the County is being careful with this because we need affordable housing,
so I thank you for that. I do not know if I am allowed to ask a question, but
COUNCIL MEETING 77 OCTOBER 7, 2015
something that I have been asked before and I am unclear on how to answer, is
when somebody has rooms in their house, if they rent out to a friend, does that
apply anywhere in here? Do people lose their Homestead rate? That is a fear that
comes up in the neighborhoods where I live. Kids grow up. Do you rent to another
person? People cannot rent because they are afraid that they will lose their
Homestead credit if they take on a roommate. I think that also puts a little
pressure on housing, even if somebody were allowing somebody in there for three
hundred dollars ($300) or four hundred dollars ($400), to be able to impact the
utilities or whatever it is. I know that is an issue. Also, when we try and help
people get into houses, that comes up. I am wondering if somewhere in here that
that can get addressed a little bit, so if a person does rent a room at a certain rate,
that it does not have that. I just want to make that suggestion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Cowden: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, I will call meeting back
to order. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. This problem that we are
trying to fix is a calling that we have to have some type of real property tax reform
that I think in some creative way creates some fairness for having that Homestead
three dollars and five cents ($3.05) rate or six dollar ($6) rate. If you are paying
that six dollar ($6) rate, like I just gave that five hundred thousand dollar
($500,000) home example, that is a savings of one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,500) that forces the hand of the owner to do something. When I look at that
Homestead rate, I think of it as a homeowner or home renter that lives here and
calls Kaua`i their home. We do not want to tax them out of their house or out of
their livelihood. I think it deems us to look at some type of tax reform where we can
creatively find a better way than just say, "Okay, you folks have to fight to do
whatever you can to get this three dollar ($3) rate or you pay that six dollar ($6)
rate." Whether you are renting or whether you own it, if you are a local family, you
should get that three dollar ($3) rate, because if you are renting it, you are going to
pay for it anyway in the rent you are paying to the homeowner. If he does not
qualify for the low income household renter credit, they are going to increase your
rent by at least one hundred dollars ($100) in that case, because they are going to
make you pay for it. It just goes back to the confusion of what happened. We have
to look at why this happened. You have these people that qualified for the eighty
percent (80%) median income rate last year and this year when they went to
reapply, they were told, "You do not qualify. You have to drop your rent." I was
talking to a guy at the Lihu`e Transfer Station and he and his wife decided to lower
their rent and now he said, "I am good," but he said, "Actually, I am not really good,
but I like that family and I want to take care of them and keep them in that home."
They should not have had to lower their rent. I think their insurance is going up.
Everything else is going up and we are trying to get our people to participate in this
program and provide affordable rentals for our local people. Not everybody can
afford these houses nowadays, especially with the rise in real estate prices. I think
this is a great program to incentivize trying to keep rents down, whether you are in
the middle class or lower class. To me, it is a much better alternative than turning
it into a bed and breakfast (B&B), Airbnb, or vacation rentals in a residential
COUNCIL MEETING 78 OCTOBER 7, 2015
neighborhood. There are a lot of people looking for affordable rents out there. One
thousand three hundred (1,300) is a manini part of the rental market. Why would
we want to see it go down by three hundred (300) or four hundred (400)? We are
working against affordable housing by not addressing this issue. We have to see
that number go up. Maybe not go up and make it so easy for everybody, but we
have to find that balance. Going down by three hundred (300) when the population
is going up and houses going up—we are going in the wrong direction. That is why
I am proposing this amendment. Hopefully we can work it out. I know that the Tax
Office never wants to see this kind of after-the-fact type of bills. If I was Finance
Director, I would not want to see it because it just creates more headaches. If we
knew of the problem earlier, I think we could have addressed it, but sometimes it
works out that way. What do we do? Do we ignore it or do we address it? I say that
we address it. I will be supporting this and hopefully we can get the Finance
Department help us get some language in here that smoothens out the change.
Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: For me, I think the Long-Term Affordable
Rental Program is a great program. Of course, it is hard for your brain to
comprehend that the rental program is based on median income and affordability of
housing is based on the market value of houses now, which is really high. In this
case, there is disconnect because your median income can be doing down, but the
fair market value of housing can go up, so you are saying, "Why are the rents that
we can charge way lower when market values are high?" It is because it is not
based on market value; it is based on the median income that HUD provides, so I do
think this is a very credible program. I think I am going to be proposing some
amendments. From what I heard, people want predictability. If I was a landowner
or a renter, I would want predictability. I would not want to see HUD go up and the
rent goes up, and then it goes down the next year, and up and down. I think I am
going to try and propose some amendments to try and flatten it out, maybe having a
multiple year designation where the landowner complies with the HUD rate and
says, "We are going to keep the rent the same for the next two (2) or three (3) years
and we will give them that rate. Whether it goes up or down, they take the risk, but
it provides predictability for both the landowner and the tenant. I think getting rid
of that fluctuation, especially when the fluctuation goes down and real estate prices
are going up, it is even harder for people to swallow. I think it is a great program
and I completely understand the intent of what is on here and I think we just have
to tweak it a little bit and make it a little clearer and hopefully it will be something
that we can be proud of in the long run where it is very clear, people understand it,
and provides some level of predictability.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Chair. I support this concept
that we are trying to get done here and I look forward to strengthening it so that it
does meet the needs of this intention, which I believe is to keep rentals affordable
for our people here. I do want to mention that I think what the root cause here is
that we need to pay attention to in addition is what is happening with HUD and
how we are being kind of cast into this pool, which is unfair for us, given our
market. I think that those who support us at the federal level need to step up and
say that this blanket approach does not work for us. In any case, I am looking
forward to supporting this if we can work through the details with our Tax Office.
Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 79 OCTOBER 7, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This program, which I think everybody
agrees is a good program in concept, is tax reform. This is what we devised in order
to alleviate the pressure of high real property taxes when people perform a service
that is really needed and also wanted to recognize...because there have been
landlords renting at affordable rates and this was a way to acknowledge and give
them a tax benefit. So this is part of the real property tax reform. The problem has
been that we hinged it to HUD rates and that the HUD system is not accurately
reflecting our market rental rates. That is a key problem. Now we want to figure
out either tying it to HUD, but giving something leeway of two (2) or three (3) years
maybe, with Councilmember Kaneshiro's approach, or divorcing it from HUD
somehow so we can find a more accurate measure of real property rental rates. We
are problem solving here to make better a basically good program and make it work
well. I appreciate the opportunity created by this Bill that has been introduced, but
I want to say that I think the average cost of government, if you divide it by all
properties, is at least three thousand dollars ($3,000) a lot or maybe more, and we
have to remember that real property taxes are a necessity for government
operations. If you want Police, Fire, roads, and parks then we have to find a way to
pay for it. It is not just keeping taxes low; it is about finding the proper balance
that allows us to timely repave our roads and fix our infrastructure, whether it be
parks, playgrounds, or infrastructure for Fire and Police. Again, we have to keep
that balance and that is our job and responsibility, which it is not an easy one. I
feel like we have been getting onto some good programs that we need to keep and
improve.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to thank Councilmember Kagawa for
introducing this. I think clearly from the discussion, we are heading on trying to
improve this and use this as a vehicle to make it an even better program, not just
fix this initial glitch, but perhaps make it better. Felicia Cowden testified earlier
about the penalty if someone rents out a room in their house, their taxes go up.
What is up with that? If I have a friend who is kind of down and out and needs a
place to live and I say you can stay in my bedroom, but you have to pay a little rent,
then either you have to lie or you have to pay more taxes. You are penalized for
renting out your rooms. There are people who want to help people and rent out
some rooms and there are people who need the income, whether they are on a fixed
income or do not have two (2) incomes to support it. I would like to explore the
possibility of fixing that also. So if someone is renting a room out in their house to
someone in an affordable rate, they should not be penalized for that as well. It is a
good program. It is one of the few tools that we have to deal with these problems
like homelessness and affordable housing. You cannot wait five (5) years for new
projects we develop, or we can incentivize landlords to rent to those who need it at
good rates. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, roll call.
