HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2015 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 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 21, 2015 at 8:31 a.m., after which the following
Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura (present at 8:38 a.m.)
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Excused: Honorable Mason K. Chock
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura did call to say she
was running a little late.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: So noted.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Kagawa moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 5:0:2
(Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were excused).
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
September 16, 2015 Council Meeting
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve the Minutes as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 5:0:2
(Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were excused).
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2015-254 Communication (09/14/2015) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, Mayoral appointee Wallace G. Rezentes,
Jr., to the Board of Water Supply for the County of Kaua`i— Term ending 12/31/2015:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-254 for the record, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 OCTOBER 21, 2015
C 2015-255 Communication (10/01/2015) from the Hawai`i State Association
of Counties (HSAC) President, transmitting for Council approval, the proposed HSAC
Executive Committee for the term beginning in 2015, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Bylaws of the HSAC, Inc., which was approved at the September 30, 2015 HSAC
Special Executive Committee Meeting:
• President: County of Maui
(Michael P. Victorino, Maui County Council; Gladys
Baisa-Alternate)
• Vice President: County of Hawaii
(Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Hawai`i County Council;
Daniel K. Paleka, Jr.,-Alternate)
• Treasurer: City and County of Honolulu
(J. Ikaika Anderson, Honolulu City Council; Joey
Manahan-Alternate)
• Secretary: County of Kaua`i
(Mel Rapozo, Kaua`i County Council; Ross Kagawa-
Alternate)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-255 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
C 2015-256 Communication (10/05/2015) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the First Quarter Statement of
Equipment Purchases for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, pursuant to Section 17 of
Ordinance No. B-2015-796, the Operating Budget of the County of Kaua`i for
Fiscal Year 2015-2016: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-256 for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
C 2015-257 Communication (10/06/2015) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution approving the proposed
slate of Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC) officers for the 2016 term
(July 1, 2015 — June 30, 2016) as approved by the HSAC Executive Committee
at its special meeting on September 30, 2015: Councilmember Kagawa moved to
receive C 2015-257 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
C 2015-258 Communication (10/06/2015) from the County Attorney,
transmitting for Council information, the Quarterly Report on Settled Claims against
the County of Kaua`i from July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015: Councilmember
Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-258 for the record, seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
C 2015-259 Communication (10/09/2015) from Councilmember Hooser,
providing written disclosure of a possible conflict of interest and recusal, on Bill
No. 2600, relating to the beneficial tax rate for property used for long term affordable
rental, due to his previous enrollment in the County's Long Term Affordable Rental
Tax Limit Program: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-259 for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
C 2015-260 Communication (10/15/2015) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Expressing The Concern Of The
Kauai County Council Over The Inflated Interisland Airfare Rates Charged By
Hawaiian Airlines And Encouraging The Hawai`i State Legislature To Assist In
Offering Relief To Interisland Travelers By Incentivizing Competition:
COUNCIL MEETING 3 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-260 for the record, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
C 2015-261 Communication (10/15/2015) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution amending Resolution
No. 2015-02, Draft 1, Relating To The Rules Of The Council Of The Council Of Kauai
For The Organization Of Committees And The Transaction Of Business. The
proposed Resolution would amend Rule No. 5(c), relating to a member's participation
in a matter after disclosure of a conflict of interest; Rule No. 11(c)(10), relating to the
questioning of public speakers; and Rule No. 12(e)(1), relating to the questioning of
speakers at a public hearing: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-261
for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
The being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2015-254, C 2015-255, C 2015-256, C 2015-257,
C 2015-258, C 2015-259, C 2015-260 and C 2015-261 for the record, and carried
by a vote of 5:0:2 (Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were excused).
Councilmember Kagawa: Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Could I make a request that we take
Resolution No. 2015-61, regarding the airlines issue near the top of the agenda? I
would also like to get the Prosecuting Attorney out of here as soon as possible, so that
he can get back to his job.
Council Chair Rapozo: There are two (2) items from the Prosecutor's
Office; C 2015-262 and C 2015-265, are there any questions for them? These are
recurring grants. If not, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney can leave. That settles
those two. Thank you for coming though. I appreciate that.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sir.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can we read that item, just in case we have a
change of heart later, at least it will be done with.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any objection to taking Resolution
No. 2015-61 out of order? I see Mr. Yotsuda here. If there is no objection, let us go
through what we can on the regular agenda and get through as much as we can.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first item is C 2015-262.
COUNCIL MEETING 4 OCTOBER 21, 2015
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2015-262 Communication (09/29/2015) from the Prosecuting Attorney,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend grant funding from the State of
Hawai`i, Office of Youth Services General Fund in the amount of $25,000, to
continue the Kaua`i Teen Court program via a subcontract with Hale `Opio
Kaua`i for their services from the period of November 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016:
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-262, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa, and carried by a vote of 5:0:2 (Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were
excused).
C 2015-263 Communication (10/02/2015) from the Assistant Chief
Procurement Officer/Budget Chief, requesting Council approval to dispose of
Procurement Work Folders (RFP (C4056)) and (IFB (#2872 - #2936)); Professional
Services Regular (4-PROF-06/07, 1-PROF-07/08 thru 12-PROF-07/08); Professional
Services Exempt (X7-PROF-05/06 thru X8-PROF-07/08); Sole Source Procurement
documentation (Fiscal Year 2005-2008); Exempt Procurement documentation (Fiscal
Year 2004-2008); Emergency Purchase documentation (Fiscal Year 2005-2008);
Auction (SA-1-06 thru SA-3-07); and State Price Lists; pursuant to Section 46-43,
Hawai`i Revised Statutes and Resolution No. 2008-39 (2008) as amended, which
has been kept for over seven (7) years and are no longer of use or value:
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-263, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one (1) question. I came across a
situation from the Buildings Division or Planning. I have one (1) question,
Mr. Barreira, and I think you answered this the last time you were here. These are
hard copies that we are going to destroy and I think Councilmember Hooser asked
this question regarding the Real Property Tax records. The fact that the physical
documents are being destroyed, the County still maintains electronical copies, is that
correct?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ERNIE W. BARREIRA, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer/Budget Chief:
I can only speak for the Purchasing records. The records that are being
submitted for destruction now complies with the seven (7) year requirement, which
means there is no legal value or requirement to retain them further. Therefore, they
are being destroyed. Other records are being scanned electronically, which falls
under a different authority in terms of how long we need to retain those records. At
this point, we can only destroy records and submit them for your approval for
destruction if they no longer have any legal retention value. In other departments,
they perhaps may not be able to submit a retention request...
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I am only questioning the ones that are
in front of us today.
Mr. Barreira: The ones that are in front of us today means
that because we waited seven (7) years, there is no corresponding electronic records...
Council Chair Rapozo: So, we do not have any records?
Mr. Barreira: There will not be any records. These are being
destroyed because they have no longer any legal value.
COUNCIL MEETING 5 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. We just came across a situation...and
I will be asking that we refer this because we have a situation involving a property
or properties that may have some illegal structures and major issues and when we
sent over the request for permits and documents, we were told, "It is passed the time,
therefore we destroyed it." I have some serious concerns because we send over
requests now to figure out what we need to do now. In other words, if you can fly
under the radar for seven (7) years, you get a "get out of jail free card," therefore, I
would ask the Council if we can send this to a Committee Meeting to give us time to
explore this. I do not have a problem destroying the physical documents because of
space, but with today's technology, I do not think it is much to ask to have it put on a
hard drive or in a cloud. Councilmember Hooser.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you, Chair, for raising that issue. I was
thinking about it, but I was not sure if I had the energy to raise it this morning. I
agree that we should put it off and get some better understanding of what is going on
and I agree with the statement of today's electronic processing. My question is, when
you said there is no legal basis or need, is there a statute of limitations as to if
someone breaks the law...for example part of the documents being destroyed or
being requested to be destroyed are sole-source procurement documents.
Historically, sole-source procurements have been a problematic area because
procurement can be all over the place sometimes and the procurement process is fast-
tracked. In that case, does that mean the statute of limitations or is it something
that we can talk about with the County Attorney when this is referred to later.
Mr. Barreira: The statute of limitations issue would be with
the County Attorney and the Prosecuting Attorney. Essentially, what we are
following in terms of the submission today is what Chapter 46 has delegated
authority to the Council in terms of establishing your retention schedule, and you
have established a seven (7) year period from the last action of the relevant record,
therefore that is why it is being pursued.
Councilmember Hooser: Therefore, the law says that you are allowed
to destroy them as long as they do not have any need to keep them, with the Council's
approval.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Sir.
Councilmember Hooser: The law does not require you to do it or there
is no legal mandate to do it.
Mr. Barreira: It establishes the opportunity for us to bring
it to the Council's attention so that we can free up a very critical space that is occupied
by these records. Actually, Chair, now that you have brought that issue up, there is
some very interesting and remarkable possibilities and we will be back here again,
due to the support of the County Attorney, involving the use of electronic records.
There are laws in place that we were not yet aware of until recently which establishes
that an electronically produced document carries the legal weight of an original. This
means that the utilization of paper for creation of records in the future is going to be
very, very different. Everything will be in electronic form and will be perfectly legal
in that format.
COUNCIL MEETING 6 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: We see that in many places already.
Mr. Barreira: Yes, Sir.
Council Chair Rapozo: The statute of limitation does not really kick
in until the discovery of the issue. As far as the financial records, especially what you
just talked about, I think it would be a good idea to have it stored somewhere just in
case an issue arises down the road. Thank you.
Mr. Barreira: Very good, Council Chair, thank you.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember withdrew the motion to approve C 2015-263. Councilmember
Kaneshiro withdrew the second.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer C 2015-263 to the October 28, 2015
Budget & Finance Committee Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa,
and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2015-264 Communication (10/07/2015) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, an amendment to Subsection 8-15.1(d),
Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, to eliminate the sunset date for obtaining a
building permit to construct an additional dwelling unit on other than residentially
zoned lots: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2015-264 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do we have any discussion or public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2015-264 for the record was then put, and carried by
a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2015-265 Communication (10/13/2015) from the Prosecuting Attorney,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend State funds in the amount of
$100,182, and approval to indemnify the State of Hawai`i, Department of the
Attorney General, for the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for the
continuation of the Kaua`i Career Criminal Prosecution Program. The funding will
be expended on the salary and partial fringe benefits for the Special Prosecuting
Attorney of the Career Criminal Prosecution staff: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to
receive C 2015-265 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to receive C 2015-265 for the record was then put, and carried by
a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
COUNCIL MEETING 7 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we go to Resolution No. 2015-61?
There being no objections, Resolution No. 2015-61 was taken out of order.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2015-61 — RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONCERN OF
THE KAUAI COUNTY COUNCIL OVER THE INFLATED INTERISLAND
AIRFARE RATES CHARGED BY HAWAIIAN AIRLINES AND ENCOURAGING
THE HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE TO ASSIST IN OFFERING RELIEF TO
INTERISLAND TRAVELERS BY INCENTIVIZING COMPETITION:
Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-61, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is a short resolution; could I please ask the
Clerk to read the Resolution for the public?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: This is a, "RESOLUTION EXPRESSING
THE CONCERN OF THE KAUAI COUNTY COUNCIL OVER THE INFLATED
INTERISLAND AIRFARE RATES CHARGED BY HAWAIIAN AIRLINES AND
ENCOURAGING THE HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE TO ASSIST IN
OFFERING RELIEF TO INTERISLAND TRAVELERS BY INCENTIVIZING
COMPETITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII:
WHEREAS, the people of Hawai`i and visitors alike, have long enjoyed the
uniqueness that each Hawaiian Island has to offer; and
WHEREAS, travel between the Hawaiian Islands has been vital in allowing
the sharing of cultural activities, various sports, educational, entertainment, and
business opportunities; and
WHEREAS, from 1946 through 2008, Hawai`i benefited by having two major
commercial airline companies in operation, Aloha Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines;
and
WHEREAS, the competitive nature of the airline business frequently resulted
in "fare wars" between the two airline companies, which offered the opportunity for
interisland air travel at rates that were comparatively affordable; and
WHEREAS, the existence of the two competing airline companies forced
airfares to stay within a reasonable rate throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, the operations of Aloha Airlines ceased as of March 31, 2008,
leaving Hawaiian Airlines as the only large commercial airline company who has the
ability to monopolize interisland air travel in Hawai`i; and
COUNCIL MEETING 8 OCTOBER 21, 2015
WHEREAS, the resulting airfare commanded by Hawaiian Airlines has
inflated such that it has become cost prohibitive for a majority of the people in Hawai`i
to participate in interisland travel; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, that the Council of the County of Kaua`i ("Council") encourages
the Hawai`i State Legislature to assist in offering relief to interisland travelers by
incentivizing competition for Hawaiian Airlines.
BE IT FURTHER 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 Joseph M. Souki, State Representative Derek S. K.
Kawakami, State Representative Daynette "Dee" Morikawa, State Representative
James Kunane Tokioka, and Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr." Introduced by Vice
Chair Ross Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Resolution No. 2015-61 as
circulated, and as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as
Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kagawa: The second part of the amendment is from
Bob Yotsuda, who I have worked with drafting this Resolution. The first part of the
amendment is from Councilmember Kuali`i and I think is very important that we
address that issue in the whereas section as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I also had a second amendment that offered
harsher language against Hawaiian Airlines, but I am withholding that amendment
because I feel like we want to put forth a Resolution that the rest of the counties can
follow and support. I feel like if we put in language that may be a little too harsh, it
may turn off some of the other counties from supporting similar language. I have
spoken to several members of the other counties and they are all excited about seeing
what our Resolution looks like. I assume that they are putting it forward, should we
approve today. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for introducing this Resolution.
This has been a problem now for many years, the public has complained and
complained, and nothing really is done. In fact, the more you complain, the more the
fares go up or the additional fares or fees they charge. Let me just say before we start
into the discussion, for me anyway and I am sure I speak for everyone here, that the
comments that will be made today does not reflect upon the employees of Hawaiian
Airlines. The employees of Hawaiian Airlines are a very vital group to that industry.
In fact most of you will remember, when Hawaiian Airlines was having difficult
times, when they were in bankruptcy, restructuring, reorganizing, the employees
were the ones to hold back on their pay increases or in fact in some cases, take pay
cuts. The employees were the ones asked to please help us keep Hawaiian Airlines
afloat. The community was asked to please support your local airline, everyone came
through, and everyone came through. The employees came through and Hawaiian
Airlines now, a very successful airlines, and making a tremendous amount of money,
so I think the Resolution is...many will say, "Why are we wasting our time on issues
that do not impact the County or that we do not have control of," but this does impact
COUNCIL MEETING 9 OCTOBER 21, 2015
the County. As we go through the discussion today, everyone will relate. There is not
a soul out there today that will come up and say, "Please do not support this
Resolution because I enjoy paying these skyrocketing fares to go visit loved ones on
O`ahu." No one is saying that. In fact all I am hearing, which is becoming a very
common complaint is that they cannot afford anymore to visit family, relatives, and
sick relatives. Thank you, Councilmember Kagawa, for putting this out, and
hopefully the counties will follow and the State will get involved and do something.
With that, I know Mr.Yotsuda is here. Did you want to offer testimony, Mr. Yotsuda?
Is anyone else going to testify today? Ken, are you going to testify? You do not know
yet. Okay. The way it works, Mr. Yotsuda, you have three (3) minutes, the green
light will go on. When you see the yellow light, you have thirty (30) seconds left for
your first three (3) minutes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Council Chair? Before he starts, if nobody
else is going to speak, do you want to give him the full six (6) minutes?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, if no one else is going to speak, then we
will give you the full six (6).
