HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/2016 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 4, 2016
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, May 4, 2016 at 8:33 a.m., after which the following
Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser (present at 8:35 a.m.)
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Chock moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Hooser was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
February 4, 2016 Special Council Meeting, Council-Manager Form of
Government Workshop
March 3, 2016 Special Council Meeting, Council-Manager Form of Government
Workshop
March 17, 2016 Special Council Meeting, Council-Manager Form of
Government Workshop
March 23, 2016 Council Meeting
March 23, 2016 Public Hearing re: Bill No. 2618
April 20, 2016 Public Hearing re: Bill No. 2623 and Bill No. 2624
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Chock moved to approve the Minutes as circulated, seconded
by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 6*:0:1 (*Pursuant to Rule
No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai, Councilmember
Kagawa was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative for the motion) (Councilmember Hooser was excused).
COUNCIL MEETING 2 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item, please.
E. INTERVIEW:
1. BOARD OF ETHICS:
• William J. Fernandez — Term ending 12/31/2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Judge Fernandez.
WILLIAM J. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo and
wonderful Council, for letting me come and participate with you in the business of
Kaua`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you do not mind just stating your name for
the record.
Mr. Fernandez: William J. Fernandez.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: We do have your resume as well as your
application, but if you would like to give us a real brief overview of yourself.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I have been keiki o ha aina, born on
Kauai and lived here until I went to Kamehameha Schools. After that, I went to
Stanford University and stayed on the mainland for a while, but I always longed to
return to the roots on which I grew up.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Fernandez: I am back, and we are back permanently on
Kauai. When I was asked to consider a position like this, I said "whatever I can do
to help our County, I am willing to do." So that is why I am here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Judge. Are there any
questions for Mr. Fernandez? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Judge.
Mr. Fernandez: Good morning, Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not have any questions, but I do have a
request.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 3 MAY 4, 2016
(Councilmember Kuali i was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: First of all, I want to say that I am so grateful
to the Mayor and to the Boards and Commissions Administrator for asking you to
serve because I think someone with a legal background is very valuable on that
Board. My request is that you might help the Board establish some way of precedence
in terms of the decisions that they make.
(Councilmember Kuali i was noted as present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Sometimes one decision in a similar situation
may vary and as you know, the principles of precedence can help to establish some
consistency.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know how that will be done, but I am
confident that as you work with the Board and the attorney assigned to the Board,
that you will probably find some ways to do that because it will help to make the
decisions more consistent and maybe highlight the principles by which the decisions
are made.
Mr. Fernandez Well, you make an interesting point,
Councilmember Yukimura, that I did not realize that we did not have a record of
precedence that were set by the previous Board of Ethics. Certainly, I would be happy
to work on creating a precedent setting line of rulings.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I mean, the cases are all there, but I am
not sure as the Board makes their decisions, they actually look back and think about
which principles govern and how it applies in the new case before them.
Mr. Fernandez Right. Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is very wonderful that you are being
appointed, and I thank you for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Fernandez I think it is wonderful that this wonderful
Board is letting me serve our people in this way. The credit goes to you, if any credit
is to be given.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Are there any other questions for
Mr. Fernandez? If not, thank you very much. Again, your resume is impressive.
Your application was done very well. You have written a couple of books. I have your
first one.
Mr. Fernandez Well, I hope you read it.
COUNCIL MEETING 4 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I read the first one and I have to get the
second one. I just want to put that plug in there. I think you can get them on Amazon,
correct?
Mr. Fernandez Good. I will come back and bring books for all
of you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, that might violate something. I do not
know.
Mr. Fernandez Well, can you not give small gifts?
Council Chair Rapozo: Good luck with your books and I am looking
forward to seeing you serving on the Board of Ethics.
Mr. Fernandez Thank you. Mahalo nui loa kakou.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, there is a request to
take up Resolution No. 2016-40, which if there are no objections, I am inclined to do.
But we do have the Consent Calendar, if we can dispose of the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2016-106 Communication (04/07/2016) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Third 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.
C 2016-107 Communication (04/12/2016) from the Acting County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Establishing A Crosswalk On
Po`ipu Road At Kipuka Street, Koloa District, County Of Kauai, to improve safety for
pedestrian connectivity for the immediate residential community to businesses and
other destinations in the area.
C 2016-108 Communication (04/15/2016) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration, a Resolution To Re-Authorize The Nomination Of Enterprise
Zones For Consideration And Designation By The Governor Of The State Of Hawaii.
C 2016-109 Communication (04/15/2016) from the County Attorney,
transmitting for Council information, the Quarterly Report on Settled Claims against
the County of Kaua`i from January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016.
SCOTT K. SATO, Deputy County Clerk: Council Chair Rapozo, we
also have another request. Someone signed up to testify on C 2016-110.
COUNCIL MEETING 5 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I did get that note, and this was from
Mr. Mickens. Mr. Mickens, we are going to combine the Communication and the
Resolution as one (1) item for testimony. I understand that you were willing to give
some of your time to Mr. Lewis at 1:43 p.m. I just want to let you know whatever
time you use for the Communication will be taken off of that six (6) minutes that you
have for the Resolution. Do you still want to proceed? Okay. Just make sure you
keep his time. Can I have a motion to receive C 2016-106, C 2016-107, C 2016-108,
and C 2016-109?
Councilmember Chock moved to receive C 2016-106, C 2016-107, C 2016-108,
and C 2016-109 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follow:
The motion to receive C 2016-106, C 2016-107, C 2016-108, and C 2016-109 for
the record, was then put and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Can we have C 2016-110?
C 2016-110 Communication (04/28/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Proposing A Charter
Amendment Relating To the Institution Of A Council-Manager Form Of Government.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion to receive?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2016-110 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, I will suspend the
rules. Mr. Mickens.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Good
morning, Councilmembers and BC. For twelve (12) years, a group of us have been
trying to get our island going in the right direction from the turmoil of
overdevelopment and the dire need for infrastructure to keep pace with development
to the many other problems facing us, problems that our citizens and visitors are
screaming about, ones that no logical person can deny. We must change the archaic
system that we are operating under to one proven successful, one already in use by
COUNCIL MEETING 6 MAY 4, 2016
fifty-one percent (51%) of municipalities across our Nation, a strong Council-Manager
form of government. All of those communities using this successful system have put
accountability and transparency before their citizens, whereas our strong
Mayor-Council form of government leaves the people overtaxed, left in the dark on
decisions being made, and no accountability for the downward spiral we are in. The
argument frequently heard that all we need to do is change the people in charge of
our government and not change the system is a myth. Since we have had a lot of
different people in charge for years with nothing to show for it except more negativity
and higher and higher taxes with no possible positive changes to show for them. With
the passion and leadership of Council Chair Rapozo and the forward thinking of least
four (4) members of the Council, we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel with high
hopes that this issue will be on the ballot for citizens to vote on in the 2016 General
Election. Having an experienced manager hired to take care of the myriad of
problems facing us will be a major change that has never happened before on Kaua`i.
The manager will either take care of and solve the problems given to him or her by
the Mayor and Council or being fired, unlike the system now in place where the Mayor
can sit for four (4) years no matter what kind of job he or she does. Under the existing
system, no one person is ever held accountable for the wrong that is done, whereas
with the Council-Manager form of government, the buck stops at the manager's desk.
Proof is out there that good things happen with thousands of municipalities using
this system. So let us at least try it. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. How long was that? Was that about three (3)
minutes?
Council Chair Rapozo: Two (2) minutes. So you have one (1) minute
left.
Mr. Mickens: Okay. I will save that for Walter, okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify on the
Communication? If not...oh, please. Your item will be coming up next. We are still
on the Communication.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follow:
Council Chair Rapozo: This is the plan for this item, the Resolution
will come up later. It will be the first reading. Any Charter Amendment Resolution
requires two (2) readings by this body. Today is the first reading, and should it be
voted pass today to the Committee where it will be hopefully referred to the
Committee on May 11th and have the Committee discussions, and then we will set a
public hearing subsequent to the Committee Meeting. Should it be successful at the
COUNCIL MEETING 7 MAY 4, 2016
Committee, then it will come back to this body for the second and final reading. That
is the plan. Does anyone have any questions? If not, the motion is to receive.
The motion to receive C 2016-110 for the record was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Now, can we take
Councilmember Yukimura's item, please?
There being on objections, Resolution No. 2016-40 was taken out of order.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2016-40 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CROSSWALK
ON POIPU ROAD AT KIPUKA STREET, KOLOA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF
KAUAI: Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-40,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to clarify something. I am
getting a lot of press regarding this crosswalk and also the one on Waikomo Street
where we are returning it into a one-way street for Safe Routes to School. In all of
these Resolutions, the media, radio, and what have you are saying that these
Resolutions are proposed by me, and actually by request, I have initiated these
Resolutions to go on the agenda because I am the Public Works / Parks & Recreation
Committee Chair. It is a normal protocol for staff to ask me if I am okay with
introducing it on behalf of the Administration. The Mayor, the County Engineer, and
the Engineering Division are the ones that are asking for these changes to take place
on behalf of the public and what have you. I just wanted to make it clear that it is
not me that supports it. At this point, on any request that I introduce, I am
independent. I am not certain as to how I feel about the Resolutions in its totality. I
just wanted to make that clear, that it is not something that I am already committed
to support. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I guess I should say since Vice Chair Kagawa
made that clear, I will make it clear that there are members of the community that
asked for this for a long time. When I just started this term on the Council, there
was a request from a community leader in that neighborhood, Carol Ann
Davis-Briant. My request to the Administration was to move on this. So it has taken
well over a year back and forth, but they have moved on it. I appreciate that. When
Michael Moule and Lyle were here before talking about all of Po`ipu, my further
request then was that we not wait until the big plan happens, that the community
COUNCIL MEETING 8 MAY 4, 2016
has been waiting for a long time and that we move on this in its own little piece prior
to all of the other things that are still yet to come as far as pedestrian safety and
improvements. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: If I could just further clarify that I think the
credit for putting this on the agenda should go to Councilmember Kuali`i, not me. I
just wanted to clarify. When the names of the introducers are listed, it is not always
that person spearheading the efforts. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, I
will suspend the rules at this time if there are no objections, and I will take public
testimony. First of all, does anyone need to hear from the Administration today? You
do? Okay. You do?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I think the Resolution is clear. The map
is clear, but if Councilmember Yukimura, you want them up, we can call them up.