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2600) on first reading,
that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
November 4, 2015, and referred to the Budget & Finance Committee was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 80 OCTOBER 7, 2015
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL – 6,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL – 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL – 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Hooser TOTAL – 1.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
BILL FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2596 – A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
ORDINANCE NO. B-2015-796, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND AND GENERAL FUND (Kauai,
Police Department, Abandoned/Derelict Vehicle Coordinator – $140,122.00):
Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Bill No. 2596 on second and final
reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone in the audience wishing to testify? I
should have asked this question the last time they were here, but is this partial
funding, six (6) month funding, or annual funding? I am trying to figure out how
many months this is for.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is for the rest of the year I think.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but they are not going to hire
someone. It is going to be a while to hire somebody. Is that the salary of the...
Councilmember Yukimura: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am trying to determine if this position is a
forty-one thousand dollar ($41,000) a year position. They are not going to fund it for
a year is what I am trying to say, so I would entertain an amendment to correct that
number. I apologize. I should have asked for this earlier. Is it the full amount?
This is already October. July, August, September, October, November—that is
more than they need is what I am trying to say. I would say six (6) months funding.
We do not have to do it in writing if we can just get the number. I will entertain
that motion if you can just divide everything by half, except for the eighty thousand
dollars ($80,000). Unless no one is concerned, then we can move on.
Councilmember Yukimura: There are "Other Services" for eighty
thousand dollars ($80,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I said everything except the eighty
thousand dollars ($80,000). The way it works is when we fund the department, they
can use the funds for anything else without Council approval. As we talk about
fiscal responsibility and discipline, I want to make sure that we do our part. When
they are asking for money for a position that they are going to fund for six (6)
months, that should be reflected; not twelve (12) month funding for a six (6) month
position because that just puts the money into the surplus. Again, we are trying to
"scratch and bite" at every opportunity to reduce spending. They may seem
COUNCIL MEETING 81 OCTOBER 7, 2015
minimal, but a minimal here and a minimal there adds up at the end of the year.
The eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) will not change.
Mr. Sato: Chair Rapozo, on Bill No. 2596, wherever it
says "$140,122," that number would change to "$110,061." The Regular Salaries,
Social Security Contribution, Health Fund Contribution, Retirement Contribution,
and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) would all be cut in half. Other
Services of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) would remain intact.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I would entertain a motion to amend
this Bill to reflect the new transfer of funds to one hundred ten thousand sixty-one
dollars ($110,061).
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Bill No. 2596, as shown in the
Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 3, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Can you repeat how much money that would
save?
Council Chair Rapozo: Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).
Councilmember Hooser: Just to illustrate that that could be
twenty (20) affordable housing tax credits to fund people for the Bill we were just
talking about in very round numbers. It is important to be frugal, so thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just to be clear about the amendment, it is
the one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) substituting for wherever there is
one hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: In "B." under Kaua`i Police Department, all
the salary related items are cut in half.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is just the (inaudible) coming out of Public
Works to the General Fund, from the General Fund to KPD. Any further
discussion?
The motion to amend Bill No. 2596 as shown in the Floor Amendment, which
is attached hereto as Attachment 3 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 82 OCTOBER 7, 2015
FOR AMENDMENT: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST AMENDMENT: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are back to the main motion. Any
further discussion? If not, roll call.
The motion for adoption of Bill No. 2596, as amended to Bill No. 2596, Draft 1,
on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his
approval was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Can you read us
into Executive Session?