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ROBERT YOTSUDA: Good morning, my name is Robert Yatsuda,
and I reside at 343 Kamokila Road, Kapa`a, Kaua`i. Thank you very much for the
chance to express my opinion on a matter so important and vital to the residents of
our State. Before I proceed any further, I would like to state the conflict of interest
here, I am an Octogenarian. I am pleased that we, kauaians, have a proactive
County Council, one who has felt the need to act and resolve an almost intolerable
situation that is detrimental to our people's cultural life, the economy of our State,
the health and perhaps the safety of our people, and as pointed out in the Resolution,
various other activities. I am speaking of the monopoly of the interisland air travel
in Hawai`i by Hawaiian Airlines. May I point out some of the things people like me
at this advanced age face without the availability of travel between islands at a
reasonable cost that is safe and comfortable, things like access to medical services
only available on O`ahu, the ability to attend funeral's especially for family members
is very difficult. For example, the airfare for one (1) person is one hundred and
ninety-seven dollars ($197) one-way from Kaua`i to Honolulu, and one hundred and
sixty-four dollars ($164)for a return flight. This is an actual quotation on the internet.
A round-trip ticket for one (1) person would cost three hundred and sixty-one dollars
($361). A family of four (4) would have to pay one thousand four hundred and
forty-four dollars ($1,444) plus ground transportation, lodging, meals, no refunds for
cancellation, and a ridiculous fee for changing flight times. I wonder what the cost
would be for someone flying round-trip from the Big Island. The aloha went aloha of
with the demise of Aloha Airlines. After 9-11, we have endured the security
requirements mandatory to board an aircraft. I realized it is for our own safety, but
I cannot get over the feeling that I am living in a third-world country. Imagine, we
live in a wonderful country; the most powerful and wealthiest in the world, however
I prefer not to feel like a refugee standing in my opinion in a long, long line, because
this public carrier and I repeat, public carrier, reducing the number of flights to fill
up the seats of the aircraft to increase profits without providing some kind of relief to
avoid the extraordinary long lines. Luggage is another source of revenue for the
airlines. As if the cost of paying for passage to and from the islands is not enough, a
luggage fee is added. Now we have people carrying the luggage onto the aircraft
causing all kinds of inconveniences and discomfort. We charge a higher rate for the
airline ticket with less service and more discomfort. All this reminds me of a public
COUNCIL MEETING 10 OCTOBER 21, 2015
utility who charge more without providing more. Fortunately, we on Kaua`i have rid
ourselves of that problem. This being a free country one solution allowable by our
present laws would be competition. Yes, we can have competition. We have
commissions; we have Legislators; State and Federal. We have a Governor; what is
happening? Is the ability to transport people and goods safety not vital to the
economy and wellbeing of our state and indeed the wellbeing of our country? I
congratulate our County Council for the first step. I hope those who say that they
will represent us will take heed. Some time ago, I asked one of our dearly elected
persons to look into a solution of a problem, but he told me to circulate a petition and
get signatures. I hope we do not have too many of those kinds of people representing
us. Thank you very much for your time and effort. I wish you great success in
elevating this unnecessary and unfair burden on us, your constituents. I would like
to address the President of Hawaiian Airlines. Mr. President and Executive Member
of Hawaiian Airlines, it is my hope that all of your profits is distributed to your
faithful employees, both full-time and part-time. After all, they do all the dirty work
and are on the receding end of, and I used the polite word, complaints. Thank you
very much. For those people who are listening to this, I hope you will take action and
call your representatives even perhaps circulating a petition on your computers or
E-mails and get your legislators to move. We are going to be up against a considerable
amount of money and lobbyist. We are going to need all the help we can get. Thank
you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Five and a half (5.50) minutes, Sir. Any
questions for Mr. Yotsuda?
Councilmember Yukimura: This is not a question, but I want to
acknowledge because many people do not realize that Mr. Yotsuda used to sit in this
chair right here, where Chair Rapozo is sitting right now. He used to be the Chair of
the Council and was a very active Councilmember. You are continuing the work that
you did on the Council because I remember when you were concerned about Kaua`i
electric rates and led the charge against that and also interisland barge rates,
therefore, Councilmember Yatsuda, actually. The title still applies. Thank you for
showing up and initiating this and continuing your legacy of leadership.
Mr. Yotsuda: Thank you very much, Councilmember
Yukimura, I wish I was running for office. To tell you the truth, I rather sit here than
over there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Look at your hair color and mine, it tells you
the difference. Thank you again.
Mr. Yotsuda: You are doing a good job. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Welcome back.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just for entertainment value, Mr. Yotsuda
came and says, "Hey, I heard you folks had changed the Resolution," and I said, "No,
we did not change the Resolution yet." He said, "Yes, I heard the Resolution was
amended, and you cannot do that; there is Sunshine Law." My response to him was,
"It is going to be floated today on the floor." Thank you very much Mr. Yotsuda,
Councilmember Yotsuda. Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 11 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: First, I would like to thank former Council
Chair Yotsuda for asking me if I could consider doing a resolution at this time. It is
something that some of you remember that I talked about at the forums that we had
as we were campaigning for office and I mentioned that this was one of the issues
that bothered me and I wanted to push forward. We ask ourselves sometimes, "Why
do we do resolutions," but there are some situations that are so important that that
extra push is needed by the Council. We all have different ideas on what is really
important, but to me, interisland travel is a very vital part of our lives. If the fares
were lower, I think a lot of us would be enjoying the amenities that exist on O`ahu,
Maui, and the Big Island that do not exist here — just to get away and come home.
We no longer have that luxury now that the airfares are so outrageous. When our
children graduate from high school, we cannot send them away to a major university
here, you know Kaua`i Community College (KCC) is a community college, and the
major university is at University of Hawai`i at Manoa. That is currently where my
two (2) daughters go and when you have children, they want to come, but it is tough
when the prices are so high. It is hard to bring them home. The question is why can
we not do something? If this Resolution gets Hawaiian Airlines today, "Hey, we can
only be the major airlines, but we can also bring our prices down a little," then the
Resolution would have brought success. I feel that it is just initiating the process. As
Kaua`i, we would be the first island, and let us hopefully share the love or share the
aloha with the rest of the islands and hopefully we can get some movement either the
starting of a new entity to compete against Hawaiian Airlines, or we can get
Hawaiian Airlines to recognize that we do not have to have a seven million dollars
($7,000,000) quarter profit, in quarter three that they just recently posted. They had
a twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000) profit for quarter one of 2015, forty-eight
point eight million dollars ($48,800,000) profit for quarter two. So, their profits are
just soaring and our prices here to buy tickets are soaring as well. I think there is
always a need for balance. If Hawaiian Airlines is truly the one and only airlines that
cares about the people of Hawai`i, then they will search for that balance so that our
people can still have affordable rates to fly interisland, because we are bound by them
to get to the other islands. It is a monopoly. I just hope that this can be a start of
something positive for the people of Kaua`i because when I was young I remember
the plane fare was not a question whether I could go and visit my cousin on his
birthday or what have you — the fares were low. Now, today, the answer to a lot of
the children is, "No, it is too expensive." It should not be. It is a twenty (20) minute
flight. Why are we paying a hundred and eighty dollars ($180) or two hundred dollars
($200) for a ticket for a twenty (20) minute flight? I think they can be more
reasonable. The interisland revenue is subsidizing a lot of their expansion plans,
such as, now they are looking at putting beds into long flights. Do we want to see
Hawaiian Airlines have beds in first class and should the interisland revenue
subsidize those types of expansion plans to please the rich? It is their choice. They
are a private corporation, but all I am saying is that if they have the monopoly over
our airfares here in Hawai`i, then I believe that we deserve some fare prices or we
have to stand up and rise like former Council Chair Yatsuda expressed. We need to
do something and get the people behind us, that is the only way we can get the
corporations to feel for our people. Thank you.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I do want to thank Vice Chair Kagawa and
former Chair Yotsuda for bringing this forward to us. This is a resolution that I
believe is easy to support on behalf of our constituents and voicing for them the
concern and bringing it forward to the legislature and everyone who are in the
COUNCIL MEETING 12 OCTOBER 21, 2015
position to change things by supporting and providing incentives for more than one
airlines so that prices can come down. When I first read the Resolution last week, I
saw the whereas about travel being critical "cultural activities, various sports,
educational, entertainment, and business opportunities," and I just thought
personally for my own family and extended family it was important to mention that
travel also allows access to medical and dental needs which may be unavailable to
the outer islands, especially for senior citizens and having to visit sick ones who may
be staying in the hospital in Honolulu. Former Chair Yotsuda made good testimony
towards that and I thank Vice Chair for seeing that. When he was working with staff
on that that was something he thought of too and included it here. I am happy to give
my support.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are on the amendment, right now right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will speak on the main motion after the
amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will say on the amendment that that is a
vital part of the Resolution. I think the impact to residents that needs to get to O`ahu
for medical care. We have people that are not making it to O`ahu for medical care
because they cannot afford it. We have people on Kaua`i that are dying because they
cannot afford the plane ticket...because you cannot travel alone. You have to go with
a caregiver. Trust me when I say that I have been there and it is tough. The credit
cards come in handy, but that is not how it should be. There is no Kama aina rate or
compassion rate, there is nothing. Pay or stay home — that is the attitude. Thank
you, Councilmember Kuali`i, for putting that in and also adding the President of the
United States. People think these are useless pieces of paper and we do not know
what the impact will be, but it is rough when family members cannot visit family
members that are sick on O`ahu. It is definitely not the aloha spirit, therefore I am
going to support the amendment. Anything else?
Councilmember Kuali`i: While we do not know what the impact will
be, part of passing a resolution is to bring it to the constituents attention as well on
behalf of the constituents that have brought it to our attention. Everyone out there
take a roll in this and talk to your representatives, and make them understand that
those who are in the position to make laws and changes need to step up and do that.
We have this responsibility to talk to the people on behalf of the other peoples'
constituents concern. Join us in not just supporting this Resolution, but in talking to
the Governor, Representatives, and Senators to make a change.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate the amendment; it is really
helpful, but while we are sending it to the President, do we not want to also send it
to Hawaiian Airlines?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, good catch. Let us do a friendly
amendment; we will add it in.
Mr. Yotsuda: Can I say something?
Council Chair Rapozo: With no objections, I will suspend the rules.
COUNCIL MEETING 13 OCTOBER 21, 2015
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Yotsuda: I asked that the President be included in it for
one thing, he is a local-boy who made good, and is sitting up there. Secondly, my son
took the President seriously and he E-mailed the President some questions that he
had about a speech that the President made, and he got a reply. So, maybe not a
personal reply from the President, but at least his staff. There is a reply and I thought
that was fantastic. No other President has done that. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: What was the subject matter on that?
Mr. Yotsuda: I forgot.
Councilmember Kagawa: But he wrote to him and got a response.
Mr. Yotsuda: Yes, he got a response. The President
promised that he would respond and he does respond. I do not know how many other
people have tried writing to him — I imagine there must be quite a few.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sure. Councilmember Kuali`i has a
question.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Councilmember Yukimura was talking about
also including the President of Hawaiian Airlines in this Resolution and in your
testimony earlier you made comments where you were directly to the President as
well. Would you be supportive of us also sharing this with Hawaiian Airlines so that
they get the message too?
Mr. Yotsuda: Yes. I would like them to respond.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. We are back on the
amendment.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: It is a friendly amendment to the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I move to amend the amendment by adding
the name of Mark Dunkerley, President and CEO of Hawaiian Airlines.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to amend Attachment 1, as shown in
Attachment 2, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: The title is fine because the copies of the
Resolution does not impact the title at all. We are asking the State to incentivize and
basically we are just letting Hawaiian Airlines know...we are not asking Hawaiian
Airlines to do anything.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well we indirectly are asking...
COUNCIL MEETING 14 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Hawaiian Airlines has gotten the message
and request many times, but just chosen to move forward. Do you have any objection
to that Councilmember Kagawa?
Councilmember Kagawa: No. I wanted to say that I appreciate that
amendment because I would not want the appearance that we are doing something
behind their back. Passing it here and sending it to them because we want to work
together. The ideal situation— it would take years before a competitor comes in. The
better situation would be if Hawaiian Airlines acknowledges that there is a problem
with the airfares and that some of their seven million dollars ($7,000,000) in profit
maybe they can cut that in half and give our residents some reasonable airfares.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion on the amended
amendment?
Councilmember Yukimura: We are accepting the friendly amendment
into the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct. The amendment on the floor is the
original amendment including your addition of Dunkerley.
Councilmember Yukimura: Alright, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I think it is important we let
them...although I am sure that Hawaiian Airlines has someone watching this right
now. They have a very good PR Division led by Ann Botticelli and I am sure she is
watching this right now and sometimes the truth hurts, but it is what it is.
The motion to amend Attachment 1, as shown in Attachment 2 was then put,
and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: We are back to the main motion. Further
discussion on the main motion?
Councilmember Hooser: I will be supporting this and I share the
thoughts around the table and in the community. We can spend a lot of time on it and
do a lot of amendments and I chose not to do that. I think the broad message is that
we are not happy with the service in terms of rates is one that should be loud and
clear without fulling around too much with the language. I would say that it is more
than rates, though, it is availability and there have been many times when people
have tried to book and even a week in advance and cannot get on the flight, even if
they are willing to pay the money, they cannot get on the flight because the flight is
full. I want to reiterate about what someone said earlier about the good people that
work at Hawaiian Airlines, I have to tell you that I spend a lot of time at the airport.
Most of you know my wife works there, she has worked there since 1985 for United
Airlines, therefore we spend a lot of time down there, it seems like, and the people
are great. They give us really good service, the people on the planes, but this is about
a corporate decision to maximize profits which is okay, but when it reaches a point
where citizens are negatively impacted, it is our duty to rise up, if you would. I would
be remised if I did not point out that, "Be it resolved," sounds benign incentivized, but
what we are really saying is that we believe that the government should subsidize
travel. "Incentivize," means give them something and giving them something means
some money or some kind of public benefit. We are asking in this that government
COUNCIL MEETING 15 OCTOBER 21, 2015
get involved with in regulating and subsidizing interisland travel. We can nitpick
that a little bit if we wanted to, but I am not ready to do that today. I just wanted to
point that that it is what it is. Historically, those of us who have traveled a lot know
that what happens is rates go up and competition comes in and there is a fare war.
We have seen three (3) airlines over the years many times and that is when we really
get the best prices. In terms of a market force is preventing a second airline from
coming in right now.You would think they would be looking at this and saying, "Wow,
Hawaiian Airlines is making all this money; we can make money too," and they are
probably misstating it a little bit, I think there is a third airline. Is there not Island
Air servicing the community also, even though it is a relatively small market share,
but I agree in making a strong statement. I will be supporting the Resolution. We
are paying far too much money for airfares and we need far more availability in terms
of seats. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to thank Council Vice Chair for
introducing this Resolution and former Council Chair Bobby Yotsuda for bringing it
to our attention in his typical way of protecting consumers and taking on large
corporate interest that are not showing care for the consumers. I want to thank
Councilmember Kuali`i for his amendment because medical travel is so essential. I
think we are at a really terrible point where people cannot travel for essential
purposes, not to mention just ordinary desires to see relatives and to go enjoy a
vacation on another island, but essential travel for sports and cultural events,
medical services, business, and other needs. If Hawaiian Airlines were not making a
profit that would be one thing, but as Council Vice Chair has pointed out the profits
are large. There needs to be consideration for the people who need this essential
travel which is the people in the State of Hawaii. I am glad that we are bringing this
to the attention of the higher levels of government as well as to Hawaiian Airlines,
itself. I am hopeful that they will respond by more reasonable rates and more
convenient flight opportunities. I do not quite agree with the idea of the legislature
subsidizing the airlines because the State cannot even pay its own bills and we are
terribly behind in our pension fund. The incentive program that the State have done
have been very poorly constructed and are not necessarily getting the results that the
incentive programs were meant to have. I do not see that as a real option, but I do
see inviting another carrier and encouraging another carrier to come in. I think there
are potential carriers who could be very good competition, and so hopefully this
Resolution will wake people up and get us the results that we need for our people on
Kaua`i and the people in the State.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i did you have more
discussion? Anyone else?