Carol, let us wait for the Administration to come up and do their presentation. Lyle?
This is a simple crosswalk on the road.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LYLE TABATA, Acting County Engineer: Council Chair Rapozo, Vice
Chair Kagawa, and Members. I just wanted to give a brief overview and clarify. I
guess we have also been getting calls about the details of the crosswalk. I wanted to
just provide an update. The location, as you see on the project map, is the intersection
of Po`ipu Road and Kipuka Street. Can I have the second slide? Just showing the
Google map view now of the intersection as it stands today. It is on the right hand
side of the intersection. Just to clarify that the reason it took us a little long to
prepare this is there is an existing sidewalk, as you see to the right bottom corner,
that we had to connect to. Part of our standards that we need to meet is that wherever
possible, at least at the minimum when we create a new crosswalk, we need to create
landings on either side of the crosswalk. So because there was an existing sidewalk,
we had to make the connections. So we had to create the design and the pricing for
that. Then as you see on the Kipuka Street side of the crosswalk, we had to place
another landing. In addition, it is not in the Resolution, but we wanted to clarify that
we are installing rapid flashing beacon signs on the crosswalk. That concludes my
presentation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 9 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Lyle, you answered my question.
A lot of testimony has asked for those flashing lights and nothing in the Resolution
or the map showed that.
Mr. Tabata: I realized that yesterday, and so I wanted to
make it clear that we are installing the rapid flashing beacon signs.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I think many people will be very
happy.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. The presentation actually brings
up questions for me. I want to thank you for the flashing lights. I know that people
speed down that road even though it is 25 miles per hour (25 MPH).
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Councilmember Chock: The first one was, I was visiting both O`ahu
and Big Island, and I saw at the crosswalks there were flags. I was driving down far
away and I saw this person walking through the crosswalk with an orange flag. I
seen him from miles away.
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Councilmember Chock: I was just wondering, have you folks looked at
that option?
Mr. Tabata: We have looked at that option; however, in
discussions with the other islands, they told us that the flag disappears. So they
constantly have to replace them.
Councilmember Chock: That is what I was thinking too.
Mr. Tabata: Instead, we are going to be installing these
rapid flashing beacon signs. In fact, we presently have several other projects in
design right now for, I believe, three (3) elementary schools and one (1) middle school
on this island through Safe Routes to School funding.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Thank you. The other question that I
had...I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
COUNCIL MEETING 10 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Chock: At one time, there was talks about the road
that comes up from down side that there would be a connection there. I was
wondering in relationship to this crosswalk, what does that mean in the future?
Mr. Tabata: It is not in the plan at this moment.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: I believe I am familiar with that, and that
borders on the Kaneiolouma property. So we want that stewardship to become secure
first, and we are working with that community before we seek to do a connection, but
I believe it is in the circulation plan.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i and then
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Do you know the flashing signals?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I know we have that in Kapa'a near Otsuka's
Furniture & Appliance near Hau`a`ala Road.
Mr. Tabata: Right, that as part of the Ke Ala Hele
Makalae project that we installed on the State highway. Normally, we do not install
on State highway, but that was part of our project.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Oh, okay. We did it because of the path?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It is working well there, right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I drive through it all the time and I know I see
the flashing lights.
Mr. Tabata: We are trying to encourage the State to install
it at other locations, which the majority of the time either the Kaua`i Police
Department (KPD) for the Department of Public Works receives calls from the public
regarding State highway crossings. So we are trying to encourage them to also install
it in several other places on the island.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is this our second one then with the one
coming up in Po`ipu, or are there others already?
COUNCIL MEETING 11 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: There are two (2) different types that we did
originally in 2010 as trial basis, one (1) inroad and one (1) above grade. Above grade
rapid flashing signs seems to be more effective. So there is one (1) at Koloa
Elementary School. Of course there is one (1) right here on Rice Street by the post
office, and I believe we have several on the roundabout here at Hardy Street and at
school crossings.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. The evidence is showing that these
lights work? I mean, the experience so far in the newly installed lights...
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you getting good results?
Mr. Tabata: They are not one hundred percent (100%), but
I do not quite know the statistics. But it is been made aware on this island even more
so. Recently, we just installed the one on Rice Street down by the new path that we
placed with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) moneys. We keep fielding
calls from the community asking for these signs to be installed.
Councilmember Yukimura: Which one are you referring to?
Mr. Tabata: The most recent is the on...
Councilmember Yukimura: Correct, by Lihu`e Court.
Mr. Tabata: Lihu`e Court, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I do not know what kind of evidence
you used to show it is working or not, but I guess it took a training period, if you will,
for people to understand it and get used to those lights.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know that the awareness of it has grown.
People understand more what it means when they see it.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you know of studies elsewhere in the
Country that have shown it is working?
COUNCIL MEETING 12 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: I need to defer to the Engineering Division to
get the statistics for us.
Councilmember Yukimura: But you folks installed these or started
installing these because...
Mr. Tabata: Right. They have been growing in popularity
around the Country, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Lyle, what is the speed limit on Po`ipu Road
in that area?
Mr. Tabata: I believe in this area, it has been reduced to
twenty-five miles per hour (25 MPH) or it might be thirty-five miles per
hour (35 MPH). The standard for this road would be thirty-five miles per
hour (35 MPH), but I believe it has been reduced in certain sections.
Councilmember Kagawa: If I am on Po`ipu Road heading east towards
Kipuka Street and Po`ipu Beach Park, after you pass Kipuka Street, I notice a bend.
So I can envision that the visibility, if you are heading east towards Kipuka Street,
the visibility of the beacons will be superb, but there is a bend. So if you are heading
west towards Kipuka Street towards the Grant Hyatt Resort and Spa or what have
you, there is a slight bend. I am wondering how the visibility to the beacon heading
that way is.
Mr. Tabata: I believe it is not affected because of the
right-of-way on this street.
Councilmember Kagawa: Oh, there is a lot of right-of-way?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. The right-of-way is over one hundred
twenty (120) feet wide, which double the standard.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Alright.
Mr. Tabata: This road was originally designed with the
wide right-of-way with the intent it was going to eventually be a four-way road.
Councilmember Kagawa: My worry was that if the bend was a problem
in seeing it from far, then perhaps we need a warning prior.
COUNCIL MEETING 13 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: The sight distance was taken into
consideration, yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions? Will there be
warning signs that lead up to it?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, there will be pedestrian crosswalk signs.
Council Chair Rapozo: As you approach the actual lights?
Mr. Tabata: Actually, it will be at the stop bar.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is where the lights are, right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: But prior to the lights, is there any pedestrian
crossing ahead or anything like that?
Mr. Tabata: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: So the light is the only signal?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, that is the only warning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that normal?
Mr. Tabata: I believe because it is lighted, flashing, and
amber, it is significant enough to warn.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Are all of ours like that with no
warning coming up to the actual?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. There is just the crosswalk with the
crosswalk sign with the pedestrian on it pointing down to the stop bar to inform the
driver this is where you should stop.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: We have advanced the stop bars to thirty (30)
feet. Originally, the standard was five (5) feet and we have now extended it to
thirty (30) feet.
COUNCIL MEETING 14 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
With that, anyone...Ms. Davis-Briant.
CAROL ANN DAVIS-BRIANT: Got it. You folks are fancy. I hope you can
hear me. I have a bad cold and I am just getting over it.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can hear you fine.
Ms. Davis-Briant: I really appreciate Lyle working on that. I
have known Lyle for many years and I know he is terrific. He was terrific at Aqua
Engineer, and he will be terrific with our crosswalks. Thank you. Anyhow, I
appreciate you folks taking this up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Please state your name.
Ms. Davis-Briant: Oh, my name. Sorry. I am Carol Ann
Davis-Briant and I am a resident of Po`ipu. I have lived at the Weliweli subdivision.
I built the first house there in 1967. I raised all of my kids on that street. We all had
to face crossing the road with our bicycles and walking to the beach. It is very
dangerous. Anyhow, I revised the letter I sent you and I would like to read it to you.
I wholeheartedly support the lighted rectangular flashing beacon crosswalk at the
bottom of Kipuka Street in the Weliweli subdivision in Po`ipu Road where many
people cross to the beach daily. Children walk, they ride bicycles, the wheel baby
buggies, and kids with bikes and surfboards go across that street. I would say there
are four hundred (400) residents on that street. There about one hundred
twenty-five (125) houses all together on that street, and I would say around four
hundred (400) residents live up there. It is the only neighborhood in Po`ipu where
there are kids and there are a lot of kids up there. People speed on Po`ipu Road and
I noticed your speeding signs, this is notice in my letter, but I noticed coming down
here, you have monitored by or patrolled by, what does it say? Yes, radar. You have
them going towards the Grand Hyatt Resort and Spa, but coming towards our street
where the bend is, there is no sign. People really speed down that road especially
from the Grand Hyatt Resort and Spa. When the road was first built, the County
stationed police cars on the road to give out tickets and that was pretty good because
everybody slowed down. I do not see the police cars there anymore. It is a dangerous
situation. I have been asking for a crosswalk at Kipuka Street and Po`ipu Road for I
would say about ten (10) years, maybe longer. I appreciate the Council taking up the
matter. It makes no sense that our County puts crosswalks for visitors on Po`ipu
Road, but none for our local residents and we pay the taxes. We would appreciate a
crosswalk. I also have an idea and I heard Lyle talking about signage. You have
terrific signs on Hardy Street opposite the County building saying "Stop When
Pedestrians Are Crossing." It is a stop sign and that gets my attention every time.
That would get attention, to have a stop sign there. People do not have to stop, but I
always stop to say, "Oh, is this a stop sign or not?" It would make people aware. So
that is another idea.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I have to stop you there. Is there anyone else
wishing to testify on this matter? Okay. Carol, you can come up again for a second
three (3) minutes.
Ms. Davis-Briant: No, I do not have anything more to say.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. Davis-Briant: I just appreciate you folks. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Kuali`i, especially.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for pushing this through. Next
speaker.
LONNIE SYKOS: Good morning, Council. For the record,
Lonnie Sykos. I do not live there. I live in Wailua Houselots. The reason that I am
testifying today is when we make changes to our roadways, we do not do any public
education. The first time I drove into Lihu`e after they put all of this green paint on
the road, right, I am driving down the road going what the hell is all this green paint?