Mr. Sato: We are on the bottom of page number 4,
Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-814 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(2) and (4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Kaua`i County
Council requests an Executive Session with the County Attorney pertaining to the
hiring of a County Auditor and to consult with the County's legal counsel. This
Executive Session pertains to the hiring of a County Auditor where consideration of
matters affecting privacy will be involved as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-815 Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council, to provide the Council
with a briefing and request for authority to settle the case of Akira Kadomatsu, et
al. vs. County of Kaua`i, et al., Civil No. 13-1-0324, (Fifth Circuit Court), and related
matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers,
duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as
they relate to this agenda item.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-814
and ES-815, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Public testimony? If not,
roll call.
The motion to convene into Executive Session for ES-814 and ES-815 was
then put, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 83 OCTOBER 7, 2015
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, that concludes
today's open portion of the meeting. This meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT K. SATO
Deputy County Clerk
:cy
ATTACHMENT 1
(October 7, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2015-57, Relating to Supporting Economic Justice For Hawai`i's
Working Families: Living Wage, Paid Sick Leave, Paid Family and Medical Leave,
and Right to Organize
Introduced by: JOANN A. YUKIMURA
Amend Resolution No. 2015-57 in its entirety to read as follows:
"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII:
WHEREAS, the minimum wage in Hawai`i is currently $7.75 per hour, and
scheduled to increase to $8.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2016, $9.25 per hour
beginning January 1, 2017, and $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2018
(Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) 387-2); and
WHEREAS, prior to January 1, 2015, Hawai`i's working families had not
been granted a minimum wage increase since 2007; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2015, the Los Angeles City Council passed a bill to
raise the City's minimum wage from $9.00 per hour to $15.00 per hour by 2020.
Other cities that have enacted a $15.00 minimum wage include Seattle,
Washington, and the cities of San Francisco and Emeryville in California; and
WHEREAS, according to the White House and the Council of Economic
Advisers, raising wages can increase productivity, reduce turnover and save on
recruiting/training costs, and reduce absenteeism; and
WHEREAS, according to a Congressional Budget Office 2014 study that
looked at increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016 and thereafter by the
consumer price index annually, while most of the low wage workers would receive
higher pay, some jobs for low-wage workers would be eliminated and the share of
low-income workers who were employed would drop, thereby increasing the
possibility of homelessness. Based on testimony from small business owners on
Kaua`i, the job reducing impacts would be even greater with a radical jump in
minimum wage from $10.10 to $15.00 in one year. 'In a Kaua`i economy that is far
less diversified or robust than the economies of large cities like San Francisco and
Seattle, not only would businesses be forced to eliminate jobs and do more with
fewer employees, it is likely that some businesses would not be able to continue; and
WHEREAS, based on testimony from businesses on Kaua`i, many small
businesses value and care about their employees, often already paving them more
than the minimum wage and providing benefits not required by law. A large sudden
lump in minimum wage could force them to cancel some of the benefits not required
by law or remove some of the flexibility that is beneficial to both workers and
businesses. These business owners are not adverse to increasing the minimum
wage over time if the increase is gradual and a tiered approach provides differential
wages for training and students lower than the standard minimum wage; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, regarding sick leave in Hawai`i, the State Department of Labor
and Industrial Relations confirms that sick leave is not required by law.