Councilmember Kagawa: I think it would be difficult to find the perfect
language to fit in that"Be it resolved." The fact of the matter is when Aloha was here,
things were a lot better, and once Aloha Airlines went out of business, things were
never the same. Finding a way to state to the legislature that we need that second
strong competitor, I think this "Be it resolved," portion says...and you can read
between the lines and ask, "Are we asking for funding," but it says "to assist in
offering relief to interisland travelers by incentivizing competition for Hawaiian
Airlines." As I read that, to me, we are asking the legislator to find a way to bring a
competitor for Hawaiian Airlines —that is how I read it. The other thing that I would
like to mention, the State of Hawaii, I think the old interisland area in Honolulu on
the right side, they are going to remodeling that area and it will be the new Hawaiian
Airlines, and I think Hawaiian Airlines will still keep their spot as well. The State is
doing a lot to accommodate Hawaiian Airlines in their expansion and what I am
COUNCIL MEETING 16 OCTOBER 21, 2015
asking is what are we getting? What is the taxpayers getting while we accommodate
Hawaiian and their expansion? We are certainly not getting the benefit to our people
of fair and reasonable airfares. You can look up the airfare distance Seattle to Las
Vegas on South West and it would be less than the price of what people are paying
here. Therefore, it is not the gas or the pay of the pilot. It is just profit. While I agree
that in any business supply and demand drives the cost when you have a monopoly
situation, it could get out of hand. What do we do? We start small. We take a baby
step. This is a baby step today. If we need major steps going forward, let us be
creative and find out what the major steps are whether it be island petitions or what
have you, but this is the first baby step. I thank Christiane Nakea-Tresler for
working hard for me on this issue, with Bob, with myself, and other Councilmembers.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? I will just say, you asked the
question, what do we get in return? Well, we got smaller seats, less availability, and
higher fares and fees. That is what we got in return. The simple answer is greed.
This is a perfect example of corporate greed. They have an opportunity to make money
and they are taking it. You have seen it. I know someone said about a petition. Some
issues that go on in State and government, yes, petitions are very important because
the community is split, but this one...if the legislature needs a petition to tell them
that the people are upset about the airfares, he or she is not in the community. They
are not in and about the community. If our state legislators cannot see the impact
that this is having — they fly, they see the rates and availability. Hawaiian Airlines
has taken a lot of the flights out of Kaua`i to Honolulu route — they have removed it.
Therefore, there is less flights, less seats, and it is ridiculous the price. A constituent
send me a picture of her fare last week because she had a last minute need to fly to
Honolulu and there was only first class available. One-way, five hundred and twelve
dollars ($512) — that is the only seat they had. That is criminal. You are talking
about step one right now, step one is this Resolution, again, I am not going to mess
with this Resolution because I think it will send the message that they already know,
Hawaiian Airlines, Mr. Dunkerley. If nothing happens, the next step is to get the
Attorney General to investigate these folks for gouging. I talked about this with
several of the community members, after the hurricane it did not take the State long
to go after our local stores here for having high priced spam, ice, and the necessities.
Funny I put spam in there with necessities, but they raised the price. The State came
down hard on them, but where is the State on this? Why is the State not stepping in
and saying, "Hey, let us take a look at this, five hundred twelve dollars ($512), two
hundred eighty-nine dollars ($289), one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) for one-
way for less than a half an hour flight." It is insane. Council Chair Rapozo told me
to be careful because Mr. Yotsuda has a lot of passion on this, I said I do not know
how many people know what I have tried to do. I wrote a letter and I do not have the
time to read it, but I will make it available to anybody who wants it. On December
30, 2013, I wrote a letter to Gary Kelly from Southwest Airlines begging him, and
unlike the President of the United States, he did not even respond, but you know
why, I have spoken to people that are in the industry. They told me that trying to get
into the Hawai`i interisland market is impossible because of regulation, the State,
and the Federal government on how they regulate the routes. This is what this
Resolution does. It incentivize whatever you want. We incentivize movie companies,
and all these different industries to come here and do business, so it is not a bad word.
Councilmember Kagawa made a great description of the incentivizes we are already
giving Hawaiian Airlines, therefore it is not a bad word. This tells the Legislature
"do something. This is not health what is happening here." The Attorney General
needs to get involved. He needs to get involved because this is price gouging. The
twenty-four (24) hour hold that you used to be able to go on and hold your reservation
COUNCIL MEETING 17 OCTOBER 21, 2015
for twenty-four (24) hours, last week they...now they started charging four dollars
and ninety-nine cents ($4.99). Where does it end? For a computer process that takes
no human to do. Mr. Dunkerley if you are watching, listen, because we have no
choice, but the minute that we do, people will abandon you and go somewhere else.
Thank you. Any further discussion? Passion — because it is wrong. Roll call.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2015-61 as amended to Resolution
No. 2015-61, Draft 1 was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 9:26 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 9:39 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as recused from C 2015-266.)
LEGAL DOCUMENTS:
C 2015-266 Communication (10/01/2015) from the Director of Parks &
Recreation, recommending Council approval of a License Agreement with Boys &
Girls Club of Hawai`i, a non-profit Hawai`i corporation, for three (3) portables and a
portion of the grounds immediately surrounding the portables located at the Kaua`i
War Memorial Convention Hall in Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, being a portion of Royal
Patent 4480, Land Commission Award 7713, Apana, Part I to V. Kamamalu, to be
used for youth-related activities in the Lihu`e area.
• License Agreement
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to defer C 2015-266.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. I just want to make sure there is no
discussion or public testimony before we cut the discussion. We are on the license
agreement between the County and the Boys & Girls Club of Hawai`i. Is there any
public testimony? If not, any discussion before we move to defer.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I had several questions when I read this last
week, we sent an E-mail over, and without that much time the County Attorney needs
more time to respond, therefore, I am asking for a deferral. The questions were things
like, it is a ten (10) year license so why not five (5) years; should there be an exit
clause in the agreement; would subleasing be allowed and how are we addressing
that; and then in the none discrimination clause when I read through the whole
clause of all the categories that were included, sexual orientation was included, but
not gender identity. I asked that that could be considered as well. There were four to
five (4-5) questions and the County Attorney wanted a little bit more time. This is not
something that is time sensitive, therefore I am asking for a deferral for two (2)weeks
for the County Attorney to be able to answer the questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there are no objections, I would like to
suspend the rules because I do want to ask Mauna Kea some questions. A couple of
COUNCIL MEETING 18 OCTOBER 21, 2015
the issues that you just brought up are important to me and I think that needs
to...rather than waste two (2) weeks and bring it up in two (2) weeks, I will bring it
up now Mauna Kea and you can take it back. We have so many of these documents,
as we read through we look for things that pop out, and obviously as Councilmember
Kuali`i referenced there is no exit clause in this document at this point. Is there an
exit clause?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: I do not have a copy of the
document in front of me right now, therefore I would like to reserve any specific
questions, but I can address some of these things generally subject to further
clarification, if you would like.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: This is a license, therefore subject to your
approval, the Administration would negotiate the terms and it would be mutual
between the County and the Boys & Girls Club. Most of the questions that
Councilmember Kuali`i would have at first glance could mean negotiated into it. I do
not think it would be a problem. To my understanding, there is a current agreement
and I think it is in a form of a license and the Boys & Girls Club and the County of
Kaua`i. I think it is good for another five (5) years, but I will get that for sure next
time. I understand the reason why this is before you is that in order for them to cast
a broader net as far as grants and other financial opportunities to support their cause,
it helps them...or they are requested to have a ten (10)year license, therefore I believe
that is the point of the year term, but of course that could be negotiated differently.
Again, the prior termination date on of the current one is 2018, but I will double check
on that. A deferral would be appropriate in order for you to have the information you
seek today.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do see some language about termination of
the license, but I think the other component that Councilmember Kuali`i brought up
as far as the subleasing, that needs to be addressed as well. I do not think it is
appropriate for us to give a license to a nonprofit and they can turn around and lease
it out and make money. If they are using the property and parcel to provide the
services to our residents, I think is a great thing, but not to turn that into a money
making. That is the peoples' property.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Considering the entire area with the ballpark,
convention center, and the parking there, that entire area that is for the use of the
public. I think we should look at the whole idea about an exit clause that should
things change, should the County want to provide a different service to a different
part of the community, would we not be able to because we were solidly locked in for
ten (10) years. It could be a rare instance where we would need to exit, but we need
to have that ability in the language especially with plans for the renovation of the
convention center and the building of a creative arts center. There are all kinds of
possibilities that we need to make sure we are considering. Thank you.
Mr. Trask: Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: I know that the Lihu`e Baseball League had
been using some of the portables for storage as well as meeting rooms for board
meetings or what have you, and they have been using it for twenty (20) years ago or
COUNCIL MEETING 19 OCTOBER 21, 2015
so. I am just wondering if Lenny had made sure that this is not flying over their use
and that everything is all malama.
Mr. Trask: The Lihu`e Baseball.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, the Little League. I am just making sure
that we are not just going over the negotiation process and if you can get that
answered as well before the item comes back to the agenda.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion? You can go ahead and
make the motion to defer.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to defer C 2015-266, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 5:0:1:1 (Councilmember
Chock was excused and Councilmember Yukimura was recused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Can somebody call Councilmember
Yukimura; we can take the next item.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
C 2015-267 Communication (10/05/2015) from the Mayor, recommending
Council approval of a dedication deed to extend Kahana Street, by Lani
Properties Corporation, a Hawai`i corporation, et al., to satisfy a condition of
Subdivision C-2012-10, consolidation of Lot 8, Ho Enterprise Subdivision and Lot
33, and Subdivision of the same into Lot 8-A and Lot 33—A, and cancelling easements
AU-1 and AU-2, being portions of Grant 7959 to Manuel Correa and Grant 8930 to
Roslyne G. Moura, at Kapa`a, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, Tax Map Key (TMK) No. (4) 4-6-12:124
and :125 (por.).
• Dedication Deed
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2015-267, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is someone here from the Administration? It
would be helpful when we have these dedication deeds or even the Boys & Girls Club
item — the contract is attached, but it would be good to get an overview of what this
is. This tells me absolutely nothing as far as...it tells me that you folks want approval
and you want to convey a roadway to the County for roadway purposes, but there is
no overview or something brief that at least we can...because a legal document unless
you are an attorney, it is just a legal jargon. I do not even know what this is about.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KA`AINA S. HULL, Deputy Planning Director: Chair, well noted, we can
provide that when we submit future things over to the Council.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 20 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Hull: The background behind this one is that
essentially back in 2005 there was a subdivision of kind of the "end properties" at the
end of the cul-de-sac. A condition of subdivision approval was that a small portion
from an abutting property be conveyed over to the County in order to have a County
standard roadway. Back in 2012, the applicant came back with that small portion,
that is depicted on the map, on the lower right hand corner was subdivided out, and
in order for that to exist as a separate lot of record and therefore they can now
dedicate it to the County for our standard road. The road is in fact already there,
but currently it functions as a private road.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where is that?
Mr. Hull: This is in Kapa`a.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I know it is in Kapa`a, but...
Mr. Hull: The actual area, I do not have a full map here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, it is up by the meadows. It is the street
right before the meadow subdivision. So they are conveying a portion of this road
that is already built.
Mr. Hull: Yes, it existed...it had to function as a
standard County road, but it is not actually a County road right-of-way. As a
condition of approval, it would just basically function via easement previously, but in
order to convey it over, it needed to be a separate lot, therefore the applicant
subdivided that small portion out back in 2013 and is now essentially conveying over
here to meet that 2005 subdivision condition.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further questions? If not, thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
The motion to approve C 2015-267 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
CLAIMS:
C 2015-268 Communication (09/29/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Roberto R. Lapitan, for
damages to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kauai.
C 2015-269 Communication (10/01/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Albert and Kathleen
Melchor, for damages to their vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the
County of Kauai.
C 2015-270 Communication (10/06/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Mark Young, for
damages to his rental vehicle and personal property, pursuant to Section 23.06,
Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
COUNCIL MEETING 21 OCTOBER 21, 2015
C 2015-271 Communication (10/09/2015) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Charlene & John
Clark, for personal injuries, lost wages and other damages, pursuant to Section 23.06,
Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer C 2015-268, C 2015-269, C 2015-270,
and C 2015-271 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition and/or report
back to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to refer C 2015-268, C 2015-269, C 2015-270, and C 2015-271 to
the County Attorney's Office for disposition and/or report back to the Council
was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was
excused).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2015-14) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2015-05 - Communication (08/05/2015) from Council Chair
Rapozo, requesting the presence of the County Engineer, to provide an update
on Kapaia Swinging Bridge and the efforts of the Administration to work with
the Kapaia Foundation,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no on present to give testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2015-15) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2015-07 Communication (09/25/2015) from Committee Chair
Kagawa, requesting the presence of the County Engineer, to provide a briefing
regarding transfer station operations to include, but not be limited to, the
following:
• Status report on the deteriorated compactors located at the
Hanalei, Kapa`a, and Hanapepe refuse transfer stations; and
COUNCIL MEETING 22 OCTOBER 21, 2015
• Recap detailing the factors that determined the need to modify
the hours of operation at all transfer stations,
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no on present to give testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PL 2015-18) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PL 2015-04 Communication (09/24/2015) from Council Chair Rapozo,
requesting the presence of the County Engineer and the Planning Director, to
provide a briefing on the Lepeuli Fencing Project, to include the following:
• Timelines of the Shoreline Certification, Special Management
Area Minor Permit, and Class I Zoning Permit.
• How will the application for a boundary interpretation with
the State Land Use Commission relating to the Conservation
District be handled and what County Agency will be taking
the lead?
• What criteria was used to design the fencing? Address
whether the following criteria was considered (important
albatross launching area making the placement and design of
the fencing critical; dogs and cats have been causing a problem
for the protected migratory birds in this area).
• What Cultural practitioners were consulted,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no on present to give testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE:
A report (No. CR-COW 2015-12) submitted by the Committee of the Whole,
recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
COUNCIL MEETING 23 OCTOBER 21, 2015
"COW 2015-05 Communication (10/07/2015) from Council Chair
Rapozo, requesting the presence of the Executive on Aging, to provide an
overview on the Agency on Elderly Affairs' 4-Year Area Plan on Aging
(October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2019),"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no on present to give testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
Resolution No. 2015-59 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY (Wallace G. Rezentes, Jr.):
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-59, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: While you are coming up I did want to say
that when Wally had come up for the interview, I did not know and I do not think any
of us knew that he had just lost his dad, Wally Sr., who was a County employee for
many years. I would be remiss not to offer our condolences to Mr. Rezentes and his
family. I just did not know. Wally was here in that grieving period. I just wanted to
make that comment and our condolences go out to the family.
MATTHEW BERNABE: I just wanted to ask what day it was, I might
have missed the day of his interview. Is this a confirmation or does he have to come
up?
Council Chair Rapozo: He already did. He came up for his interview
two (2) weeks ago.
Mr. Bernabe: That is all I wanted. I wanted to make myself
familiar with who he is; I can watch Ho`ike. That is all I wanted to say. Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
The motion adoption of Resolution No. 2015-59 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL—6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
COUNCIL MEETING 24 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Resolution No. 2015-60 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HAWAII STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (HSAC) SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2016: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2015-60, seconded
by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: First, I would like to say that I attended the
HSAC meeting where we approved this and put this out to go to all the other counties.
I want to state for the record that at that meeting it was clear that this move is
basically a move to satisfy Councilmember Victorino from Maui who is serving out
his last term before he terms out, and apparently he wants to be the Chairman of
HSAC this year and next year for the purposes of adding to his resume as he makes
his run for Mayor of Maui. How much that will help his campaign, I am not sure, but
I think I would like to thank Councilmember Ikaika Anderson from Honolulu who
came up with a process that gives all of the islands the opportunity to rotate as
Chairman or President and Vice President, et cetera, where it would be a rotating
basis where Maui would be the first to be president in these two (2) years. The next
year another island would become president and so on, and it would just rotate every
two (2) years. I think we had the luxury of having Councilmember Rapozo serve as
Chairman of HSAC for many years. I guess this request by Councilmember Victorino
developed thinking outside the box in how can we accommodate him and his request
to be Chairman, he is capable of being a fine Chairman, but how can we make a fair
process so that all islands will have a chance of being Chairman on a rotating basis.