You are supposed to pay attention to the road driving, but instead, you have it to pay
attention to why is this green paint on the road? What does it mean? Obviously it
was not done by accident. To address what Carol said, you have a problem with
people speeding in that area, and so putting a crosswalk in is part of the solution, but
the true solution is you need to do some public education about getting both our
residents and the visitors to slow down in that area. I would think that is not an
issue for the Police Department to deal with because they are not supposed to be
involved in creating policy. Their job is to enforce policy. This is a Department of
Transportation issue. Our Transportation Agency does not educate the public about
these changes that are being made. It should be a newspaper articles, things on the
radio, internet, and on our County website. I would encourage the Council that this
appears to be a very valid and good project, but it is lacking the public education part
of it, which is what is really going to make a difference. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify? Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Since we are
talking about these flashing lights, I just wondered if the ones that we are talking
about before by the schools is this going to be part of that situation. It is completely
separate. I remember Council Chair Rapozo you used to say you support it one
hundred percent (100%). Instead of saying speed limit fifteen miles per
hour (15 MPH) when children are present, we suggested having a light there. When
the light is on, you know the school is in session and that is when it is fifteen miles
per hour (15 MPH). It is relatively simple. I just wondered if this was part of Lyle's
job.
COUNCIL MEETING 16 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: No. This has nothing to do with schools.
Mr. Mickens: Flashing lights though. Safety.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, flashing lights, but no schools with this
Resolution.
Mr. Mickens: Right. Well, I hope it is brought up again.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: It will be. This Resolution is a crosswalk on
Po`ipu Road by Weliweli subdivision. It is not about schools or school zones. If you
could just focus to the Resolution on-hand. Thank you.
JOE ROSA: Okay. For the record, Joe Rosa. They talk
about the flashing lights, but those flashing lights are not automatic. The person has
to go and press the button before the thing is activated. I have seen it right out here
by the post office. There is flashing lights, but people are crossing and it is not
flashing because they do not read the sign over there that says "press button" or
something. So that is the thing. What is the use if you put the fancy gadgets and
nobody uses it? It has to be close by that they do not have to walk out of the way and
come back like some of these signs. Even the State had some crazy things done
because they gave it to consultants and they do not know the location to a person. A
person in a wheelchair has to go to the post, like the State has some, and then come
back to the crosswalk. Why not close to the crosswalk where the off-ramp is to go to
the crosswalk and press the button so it activates the lights and then the traffic is
going to stop? Like Lonnie said, what is the use of putting those fancy gizmos in if
they are not run efficiently? Those are the kind of things. They spend money, but it
is not being totally used. Then, the State takes away a crosswalk and the County
keeps putting in midblock crosswalks. I do not understand it. What is the ruling?
In court, midblock crosswalks do not hold water. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion? If not, the
motion is to approve. Roll call.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-40 was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
COUNCIL MEETING 17 MAY 4, 2016
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Next item,
please. Back to the beginning.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2016-100 Communication (04/01/2016) from the Housing Director,
requesting Council approval to decline the repurchase of Unit No. 701 in
Ho`okena at Puhi, 2080 Manawalea Street, Lihu`e, Hawai`i, Tax Map
Key (TMK) (4) 3-3-003-036-0041, and grant the owner a one-year waiver of the
buyback provision to allow for the market sale of the property by the owner:
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve of C 2016-100, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2016-100 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2016-111 Communication (04/04/2016) from the Chief of Police, requesting
Council approval to accept a donation of equipment consisting of three (3)
MorphoTrak Livescans valued at $78,133, from the Hawai`i Criminal Justice Data
Center, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawai`i, which will replace the
equipment located at the Hanalei, Lihu`e, and Waimea Substations: Councilmember
Kuali`i moved to approve of C 2016-111 with thank—you letter to follow, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 18 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Did you guys want to come up? Are there any
questions for KPD?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, your request, your presentation
materials were very detailed, and it is very clear to me. So unless anyone has
questions.
ROBERT GAUSEPOHL, Assistant Chief, Kaua`i Police Department,
Administrative & Technical Bureau (ATB): We have good news.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. What is the good news?
PAUL N. APPLEGATE, Captain, Kaua`i Police Department, Administrative &
Technical Bureau (ATB): Thank you. For the record, Paul
Applegate, Kaua`i Police Department, Captain, ATB. Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning.
Mr. Applegate: In the original letter, I listed that we were
going to be given three (3) Livescans, but in the meantime, they wanted to give us
one (1) more, a fourth live scan. So that one will be going into the records section
where sex offender registration and fire arms registration will be...that is what that
machine will be used for. The value of that one is also twenty-seven thousand four
hundred twenty-nine dollars ($27,429), so the total value will be one hundred five
thousand five hundred sixty-two dollars ($105,562). Currently, we do have four (4)
aged machines that are being used in those three (3) districts as well as the records
section. This would be a complete replacement for all four (4).
Council Chair Rapozo: That is good news.
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Staff, is there
anything that we have to do? Do we need to amend it?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We just need to amend the motion on the
floor.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. We need to amend the motion to
change the number of equipment to four (4) and a value from seventy-eight thousand
COUNCIL MEETING 19 MAY 4, 2016
one hundred thirty-three dollars ($78,133) to one hundred five thousand five hundred
sixty-two dollars ($105,562).
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend the motion to accept four (4)
MorphoTrak Livescans valued at $105,562, with thank—you letter to follow,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, I am sorry. Go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we have four (4) like these?
Mr. Applegate: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are they getting old?
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is there any additional features that this one
has over the four (4) that we have?
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: What are the significant changes?
Mr. Applegate: The new Livescans would be able to capture
the entire palm print images including the upper palm portion of the hand, which the
older machines are not able to do, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uses
this information in their database.
Councilmember Kagawa: What is the purpose of that large cabinet
area? What does that store? Does that store all the computer information?
Mr. Applegate: There is a computer in there and also a
keyboard and camera.
Mr. Gausepohl: The foot pedal when you roll the fingerprint,
you can push the pedal and it captures the fingerprint.
Councilmember Kagawa: So you cannot drive it around?
Mr. Gausepohl: You can barely see it down there at the
bottom.
COUNCIL MEETING 20 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Alright. Thank you. Great job.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just for the edification of the viewing public,
this is a fingerprint machine?
Mr. Applegate: Yes, fingerprint...
Councilmember Yukimura: Among other things.
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Are you planning to have them at
three (3) stations?
Mr. Applegate: The three (3) stations and the records section,
yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Will that give you the renewed capacity
because you have an old machine there?
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: To take fingerprints whenever you have a
suspect or someone.
Mr. Applegate: An arrestee.
Councilmember Yukimura: An arrestee?
Mr. Applegate: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. It
sounds like essential equipment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
There being objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess we will have to restate the motion
because we were not in order. I apologize. I will entertain a motion to amend the
request to accommodate four (4) machines instead of three (3), and a value of one
hundred five thousand five hundred sixty-two dollars ($105,562) instead of
seventy-eight thousand one hundred thirty-three dollars ($78,133).
COUNCIL MEETING 21 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend the motion to accept four (4)
MorphoTrak Livescans valued at $105,562, with thank—you letter to follow,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried.
The motion to approve C 2016-111 as amended to accept four (4) MorphoTrak
Livescans valued at $105,562, with thank—you letter to follow, was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2016-112 Communication (04/11/2016) from the Housing Director,
requesting Council approval for the acquisition and leasehold resale to a participant
on the Affordable Housing Program Waitlist of improvements on leasehold property
situated at 4914 Aliali Road, #5, Kapa`a, Hawai`i 96746, and to authorize the County
Clerk to sign legal documents related to the acquisition and resale of said
transactions: Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve of C 2016-112, seconded
by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2016-112 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2016-113 Communication (04/14/2016) from the Director of Parks &
Recreation, requesting Council approval of an unbudgeted equipment purchase of an
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Pentair AquaTRAM 360 pool lift with anchor
and transfer cart, to be stationed at the Kapa'a Pool, at an estimated cost of
$13,554.47, using funds in Account No. 001-3021-661.61-02 (Department of Parks &
Recreation, Recreation Division, Other Supplies): Councilmember Kaneshiro moved
to approve C 2016-113, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just have a question for Lenny.
COUNCIL MEETING 22 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we suspend the rules and before the
Administration comes up, the next two (2) items are requests for purchases that are
unbudgeted. May 8th is the Administration's second attempt for the supplemental
budget, which will be Friday because May 8th is a Sunday. I get troubled when you
hear about this all the time, government getting close to the end of the fiscal year so
they are trying to spend all of their money. I do not understand, and I will ask the
Administration to justify the request so close to the new year budget. Why can this
not wait for both of the next items? If it is an emergency, I can understand. If it is
something that we want to have that we can wait or we cannot wait, I can understand.
But if it is something that can wait for the next budget, I am not inclined to support
any more unbudgeted items until the next budget. We are two (2) days away from
the supplemental budget and yet we are asking to spend money from the current
budget. I do not understand the logic. I do not understand the philosophy, but maybe
the Administration can explain why we are doing this. Councilmember Kagawa keep
talks about how broke we are, then let us live up to that and say "Hey, why is this
now, a month away from the end of the fiscal year? Can it wait another month? I
just wanted to make those comments upfront so the Administration knows what my
concerns are, and hopefully can address them. I would expect the same from my
colleagues. This is not Christmas came early. It is, let us put it in the budget, and if
it is an emergency, it is another story. With that, before I open it up, are there any
other comments from the Council before we move forward? If not, I will suspend the
rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Rapozo.
Councilmember Kagawa: I had a question. I am trying to draw a picture
in my head of what this thing looks like. Is it a large piece of equipment that is going
to help with lifting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) persons of disabilities of
larger size?
LEONARD A. RAPOZO, Director of Parks & Recreation: For the
record, Director of Parks & Recreation, Lenny Rapozo. Yes. Currently,
Councilmember Kagawa, we have a lift there, but the maximum is three
hundred (300) pounds at Kapa'a swimming pool. We currently have a lift there.