Furthermore, there are no federal legal requirements for paid sick leave; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation
with a statewide paid sick days law (joining Connecticut, California, and
Massachusetts). Oregon's bill, which will take effect in 2016, will guarantee all
workers access to job-protected sick days. Workers at businesses with ten (10) or
more employees will be able to earn paid sick time, while those at smaller
businesses will earn unpaid time; and
WHEREAS, according to a survey conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago, more than half of all workers without
paid sick days (55%) have go to work sick, and workers without access to paid sick
days are twice as likely as those with access to say they have gone to the emergency
room to get care for themselves because they were unable to take time off of work to
get medical care. Furthermore, nearly one quarter of workers (23%) say they have
lost a job or were told they would lose a job for taking time off to deal with a
personal or family illness, including nearly one-sixth (16%) who say they have
actually lost a job; and
WHEREAS, the National Partnership for Women & Families reports that
adults without paid sick days are 1.5 times more likely than adults with paid sick
days to report going to work with a contagious illness like the flu or a viral
infection; more than three in four of America's food service and hotel workers (78%)
do not have a single paid sick day; and parents without paid sick days are more
than twice as likely to send a sick child to school or daycare as parents with paid
sick days; and
[WHEREAS, regarding family and medical leave in Hawai`i, the Hawai`i
Family Leave Law (HFLL), HRS Chapter 398, only applies to employers with one
hundred or more employees working in the state, and even employees eligible for
family leave under HFLL do not receive pay during their maximum four (4) weeks
per year absence from employment, unless they choose to redeem sick, vacation, or
other personal leave they may have. Covered under the HFLL is: birth of the
employee's child, or the adoption of a child; or to care for an employee's child,
spouse, or reciprocal beneficiary, or parent with a serious health condition. Leave
for the employee's own serious health condition is not covered; and
WHEREAS, the Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau reported in 2007
regarding the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): "More than 35
million employees have taken leave under FMLA since it was enacted in 1993;
however, because of employee and employer eligibility requirements, 40% of
workers are not covered by the FMLA. Furthermore, those who are eligible may not
be able to afford to take unpaid leave. For example, an estimated 78% of those who
needed family leave but did not take it report that they did not take the leave
because they could not afford to do so"; and]
WHEREAS, regarding the right to organize, Article XIII of the Hawaii
Constitution guarantees to both private and public sector employees the right to
organize for the purpose of collective bargaining. Both federal and state statutes
guarantee many, but not all, workers the right to organize and bargain collectively;
now, therefore,
2
ATTACHMENT 1
[BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, that the Council requests the State Legislature raise the
current minimum wage to a living wage of $15.00 per hour, to take effect
January 1, 2019, following the year 2016, 2017, and 2018 increases already
scheduled.]
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, that the Council requests the State Legislature to regularly
and gradually over time raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, in
consultation with all stakeholders, including but not limited to large and small
businesses and large and small labor unions and to create separate and lower wage
tiers for students, seniors and trainees as in the Minnesota model and to set
different thresholds for large, small and mid-size businesses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests that the State
Legislature recognize and implement policies and laws, and fund programs, that
lower the cost of living for working families while benefiting all of society and not
over-burdening small businesses, such as providing more frequent and convenient
public transportation and more affordable housing, and requiring solar water
heaters on new single family homes; and
[BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests the State
Legislature, require employers with ten (10) or more employees to allow to earn one
(1) hour of sick leave for every thirty (30) hours of work, up to a total of fifty-six (56)
hours or seven (7) days; and for employers with less than ten (10) employees to
allow workers to earn one (1) hour of sick leave for every thirty (30) hours of work
up to a total of forty (40) hours or five (5) days, to take effect July 1, 2016.]
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests the State
Legislature, in consultation with business and labor, to develop for consideration a
paid sick leave policy which would allow workers in workplaces of 10 or more
employees to earn paid leave starting with two or three days per year for sick leave
for self or minor children or two or three days of personal leave, which could be used
for any reason (including family leave).
[BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests the State
Legislature amend HRS Chapter 398 by reducing to fifty (50) the number of
employees needed to trigger an employer's applicability for family and medical
leave, and by allowing leave to be used for an employee's own serious health
condition.]
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council requests the State
Legislature reaffirm its support of workers and their right to form a union without
employer intimidation (also known as the right to organize)_ [by passing a
resolution calling for Congressional labor law reform that helps workers bargain for
dignity on the job, fair wages, and job security; and that strengthens the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to better cover and protect workers.]
3
ATTACHMENT 1
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted
to Governor David Y. Ige, State Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, Speaker of the
State House of Representatives Joe Souki, State Representative Derek S. K.