I think we have outstanding Councilmembers on all islands that is capable of leading
this body and trying to do what is right for all counties as a whole. I will be supporting
this today, but I want to recognize that this is not a move to replace Council Chair
Rapozo as Chairman of HSAC because of anything he did or his ability, it is just
merely...I think we were very reluctant the other islands especially the Big Island
and Kaua`i were reluctant to do this type of change for personal reasons, but I think
in looking beyond that request, Councilmember Ikaika Anderson came up with a way
of satisfying all islands so that everybody would have a chance to lead this body. I
just wanted to state that for the record, because the truth is the truth and it must be
told. Kaua`i will have its chance every eight (8) years to serve two (2) years as
Chairman. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to say that from all the
experience I have had in seeing Chair Rapozo at work as the president of
HSAC. He has done an incredible job and I am very grateful for that of how he has
represented Kaua`i in leading HSAC for many years, like Vice Chair Kagawa said,
and that he continues to have the full support of all his colleagues there on that body.
Thank you for your service and for Vice Chair Kagawa for stepping in as his back up
when he is able to make those meetings. I am in support.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser. This is
very uncomfortable.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to thank the Chair for his service as
President of HSAC, but honestly now it is a little uncomfortable. If I vote in support
of this Resolution, I am voting in support of Mr. Victorino running for Mayor of Maui
because he is doing this to put this on his resume. I do not know if I am comfortable
COUNCIL MEETING 25 OCTOBER 21, 2015
doing that or not. I prefer to be voting for the slate because I think it is the best slate
to show leadership for HSAC. I was comfortable with the rationale that we can rotate
leadership among the Counties. I think it is clear that all the Councilmembers have
a certain capacity for leadership or they would not be Councilmembers. I just felt
like I had to say that.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is the truth...
Councilmember Hooser: I take my vote seriously, you know. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Again, it is uncomfortable.
Thank you for the complements, but Kaua`i has been blessed with having the
presidency of HSAC for many years and it is because nobody really wants it and there
was no reason to ever change it. Councilmember Victorino had started this process
for a rotation so that everyone would have a chance and Big Island did not support it
the first go-around for many reasons. One of the concerns is that you may have a
new HSAC member, maybe a new Councilmember, let us say Councilmember
Kaneshiro this year was selected to represent Kaua`i at HSAC and it fell on the year
that Kaua`i was going to be the president because it is already predetermined. It is
not fair for Councilmember Kaneshiro to walk into a seat of being a president of an
organization — that was the Big Island's concern and I think it is a valid concern. I
was not going to stand in the way, Mr. Victorino wanted to be the president on his
last term because he is terming out. I think he can lead well, but I am concerned
about the structure. I think the better way to have done it was a term limit. Just
have a term limit for the president. Every two (2) years the board, the body, would
elect a new president. That way, number one (1), it would be somebody that would
want to be the president and number two (2), chances are he or she would have been
there for a while to gain the experience necessary to run HSAC. I am going to support
this because I am a team player and I am going to move forward. Mike is very active
in HSAC, he is very active in NACo, he sits on several leadership committees
nationally; therefore, I do not have a problem with his leadership ability. I will
definitely will supporting this going forward.
Councilmember Kagawa: I totally agree with the feelings with
Councilmember Hooser...do you vote to appease this type of request at this time, with
the timing. The nature of HSAC is that if all islands do not unanimously agree on
any issue, it does not pass. I felt for Kaua`i to stand in the way and stand our guard
and say, "This is not the right way to do it. We should not do it. We should search for
a fairer process," where perhaps Mr. Victorino could rise to the top, just based on his
merits and become the new president at this time. I just find that if we need
unanimous vote to move items forward, we need the support of Maui and I just feel
like even though I do not feel totally comfortable or agree with this process, at least
Councilmember Anderson came up with a way of every island having a fair shot. For
that reason and knowing that we need Maui's support at HSAC to get anything done
that Kaua`i may feel is important, I feel that we need to work together as a team and
put the personal differences of philosophy or political rightness aside and that is why
I am casting my yes vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before I take the vote I did want to
thank...going back to when I started as a president, Cyndi Ayonon who is now at the
Mayor's Office, Ashley Bunda who really carried the load for a long time, and now
Aida just got tossed in. The HSAC staff does all the work. If this passes, Kaua`i will
become the secretary, therefore Aida will not have to be the traffic cop for all the
COUNCIL MEETING 26 OCTOBER 21, 2015
communications that come through. Aida will tell you that it is significant. We get
calls in the middle of Council Meetings in other counties because they are having an
issue and they need clarification, therefore the good news is that Aida will not be
forced to be that traffic cop anymore and she can focus on getting the tape from the
meeting and doing some minutes. For that, I guess I am happy because it is just a
lot of work that the people do not see and I do not appreciate what the staff does. All
the president really does is run the meeting, but the staff is...Aida, thank you. It is
one of those things where you come work one day and you find out that you are the
new HSAC staff person and you ask yourself, "Should I stay or should I go," but she
has decided to stay. With that, roll call please.
The motion adoption of Resolution No. 2015-60 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6*,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmembers Hooser and Yukimura were noted as silent, but shall be recorded as
an affirmative for the motion.)
Resolution No. 2015-62 — RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2015-02, DRAFT 1, RELATING TO THE RULES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
COUNTY OF KAUAI FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF COMMITTEES AND THE
TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of
Resolution No. 2015-62, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to ask that we send this to public
hearing before we vote on it. I think it is important to have public input. The public
did not have much notice about this. It is very much like our fifteen dollars ($15)
minimum wage resolution where public input is very important.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? We will take public
testimony. Why do we not do that now? Any registered speakers? Okay. Mr. Taylor.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KEN TAYLOR: I have some real problems with some of this
Resolution and I think the recommendation that Councilmember Yukimura has
made about sending it to public hearing is in order. A couple of things in reference
to written testimony. When written testimony is brought into be stamped into the
record...
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Taylor, let me real quick...hold his time
real quick. Mr. Taylor, the agenda items are the two (2) amendments.
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry?
COUNCIL MEETING 27 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: What is on the agenda today are two (2)
amendments. The written testimony is not being changed. The amendments are
items number 10; Section 1(c) which is basically...and I should have done this first.
Section 1(c) which mandates that any member that is recused shall leave the room.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is Rule No. 5(c).
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, Section 1, Rule No. 5(c) which means that
in a situation where the member is recused, they shall leave the room, and although
Councilmember Hooser brought up that issue last week, I felt that it was up to the
member if he wanted to leave or not. The general rule or recommendation by Roberts
is that they leave. The second one is Rule No. 11, item number 10, which basically
prohibits Councilmembers from asking questions when people provide oral
testimony. Basically the other counties do not allow it. You come up and make your
testimony and then you sit down. Kaua`i is the only county that allows this
engagement and dialogue between the council and the public. After receiving a couple
of complaints from the public, and I am not talking about you folks that come here
every week and enjoy that engagement, there are people that come up here and they
want to testify without being badgered. I have received enough complaints for me to
put this rule forward. We want to encourage people to come and testify. We want
people to come up to be able to say their statement and not be worried about some
Councilmember challenging or debating them. They just want to come and testify. I
want to encourage that. In speaking with the other counties, it works really well.
That is what the rules are. You have the recusal where you leave the room and the
second rule which would prohibit Councilmembers from asking or engaging the
community.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: There is one (1) more.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is the third one?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: The third one is Rule No. 12(e)(1).
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, the other one is a technical amendment
that cleans up the language because of...in the public hearing. We talked about the
clarifying questions. It is a technical removing that sentence, but the substantive
amendment is basically there would be no engagement.
Mr. Taylor: You are talking about this Resolution?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I am talking about the amendments on
the Resolution.
Mr. Taylor: We do not have the amendments.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is it. It is on there. Look at Rule No. 11,
item number 10, it is underlined.
Mr. Taylor: We have Rule No. 11 testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Look at the last, number 10; do you see the
underlined section, number 10?
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry?
COUNCIL MEETING 28 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Can someone help him? That is what is up for
discussion today; those rule changes. You can reset his time and he can start over.
Does anyone else want to testify? Do you want to study it, Mr. Taylor, and then come
back up, that is fine. Okay, start his time.
Mr. Taylor: One of the issues that is concerning is in
reference to a document that is sitting on the counter in the Clerk's Office today,
dated yesterday, or the 14th. It basically says that if you want to turn in written
testimony, you have to bring in fifteen (15) copies. The problem I see there is when
you turn in written comment and get it stamped in to the record, you want a copy of
that stamped document in case in the future there is any court actions that need to
take place. You as an individual has a right to have a copy of that stamped document.
If I am turning in fifteen (15) copies that distributed to all of you and there is another
copy that get stamped separately for myself, now we have a conflicting date and time
which I think is wrong. I think that is really out of line in open government and needs
to be corrected. There would have probably been a lot more people here discussing
this issue if it would have been better...it also says on that document on the counter
in there that all of the information will be online, well, went I went online last week
Thursday night or Friday looking at this agenda item, the Resolution was not there.
Therefore, we could not even read it. I think again, these things need to be addressed
properly so that if this is going to the rules and regulations, then all of the documents
and you folks continuingly get things passed out, we have no idea and in a lot of cases
of what you are receiving because there is no record. There should be a binder, just
like you get, with all of your documents in it, there should be a binder like that in the
Clerk's Office.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Taylor, I have to stop you there, but I hear
you. I will be working with the Clerk as far as that. I will say that I agree that the
public should be entitled a file stamp of what they turn in and that should not be at
any charge, but that would require a rule change that we will explore. They do it at
the court, if you file a document at court, you get a file stamped copy at no charge.
We are looking into that.
Mr. Bernabe: I am going talk about two (2) of the three (3)
proposed amendments. On the first one, I do not have a problem. If the person who
needs to be recused, leaves, or if they wish to stay, that should be optional, I think.
What should not be optional is there should be no rebuttals, no interjection with
opinion, and no testimony during that time. If that person breaches that then that is
an automatic, you need to leave that room. You get one (1) warning. That is what I
think is fair because they can go and watch it on the television right in the other
room, livestream. My point being is that I do not have a problem if they are in here.
I am having a problem if they are actually affecting the process, that is what I have
a problem with. The other one is the questions. I know that I am one of the guys who
likes it, but I do like to have questions of clarification and have the option to have
questions asked back. What I would say is that the questions coming from
Councilmembers should at least wait until the second phase of testimony. You should
not have two (2) sets of questions where after the first three (3) minutes, we got
twenty (20) minutes of questions. The second three (3) minutes, twenty (20) more
minutes of questions. I think that if we met in the middle ground and cut out the first
round of questions and just make that true testimony and then limit to maybe a five
(5) minute grace period of questions or three (3) minutes on the clock. Once it hits
red, all questions are done. Some people would find problems with that, but I think
that is the middle ground. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 29 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to make sure that if this passed, I
would not be able to have this conversation that we are having right here at this
moment.
Mr. Bernabe: No, I do understand.
Councilmember Hooser: Therefore, I would not be able to ask you
questions.
Mr. Bernabe: I do understand what you are saying, but I am
also saying that during the first three (3) minutes of testimony, if I do not plan on
coming up there should be a clause, if somebody states, "I do not plan on using my
next three (3) minutes; is there any questions?" I think there is something in there.
If you are really going to testify for the full six (6) minutes, I think the clarification
should come at the end of the six (6) minutes. I do not think the taxpayers should
have to pay on some cases it is an extension of the discussion and in some cases; it is
true clarification. I do hear what you are saying, but at a certain point we have to
meet in the middle. If we are not willing to use common sense that the first three (3)
minutes does not require a question. If you planning on coming and continuing where
you left off at that three (3) minutes, because who knows, maybe in the next three (3)
minutes I might answer your question without you even needing to ask me the
question.
Councilmember Hooser: Can I ask you one (1) more question?
Mr. Bernabe: You sure can.
Councilmember Hooser: During your first three (3) minutes, in which
you said you prefer me asking...
Mr. Bernabe: But I do not plan on coming back for another
three (3) minutes.
Councilmember Hooser: Is your testimony that we should be able to
ask you questions or only the questions you prefer to ask on the second three (3)
minutes?
Mr. Bernabe: At the end of your testimony.
Councilmember Hooser: Therefore, the way that it is written now we
cannot ask you questions period.
Mr. Bernabe: That is between you folks to hash out. I am
just giving you my opinion.
Councilmember Hooser: Are you supporting prohibiting asking
questions for speakers?
Mr. Bernabe: If this is an absolute no questions...
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
COUNCIL MEETING 30 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Bernabe: Then I think you folks should try to rearrange
it for at least at the end. I will concede on the point that you are trying to get at, that
yes, if this is an absolute cut off of dialogue, then I do not support it, however, to
address the issue the Council Chair Rapozo has brought up because I acknowledge it.
I see it with my own eyes. I have been engaged it in myself. I do acknowledge that
something needs to be done. I think that if you at least cut off the questions at the
first round, or at least if your first round is your only testimony then there. However,
yes, I can see your point.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you very much.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is it that you see that needs to de done
that is the rationale for this proposal?
Mr. Bernabe: My rationale is this, if somebody plans on
giving a six (6) minute testimony...
Councilmember Yukimura: No, I am not asking for your rationale of your
proposal. You said something needs to be done that seems to be justifying this
proposed rule. What is the purpose that you see of this rule to stop discussion that is
merited?
Mr. Bernabe: I am just going to say one (1) thing for plenty
people livestreaming right now, they are probably telling me, "I do not even have to
say it. It is being played out as we speak." The point that I am trying to make is that
this kind of questioning right here, I just clearly told you what my position is.
Somehow you are engaging one (1) more question to me trying to trip me up so I
change my position. I do not understand the question because I was very clear.
Councilmember Yukimura: It may be clear to you. You know that in
conversations it is very clear to one (1) person, but it is not to the other.
Mr. Bernabe: My point is if somebody has six (6) minutes
and you ask questions at the three (3) minute point...
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not disagree with that.
Mr. Bernabe: That was my point.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you understand why the necessity of the
rule?
Mr. Bernabe: I do.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is what I am asking you to explain what
you think is the necessity of the rule.
Mr. Bernabe: To streamline the Council Meetings to save
time and sometimes the questionings to me and many of the people that watch this
County Council Meeting, some would use the word badgering, waste of time, or
pandering, and that is not me talking. This is people coming to me. Since I engaged
my personality into your Council Meetings and making myself on this camera, this is
the language that comes back to me on some of our discussions.
COUNCIL MEETING 31 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you think that the solution is to cut off any
questioning at all?
Mr. Bernabe: I answered Councilmember Hooser, I do not
agree with an absolute ban of dialogue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, and so you are suggesting that it come
at the end of six (6) minutes if a person talks for six (6) minutes.
Mr. Bernabe: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: If they talk only for three (3) minutes...
Mr. Bernabe: And they express that they are not going to
come up another three (3) minutes or maybe the question should be asked after the
first round— are you planning on coming back up, if not, boom...questions. And then
you have to be stern with the rules. If they decide to come back up, you have to say,
"Look you have conceded your second round, I am sorry." I know that a lot of people
disagree with the few compromises that I just said, but that is the middle ground.
That is how we are going to streamline and make this more efficient.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree that it is a potential middle ground. It
is one of the middle grounds that we can look at. If the purpose is to streamline
Council Meetings and not allow wasting of time, do you think that the Chair could
exercise his prerogative to cut the discussion when it is not fruitful...