Recently within this past year, we have a lot of users that are maxing out higher than
three hundred (300) pound weight limit. It is not an emergency, but it is a need to
help our users at the Kapa'a swimming pool. We see it there and not at Waimea. So
that is why we are trying to address that by asking to purchase this.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think it is terrific that we have people with
disabilities that are large and using the pool for exercise.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Rapozo: Exactly. That is exactly what is happening.
They have water Zumba and a goal exercise class there. It is easy to get them in, but
to get them out of pool is a problem.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am still healthy and I have a difficult time
climbing out of the pool as I am getting older. What are we going to do with the other
lift?
Mr. Rapozo: We will just keep it as a spare because we still
have one (1) in Waimea. If something happens at Waimea, recently we had to
purchase another one at Waimea because it was vandalized. We will just keep it as
a spare.
Councilmember Kagawa: I imagine that it is made of some type of
metal.
Mr. Rapozo: I have a picture here.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am wondering do we have a place to store it
from the elements. The ocean is right there with the ocean breeze.
Mr. Rapozo: This?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Mr. Rapozo: This is affixed to the pool. It is not portable.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is affixed to the pool?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, they do not recommend portables for
these things.
Councilmember Kagawa: How do you...
Mr. Rapozo: We attach them to the ground.
Councilmember Kagawa: You attach it to the ground and then I imagine
that they need to swim to the area?
Mr. Rapozo: It swings.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have swam in the pool in the past, but I have
never seen that lift.
Mr. Rapozo: It is off to the shallow side because they do not
recommend these devices to be in deeper than four (4) feet by ADA standards.
COUNCIL MEETING 24 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you,
Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions?
Councilmember Kagawa: He was going to show the picture first.
Mr. Rapozo: The reason for the exact amount is we have
done some preliminary...it does not reach the level of a formal bid. It is an informal
bid. So we have done some research as to what it would cost us. That is the price.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have one (1) more follow-up. Do we ever take
that out of the pool?
Mr. Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we take it out once in a while?
Mr. Rapozo: No. This one here is going to be affixed
because of the capacity.
Councilmember Kagawa: When we have swim meets is it not in the way
a little bit? Do we go around it?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions? Go ahead.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: What is the weight capacity on this new one?
Mr. Rapozo: Six hundred (600) pounds. It is six
hundred (600), but we are not going to say anything. We try not to go over five
hundred (500) pounds. The current one is three hundred (300) pounds, but we try
not go over two hundred (200)pounds to two hundred fifty (250) pounds just to ensure
safety. That is what the rating is.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: My only question is why we not put one in
Waimea? Maybe they are not coming to Waimea because they have problems. Do we
have a standard?
COUNCIL MEETING 25 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Rapozo: We have a two hundred (200) pound in
Waimea. So we are going to keep this older one in case something happens at
Waimea.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would just assume that each pool get one.
Mr. Rapozo: We could. We have not seen the need for it in
Waimea right now. What we have in Waimea works okay for the people that are
going to the Waimea pool, but obviously, if we have the users that we see in Kapa`a,
we will look into that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Are there any other questions? If not,
thank you. Is there any public testimony? Mr. Sykos and then Mr. Bernabe.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. I want to thank
you, Council Chair Rapozo, for your comments because when I was looking at this
online, the first thing that came to my mind is why are they doing this now at the end
of the fiscal year? I agree with Council Chair Rapozo's comments. This is not the
way to run a railroad. This is a horrible financial policy for the County. We hope
that through the budget process, the Council will be able to come to an agreement
with the Administration about the propriety of doing things like this. One of the
questions that I have is what are the ADA requirements for this? Are there
requirements for how many pounds? Are we in compliance is what I am asking. Is a
single lift enough? I would imagine the single lift is, but these are the kind of
questions that should be asked before we spend our money.
In regards to the lift that is going to be removed and stored, where are we going
to store it a because I constantly have heard through the years that the County is out
of space, that we do not have room for our records, and that we are running out of
space for the Transportation Agency for the ability to repair vehicles and storing our
buses. Where is this going to be kept? It has at least an electric motor and some
activators. I do not know about the electronics or not, but where will it be stored to
protect that from environmental damage as it sits there? I am just trying to save my
tax money as well as the rest of the public's, and yours as well. Thank you very much
MATTHEW BERNABE: Good morning. Matt Bernabe, for the record.
I agree with everybody's comments on this issue, even the Administration's. I am
handicapped, but I can get in and out of a pool, the ocean, and what not, but soon, I
will not be able to be. I have seen these machines in other pools. With that said, I
am going to go a little different route. I would like to know the life span of the current
machine, I would like to know what the service regiment is, who services it, and what
is the future plan of maintenance for this machine as well as the machine that they
are going to store because even if it is a hydraulic lift, there is an electrical component
to it. Bearings, and all kinds of things. This is a machine, and all machines need
some kind of planned scheduled maintenance. Before we award them any money, I
think a conciliation prize should be that they come forth with the existing plans, show
COUNCIL MEETING 26 MAY 4, 2016
us all of that data, and then the projected plan for this up-and-coming investment.
With that said, I support this machine. I might need it soon at the rate I am going.
But with all that set aside, I really want to see and hear not just this machine, but I
want to see all of our inventory have this kind of aggressive oversight. With that
said, it is your decision. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion? Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am going to have to agree with the
comments made by Council Chair Rapozo. I support the need. It is definitely in these
two (2) items coming up. I think that certainly we do need things. We are behind
schedule on many, but I do not support the practice. I question the financial policy
that we are supporting unwillingly, really. I think unbudgeted funds should be
placed into new budget requests. I am not sure how I feel about this. I think this is
a larger discussion and question that we need to tackle as a Council moving forward.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question. Are these items in the new
budget that came to us on March 15th?
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so they are not. Can the
Administration tell us if they were thinking strategically and are putting them in the
supplemental budget just in case the Council does not approve?
Council Chair Rapozo: I cannot speak for the Administration. But
like I said, they have two (2) more days to put it in.
Councilmember Yukimura: The other way is, as we are considering the
supplemental budget, if it is not there, we can assess it in terms of all the other
priorities and add it in if it is in our judgment, a top priority vis-à-vis all the other
requests?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: We could either defer this until after the
budget to sort of send the message that we prefer a more orderly budgetary process,
or we could deny it, or we could approve it today. Those are our choices.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: If you defer it, you are not sending any
message. If you receive it and kill it, you send the message. We keep talking about
that. All year long we talk about that, and then we have opportunities to basically
utilize the oversight that we are granted. I think Councilmember Chock said it best,
it is really the practice. Of course we all support this equipment, but we are a month
away from the new budget. One (1) month. I do not feel that we are doing our job
saying, "Okay, do not do it the next time" because we do that every year. Next year,
put it in the regular budget, but we put it in every year. We approve, we approve,
and we approve 5:2 or 6:1 vote, but it gets approved. If you want to send a message,
that is how you set policy. We say "No, put it in your supplemental budget. Take the
money from somewhere else in the budget to balance it, and then we will have the
discussion when we have the budget decision-making." This is a tactic, I guess, is
what I am trying to say. It is a strategic tactic by administrations in all of the
Counties to spend the excess money before the end of the fiscal year, which I can see
six (6) to eight (8) months ago. Hey, there is a need, but when we are one (1) month
away or two (2) months away from budget and now we find this need. I think if we
want to send the message, we send the real message. The real message is no, you are
not spending any more money this year that is not budgeted.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, is that your recommendation?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is how I am going vote. Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think we are trying to fix a problem that is
recurring year after year after year. Every year we have our Certified Public
Accountants (CPAs) audit our financial statements, and they come up with a number
at the end as to what is the amount of lapse or amount of excess in the budget
compared to how much expenses were spent. We just checked the number that was
audited by the CPAs, and it was thirteen million nine hundred thousand
dollars ($13,900,000) last year. There was thirteen million nine hundred thousand
dollars ($13,900,000) excess in the budget that was not spent. In previous years, it
has always been ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to twelve million
dollars ($12,000,000). I think more importantly, we have to look at what is the need
and usefulness of having that piece of equipment. I think for us to determine from
the legislative side whether or not Lenny Rapozo is truthfully telling us that there is
currently a need for that equipment for people over three hundred (300) pounds, I
cannot second guess his request. I think if there is a need, there is a need and there
is a liability associated with that piece of equipment should it break and somebody
get hurt. I think it would be foolish for us to deny it just to make a point today. I
think there are certainly a lot more other issues that I have with other pieces of
equipment that we have purchased, such as the brusher that was bought for the bike
and walking path that has not been used and is sitting there at Vidinha Stadium. I
think when we purchase a piece of equipment, the main thing we have to look at is it
COUNCIL MEETING 28 MAY 4, 2016
useful? Are we using it? Is it going to serve a purpose that the taxpayers demand
and keeps us out of liability, such as this piece of equipment? While wholeheartedly
I agree with Council Chair on this request, I think the vote against it would be going
against what I feel is the real issue is. Is this piece of equipment needed at this time?
I think if there are people over three hundred (300) pounds using it, it is needed. My
vote will be yes. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other comments? I would
say...go ahead.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Council Chair Rapozo, I just appreciate your
comments right from the top, that points out exactly what I was feeling when I read
this item to begin with. I do believe that from what we have seen that it is worthwhile
and that it should be in the next budget, and if the Administration agrees with that,
then within the next couple of days, they should put this in the budget. I feel that
way about this item, but not necessarily about the next item. They both are utilizing
the same process. When it comes to the budget, we are not doing our job as far as
making cuts and being more efficient. We have to balance that with where we find
money to maintain our roads. Most of us do not want to increase taxes of any kind.
So we have to be more precise and surgical with the expense side, and that even
means down to the level of ten thousand dollar ($10,000) and twenty thousand
dollar ($20,000) expenditures. I agree with you and I am not supporting any budget
additions to spend money in this year's budget that should be in next year's budget.
I did not hear an emergency call of any kind. This is something that would improve
our services, but I would think it can wait a month or two (2).
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am kind of under the same impression also.