Kawakami; State Representative Daynette "Dee" Morikawa; State Representative
James Kunane Tokioka; and Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2015\Reso - FA Supporting Economic Justice For Hawaiis Working Families
10-7-15 CNT:aa
4
ATTACHMENT 2
(October 7, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2015-57, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR
HAWAII'S WORKING FAMILIES: LIVING WAGE, PAID SICK LEAVE, PAID
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE, AND RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
Introduced by: MASON K. CHOCK
1. Amend Resolution No. 2015-57 by amending the first BE IT
RESOLVED clause, as follows:
"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF
KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, that the Council requests the State
Legislature raise the current minimum wage [to a living wage of $15.00 per
hour to take effect January 1, 2019,] following the year 2016, 2017, and 2018
increases already scheduled[.], as follows: Beginning January 1, 2020:
(A) $15.00 per hour for employers whose annual gross dollar volume
of sales made or business done exceeds $1,250,000;
(B) $12.50 per hour for employers whose annual gross dollar volume
of sales made or business done is between $500,000 and
$1,250,000; and
(C) $11.00 per hour for employers whose annual gross dollar volume
of sales made or business done is less than $500,000.
The Council further requests that the Legislature substitute an alternate
effective date, alternate dollar amounts, or other details, if deemed
appropriate upon further investigation."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2015\2015-1002 Resolution 2015-57 Floor Amendment 10-07-2015 MC JA mn.docx
ATTACHMENT 3
(October 7, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2596, A Bill For An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. B-2015-796, As
Amended, Relating To The Operating Budget Of The County Of Kaua`i, State Of Hawai`i,
For The Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016, By Revising The Amounts
Estimated In The Solid Waste Fund And General Fund
Introduced by: MASON K. CHOCK (By Request)
Amend Bill No. 2596, in its entirety to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 19.07B and 19.10A of the Charter of
the County of Kaua`i, as amended, Ordinance No. B-2015-796, as amended, relating to
the Operating Budget of the County of Kauai, State of Hawai`i, for the Fiscal Year
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, be hereby amended as follows:
A. The sum of [$140,122.00] $110,061 by revising the amounts estimated in the
Solid Waste Fund from the following accounts:
208-2031-641.01-01 Regular Salaries [$20,532.00]
[1947 Abandoned/Derelict Veh. Coordinator SR14]
208-2031-641.05-01 Social Security Contribution [$1,570.00]
208-2031-641.05-02 Health Fund Contribution [$300.00]
208-2031-641.05-03 Retirement Contribution [$3,491.00]
208-2031-641.05-12 Other Post Employment Benefits [$4,168.00]
208-2033-641.30-00 Other Services [$80,000.00]
[Abandoned/Derelict Vehicle Towing]
Be and is hereby appropriated for the following purpose in the Solid Waste Fund:
208-0000-261.05-00 Transfers Out to General Fund [$140,122.00] $110,061.00
B. The sum of [$140,122.00] $110,061.00 by revising the amounts estimated in the
General Fund from the following accounts:
001-0000-250.00-00 Transfer In to General Fund [$140,122.00] $110,061.00
Be and is hereby appropriated for the following purpose in the General Fund:
Kaua`i Police Department
001-1001-551.01-01 Regular Salaries [$41,064.00] $20,532.00
1947 Abandoned/Derelict Veh. Coordinator SR14
001-1001-551.05-01 Social Security Contribution [$3,141.00] $1,570.00
001-1001-551.05-02 Health Fund Contribution [$600.00] $300.00
001-1001-551.05-03 Retirement Contribution [$6,981.00] $3,491.00
001-1001-551.05-12 Other Post Employment Benefits [$8,336.00] $4,168.00
001-1003-551.30-00 Other Services $80,000.00
Abandoned/Derelict Vehicle Towing
1
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2015\10-07-2015 Bill No. 2596 Abandoned Derelict Vehicle Coordinator YS_cy.doc
2