Mr. Bernabe: I think you are going into a new question that
I am not testifying on. I am testifying on what is right here. I do not understand the
context of where you are going, therefore, I would like to refrain from anymore
questions. I will end with this, if somebody is asked a question and they honestly do
not want to rebuttal back and answer you, they should not be badgered into
answering the question. I am not saying that you are. I am not accusing you, but I
am just putting that out. I am going to request that right now that I just stop this
testimony right here.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree. If a person does not want to answer,
they have the full right not to answer.
Mr. Bernabe: This was a good discussion, but I do not agree
with an absolute, but I do think something needs to be done.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, that is very clear.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just wanted to clarify that the purpose is
what the purpose of the intent of the introducer is.
Mr. Bernabe: I understand the purpose.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think that question should be made to me
and not you. The purpose as I stated, clearly, was we want to encourage testimony
from the public, that is the purpose. Streamline is a byproduct of it, because we want
to cut a lot of time off, but the purpose is to encourage testimony. We heard the person
walk off this...I am not going to mention names, you were here, and he yelled it out,
COUNCIL MEETING 32 OCTOBER 21, 2015
"Why do I have to be badgered when I am just trying to make a statement. Why are
you badgering me?" I also heard that from the public. People tell me, "I am not going
to testify, Mel, and face you folks." People should have the right to give your testimony
peacefully without any engagement. You enjoy that and that is great, but honestly
Matt, I would rather see more people come to testify comfortably then just listen to
you engage with Councilmembers. Please do not take that in the wrong way.
Mr. Bernabe: I agree one hundred percent (100%).
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next speaker.
GLENN MICKENS: I agree with what Councilmember Yukimura
said about this, I do not think it should be absolute, I think you as the Chair should
have the right to listen to the dialogue, but if you want to make a comment to
somebody that we made a testimony and you wish to make a comment about it, I
think you folks should have that right. Say you are off of topic or something or the
question is being answered, I think somebody on this Council should...if you have a
short answer so it does not waste time as you are pointing out, then you should have
the right to come back with it. I do not think it should be absolute, but I think it is a
common sense type of situation where again, you as Chair, can restrict. If it goes
back and forth and back and forth, that is taking up a lot of time, then that is where
you step in. Number 10 says, "Councilmembers shall not ask speakers about the
substance of their testimony or comment on testimony or speakers during the
testimony period." Again, we do not know when we are going to get an answer or if
we will ever get an answer to any of our questions. We are making the testimony.
We are wondering where is the answer coming from. If you have a short answer to
it, I would rather at least know that you are listening to what we are asking and be
able to have a reply rather than sit and wait and ask, "What is the answer to my
testimony." Why are we doing this research on this to come before you and try to get
an answer and then it just dies. I think the answer to this is, you as Chair, can
regulate it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Mickens, you have been here numerous
times where I have tried to do that.
Mr. Mickens: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: What was the result?
Mr. Mickens: On which issue?
Council Chair Rapozo: Directly a Councilmember back on track
because I believe that was not a question or it was off topic. What was the result?
Mr. Mickens: That is your prerogative.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you see this questioning that I am having
with you right now.
Mr. Mickens: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is not right. It is not making you
comfortable.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Mickens: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I want to stop because I think it
is unfair. It is just unfair. As far as the questioning, you want to questions now, you
pose your testimony or questions to the Chair and not to members, and when have
we not responded to your question?
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: For me, we have people that are not showing
up because they do not want to be humiliated, intimidated, or questioned, and I think
those people are vital to the actions of this body.
Mr. Mickens: I agree with that a hundred percent (100%),
but I think the reason why most people do not come is because they do not like this
microphone or camera. They will talk to us or talk to you off camera some place and
ask you questions, but they will not come up here to testify. A lot of times they come
up to Ken and me in Walmart and ask questions to us, and we say, "We need you to
come up here," and they say, "We are not comfortable with doing that."
Council Chair Rapozo: Nothing in the rule prohibits you from not
taking away anything from you as the public.
Mr. Mickens: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: It takes nothing away from you. In fact, as
Councilmember Kagawa said and Councilmember Hooser initially brought it up, but
you folks have six (6) minutes and you folks have five (5). You get more speaking
time than the Council. I am just telling you that this does not take away from the
publics' opportunity to testify.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: This question is not for Mr. Mickens, but you
just brought up the fact that...
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Mickens, you can go back to your seat.
Councilmember Kagawa: The public has six (6) minutes and we have
five (5). I was wondering if you have numbers for the other Counties. How long to
they allow their public to speak on every issue?
Council Chair Rapozo: Oahu is one (1), and I cannot recall what
Maui has, but...we are the most generous.
Councilmember Kagawa: Maui has three (3), Big Island has three (3),
and you said City and County gives one (1). Do they give them a second opportunity?
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Kagawa: Wow.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: May I ask you as the maker of this
amendment, I do not understand the last sentence of Rule No. 11(c)(10)...
"Councilmembers shall not ask speakers about the substance of their testimony," I
understand that, "or comment on testimony."
Councilmember Kuali`i: During their testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does this, "Or comment on speakers," is that
what the phrase is during the testimony period?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Therefore, "Councilmembers shall not ask
speakers about the substance of their testimony, or comment on testimony or
speakers during the testimony period."
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify?
JOHN PATTERSON: I think it is a terrible idea to stop having
interaction. I understand that people are perhaps intimidated, but it would seem like
at least one proposal would be just to have the person say, "I would like you to not
give me any comments or questions." Have that be on the onset. I could say that
right now and then walk away, right? Why can that not be a simple common sense
solution? It seems like if they are intimidated, they can put up a wall and say, "I
would just like to give my testimony and then walk away." I do not feel that way. I
would like to be engaged. It seems it would be a sham to come all the way down here
and like Mr. Mickens said, "Not get a short answer to an obvious question that you
can answer for the public." That is my testimony. I do not have anything else to say.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Hang on, Mr. Patterson, you have
a question.
Councilmember Kuali`i: You talked about interaction and I just
wanted you to consider that there is a difference between testimony that we as a body
receive so that we can deliberate and discuss. In fact, citizens participation in giving
testimony is not the same as being in the deliberation and discussion of making
decisions.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that a question?
Councilmember Kuali`i: By interaction do you mean that citizens
should be part of the deliberation and discussion because that could open it up...
Mr. Patterson: No.
Councilmember Kuali`i: What do you mean by interaction?
_
COUNCIL MEETING 35 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Patterson: My understanding is that normally or up until
now when I come and talk, you folks sometimes ask me a question before I walk away,
and what this amendment means is to eliminate that, correct? It just seems like that
would be like cutting one (1) of my legs off or cutting the entire purpose of this
meeting. When I say interaction, I mean deliberation between us and maybe I said
something that you did not understand and you can ask me, "Did you mean..." It
seems like that for the time it has taken to come down and see you, I get more value
and you get more clarity. It is nerve racking to testify and I am comfortable talking
in front of people, therefore I can see that, and I can see Councilmember Rapozo's — I
see the gist of exactly why you are saying this. Some people probably just do not want
to come and that eliminates the testimony and you do not want that. Maybe they
could say, "Listen, I just want to talk," otherwise, we could just send me a YouTube
video and say, "Watch this link."
Council Chair Rapozo: We accept those too.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The amendment really talks about the Chair
having the discretion to cut off inappropriate questions. If we were asking questions
of you with specific regard to your testimony to clarify or expand upon, that is one (1)
thing, but if we and some of us might have attorney-style tactics, sort of like in court,
they call it "feeding the witness." Where we want to make our points by utilizing,
"Have you thought of..." which is almost changing your testimony and engaging you
in deliberation and discussion to make our points. Is that necessarily appropriate.
Some people enjoy that from the public because they become interactive participants
in the discussion and deliberations, and that is not what you are talking about,
correct?
Mr. Patterson: No, that is not what I am talking about.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you have a copy of the Resolution?
Mr. Patterson: I do on my phone.
Council Chair Rapozo: The first sentence as Councilmember Kuali`i
referenced is, "The Chair may allow Councilmembers to ask speakers to repeat or
rephrase statements made during their testimony," that is in there.
Mr. Patterson: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what you are asking for.
Mr. Patterson: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So, that is in there.
Mr. Patterson: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to correct somebody here. What the
statement says, actually, and then I have a question for you. Thank you very much
for coming here today. Since two (2) Councilmembers have brought up the statement
that says, "The Chair may allow Councilmembers to ask speakers to repeat or
rephrase your statement," that is what it says.
Mr. Patterson: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 36 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: So if the Chair decides to allows us to do it, it
would be to say, "Could you repeat that," as opposed to, "What is the source of your
information." If you state a fact and I said, "Wow, that is interesting, where did you
get that fact," I would not be able to ask you that question. I could ask you to restate.
We could not engage in this conversation that we are having right now; just to be
clear and on the record. That is what the statement in the Resolution says. The only
thing we could ask you would be to repeat or rephrase your statement. If you were
here, which you are testifying on another issue and you made a statement or fact,
would you be offended or feel badly if I said, "Where did you get that fact?"
Mr. Patterson: No, that would be alright. I see both of the
sides...you do not want to become dysfunctional or "feeding" as you said, you do not
want it to be leading, but it seems fine to be clarifying beyond just asking me to
restate my question.
Councilmember Hooser: Or I could say, "That is an interesting fact,
could you tell me more about where you got that."
Mr. Patterson: Yes, but the Chair would have the discretion
to stop that before it went too far.
Councilmember Hooser: Right.
Mr. Patterson: Is that what this is trying to achieve?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Patterson: Okay. Yes, you would not want it to become
antagonistic or perceived as antagonistic, I do not think, and hopefully everyone is
here to come to a common solution. Maybe I misunderstood that it was going to be
left at the discretion of the Chair, but that is between you folks. Is that too much
power for the Chair to hold? I do not know.
Councilmember Hooser: The amendment does not leave it to the
discretion of the Chair.
Mr. Patterson: It does not?
Councilmember Hooser: No, it just says that the Chair can have the
discretion to ask you to restate.
Mr. Patterson: And that is all.
Councilmember Hooser: Yes.
Mr. Patterson: Oh.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, it does not say that. It say that the Chair
may allow Councilmembers to ask people to rephrase or restate, and not the Chair.
Everybody would have that opportunity.
Mr. Patterson: Would this interaction have taken place
under this new amendment?
COUNCIL MEETING 37 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Mr. Patterson: That is what I thought. That seems too
limiting to the public and to the people who do take the time...it is almost, to me,
would have the opposite effect. I would rather talk to you and interact with you than
come down the state my piece or do as I said, I could have the option of saying, "I do
not want to be questioned, I just want to put this on the record, and then leave." I
think you need to interact with the people when you are from the general public.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Taylor: In reference to (c)(10) the latter part of the
second sentence, "...but Councilmembers shall not ask questions that give the
speaker a greater opportunity to testify than others," I have a problem with that too
because if one of you needs more information from a public member's comment, that
question should be able to be asked and answered. If it means a little bit more time
for somebody so be it, but I think the important thing to remember is that you are
here to serve the people and we the people give you the opportunity to represent us.
We do not totally turn everything over to you and walk away and say, "Have at it."
We are asking you to listen to us. Open government is very important and the more
information that you have from the public, the better decisions you can make for the
public. I think that putting clamp on what any one of you can ask of any public
member is wrong because questions are usually asked because you do not understand
something or you want more information. This is really an important part of the
dialogue of open government. When you start putting too many restrictions of how
this is dealt with, it puts a damper on what goes on. I talk to a lot of people because
they see us on television and I tell them, "We need your help. Come and talk with us,"
and they say, "I would not waste my time." That is the attitude of a lot of people out
there, they would not waste your time. What does that tell each one of you? It should
send a strong message that something is wrong. This needs more work and bring it
back to further discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Ken. Anyone else?
Mr. Mickens: I just want clarification on one (1) thing, Rule
No. 11 (b) "Written testimony shall be received for the record on any agenda item.
The proponent," I presume us, "shall provide fifteen (15) copies of the testimony to
the Clerk for distribution to the Council and staff." It has become a big issue. For
twenty (20) years, I would go in there and give my copy and they always gave me back
a copy that I wanted for me to read before you folks, there was no problem. Now from
what Peter says, that is a violation of the rules and it is breaking the law. I never
had to provide anything. They were the ones who provided copies for you folks; now
is that going to change? If I just came in here and did not have a copy of my testimony,
I read it, you would go ahead and request that I have it and then one of the clerks
would take it back, Xerox it, and come back to give it to you. That is time consuming.
It is easier for me, is it not, to stop in the Clerk's Office and they make copies. Does
this mean I have to bring in fifteen (15) of my own copies to pass out to you?
Councilmember Kagawa: Council Chair has stepped out therefore all I
can say is that this is not on the agenda right now. The language here...this is not
what the amendment is addressing, the written testimony portion, but I would be
happy to address that portion on a later agenda item and we can focus on that. I do
COUNCIL MEETING 38 OCTOBER 21, 2015
not think Peter or the staff is ready to give us any solutions as to what you are talking
about at this point.
Mr. Mickens: What about Rule No. 11(c)(1), is that for
discussion? "Persons wishing to testify are requested to register with the Clerk prior
to the Chair calling the meeting to order."
Councilmember Kagawa: That is not being amended today.
Council Chair Rapozo: We do that now. When you sign in.
Mr. Mickens: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is registering.
Mr. Mickens: Okay, but we sit here and sometimes we did
not go up and register...
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, and Rule No. 11(c)(7) states, "The
Chair shall grant to persons who have not registered time to speak following the
registered speakers."
Mr. Mickens: Right, because a lot of times you will bring
something up and later on you may want to testify...
Council Chair Rapozo: That is not changing.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is all the same. This Council has not
deprived anyone of testifying ever, since this new Council, never. Anyone else
wishing to testify? If not, discussion.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: I will be supporting this Rule change. I feel
torn because I feel like in some cases it will hurt my ability when a testifier is here
and I want to jump at the opportunity to dispute some of the opposing views that he
may have in the line of my questioning, but as the Chair as stated that if my actions
is turning people off from coming here and testifying, then it should stop. If it is not
occurring at the other counties then maybe we should listen. Let us allow the public
their opportunity without having to worry if a Councilmember like myself or anybody
else will badger them and question their line of thinking in presenting their views. I
think we have an opportunity after all the speakers are done to have five (5) minutes
and we can include some of our rationale for having an opposing view from some of
the speakers that may call us out and say, "What are we doing? What are we doing
this?" We have our opportunity after all the speakers are done, but the main purpose
of allowing this rule to be changed is how do we get more people from the public to
feel more comfortable in attending these meetings. There are a lot of people who have
the time to come, but they choose not to because they see this process as being
stressful and some of the stress is being created by the body here which is not allowed
in other counties, but is allowed here where we can ask questions on their testimony.
At times we here, as a body, make them feel uncomfortable and if that is happening,
that needs to change. We always say this is such an important issue, why is there not
COUNCIL MEETING 39 OCTOBER 21, 2015
more testimony and I think if this is a cure then let us do it. Let us give it a shot and
if it does not work, we can always go back at some later point. I am all for trying to
more of the public to present their views and try and help us make decisions that are
improving the lives of our people. With that, I will be supporting again with some
hesitancy because the current process worked well for me at times, but the bottom
line is that it was my actions turning off some of the public from coming to future
meetings. With that in mind, I will be supporting and saying maybe I should be
taking a step back and our body should be taking a step back and just listen to their
six (6) minutes. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it was obvious that a lot of public
reading this did not understand it and also there was very little notice and this is a
really critical issue. When you limit discussion and limit the ability to get
understanding of the issue that is major in a democracy. That is the whole basis of
democracy. I would like to move to refer to the December 2 Council Meeting in order
to have a public hearing on November 18.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to refer Resolution No. 2015-62, that is be
ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
November 18, 2015, and that it thereafter be referred to the December 2, 2015
Council Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Hooser.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead, Councilmember Hooser. Now we
are on the...
Councilmember Hooser: I am speaking on the motion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, go ahead.