It is getting close to the end of the year. We do still look at is this a need and how
strong is the need? I think with this particular item, we have been doing okay with
it so far. There is obviously a need for some people, but I think this is an item that is
not an item that needs to be done right this second. It has been working the whole
time prior. Again, this is an item that could go in the budget for next year and it can
be done right way in July if it is in the budget. Yes, I do get hesitant when we get a
lot of budget items coming in at the end of the year, and I think I would be a little
more sympathetic if these were budget items that are in the current budget, and they
are saying "we have the extra money, we are going push this item up that we had in
the budget. It was a need there, but because we have the money we are going to push
it in this budget." I would be a little more sympathetic with that, but when we get
items that pop up that were not in the budget and they are kind of saying "we need
it now, but it was not in the budget," I am kind of hesitant. It is not to say I am going
to say no to everything, but I am going to look at each individual item and try to
determine if it is something account wait for the next budget and should it be in the
next budget. I think for this particular item, it can wait. We have been using it this
long. I really do think it is something that should be there if there is a need for it,
but I think the money should come in the next budget.
COUNCIL MEETING 29 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: A lot of good points have been raised around
the table. What comes to my mind is the term consistency. I do not believe this
Council has been consistent in looking at this question about last minute. One could
argue that last minute requests for funds like this rather than waiting until a new
budget. A few weeks ago, I think we approved eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000) for police cars and a bunch of other things that one could argue
should have been put in the budget as well. I think it bears some thoughtful
consideration as to what our ongoing policy would be if we are going to say no to
everything or draw a line in sand and say, "Okay, from this point forward, everything
has to be in the new budget." That is probably something in retrospect that we could
have done. We have another item following this item that is also looking for funding.
In looking at this particular one, it is relatively small amount of money, thirteen
thousand dollars ($13,000), to help disabled people get in and out of the swimming
pool. I am not going to personally make that my line in the sand to fight the good
fight about proper budgeting. I trust it has been a well-thought out decision that we
need it, and that we can afford it even though I agree that these items should be in
the budget that we are going to be voting on in the next couple of weeks. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there anymore comments? If not, I just
have a couple. First of all, liability, as Councilmember Kagawa talked about, we
should be putting anybody over the limit on the existing machine. Obviously, we
should not be doing that. To address some of the comments, the Police Department
eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), they had in the future budget and they
had the extra money. So they were just moving it so they could get it sooner. It was
not a pop up, oh, do you know what? We want eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000) more in addition to what we are asking in the future budget. This
is different. Again, if this was six (6) or eight (8) months ago, I would be inclined to
support it. If there was a need at that point and some constituents, or residents, or
visitors that needed the use of this new equipment and it was eight (8) months ago,
that is a different story. But we are like I said, we are two (2) days away from the
supplemental budget and a couple of months away from the new fiscal year. The
money, to me, is irrelevant whether it is thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000), or one
dollar ($1), or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), or two hundred thousand
dollars ($200,000). It is the practice, as Councilmember Chock talks about. It is the
practice. I think it should be the policy of this body that unless it is an emergency,
then it can wait. It can wait. That is my position, and that is my position on all of
these requests because we are so close. With that, the motion is to approve. Roll call.
The motion to approve C 2016-113 was then put, and failed by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa TOTAL — 2,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Chock, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Yukimura,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
COUNCIL MEETING 30 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: We need a motion to receive now.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2016-113 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion?
The motion to receive C 2016-113 for the record, was then put and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item.
C 2016-114 Communication (04/14/2016) from the Acting County Engineer,
requesting Council approval of an unbudgeted equipment purchase using anticipated
savings in the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division's Operating Budget
of a flatbed lift gate truck with an extended cab, at an estimated cost of $70,000, to
provide the capability and sufficient hauling capacity to transport labor, multiple
refuse carts, et cetera for various refuse collection operation tasks in the Ha`ena to
Kekaha areas: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2016-114 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question for Lenny.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will supposed the rules.
Councilmember Kagawa: Not Lenny. I have a question for Lyle. I am
sorry.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Tabata: Councilmembers, Lyle Tabata, Acting County
Engineer.
Councilmember Kagawa: My question is what are we currently using to
perform these tasks? It looks like we are going to use this large flatbed lift gate truck
with an extended cab to provide the capability and hauling capacity to transport
labor, multiple refuse carts, et cetera.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 31 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: What are we using now? Say this person
wants to change from the small cart to the larger cart, what do we use now to perform
that task?
Mr. Tabata: Thank you for the question. Just to begin
with, this was proposed to be in the upcoming budget, but because we made savings
in the Solid Waste Division and the need is now, we are asking to spend this money.
Right now, we are presently using a standard half ton pickup truck and we are finding
that it does not have enough capacity to help carry a laborer. In part of the
reorganization of moving the refuse operation into the Solid Waste Division, we
converted positions of the refuse workers who were transported behind the refuse
trucks to load because it is automated now. We had that pool available and we
converted those positions into what we called Solid Waste Worker I's. The Solid
Waste Worker I's are a pool of laborers that we have available to us now to assist in,
as you mentioned, the cart swap outs. In addition, other departments have been
coming to us asking us for assistance, which normally they performed on their own.
One of them is the bus system, the Transportation Agency. They used to have utility
workers who took care of the maintenance of their bus stops. Because the Solid Waste
Division did the reorganization, we assumed the responsibility of trash pickup. So
all of the trash containers at the various bus stops around the island that are not
serviced by a private or a volunteer group, the Solid Waste Division has assumed that
responsibility. So because of that increase of need, the present pickup truck became
inappropriate. We are asking for this flatbed with a cab so that the solid waste
workers can ride with the supervisor.
Councilmember Kagawa: Where would the efficiency be improved?
Would a larger capacity hold more rubbish? Can you make shorter trips, save gas,
and save labor time?
Mr. Tabata: But we are also going to be able to carry the
laborer. Right now, we are limited in cab space, and with the laws today, you cannot
have people in the back of the pickup truck. They have to be secured in the cab.
Councilmember Kagawa: How many laborers can be carried in this new
pickup truck?
Mr. Tabata: Four (4) with a supervisor.
Councilmember Kagawa: So five (5) people?
Mr. Tabata: Five (5) people total.
Councilmember Kagawa: How much can the current trucks can carry?
Mr. Tabata: Only three (3) maximum.
COUNCIL MEETING 32 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Three (3)?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, because it is a single cab. It is not an
extended cab.
Councilmember Kagawa: Single cab with the extended bed?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Alright.
Mr. Tabata: We do not even have an extended bed. It is
just a standard pickup truck that we are using right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: I mean, when you have an extended cab like a
four (4) door, you have a longer bed, right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: So with the single cab, you have a normal
sized bed as we used to have?
Mr. Tabata: Right, but his is a F-350 size, and it is going
to have the extended flat bet bed on it. It is not a shorter bed.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have one (1) more follow-up. If we say full
sized carts, approximately how many full sized carts would be delivered on a truck
like that? Twenty (20)? Ten (10)?
Mr. Tabata: I have data here. Because they fit one (1) into
the other, we can carry up to twenty (20) in the flatbed, yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Mr. Tabata: With the pickup truck, we are limited to
maybe about four (4).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: How many workers does it take to service a
bus stop?
Mr. Tabata: Right now, we have been using three (3)
people to go with the supervisor.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that their sole responsibility?
Mr. Tabata: No, they do other various duties. They try to
make it be part of the rounds that say if they have carts to swap out in this district,
they will also take care of that and pick up the bus stop at the same time.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Are you cost-accounting this to the
Transportation Agency? I love the interdepartmental work.
Mr. Tabata: Not at this time.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is what I hope will happen even with the
County facilities management. I think that is one way it could happen. I know this
is a new function.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Now that we have bus shelters coming up.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. But you see that as the most efficient?
You have four (4) people stopping...
Mr. Tabata: Well, that is not their sole function of the day.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Alright, and presumably it takes only
about five (5) minutes to get the trash picked up?
Mr. Tabata: It depends. Hopefully those stations are
using the thirty-five (35) gallon cans, and there are bags, still. If people let the bag
fall in, so then they are going to have to transfer, then re-bag, so forth, and load.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, is this in the new budget?
Mr. Tabata: We had proposed it, but because we are seeing
a savings to balance next year's budget, we were asked to see if we could fit it in the
savings that we had this year, and we put it together to send the resolution now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: It was not in the March 15th submittal
though?
Mr. Tabata: We were asked to remove it, and accelerated
it so that we could lower the cost for next year.
Council Chair Rapozo: By the Administration?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. Ken is here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro
Councilmember Kagawa: It says we also had to rely on truck rentals to
do that.
Mr. Tabata: Previously, when we did the original
distribution of carts if we had this on our own. We were borrowing from the
Department of Parks & Recreation. The Department of Parks & Recreation has a
flatbed and trailers. We had various departments in the County assisting us to do
the original implementation.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Oh, but for the regular operations, do you
have to rent the vehicles?
Mr. Tabata: Right now, I cut that out. We are just using
the pickup truck trying to control our costs.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Will you ask the Department of Parks
& Recreation to borrow the truck when they have one available?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. When it is available is the key.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: When it is not available, we are using our
regular pickup truck, and it slows down productivity?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Real quick. The initial dispersal of cans
where obviously every household got one, but how often do you fill up trucks now with
twenty (20) cans to go take? I am assuming most of them...
Mr. Tabata: We have people call us for various reasons,
which range from new additional service because people are finding out it is not a bad
COUNCIL MEETING 35 MAY 4, 2016
thing, it is more efficient, and it is better than me going to take my trash to the
transfer stations every week. People are upsizing.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess the question is how often?
Mr. Tabata: In the last five (5) months one hundred
fifty (150) for new service; upsizing was nineteen (19), on the flipside people saying
"No, I do not want service," was about ninety (90), then switching carts between sizes
down was one hundred fifty-six (156), and maintenance was ninety-nine (99).
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess my question is how often?
Mr. Tabata: Two hundred forty-one (241) total.
Council Chair Rapozo: I understand. How often do you require to
take twenty (20) cans all at once is what the question is because that is island-wide,
right? The numbers you are giving me is island-wide, not just where this truck would
service.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. Well, I have it broken down Hanalei
district, Kapa`a, Lihu`e, Kalaheo, and Waimea.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. The dumb question is where this truck
will service, how often do you need a flatbed that can accommodate twenty (20)
barrels at once? Not too often. I just did the math with the numbers you gave me
island-wide.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. Daily, I cannot answer that right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I think the numbers tell the story. Then
the other question is a follow-up on Councilmember Kaneshiro's is the rentals. Are
you doing rentals anymore?
Mr. Tabata: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Rentals was only for the initial distribution.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So whether you get this truck or not, you are
not going to be forced to rent trucks because you do not get this one, correct?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 36 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: We have the issue that if I do not have this
extra cab, I am going to have to send two (2) trucks out, which I do not have. I only
have one (1).
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. What I am saying is if you do not have
the trucks, a two (2) month delay is not going to cause you that much headache or
heartache. I understand the Administration told you to buy it now. My question is
the first budget submittal is March 15th, that is when it was due here. So your budget
discussions occur when? When does it start? January?
Mr. Tabata: We start in January, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. If the Administration said, "Hey, put it
in now," why is the request coming two (2) days before the supplemental budget?
Why did it not come when the Administration told you, "Lyle, I do not want you to
put it in this upcoming budget. I want you to buy it now." Why did we not see that
request back then?
Mr. Tabata: Well, I have no excuse for that.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why it is very difficult for me to
support these last minute "barn bam," try buy what we can now. I just have a hard
time. Councilmember Chock. Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Lyle, the statistics you gave were very
interesting. How much of it do you think is still the adjustment since we gone out
with the new solid waste containers?
Mr. Tabata: One hundred-six (156). We have been
averaging twenty (20) cans a month is what it looks like.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, you have the upsizing.
Mr. Tabata: And downsizing.
Councilmember Yukimura: The downsizing, the no, we do not want, we
want. Now we are taking it to the dump and now we want to have household service,
right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So of that total amount...
Mr. Tabata: The total usage is for everything per month
is...well, March was sixty-six (66), February was fifty-two (52), January was fifty (50),
and December was seventy-three (73).
COUNCIL MEETING 37 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you see any trend?
Mr. Tabata: It looks like it is a seesaw right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I am just wondering what it will be like
when it all settles out, if it settles out. I do not know.
Mr. Tabata: We can follow that up with another
communication later.
Councilmember Yukimura: Alright, but that would give us some
indication of how much you need this truck, too.
Mr. Tabata: When we prepared this, it was in preparation
for our budget submittal. So that is why the data stopped in March.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. Okay. Yes, I would encourage you to
keep the data monthly, so you can see what the trends are.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Thank you, Lyle. Timing wise, it
does not seem like this is an emergency purchase or need as well.
Mr. Tabata: I agree.
Councilmember Chock: Is that correct?
Mr. Tabata: But we are going have to do some quick work
to balance the budget again and find someplace to cut.
Councilmember Chock: Absolutely. Is that possible is my question?
Mr. Tabata: I am going to have to pound it.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think, the Department of Finance is here.
You are basically taking it out of the unexpended whatever you call it now, whatever
the surplus is, you are just transferring it over. So the surplus of the unexpended
goes down and the budget goes up. That is how you do it, but I do not think it is fair
to show up, and this is really for the Administration, Lyle, because it appears that
COUNCIL MEETING 38 MAY 4, 2016
you tried to do it through your upcoming budget. This is not on you, but to have the
Administration come up a couple of days before the supplemental budget just
expecting Council to say "yes." Again, it is not intended for you, Lyle.
Mr. Tabata: Well, we could have done better when we were
told to get this out. Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: What truck are you using now? How old is
that?
Mr. Tabata: That truck then gets repurposed back to its
original intended use to support our refuses transfer stations operations. Right now,
the supervisors is take a pool vehicle to go out and do his rounds, but it is not practical
because it is a vehicle versus a pickup truck. We have determined that the refuse
operations is a higher need right now for the pickup truck.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions for Lyle? If
not, thank you, Lyle.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
testify? Matt.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, we have...
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, I am sorry. We have registered speaker.
Can I have the first registered speaker?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registers speaker is Lonnie Sykos,
followed by Matt Bernabe.
Mr. Sykos: Good morning, Council. For the record,
Lonnie Sykos. Well, my sympathy for Lyle for getting thrown under the bus by the
Administration for this fiscal nonsense here. Truck rentals, how many rentals can
we get for seventy thousand dollars ($70,000)? How long is this truck intended to
last? How many times is it going to be used because we have to have a vehicle that
size versus we use the vehicle because it is in the motor pool? I am not arguing
against buying the vehicle, but I am against buying it today under this budget
mismanagement that is going on. Secondly, within the Solid Waste Division, we are
once again back to the reality that we lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over a
two (2) year period, we lose over one million dollars ($1,000,000) in overtime that is
unanticipated and uncontrolled. Why are we going spend seventy thousand
dollars ($70,000) out of our tax revenue to purpose this truck instead of than
recovering the seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) out of poor management practices
that the County is engaged in that is costing us so much money? Our Director of
COUNCIL MEETING 39 MAY 4, 2016
Human Resources has told us that we do not have written policies and we do not have
written procedures. That is why we are unable to control overtime and other
expenses. As a member of the public, my response is no, I do not want my taxes going
up until the County deals with the waste, fraud, and abuse that has been
well-identified and commented upon by this County Council. This is bad budgeting
policy. This is bad fiscal policy. We have the ability to recapture the money by
restructuring by modernizing our operations. As a member of the public, no, we do
not want to spend this money right now. It should go into the budget, be handled
properly, and instead of raising our taxes, we should be recovering the waste that
occurs within our system. That is all this talk about green, green, and green. The
greenest thing you can do is end waste, fraud, and abuse within our budgetary
process. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Bernabe. Let me just take the public and
then we will call you back up, Lyle. Thank you. Matt. Maybe I should call you up,
so Mr. Bernabe does not...hang on Matt. Let me bring up Lyle real quick.
Mr. Tabata: Sorry, my office just informed me that we haul
twenty (20) bins at least three (3) days a week doing exchanges and maintenance,
and the maintenance is growing.
Council Chair Rapozo: In this service area?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Lyle. Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: What do you mean by maintenance?
Mr. Tabata: The carts that have been distributed say
two (2) years ago, they need repair on wheel, we are bringing them, and swapping
them out because people fill the carts without the bags. So there is material that gets
built up. We have to bring them in, rinse them out, clean them, and then we
redistribute instead of the community washing it themselves. It becomes a problem
with our trucks and so forth. So we do maintenance on some of them that we do
identify.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I mean, I kind of feel like it should be
the responsibility of the homeowner to clean out their cart that, but we have to do
that?
Mr. Tabata: We have been.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why are we doing that?
Mr. Tabata: Good question.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: That needs to stop. I am sorry, public, clean
your own barrels. I thought when we had the memorandum with the tag that came
with them...
Mr. Tabata: Many of the times when we do swap outs, we
do the cleaning.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would not do the swap out until they clean
them. I thought, in fact, that was really highlighted on the brochure that came with
the barrel.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: That you clean your own and teach them how
to clean it.
Mr. Tabata: I clean my own.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, me too.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we all do.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not think we should clean anybody's
barrel. I really do not. That is really horrific.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I think there needs to be management
review of the situation and some better policies and practices put in place.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Lyle, can you give me the numbers that you
gave me earlier, the island-wide numbers and the period where the numbers came
from?
Mr. Tabata: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe you could just make copies.
Mr. Tabata: They were in the attachment, but they were
March, February, January, back to December.
Council Chair Rapozo: So that is four (4) months?
COUNCIL MEETING 41 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: Yes, prior to our submittal. New and
additional total was one hundred fifty (150), and you can see for each district.
Upsizing was nineteen (19), end of service was ninety-four (94), switches was one
hundred fifty-six (156), and retrievals was ninety-nine (99). Then on the bottom it
says damaged, missed, replacement, and the totals per month. So it is a total of seven
hundred fifty-nine (759) for that four (4) month period.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, is that seven hundred fifty-nine (759)
total for the entire island?
Mr. Tabata: For the island, swap outs for whatever reason,
maintenance, and things like that.
Council Chair Rapozo: But the Hanalei area, which is where this
truck would service, is ninety-seven (97)?
Mr. Tabata: It would service from the end of Hanalei all
the way to Kekaha.
Council Chair Rapozo: This truck?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, this truck. This is for the supervisor to
go and make the swap outs with his men.
Council Chair Rapozo: So seven hundred fifty-nine (759) for four (4)
months?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. The numbers you just gave me, if they
are doing twenty (20) cans three (3) times a week, that comes out to three thousand
one hundred twenty (3,120) cans, but your number is seven hundred fifty-nine (759)
would be substantially less.
Mr. Tabata: That is his best estimate of what is going on.
Council Chair Rapozo: Alright. Thank you very much. Are there
any other questions for Lyle? If not, Matt.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe for the record. I am glad you
pointed out that mathematical problem because I actually did it in the back myself.
I would like to talk about the testimony we just heard. It is such evidence that we
need to instill industry standards from the Department of Human Resources to some
of the dysfunctional departments. I talk to a lot of workers since I have come to the
public. They come to me, not many of them want their names told. I have met some
that do not care and want their names told, but one thing I saw when I was dumping
COUNCIL MEETING 42 MAY 4, 2016
rubbish recently was we had a broken scoop loader backhoe sitting there, then we
had another one broken, and a big pile of green waste right in Kapa`a. This was a
week ago. It was not that long ago. Just listening to everybody, I figured out what
was going on. The fragmentation of the department's oversight and overlay, as these
people are talking about doing the trash for the buses, come on. I do not even see
that many bus stops with rubbish cans, first of all. The point that I am trying make
is that their machine was broken because they have somebody else using them or
whatever it is, and then they borrow another machine. Then they actually have
friction between the people. This is coming from the workers. This is the people that
I talk to that do not want their name known, but there is a human factor that you
send a person to scoop rubbish and their boss tells them what to do.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Bernabe: They get the job done within an hour, but they
are sitting there for a couple more hours. When the people at refuse tell them, "Can
you do this," they say, "No, my boss said only this." That is a problem of this kind of
overlay from departments in doing this and doing that. It looks good on paper, but
that is why we are not functioning. They need clear guidelines. As far as this agenda
item, this is way less controversial than the ADA lift, and you folks should shut this
down 7:0 and send a clear message to the Administration about balancing their
budget correctly. I am not against the truck, but as you have already pointed out, I
do not have beat the argument up. This is not how it is done. Let us function correctly
and hold the standard higher. Let us make them meet that standard. 7:0,
unanimous.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify? Mr. Hart. Is
that the last registered speaker? Mr. Hart.