Councilmember Hooser: I have served on the State Senate for eight (8)
years, this is my eighth (8th) year going into as a County Councilmember. I have
testified at many hearings at other Councils and watched many on CSPAN and to my
acknowledge no other legislative body prohibits its members from asking questions
of people that come up to testify. If I am incorrect and if the other councils do not
allow questions at all then I would like to have that in writing, number one (1).
Number two (2), I think that it is not just a quantity of testimony, it is a quality of
testimony and when people come up and state facts sometimes they need to be asked
the source of those facts. I think if a person comes up and testifies and they have
experience with an issue, it serves us best to explore their experience so we can learn
more and make better decisions. To ban Councilmembers from asking questions is to
me an extraordinary action that deserves at the minimum a public hearing. I would
encourage my fellow colleagues here to support and allowing it to go to public hearing
and allowing Councilmember Chock the curtesy of weighing in because this would
affect him too as a Councilmember. We all have the same weight here at the table.
We all have the same one (1) vote, none of us are more important than any other
person. This would prohibit Councilmember Chock from asking questions as well as
prohibit us from asking question. As curtesy to him and the public, I would hope that
you would all support allowing a public hearing. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I disagree with the points that were just made
that I do not see this as fully prohibited or complete ban. This is a procedural matter
to help us be more efficient in how we run our meetings and testimony is for us to
COUNCIL MEETING 40 OCTOBER 21, 2015
listen to the public. If we misunderstand a statement, we can ask them to rephrase
that statement saying it in a different way and that is all allowable, and the Chair
has the discretion and we have fully accepted all testimony. There is a difference
between citizens testimony that we as a body need to listen to and having deliberative
interactive discussion. The deliberative interaction discussion is for this body prior to
voting for making decisions. Part of the problem with questions of clarification is
that it has clearly been abused. Questions of clarification is, "What did you mean by
your statement?" Even a question like, "Where can I go to confirm your statement
of," send me to a website or additional information — no problems with that. It is all
part of the specific testimony. I do not think we are trying to limit that. I do not think
the Chair would do that. It has not been done in the past, it would not be done in the
future, but we do have to consider some of what our testifiers said today about
badgering, waste of time, and pandering. We can manage ourselves and when we are
on the record and on television that is one (1) thing, but twenty-four (24) hours a day
we are listening to people, and often when you are in a community meeting if you
need further information afterwards, you step outside at the end of the meeting. If
you do not have a reasonable persons understanding about what is being shared, you
can go offline and get further clarification as well. Somebody can say something
three (3) different ways and if you as a Councilmember do not get it, why do we all
have to wait until you do. We are serving the public, we want to cover more issues,
we want to listen to more testimony, we want to be more efficient, and we want to get
more done. This procedural rules is not in any way limiting reasonable...it is not even
interaction, I do not want to use that word "interaction," — testimony is us listening
and receiving that input and if we have to ask rephrasing questions or clarification
questions, let us be reasonable about that. I am serious about "feeding" the witness,
I am not an attorney, but my biggest weakness as a Councilmember at times, is to
differentiate between when somebody is providing me testimony and then when we
are in deliberative discussions because I get passionate on an issue, I hear somebody
say something, I want to disagree, but without disagreeing I am asking questions
like, "Well what about this or that..." and then it starts going back and forth. I know
some of the testifiers enjoy that because they are now engaged in something more
than what they came to give us as far as for us to have and to use in our deliberations.
I have to catch myself to on that. This rule applies to everybody. As far as being
better able to take testimony and do our job. I can support this today; I do not see any
issues.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not true what Councilmember Kuali`i
said that clarifying questions are going to be allowed. In fact, we are taking that
language out.
Councilmember Kuali`i: From the public hearing, not from the...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on, Councilmember Kuali`i,
Councilmember Yukimura has the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are taking it out to make it consistent with
what is under Rule No. 11 about testimony. That is what we are going to prohibit;
clarifying questions. If efficiency is our top goal then let us have a dictatorship, which
is the most efficient. Democracy is not efficient because it includes everybody to be
part of the decision-making and listening is not just hearing; it is understanding. In
order to understand you need to ask questions. The badgering and abuse, that should
be controlled by the Chair in order that we have an orderly meeting. If the Chair
COUNCIL MEETING 41 OCTOBER 21, 2015
abuses his power to stop abuse then there are recourse for that too, you can repeal
decision of the Chair. There are a lot of checks and balances in the existing system
that we are talking about, but to just cut off questions and interaction, that is the
very basis of a democracy; robust discussion and understanding to solve a problem.
We are all part of the problem-solving process. Yes, we need to hear from people and
people who come to testify need to be accountable for their testimony. They need to
be able to justify it to show what sources they are if they cite a fact because we are
all here to find the truth in order to solve problems. That makes democracy sometimes
messy, but we have rules to try to keep it orderly. To cut off debate is to cut off the
heart of a democracy; to cut of discussion and ways to get understand, therefore, at
minimum let us please allow the public to weigh in on this and let us go to public
hearing. Let us also have Councilmember Chock be able to weigh in on this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? First, the purpose is not
efficiency. I do not know how many times I have to say that. I ask that the
Councilmembers listen to what I say too. It is not about efficiency. It is about
allowing people the opportunity to come and testify without the threat of being
badgered. Yes, it is the Chair's job to control that and if any of you follow these
meetings, no one can dispute the fact that I have tried. What is that involve? It
involves using this hammer way too many times, calling recesses, or Councilmember
Yukimura and myself getting into little verbal altercations which is being seen by the
entire island. It has involved appealing the rulings of the Chair numerous times
because we all perceive these clarifying questions as being different, but the fact of
the matter is the people elect us, the seven (7) members of Council, to make decisions.
It is being portrayed that we are taking away the peoples' right. What right are we
taking away? You have the opportunity to come, testify, and say what you want to
say. The Council's job is to deliberate. The Council's job is to take the information
received from everywhere and if there is a statement made by the public that I do not
understand, this gives me the right to say, "Can you rephrase or restate what you
said about x." Nobody is getting anything taken away. What this takes away is the
opportunity for Councilmembers and let me tell you that we are all guilty of this.
Using this question opportunity to add to our discussion, that is what it takes away.
It takes away the opportunity for us to try and convince the public that I am right
and you are wrong. That is what this takes away. There is no place for that in here.
This should be a safe place for the public to walk in, say what they want to say, and
leave. That is what it should be. Not come up here and worry about what
Councilmember so-and-so going to ask and then get into this... "So, are you saying
that," and totally try to change that persons testimony. That has happened. I can
tell you and maybe some of us do not want to admit it, but we have seen the E-mails
and it is not pleasant when the public asks what is going on. I get that a lot because
I am the Chair. My job here, yes, is to promote efficiencies of course, and that is what
I am trying to do. That is part of the motivation, but the reason it is on the agenda
today is because of the number of complaints or concerns that the public has brought
to me about this meeting getting out of control. If the State was to say, "Take down
the fifty miles per hour (50 MPH) speed limit signs on the golf course stretch, but let
us just ask the people," people would speed. That is why for me as I as I have been
debating this and for months I have told Councilmembers, "If you are not happy with
a rule, change the rule," or at least follow that process to change the rule, which is
what I am trying to do. It is going to pass or fail; I do not know where it is going to
go. The bottom line is rather than challenge and fight on the floor, change the rule if
you are not happy and that is what I am doing. I am trying to use the process that is
available to me by a resolution to change the rules, and I state my reasons, it is not
anything personal, but I am trying to make it more efficient. It is frustrating to
always have to...and look at Councilmember Yukimura laughing...is that
COUNCIL MEETING 42 OCTOBER 21, 2015
professional? I am serious. I do not understand why...the reason is
here...Councilmember Yukimura is a big part of it. Matt, you have experienced it. I
had to stop the dialogue between the two (2) of you and many others. It is what it is.
This is my solution to a problem. People come here to testify, we are not taking any
right away from the testifier, and again, deliberation/discussion is amongst the seven
(7) of us; we are the Council. It is not fair that this Council is going to engage one (1)
person, but there are many people that live in this community that are important and
their positions are important and they cannot be here. Some choose not to be here
and I want them to come and be here. Again, nothing takes away the opportunity for
a Councilmember to ask the testifier to restate their testimony. Certain functions of
this body, like the management of the body, the Council, and the rule, that is the
Council's decision. If you want a public hearing, I just think that we have had enough
chances, we have brought this up, we have experienced the problems, let me just say
that, and I am over it. This is my opportunity to try to fix it. If it is wrong, it is wrong,
but I think you will see that the public will appreciate being able to come up and not
being badgered. That is the bottom line because there are too much...Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, you do not opposed a public hearing.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am ready to vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: But the public is affected by this rule.
Council Chair Rapozo: The public is not affected by this rule.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, they are.
Council Chair Rapozo: How?
Councilmember Yukimura: You are saying that...you are changing this
rule in order for the public to feel free to testify. They are being affected by this rule.
There are also people who are saying, "We need a discussion," and interaction is
beneficial to the decision-making of this body. This quality of the decisions we make
affect the public. The public rule are the most important thing. The rules committee
in congress and in the legislature are the most important body because they govern
how debate and discussion goes, which governs how the decision is made.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, what are we
taking away from the public?
Councilmember Yukimura: All we are asking is that...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, what are we taking away from the public?
Councilmember Yukimura: We are taking away the quality of public
decision-making and debate.
Council Chair Rapozo: How? Please tell me how?
Councilmember Yukimura: We are not allowing the Council that makes
the decisions to get good understanding of the issues and of what people are trying to
tell us.
COUNCIL MEETING 43 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: I have never had a problem and I can always
contact the testifier afterwards. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would like to repeat my request for public
hearing and for the record, every member of the public that testified here today,
known of them supported this Resolution. They all apparently feel that this
Resolution is important to them because they do not support it. It is a very major
step and I disagree with you, Chair, and with my colleague Councilmember Kuali`i
that this does not stop us from asking questions. You mentioned that it will allow us
to ask follow-up questions or to repeat...and it does not. It says, "The Chair may
allow," and it does not allow us to do it. Councilmember Kuali`i says that it does not
prevent us from asking questions, but it does. It says, "Councilmembers shall not ask
speakers about the substance of their testimony." What other questions are relevant
except about the substance of their testimony? I agree badgering, but the Chair has
control over that, if we want to amend this to put in the word "badgering," let us do
that, but to say that legislators cannot ask questions of substance limits our
participation, the publics participation, and democracy. At the minimum I would
implore upon you to move forward to a public hearing, again, no member of the public
that is here today that testified has supported this. They have all expressed
reservation or opposition. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think you are validating my point that the
people are not coming for fear of the badgering, that is what I am trying to say. Our
actions on this Council and again, it is more than one or two of us, all of us are guilty
of it. We have made people feel uncomfortable and that is not what we do. As I have
tried as Chair and you have witnessed it if you have been here, yes, I have tried on
numerous occasions —it is difficult. I have asked my colleagues in the other counties
and I guess you can pass the rules out to everybody from Maui. We basically took the
language from Maui's rule and it works really well for all the other counties. I do not
know what to say. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It is clear to me that we have at least a couple
Councilmembers that do support interactive discussion with the public. I just think
that during testimony is not that time and that we can get through more testimony,
hear from more people, have a process that is more welcoming and inviting to more
people to participate if we let testimony be testimony and that we not let it be
interactive discussion. That is just the basic difference there. There is no stifling of
the testimony. People have three (3) minutes; they have an additional three (3)
minutes. There was even comments made about testifiers who come here should be
accountable for what they say and should justify for what they say, well in truth, that
is not even necessarily true. While ideally...and my light...something is wrong there.
I just started.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on. What was that, Staff? You spoke
twice and that was your second time and you had one more minute left.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I see. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: You say that people are not here because they
are afraid to come, but I would argue that people are not here because they did not
even know that this was on the agenda and they do not understand the implications
of it. Therefore, my question is, what is wrong with having more testimony and
COUNCIL MEETING 44 OCTOBER 21, 2015
people who do not want to come and testify can send written testimony. I would like
to see all the written testimony that you say people are saying we need this rule to
squelch and debate. I want to see that testimony. I have seen two (2). Let us see what
the people...what is wrong with having more testimony and giving people time to
know that this rule change is being proposed and give input on it?
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? The motion is to refer this to a
public hearing for November 18.
The motion to refer Resolution No. 2015-62, that is be ordered to print, that
a public hearing thereon be scheduled for November 18, 2015, and that it
thereafter be referred to the December 2, 2015 Council Meeting was then put,
and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion fails. We are back to the main motion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I want to finish my point earlier that testifiers
do not need to, by our rules, be accountable or justify what they said and we do not
have the right to ask them to. They just have to follow the basic rules that they have
to restrict themselves to the issues and avoid personalities and that they should
testify only on the subject matter under consideration and shall refrain from direct
questioning of the Councilmembers and staff personnel and shall direct any remarks
or questions to the Chair. That is the very thing about badgering, if we ask a testifier
to justify what they are saying, clarification so that we can...because it is our job to
confirm if we believe or we think that they said something false and we cannot
confirm facts. That is our job and not during the time of testimony. In order to
maximize testimony, we have to hear out everyone when they come to share what the
share with the three (3) minutes and then the additional three (3) minutes after
discussion of the Chair. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I would just like to provide an example I recall
of a testimony that came in and a question of which I would call badgering, or putting
the speaker in an uncomfortable position. I remember the speaker saying, I think we
should extend the hours of our transfer station to 5:00 p.m. and a question came up,
"Would you be okay if we increased property taxes to pay for that service?" That kind
of question there is not appropriate. It is not a fact that opening up to 5:00 p.m. would
require additional funds. Maybe it could be done by extending the contract to be a
four (4) day, ten (10) work week, and that is what we had before which accomplished
the task. That kind of questioning is not appropriate. Not for the speaker, the speaker
does not know about our budget. The speaker does not know about the other
alternatives to solving that problem. That is the type of questioning that is currently
allowed and I think we need to do away with that. I think that type of questioning is
just a mere, a small part of all the other types of questions that are used...that can
be done in our discussion period. It is our opinion that yes, maybe we need to increase
taxes to accomplish our goal. That may be a personal opinion and that is when you
should state it — during your time. It should not be done during questioning of a
speakers time and we should allow speakers to demand things of the County that
they see is wrong. They should not be badgered as to how we solve that problem or
what is the idea to solving the problem. If they wanted to say how we would solve
COUNCIL MEETING 45 OCTOBER 21, 2015
the problem, they would say it in their six (6) minutes of presentation. I think we
have gone too far with our line of questioning, myself included. This rule will apply
not only to Councilmember Yukimura, it would apply to me; I need to listen and figure
out a new strategy during my discussion to counter some of the opinions that I feel
are not in line with my opinion and how I would vote. It is a fair ground. It is not an
attack on any particular Councilmembers. What it actually does is it opens the door
for more public comment to come and feel comfortable to say their piece. I hope that
this passage of this Resolution will increase the amount of new people that will come
up and testify. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is clear that inappropriate
questioning can and should be controlled by the Chair, and Mr. Patterson suggested
a good way to control it. People who come and testify can say, "They would simply
like to give their testimony and not answer any questions." There are two (2) ways
that have been identified that can control inappropriate questioning and we all agree
that there is inappropriate questioning and that there needs to be a mechanism to
control that. But to cut off any questions by Councilmember to people who testify is
anti-democratic because it does not allow for good understanding of the issue and of
the wealth of information and perspective that can be brought from the testifiers. If
the other islands allow does not mean that we should allow it too if it does not give
for good decision-making. If just because they do it, we should do it, well then, we
should have raised to motor vehicle weight tax because they all have higher taxes
than we do, but that is not a good enough reason to change a rule and to squelch and
suppress discussion and information.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Chair it pains me to be here today and to have
the majority of this Council choose not to let the public weigh in on this very
important issue. What is there to be afraid of by putting this off and letting the public
speak and letting Councilmember Chock speak is beyond me. Again, I think it is
discourteous both to Councilmember Chock as well as to the public to let this happen.
Furthermore several statements have been made here at the table and I repeated
them earlier that are just are not true. As I said earlier, this Resolution which the
four (4) of you are poised to vote in support of it, it is very clear about that, prohibits
Councilmembers from asking questions to the public. That is what it does. Even
though several of you have said that it does not do that, it is in writing and it does
that. It has been said here that, "other Counties do this; we are just following Maui."
That is not true. I am looking at Maui's rules at this moment and Maui's rules do not
prohibit Councilmembers from asking questions of substance. It is absolutely not
true that Maui is doing what we are doing. Maui recommends some of what is
proposed here, but Maui does not prohibit Councilmembers from asking questions of
substance or asking follow-up questions as this Resolution does. To sit here and to
imply that all we are doing is what Maui is doing or what other people are doing is
simply not true. I would be happy to circulate a copy of those rules, if you do not
already have them. The four (4) of you probably already have them, but I only got
them just this moment. Again, what has been said on this floor is not true. The
Resolution that is being proposed prohibits Councilmembers from asking questions
of substance, that is true, I will read the language. It states, this is from the Kaua`i
proposal that we are voting on today, "Councilmembers shall not ask speakers about
the substance of their testimony." That is what it says. That prohibits us from asking
questions. Maui does not include that at all. I will hold my second turn.
COUNCIL MEETING 46 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: Because I have been accused of lying,
therefore, let me just read Maui's rule. "Testifiers shall direct their remarks to the
Presiding Officer and not to any individual Councilmember or person in the audience.
The Presiding Officer may allow members to ask testifiers to repeat or rephrase
statements made during their testimony, but members shall not ask questions that
gives the testifier a greater opportunity to testify than others. Members shall not
comment on testimony or testifiers during the testimony period." That is Maui's rule.
I just got called a liar, I just read the Maui rule, therefore I am not sure where...
Councilmember Hooser: Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, please.
Councilmember Hooser: You are saying that I called you a liar.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, you did.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. What you said was the rule that is
proposed is based on Maui and Maui follows the rules. Our rules say,
"Councilmembers shall not ask speakers about the substance of their testimony," that
is what you are proposing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Hooser: Your amendment says, "Councilmembers
shall not ask speakers about the substance of their testimony," and Maui does not
include that, period. I am not characterizing it as a lie; I am saying that it is not true
that we are following Maui's. Ours is much more stronger than Maui's, ours prohibits
Councilmembers from asking questions, and Maui's does not.
Council Chair Rapozo: Help me understand in Rule No. 3 of Maui's
rules; where does it allow Councilmembers to ask questions?
Councilmember Hooser: Our rules...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, in the Maui rule.
Councilmember Hooser: Ours specifically says, "Councilmembers."
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but you said that Maui's allow
questions. Where does it say that?
Councilmember Hooser: No, I said, "Our specifically and Maui's does
not specifically say that."
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I have the Maui rule and I do not
appreciate being said that it is not true. It is true. Not only did I not read it, but I
spoke to the members of the Council and they do not allow it. That is plain and simple.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not true that Maui's rule prohibit
members from asking questions of substance. It just says, "Shall not ask questions
that give testifiers a greater opportunity to testify than others," but if it is a question
COUNCIL MEETING 47 OCTOBER 21, 2015
that enables the Council to better understand the point or position of the speaker, I
do not see that as being prohibited in Maui's rules. It is not giving them more time
to testify. It is giving them time to understand what was testified about. As you can
see words have a great difference and when you do not go to public hearing, you are
not allowing people to really understand what Maui is saying, to research, and to
validate what is being alleged here today. That is the need to give more time for a
public hearing and for an understanding because as a trained lawyer, I can say that
it does not say that Councilmembers may not ask clarifying questions that able the
Council to better understand the point of position of the speaker. Councilmember
Hooser is right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I spoke to the Maui Council and I can tell you
how they operate beyond the...
Councilmember Yukimura: Have you spoken to the County Attorney?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, this is an internal policy rule.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, this is an interpretation of law, a rule, a
resolution is law.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to add that to make statements
like squelch and suppress discussion and information, yes, it may be true, but all we
are doing is distinguishing between testimony, public hearing — in public hearing,
there is the word "hearing." We are listening to the public. When some
Councilmembers use words like "discussion and interaction," they are talking about
deliberative interactive discussion which in some of their questions they brought in
additional discussion. Testifiers should come with their discussion if there is
questions of, "What did you mean of your statement of," or "Where can I go to confirm
your testimony." That specifically with what is being shared. The disagreement here
is not on...this is not squelching or suppressing discussion and that is public
testimony, it is not fair and yes, it is how you perceive it, but we these rules are
primarily for us to hear for more of the public and to encourage more discussion and
participation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We can hear from the public without limiting
questioning for clarifying purposes and understanding by the two (2) mechanisms
that were suggested. Either by the control of the Chair or the person being able to
say that they do not want to be questioned and can allow the robust questioning and
back and forth to happen for those who are willing to and help contribute to the
decision-making. We do not need this rule. We need another rule to push this
rule...this rule does squelch understanding and good listening and hearing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? I am going to close out this
discussion and take a vote. I am going to give everyone an opportunity right now to
speak. Okay. Let me just say this is not a reality show. This County Council is not
a reality show. This is not fun and games or entertainment. It is unfortunate that
many have said that that is what this is and has become. They look to me as the
Chair to bring order and decorum to this Council and I have tried. We have proposed
COUNCIL MEETING 48 OCTOBER 21, 2015
some rules changes when we reorganized and we have some rules changes, and I
think that created some efficiencies. We definitely cut a lot of staff time and saved a
lot of money because the length of our meetings have been reduced. Through all of
that the public's participation has never been squelched or suppressed, never. This
rule change does not suppress or squelch the public's participation. Some community
members feel that they need to be part of the deliberation and the discussion. That is
our job. This Councils job is to take the public testimony whether it is oral, written,
whether somebody talks to us in Costco or Foodland, in addition to all of our
constituents that continuously call us, write, or E-mail us. Our job is to take all of
that information and have a debate, dialogue, and the discussion here amongst the
seven (7) of us. That is not being squelched or squandered. The public testimony is
not being squelched or squandered. What we are going to stop is the person that
comes up that happens to be on myside of the issue, I will get twenty (20) minutes to
speak because I can lead my supporter along the way and the person who is against
me, I am not going to ask you nothing. What this does is try to bring back that order
and decorum that we need back on this Council and I cannot do it constantly hitting
the gavel or taking a recess — so juvenile. If everyone followed the rules, and I am
talking to everybody including myself, we would not be here today. But we do not
because we abuse. The two (2) E-mails that Councilmember Yukimura talked about,
everybody saw those two (2) E-mails, but the fact that when you are in the public and
people come up and say, "Mel, we watch that every night. You just hammer it." I
have to hammer because when I say, "You are off subject," I get back, "No, I am not."
Because they cannot accept that I feel it is going off the subject. The Chair can be
changed just as quick as this Resolution will pass, the Chair can be changed. Four
(4) votes, but I think some do not respect this position as the Chair, whether it is Mel
Rapozo or someone else, and "hey, stick to the agenda," "I am on the agenda. I appeal
the ruling of the Chair." That is not order and decorum. It is embarrassing.
Unfortunately, as I am trying to put this thing together so we can have an efficient
meeting, while our staff does not have to be writing verbatim notes because of
arguments or disagreements between Councilmembers, just make it a rule change.
Let us just say that we appreciate the public for coming to testify. Now, if you said
something that I am not clear, I will ask you to restate or rephrase. What am I taking
away from you? Nothing. You still get six (6) minutes. Matt, if you bring up
something and I am just totally unclear about, I will just say, "Mr. Bernabe, you said
this, but can you rephrase this because I do not think I understood it." It is not taking
away a thing from...those anti-democratic, painting a picture like I am a dictator. I
have given many chances for Councilmembers to comply, but they just cannot seem
to get it done. Unfortunately, you take that next step. Trust me the public has
spoken. I do not need a public hearing. The reason it is here is because I have heard
from enough people who are concerned. We will vote and see where it goes.
Councilmember Yukimura, again, I give everybody a chance to speak and I reserve
the right to speak last. I gave everybody a chance, she waived her opportunity to
speak and now, again, and this is why we have to do rules because we cannot on our
own have the curtesy to appreciate and respect each other.
Councilmember Yukimura: I thought you just said you were going to give
everyone and you just started...
Council Chair Rapozo: What did I say?
Councilmember Kuali`i: You will speak last.
COUNCIL MEETING 49 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: I said that this is your last chance because I
am going to speak last and if you want to speak, speak now because I am...and nobody
went, therefore, with that, roll call.
The motion adoption of Resolution No. 2015-62 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL—4,
AGAINST ADOPTION: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is a first reading bill and if we are going
to have discussion and questions of the Planning Department, then I am going to take
the break.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 11:34 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:45 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
BILL FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2601) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SUBSECTION 8-15.1(d), KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON OTHER THAN
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS: Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer Proposed
Draft Bill (No. 2601) to the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilmember
Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: This is a similar item as we had did last year,
and we gave, I believe, a ten (10) year extension. This is to extend indefinitely to the
three hundred fifty (350) owners that were affected. One of the things that I wanted
to make sure that this Bill covers, and hopefully, we can get the County Attorney and
Planning Commission to help with the language. I think there were about two
hundred forty (240) that made the deadline, therefore, there is about one hundred
ten (110) owners that missed recertification and I wanted to make sure that the Bill
being considered to the Planning Commission address the hundred ten (110) that
missed it. I know there is a process that we have, but I just wanted to make sure that
if we could have the language and clear understanding from the Planning
Commission as they deliberate that, that the intention, at least on my part as
individual Councilmember, that we cover the whole three hundred fifty (350),
whether they made the recertification date or not. My purpose for this Bill is to
encourage more housing, affordable housing for our local families and owners of these
properties. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like the Deputy Planning Director
forward, please.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 OCTOBER 21, 2015
KAAINA HULL, Deputy Planning Director: Good morning Chair and
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Yukimura: I was not aware of this additional ones that
did not make the deadline. Have you seen the Bill?
Mr. Hull: I just saw it today.
Councilmember Yukimura: What?
Mr. Hull: This is the first time reading it today, correct.
We did not have the time to digest it.
Councilmember Yukimura: I thought Council Vice Chair would have
conferred with the Planning Department before writing it, but I guess not.
Mr. Hull: Councilmember Kagawa may have talked
with the Director, but as far as myself, I have not seen this in particular.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I want to understand the implications
of that additional hundred (100) or something and also would like to know the
Planning Department's position on this Bill.
Mr. Hull: Concerning the hundred (100) that
Councilmember Kagawa was referring to, when the deadline was pushed back for the
building permits, there was also a requirement that those on agricultural and open
lands would recertify their ADU (additional dwelling unit) clearance forms. There
are approximately three hundred fifty (350) that were in that group that needed to
recertify essentially their ADU clearance forms. The Department did massive
islandwide campaign to reach out to those three hundred fifty (350), everything from
newspaper ads to radio ads to sending letters to each individual property owner and
then calling each individual property owner. That abled the mass majority to come
in, but roughly two hundred to two hundred and twenty (200-220) were recertified
and then were able to established within the sunset date of the building permit that
is currently 2024, that they could build that ADU up until then. Of that three
hundred and fifty (320) there were a hundred some odd that did not actually come in
to recertify and they essentially under the old ordinance, they no longer qualify to
build that ADU.
Councilmember Yukimura: There appears to be some legal questions
about the status about the hundred.
Mr. Hull: Some of them are going through an appeal the
action to the Planning Commission, however, no action has been taken on any of those
appeals. I believe there are roughly six in the contested case hearing lineup, but no
action has been taken yet.
Councilmember Yukimura: If this Bill were to go through there would be
three hundred plus ADUs that are not yet built?
Mr. Hull: Roughly three hundred and twenty (320) and
then under the timeline extension for building permits under the existing ordinance,
when it was passed it required those three hundred and twenty (320) to come in and
recertify their ADU clearance forms. They essentially had to walk their ADU
COUNCIL MEETING 51 OCTOBER 21, 2015
clearance to all the various agencies to get their approval for the form. These folks
are not necessarily coming in with building permits at the same time, they are just
keeping and holding on to that entitlement. Those three hundred and twenty (320)
had to come in and recertify in order to maintain that entitlement. Approximately
two hundred and twenty (220) did come in by the sunset date of February 15, 2015.
They are set in line, they have that entitlement, and they have until 2024 to build
that ADU. The other hundred (100) did not come in to recertify and essentially loss
that entitlement. That is with the caveat that a handful had appealed the decision
and are in the contested case hearing process right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, the implication of this Bill is to extend
or to remove the sunset date of...what is the sunset date presently?
Mr. Hull: There are two (2) sunset dates; one being the
February 15, 2015 for recertification, and then the other sunset date is for the
building permit, which is December 15, 2024. As I read the draft ordinance right
now, it is to remove the 2024 building permit date.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Which would make it easier to resell?
Mr. Hull: I cannot comment on that. This just extends
the time when they can build.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, it is not extending it; it is just removing
it, right?
Mr. Hull: Removing it, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Therefore, it turns it into a totally
market-value/no limitation.
Mr. Hull: It would be no limitation on the building date.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. This is all on agriculture land.
Mr. Hull: These are for agriculture and open zoned
lands.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Hull: Because residential still enjoys ADU
entitlements.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the Planning Department's position
on this Bill?
Mr. Hull: It would be premature for me to comment at
this point because we have not brought it to the public hearing or we have not taken
it to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: But when you take it to the Planning
Commission, you make a recommendation from the Planning Department.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Hull: We can, but on zoning amendments, we are
not required by law to...at the initiation of the public hearing to provide a
recommendation. For projects and Class IV zoning permits, we are required to give a
recommendation and we do have one before the Planning Commission and public
hearing, but for zoning amendments, it is not required by law. Sometimes we do and
sometimes we do not. I can say at this point, we do not have a particular position for
this draft ordinance.
Councilmember Yukimura: The reason for this sunset date and for the
elimination of ADUs on agriculture lands was to preserve the integrity of agriculture
land.
Mr. Hull: Under the purpose of the intent, then yes, I
would say that is correct to characterize this, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we as Council would like to have the
Planning Department's analysis and recommendation of the land use implications of
removing the sunset date.
Mr. Hull: Yes, that would be a given once we do our
review and ultimate recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yesterday at the general plan update
Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting, there was discussion about transfer
development rights. My question to the Planning Department is whether this
particular situation exist an opportunity to use transfer development rights to
encourage the movement of these ADUs into an urban area.
Mr. Hull: That is a possible avenue that can be done.
TVRs (transient vacation rentals) are not novel. They are done in many different
municipalities. Some of the studies have shown, for Kaua`i at least, in the last study
we did this general plan update is that TVR might not be particularly appropriate
avenue on Kaua`i just because you need to have a place that is prime for—people are
kind of fighting for development in there and there is not more development rights in
there, and you intend to give it to them. At least the assessment was that Kaua`i does
not have a place that is just burgeoning that realtors or developers are really trying
hard to get in to and develop that has no development or no more entitlement rights
that would make it lucrative enough for a TVR program.
Councilmember Yukimura: The recent Lihu`e Community Plan and the
South Kaua`i Plan have designated these planning areas and urban growth edges as
areas for desired density.
Mr. Hull: Definitely.
Councilmember Yukimura: Now that you have these designated areas
and could designate receiving zones, and you are clear where the sending zones are
which are these units out on agriculture land that we have been trying to limit.
Because it is completely voluntary once you set up the system and you let the market
go, I guess I am asking that the Planning Department might look at this as a way to
find a win-win mitigation effort.
Mr. Hull: We are still analyzing TVRs in a matter of
speaking, but just for clarification for South Kaua`i and even Lihu`e that had
COUNCIL MEETING 53 OCTOBER 21, 2015
community plans adopted, they actually have already given those areas because we
desire more growth in those areas. We have given them higher entitlements. Now in
parts of Koloa, in particular, and in parts of Lihu`e, you almost have like no density.