BRUCE HART: For the record, Bruce Hart. No, not now.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else for the first time? If not,
Mr. Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. Dear County
Council, please get Lyle back up here and ask him what individual in the
Administration instructed him to do this and why. What was the Administration's
rationale when they told him to come up here and do this? That is how you get to the
heart of what the problem is and understand the fiscal philosophy that you are
struggling against. How many people does it take to swap a cart out? I move mine
by myself all the time. How many human beings does it take to get a cart into the
back of the truck? Five (5), because that is what we are doing. We are buying a truck
to haul five (5) people around. Does it take five (5) people to roll an egg, because that
is basically what this is? Also, how come you can stack the garbage carts in the
flatbed, but you cannot in the pickup truck? They just told us the pickup truck can
COUNCIL MEETING 43 MAY 4, 2016
only hold four (4) carts, but you can put twenty (20) carts in the flatbed. What is up
with that? How come you cannot stack the carts inside the pickup truck, not that I
am arguing against the larger vehicle? What I am pointing out that the testimony
that the Administration supplies us does not make sense. It is a bunch of talking
points to justify trying to spend this money at the very end of the budget process.
Please, just say no.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to speak for a second
time? If not, I will call the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion? The motion was
to receive. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Again, this comes down to budgeting, yes.
Thirteen million nine hundred thousand dollars ($13,900,000) lapsed this year. If we
deny all of these requests, we have fourteen million one hundred thousand
dollars ($14,100,000) or whatever million lapsing next year if we get the same amount
that we have gotten year after year lapsing. I think what it comes down to again, is
the truck needed for efficiency or not? I think meeting every Wednesday and sitting
at this table to decide what is the most efficient way of accomplishing a task is
micromanaging. I certainly can picture where it is more efficient. If we have one (1)
truck going from Kapa'a baseyard up to Wailua Homesteads delivering all
twenty (20) one (1) time delivering rather than a pickup truck going on five (5)
different trips, wasting gas, and doing the same thing. Now we have one (1) truck
servicing the whole island. How efficient is that? If that is efficiency to cut time, cut
costs, cut wasted labor, and riding in a vehicle that can be accomplished
one-fourth (1/4) of the time, is one (1) truck sufficient to accomplish delivering and
swapping of our rubbish cans? Is one (1) truck sufficient to pick up all the rubbish at
the bus stops that accumulate on the island? I do not know because I do not work for
Lyle. I am not a manager or a worker in the Solid Waste Division. I do not know. It
comes down to trust. Do we trust what he is saying as true, or is it just buying a piece
of equipment that we hope will be efficient, and we will find out later after we buy it
whether it is really being efficient? It is difficult one for me. I tend to side with Lyle
on this one being that he actually works there. He runs and manages the department.
Coming here every Wednesday, I do not know really what the Solid Waste Division
is efficient and inefficient in doing. If I can make their job more efficient, then I think
I have to support it. My vote is going to be against receipt, but I hear the concerns
here around this table. I realize that we need to do more with less and we need to cut
government waste. I realize that, but I think in some cases, we need to be supportive
of gaining efficiency.
COUNCIL MEETING 44 MAY 4, 2016
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Councilmember Kagawa: In this case, I will take that side. I will try to
gain efficiency and cut inefficiency by having less trips accomplish the same task.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other comments? Councilmember
Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to say for me, the numbers do not
really add up and the purchase is not completely justified. I will not support it today
and I probably will not support it in the next budget unless you bring me the numbers
and the proof that actually add up. Show me the need, explain to me what the
operations are, and show me the numbers. Show me how many of this maintenance
is washing versus repairing broken wheels. I would imagine it is pretty sturdy. It is
a pretty good container. I know mine seems fine. The people are making the request,
my wheel is broken, come and fix it, then you go get those, and you just switch them
out. The numbers do not add up at this point. If the receipt is successful today, when
you resubmit it in a couple of days, make sure you have good justification. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. I just want
to say this has no reflection on the two (2) current requests that we have looked at
today; however, I do not want to see this practice be taken to an abusive level, which
we may very well or have in the past. I appreciate the previous comment about the
consistency because it has been more of an eye-opening revelation, I guess, or a trend
that I am starting to see. I just want us to be a little bit smarter on how we approach
a policy directive such as this in the future. My hope is that we do see these requests
in next two (2) days and that we can properly vet them as we have the rest of the
budget items. I also agree with Council Vice Chair. It is difficult for us to presume
what the needs are for the departments. This is purely about financial responsibility
and how we look at managing this budget. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. When the Administration can answer
our questions and convince me that whatever is being proposed has been thought out,
I am very happy to approve it, and my trust in the Administration grows. But when
answers are not available, then it does not feel comfortable to approve something. I
really do not want to have this be a criticism of Mr. Tabata because he is the Acting
County Engineer. He is not the Solid Waste Manager. I do not know why we do not
have the Solid Waste Manager here, who oversees the daily operations of the Solid
Waste Division. He should be the one who has figured out the problem and is also
proposing the solution and can defend it. There is something that does not seem to
COUNCIL MEETING 45 MAY 4, 2016
be right here, and I think that is why there are these questions in addition to this
practice of coming in a month or two (2) before the new budget takes effect, to ask to
use the leftover from the existing budget. There are several things at work here. I
would like to ask the Mayor and the Administration to address this so that we can
have confidence when we approve something or do not approve something, that we
are doing it based on good information and good management.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock. I am sorry.
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: This goes along the lines of previous one. It is
uncomfortable to be approving larger ticket items at the end of the budget. I guess it
really is like you need to sell us on it when it comes down to it. This late in the game,
what are the efficiencies? How many time is it going to save the workers? How much
more work can they do with the vehicle? How much costs are we going to be saving
based on this amount of time saved? I think those are the justifications that we need
to feel comfortable with these type of items. When I think about it, it is kind of hard
to say what our budget policy is. We lapse money every year. Is that a good thing or
a bad thing? You can argue either way. I think lapsing money is a good thing. That
means that the department did not spend all the money they were anticipated to and
the money that lapses goes into Unassigned Fund Balance. Does it mean that we are
maybe we are budgeting too high? I do not know. When people start to come in and
use this money that is lapsing, then it is kind of like, okay, wait. Did they put in
extra gravy that they are not going to spend? It all comes down to what is you our
policy? If our policy is to budget, have a lapse, and the lapse go into the Unassigned
Fund Balance, I do not really see a problem with it. A request comes in late in the
year, this is an emergency item, this is an item we need, this is the efficiencies, it is
going to be in the next budget, we want to put it this budget, and we want to use our
lapsed moneys. It is really a sale. You have to sell us on it. When I think about, we
lapse money every year and I did not see a reduction in budgets either. We would
probably have this lapse in next year's budget. Probably. Could we adjust it in next
year's budget to accommodate a truck like this? I would think we probably could
because we are lapsing money every year. It really is a sale. When you come in here,
you really need to sell it. I am not comfortable approving it right now. If it gets put
in the next budget, yes, we would like to see the numbers and justification. I think
we are going to get a lot more criticism like that in the future as money is tight. I
will be voting to receive.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other comments? It is not the need. It is
not about making the department more efficient because that is what we all strive to
do. Two (2) months is not going to make it that much more efficient if we wait two (2)
months because that is what the effect will be if the receipt passes. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the need because we could make an argument that every
department needs something. You could make that argument. It is the practice. If
in fact this was so inefficient months ago, why did not the request come then? If it
was such a burden on the department and it was causing all kinds of inefficiencies in
COUNCIL MEETING 46 MAY 4, 2016
January, March, or whenever this occurred, why was the request not made at that
point? If the intent was to put it in the budget for the next upcoming fiscal year, why
would the recommendation be to not put it in next year? This request should have
been here a long time ago. I am concerned that throughout the years, and granted I
have been here from 2002-2008 and from 2012 to now and yes, we just basically
rubber-stamped all of these things because we agreed there was a need. What does
that do to the surplus? I will call it a surplus because that is what it is. Money that
is not spent is a surplus. Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) makes
us call it something else. The surplus, as Councilmember Kagawa keeps talking
about, what is the true surplus if we stuck to the budget, the budget that we approved,
and only purchased things of an emergency situation and not things that hey, it is
getting close to the end of the year, so whatever you need, submit your requests.
What would the surplus be? Would it be fourteen million five hundred thousand
dollars ($14,500,000)? Would it be fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000)? Would it be
sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000)? I do not know because we keep taking off the
unexpended moneys throughout the budget year. This is how you determine policy
as a body like this. You have to start sending the message, and I do not know how
else to do it besides say, "Wait another month, wait two (2) more months, put it in
supplemental, and we can have the discussion. We can properly vet it out like we do
with all the other items in the budget." I am not sure if the Administration has any
ideas of sending more things up before the next budget. Please, if there are other
purchases that you feel you need, I suggest you put it in the supplemental budget for
Friday because it may not be that simple once we go through our decision-making.
With that, the motion is to receive.
The motion to receive C 2016-114 for the record was then put, and carried by
a vote of 6:1 (Councilmember Kagawa voting no).
Council Chair Rapozo: 6:1. Thank you. Next item, please.
C 2016-115 Communication (04/28/2016) from Councilmember Yukimura,
transmitting for Council consideration, a proposal to amend the County fuel tax rate
by two cents (2¢) effective July 1, 2016, and an additional two cents (2¢) effective
July 1, 2017.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion to receive?
Councilmember Yukimura moved to receive C 2016-115 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, we have registered speakers that
would like to speak.
COUNCIL MEETING 47 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, did you want to
address...
Councilmember Yukimura: May I say a few things?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. This Communication is a cover
letter for a bill that would increase the fuel tax. The next Communication is a cover
letter for a bill that would increase the vehicle weight tax. I am sure many are asking
why are you introducing this again so soon because as you know, similar bills were
rejected on first reading a couple of months ago? What I want to say is this is not the
same bill as was previously introduced. Instead of a seventeen cents ($0.17) per
gallon on fuel tax, this is proposing a two cent ($0.02) per gallon in this year and then
a two cent ($0.02) per gallon in the next year. The vehicle weight bill is to address
basically what was Council Chair Rapozo's objections to the first two (2) set of bills
where he pointed out correctly, that the combination of taxes discriminated against
the lighter cars and let off the heavy and bigger cars.