You can build basically as many dwelling units as you possibly can fit within the
setback areas. What we are seeing, at least in Lihu`e, is kind of problematic is we
given the entitlement, the zoning, and the construction still is not happening. Those
entitlements are there. For a TVR to work, they have to be almost no entitlements
left because a developer say in South Kaua`i in order to get a TVR from an agriculture
land parcel needs to pay that agriculture land parcel owner a certain amount of
money given the market rate for the transfer of that development right over into say
South Kaua`i. With the South Kaua`i plan that is not necessary because the South
Kaua`i plan essentially just automatically gave certain property owners a higher
entitlements.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is not my understanding. There was no
change in zoning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, we are on the
ADU bill, you are...
Councilmember Yukimura: I know. This is related to the ADU bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know how it is related, but...
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, because maybe you do not understand
TVRs, but...
Council Chair Rapozo: You see...you know the Chair has the
prerogative, you folks just said that, and I bring it up, and there you go — arguing.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think...
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just saying keep it to the Bill. There is a
Bill to remove the sunset date of the ADU law.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what the Bill is; therefore, let us focus
on that discussion. It is first reading. It has not even gone through the Planning
Commission yet.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is right. The reason why I am having
this dialogue with the Planning Director, who is not a member of the public and is
not intimated by questions...
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, he has already
said he has not reviewed the Bill, he does not have depth knowledge of this Bill, he is
not prepared to answered those questions. He already said that.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know.
Council Chair Rapozo: And you are over here...
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not asking him a question...
COUNCIL MEETING 54 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Council Chair Rapozo: On the Bill...
Councilmember Yukimura: ...that I previously asked.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are not asking him a question about the
Bill. You have gone outside the scope of the Bill.
Councilmember Yukimura: This is related to the units that are covered by
the Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: And he has already said he not prepared to...
Mr. Hull: I can say this, Councilmember, that the
Department will look at that analysis in our review.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, that is all I wanted to hear. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I apologize I did not warn your Department,
but just last year we approved a ten (10) year extension.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Prior to that, ten (10) years before that, there
was another...and both got approvals from the Planning Commission, right?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: And do you recall what was the reasons why
they gave those approvals? Did they feel that it would create some affordable
housing? What was the reasoning for giving that exception, considering that it is an
agriculture lot?
Mr. Hull: It was essentially was established that it was
not opening the box up to all ADUs back open to the agriculture lands. It was only
those properties that already gotten the ADU clearance forms. It was a relatively
smaller amount of properties. It was not all of agricultural lands and then it was to
essentially address the housing.
Councilmember Kagawa: On page 3, number 7, and if you are not sure
you can just defer, but there is a process that says, "If the applicant fails to obtain a
recertification by February 15, 2015, the entitlement shall be deemed terminated and
no building permits shall be issued. The Planning Department shall notify the
applicant in writing that the entitlement to the ADU has been terminated, but the
applicant may appeal the termination to the Planning Commission in accordance
with the rules of practice and procedure of the Planning Commission." I am
wondering is there a sunset date on how long they have to appeal the termination.
Mr. Hull: There is no sunset on the appeal.
Councilmember Kagawa: Regardless of whether this Bill addresses
those that failed to meet the February 2015 deadline, there is a process that they can
appeal it, correct?
COUNCIL MEETING 55 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: And they can basically turn around the
decision to terminate their ADU, right?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Good afternoon. There are a lot of numbers
being thrown around, so just to be clear, the passage or not of this measure does not
impact agricultural land as a whole, it is confined to this one particular group,
correct?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Of this group, there are two (2) subgroups; one
is a group that has followed the rules and resubmitted their proper paperwork and
now they are allowed to build an ADU on their land, but they have ten (10) years or
nine (9) years from now to do that. How many homes are that?
Mr. Hull: Approximately two hundred (200) to two
hundred twenty (220).
Councilmember Hooser: So, they already have ten (10)years to do that.
Would this give them unlimited time to do that?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Is there any requirements that they build
affordable housing or build anything at all?Are there requirements?
Mr. Hull: No.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Now, the remaining group is another
hundred (100) or so.
Mr. Hull: The remaining is about a hundred (100) that
did not certify, correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Therefore, those that did not certify, this Bill
does not impact at all. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Hull: The way I read it, no, it does not change their
situation. They are still not certified and should they want to reestablish that
entitlement, they have to appeal our decision to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hooser: At this point in time the hundred (100) people
are not allowed to build an additional dwelling unit on their property?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: And this Bill, it is your understanding, that it
does not impact that?
Mr. Hull: Yes. Correct, it does not impact.
COUNCIL MEETING 56 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Hooser: I had a question for the introducer, shall I ask
that now?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Hooser: Vice Chair, they already have ten (10) years
to build something and if the objective is to motivate people to build housing, why is
the proposal to make it unlimited which therefore diminish their urgency to build a
house.
Councilmember Kagawa: I do not see it as diminishing the urgency, I
just see it as an opportunity for our families, a lot of them do not have the money to
buy other areas, basically it would be like an `ohana unit. I think to give them the
flexibility to plan for the future beyond ten (10) years, maybe their kid is seventeen
(17), they can say, "By the time you are twenty-seven (27), we will have to build a
house or else we lose that opportunity." This gives them the time to say, if it is beyond
ten (10) years, you can still live right next to us and work on our farm part-time. I
see it as a positive. It already gain approval back then and I do not think there is the
necessity to keep...for the ones who have not yet built, to keep coming to us every ten
(10) years. It is basically ADUs are allowed for residential areas and for these certain
three hundred and fifty (350) agricultural lots that are already planning and the
Department of Public Works vetted, they already gave them their approvals. I do not
think the timeline...I hope it does not, as you said, make them delay building those
houses. I did not look at it from that prospective, but perhaps that is something we
should consider. Hopefully, the Planning Commission will vet those to the owners
and to themselves whether that is a negative of this Bill and I hope that it is not.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other question of the Planning
Department? If not, thank you very much. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify?
Mr. Mickens: I support this Bill a hundred percent (100%).
I applaud Councilmember Kagawa for proposing this Bill. I think as you are pointing
out it gives people the opportunity; we need low-income housing. It is open so people
have unlimited time to be able to do this. You already have a dwelling on the property,
therefore you have an area for the ADU to be put on it. You are not taking away any
new agriculture land. I applaud Councilmember Kagawa.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: I do not want to misquote numbers, but I
recall a large number of that three hundred fifty (350) owners being original owners.
That tells me something. It is these families that have been raising generations of
families on those properties and as this market on Kaua`i just goes beyond a lot of our
middle-class and lower wage earners capability to purchase a house, I think this is a
fine opportunity for this Council and the Planning Commission to make a statement
that we want to help our local families grow up and have a future. I see it as a positive
area. I think a lot can be said about—are we maximizing agriculture use on
agricultural properties. I think a lot of these houses are not fully operational. A lot of
them like Patty Lyons, she used to work for the County while part-time working on
the piggery and now trying to expand the piggery to cover her family for generations
to come. She finds that it is very difficult to make a go and this allows people like her
to have their families live right next to them and help with the farm. I see this as a
nice opportunity to take care of our people, farmers, our part-time farmers, not full-
COUNCIL MEETING 57 OCTOBER 21, 2015
time farmers, and that is the way to do it. They have to start small as part-time and
if they find success, they can look at expanding and purchasing more just strictly
agriculture type land that they can actually profit from. Everybody knows that
agriculture is a very tough market to make a go on. We definitely all, here on this
Council, unanimously support trying to get our small farmers to expand because we
have good soil and water, but far and few profitable farms on Kaua`i.
Councilmember Hooser: I will be supporting this with some
reservations. I think ten (10) years that they have now is plenty of time, personally,
therefore we will see how it develops over time. Like everybody here, I support the
goal of affordable housing and supporting farmers, but there is nothing within this
measure make this so only the people who do that will benefit from it. There is no
provision saying you have to be a real farmer and you have to do affordable, there is
nothing that prevents anyone from selling it, CPRing it the next day, and making a
bunch of money off it. Borrowing any requirements like that is kind of like a windfall.
The original purpose was to develop housing that turns into a property entitlement
and I understand people that have got it do not want to let go of it. If we want to
honor the original intent which is to support housing development, it is important to
keep some urgency on it and the ten (10) years maintains some urgency so there will
be some housing. To take that off, it could be just another land bank which we see
sitting around here all the time, but this is first reading and I am open to further
discussions.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I see no reason to not support this today. In
fact, procedurally this is not even first reading. The motion is to go to the Planning
Commission so we can hear from them and eventually when it does come back to us,
it will be at first reading, go to Committee, therefore there are plenty opportunity to
learn further about the Bill. I appreciate what I already learned today by some of the
discussion. I can support this moving forward so that we can delve into it further.
Councilmember Yukimura: I had some similar concerns to
Councilmember Hooser, but this is only the beginning so I do not have any problem
with voting to send it to the Planning Commission.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will be sending over something to the
Planning Commission to explore putting something in there that would require
reference to the affordable housing, even if it is not low-income or very low-income,
but I think there needs to be some tied back to prohibiting these landowners from
getting that speculative benefit. Now you have this property that you can build and
if there is no limit to what you can build, you create a huge value. I do not have a
problem. I think the ADU right now, if the County wanted to...where else are you
going to get two hundred twenty (220) units build to provide housing for people. But
to leave it open-ended and say, "the rich, you can get richer and the poor, sorry."
I think what Councilmember Kagawa is saying is accurate. A lot of these are long
time families that cannot afford to build right now. That is why we extended it the
last time because they could not get the money together to build so we extended the
extension to give them time to save and do what they needed to do to get these
structures up. To allow an open-ended opportunity for the landowner to sell and
create this additional value, that definitely goes against the original intent and
purpose. I will be exploring that. I am not sure if we will be able to amend that at
some point, but I think we will definitely the Planning Commission has to take a look
at that and have that discussion. With that, Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 58 OCTOBER 21, 2015
Councilmember Yukimura: I am glad that you will be looking into that.
When we extended it to 2024, it was the third time we extended it and so I do not
know if extensions alone are the way to help people build the homes that they want
to build. One would think that our Housing Agency or the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) or somebody needs to give some counseling by pointing people
in the direction of loans, or help people put together a plan to actually build their
homes rather than just extending it and then ten (10) years later they come and say,
"We have not been able to do it," because it is admittedly a challenging task for some
families where the lands have been in their possession for many years, but they
maybe land-rich and income-poor. I just want to suggest that maybe there be other
methods being looked at to try to help these families actually get to build a house.
Councilmember Kagawa: I want to acknowledge that there could be a
percentage of these people that would be speculative, but at the end of the day if there
is eight (8) local families that benefit with that additional housing and there are two
(2) that do not use it as the Council intends it do it, would it be successful, to me, it
is. Eight (8)people benefited and two (2)benefited in a wrong way, but that is success.
We are looking at a problem that will not go away. Affordable housing on Kaua`i
where the market is just shooting up like a rocket is not going away. When you look
at what is the benefit to the farmer that perhaps this Bill will encourage them to sell,
I mean, if they sell where are they going to buy? I do not think that is the case for a
lot of them, by this Bill, will sell. I think maybe a few out of the three hundred fifty
(350), but where are you going to buy, if you sell. Everything else is going up. I think
there are valid concerns and we have to look at all of the concerns, but I think the
Planning Commission will do it and we will do it. It will be a double whamming of
vetting and due diligence performed and we will see how it falls at the end of the day.
I think it is a positive step at this point. I feel it is positive, but I will keep an open
mind as to any other suggestions. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion? If not, roll call.
The motion to refer Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2601) to the Planning Commission
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6*,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of County of Kauai,
Councilmember Hooser was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative for
the motion.)
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §92-7(a), the
Council may, when deemed necessary, hold an Executive Session on any agenda item
without written public notice if the Executive Session was not anticipated in advance.
Any such Executive Session shall be held pursuant to HRS§92-4 and shall be limited
to those items described in HRS §92-5(a). (Confidential reports on file in the County
Attorney's Office and/or the County Clerk's Office. Discussions held in Executive
Session are closed to the public.)
COUNCIL MEETING 59 OCTOBER 21, 2015
ES-814 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes 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-816 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(4),
and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), on behalf of the Council, the Office of the
County Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide the
Council with a briefing, discussion, and consultation regarding the Quarterly Report
on Pending and Denied Claims. This briefing and consultation involves the
consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the
Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-817 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(4),
and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), on behalf of the Council, the Office of
the County Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to consult with
the Council's legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the County's
insurance policy with Everest National Insurance Company for attorneys' fees arising
in connection with the lawsuit Tim Bynum vs. County of Kaua`i, et al., Civil No. 12-
00523 RLP (U.S. District Court), to receive $125,000.00 from Everest Insurance to
reimburse the County for attorney's fees and costs, and related matters. This briefing
and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges,
immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this
agenda item.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-814,
ES-816, and ES-817, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one from the public to provide testimony, the meeting was
called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to convene in Executive Session for ES-814, ES-816, and ES-817
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6*,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Hooser was noted as silent and Councilmember Kagawa was noted as
silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an affirmative for the motion.)
Council Chair Rapozo: That ends the official agenda. We are done for
the day. We are going to meet in Executive Session. We have a public hearing at
1:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING 60 OCTOBER 21, 2015
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ef.7tA/&\
SCOTT K. SATO
Deputy County Clerk
:dmc
Attachment 1
(October 21, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT—RK#1
Resolution No. 2015-61, Relating to a Resolution Expressing the Concern of the
Kauai County Council Over the Inflated Interisland Airfare Rates Charged by
Hawaiian Airlines and Encouraging the Hawai`i State Legislature to Assist in
Offering Relief to Interisland Travelers by Incentivizing Competition
Introduced by: ROSS KAGAWA
1. Amend Resolution No. 2015-61 by adding a 3rd WHEREAS paragraph to read as
follows:
"WHEREAS, interisland travel has also allowed access to medical and
dental needs which may be unavailable to people on the outer islands,
especially senior citizens, as well as family members and friends who visit
those who are receiving medical care."
2. Amend Resolution No. 2015-61 by amending the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
paragraph to read as follows:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be
transmitted to the Honorable President Barack H. Obama, the Honorable
United States Senator Mazie K. Hirono, the Honorable United States Senator
Brian Schatz, the Honorable United States Representative Mark Takai, the
Honorable United States Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Governor David Y.
Ige, State Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, Speaker of the State House of
Representatives Joseph M. 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-Competition for Hawaiian Airlines FA 1 CNT_dmc.docx
Attachment 2
(October 21, 2015)
FLOOR AMENDMENT —RK#1
Resolution No. 2015-61, Relating to a Resolution Expressing the Concern of the
Kaua`i County Council Over the Inflated Interisland Airfare Rates Charged by
Hawaiian Airlines and Encouraging the Hawaii State Legislature to Assist in
Offering Relief to Interisland Travelers by Incentivizing Competition
Introduced by: ROSS KAGAWA
1. Amend Resolution No. 2015-61 by adding a 3rd WHEREAS paragraph to read as
follows:
"WHEREAS, interisland travel has also allowed access to medical and
dental needs which may be unavailable to people on the outer islands,
especially senior citizens, as well as family members and friends who visit
those who are receiving medical care."
2. Amend Resolution No. 2015-61 by amending the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
paragraph to read as follows:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be
transmitted to the Honorable President Barack H. Obama, the Honorable
United States Senator Mazie K. Hirono, the Honorable United States Senator
Brian Schatz, the Honorable United States Representative Mark Takai, the
Honorable United States Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Governor David Y.
Ige, State Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, Speaker of the State House of
Representatives Joseph M. Souki, State Representative Derek S. K.
Kawakami, State Representative Daynette "Dee" Morikawa, State
Representative James Kunane Tokioka, [and] Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho,
Jr., and Mark Dunkerlev, President and CEO of Hawaiian Airlines."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2015\Reso-Competition for Hawaiian Airlines FA 1 CNT_dmc.docx