The reasons these are both being introduced together is to give us options for
different combinations so that we can try to find a fair bill. The reason I am
introducing this again is that we cannot not repair our roads. Our roads are the
infrastructure that we need, our community needs, to function on a daily basis. We
cannot ignore it because it gets worse and more expensive to fix the longer we put off
fixing our roads. If we do not address the problem, we will be kicking a one hundred
million dollar ($100,000,000) deficit to the next generation. It is a horrible legacy to
give down when we should actually be giving a better future to our kids. The other
reason I am introducing it is because the State Legislature has scaled the proposal to
raise State fuel tax and State vehicle weight tax. Now is the window when gas prices
are less than one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) than they were two (2) years ago. Now
is the window to begin on a very small basis, to get some money pooled. This is our
money that we can use to pay for repair of our roads instead of giving it to Saudi
Arabia and Indonesia, which will be doing when the gas price goes up next. Then we
will not even have a chance. This is a window that I think we should take advantage
of.
I know there is this sense of no more taxes, but I urge my colleagues and the
public to look at the actual impact of this proposal because for the average car, it is
less than two dollars ($2) a month for fuel tax increase because fifteen (15) gallons a
week at two cents ($0.02) a gallon is thirty cents ($0.30), right? It is not that much
and yet we can make some headway on repairing our roads. Now if you add it to the
vehicle weight tax, I think we are looking at forty-four dollars ($44) for a Ford
Explorer, forty-three dollars ($43) for a Toyota Tacoma, and thirty-three dollars ($33)
for a Honda Accord a year. That is for a year. We are talking about a total impact
on a small car of about five dollars ($5) a month increase. If we do not pay it now in
this small form, we are going to pay it in car repairs. If we let our roads get to the
COUNCIL MEETING 48 MAY 4, 2016
extent that the City and County of Honolulu did, and those of you who visit Honolulu
have seen how bad their roads are, we are going to pay anyway. I ask that we at least
go to public hearing and look at the numbers really closely before we reject this option.
If there are other suggestions about how we can raise the money to fix our roads, I
am really open to it, but I have not seen any other proposal yet. I feel we have a
responsibility to address this issue. So that is why, Council Chair Rapozo and
Members of the Council, I have reintroduced this Bill. I just ask that we have a
thorough vetting. If at the end you decide to reject it, so be it, but at least let us have
the discussion because this is a very important issue. Good well-working
infrastructure, especially roads, is really important to how this community grows
economically and also to how we live our lives on a daily basis.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I just have one (1) question,
Councilmember Yukimura. What is the net increase in revenue on the two
cents ($0.02)? I know you had that and I should have wrote it down.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe it is three million four hundred
thousand dollars ($3,400,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any more...
Councilmember Yukimura: Here it is.
Council Chair Rapozo: I thought it was not even one million
dollars ($1,000,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: For vehicle weight tax?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, for the fuel for the first year of your bill
that proposes two cents ($0.02) a gallon effective July 1, 2016.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any more questions because I will call
up Ken because I am sure he has the numbers.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa, did you have a
question of the introducer?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. I think the introducer should be able to
answer this question.
Councilmember Yukimura: I should.
COUNCIL MEETING 49 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: In 2013 this Council without the vote of
myself and Council Chair Rapozo, increased the fuel tax two cents ($0.02) from
thirteen cents ($0.13) to fifteen cents ($0.15) per gallon, and in 2014, the Council
raised it another two cents ($0.02) from fifteen cents ($0.15) to seventeen cents ($0.17)
per gallon. How much additional revenue did those increases raise to the public and
what significant impacts were provided to the public in the shape of improvement of
roads when you increased those when you voted to increase those taxes in 2013?
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: How much additional revenue did it create?
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe for every cent, it is about three
hundred forty thousand dollars ($340,000) a year. Ken, can you come forward just so
that...
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, hang on.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am going to have to suspend the rules.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there are any questions of the introducer.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: When it comes to the numbers, we will bring
up...
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, because she is saying that increasing the
revenue will increase efficiency in repaving roads and lower the one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) backlog that we have.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am wondering in 2013 and 2014, which I
voted against, how did that improve the roads so the public knows this is what you
get when we increase fuel taxes that you get something positive?
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I think it contributed to the one million
two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) a year or two million four hundred
thousand dollars ($2,400,000) a year that we spend biennially on repaying our roads.
That is all we have right now.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: So you just increase...
Councilmember Yukimura: The two cents ($0.02), you are right, if it is for
a full year, it would increase by six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000)?
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: For every two cents ($0.02), it goes up six
hundred thousand dollars ($600,000)?
Councilmember Yukimura: For every cent.
Councilmember Kagawa: For every cent?
Council Chair Rapozo: We will bring up...
Councilmember Yukimura: For two cents ($0.02).
Council Chair Rapozo: ...Ken because his head is spinning right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: So for every cent, it is three hundred forty
thousand dollars ($340,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Well, that is not the only one that increase
though.
Council Chair Rapozo: I tell you what, it is 10:30 a.m. When we come
back, we will bring up Ken so we can get the numbers from Ken.
Councilmember Kagawa: Well, Ken is not trying to pass it. She is trying
to pass it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I understand, but I want to make sure we get
that accurate numbers.
Councilmember Yukimura: You want the facts.
Councilmember Kagawa: What? Do you have fiction?
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us take a caption break, ten (10) minute
recess, and when we come back, we will have Ken go over the numbers.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m.
COUNCIL MEETING 51 MAY 4, 2016
The meeting reconvened at 10:43 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken, if you can come up please.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can I ask my questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: Please.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Councilmember Kagawa: Ken, in 2013, Ordinance No. 945 raised the
fuel tax to two cents ($0.02). Approximately how much additional revenue did that
raise? Then, how much did the Ordinance No. 945 raise for 2014 as well? Basically,
from 2004 to 2013 it went up two cents ($0.02), and then from 2013 to 2014, it went
up another two cents ($0.02). I want to know how much cumulative revenue did that
raise annually over the previous years.
KEN M. SHIMONISHI, Director of Finance: Aloha Councilmembers.
Ken Shimonishi, Director of Finance. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I
think based on our consumption, which is currently estimated thirty thousand five
hundred thousand (30,500,000) gallons, for each penny that the fuel tax is raised, we
estimate three hundred five thousand dollars ($305,000) in revenue.
Councilmember Kagawa: Three hundred five thousand
dollars ($305,000) for every...
Mr. Shimonishi: For every penny based on the current
consumption.
Councilmember Kagawa: Additional?
Mr. Shimonishi: We would have to look back at what the
consumption rates were back then, but I think that would basically give you a
ballpark of how much revenue would be raised with each penny that was done.
Councilmember Kagawa: Would it be accurate to say that the
legislation in 2013, which increased it two cents ($0.02), raised about six hundred ten
thousand dollars ($610,000), and then the same ordinance that had the following year
increased another two cents ($0.02), raised an additional one million two hundred
thousand dollars ($1,200,000)?
Mr. Shimonishi: In aggregate, that would be a reasonable
estimation.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Basically, the increases over 2012, which was
the last year that the thirteen dollars ($13) was in effect, we basically have been
raising one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) more over with the
increases of fuel tax per year?
Council Chair Rapozo: One million two hundred
thousand ($1,200,000).
Mr. Shimonishi: Yes, one million two hundred
thousand ($1,200,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: One million two hundred
thousand ($1,200,000) per year?
Mr. Shimonishi: Right.
Councilmember Kagawa: What as the increase of the legislation in 2014
that increased the motor vehicle weight taxes, Ordinance No. 969? The passenger
vehicle went up, $0.0075 cents per pound and then the freight vehicles went up $0.005
per pound. How much did that increase raise over the previous year?
Mr. Shimonishi: I do not have the numbers in front of me
again.
Councilmember Kagawa: Ballpark.
Mr. Shimonishi: I apologize. Based on the proposed bill that
Councilmember Yukimura has, the one cent ($0.01) on the passenger and the two
cents ($0.02) on the freight is estimated to generate about three million two hundred
thousand dollars ($3,200,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Combined.
Mr. Shimonishi: Combined, the one cent ($0.01) and the two
cents ($.02). The bulk of that is coming from the passenger vehicle. I think two
cents ($0.02) on the freight would generate seven hundred thousand
dollars ($700,000), so the balance would be on the passenger or one million five
hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) or two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we not have a ballpark as to how much the
legislation in 2014 that increased the motor vehicle weight tax significantly? How
much did that impact the taxpayers?
Mr. Shimonishi: I want to say...
COUNCIL MEETING 53 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Our revenues total.
Mr. Shimonishi: My thought was somewhere in the
neighborhood of one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), but I am not
sure. I did not bring the previous year's calculations with me, and that as before I
was actually the Director of Finance.
Councilmember Kagawa: During that time, do you know of any
significant improvements to our road paving that was done with those increases,
besides sidewalks and bikeways?
Mr. Shimonishi: I would have to defer to the Department of
Public Works on that.
Councilmember Kagawa: Basically, how many roads were paved for
vehicles, and if we can have those done, I would really appreciate it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we ask the Acting County Engineer?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure. I do not know if Lyle is prepared to
answer any of those questions, but if he is fine. If not, that is completely understood
though, because I do not know if he was prepared to respond to these questions.
Councilmember Kagawa: Not to hammer you folks because this is not
your request. I am just trying to find out for the public when we increase the vehicle
weight tax and motor vehicle tax, what is our track record of accomplishments in
regards to paving road, as this bill proposes to repair roads that are in dire need? I
want to know how much of the previous increases accomplished that task.
Mr. Tabata: Acting County Engineer, Lyle Tabata. As
mentioned on the floor, I am not prepared to answer that; however, the aggregate of
the total funding was spread across the entire Roads Division, Automotive Shop, and
I believe the Transportation Agency. I do not know exactly what it equaled to in an
increase to the Roads Division, but it did ensure that we had funds that we are trying
to aggregate every two (2) years of the two million four hundred thousand
dollars ($2,400,000). It did not increase it, but it ensured that we had the funds
available.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think the right question to ask, and Lyle, I
am obviously not expecting you to answer this today. If you go back to 2012 and do
an annual breakdown of how many miles of roads were paved.
Mr. Tabata: We did supply that recently. We have been
hitting the schedule as we had promised.
COUNCIL MEETING 54 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Tabata: We have been repaving significant amounts of
roads every two (2) years, and we did submit. I can resubmit that again.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you did, we can get it.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think what Councilmember Kagawa is
asking is when we increased the fuel tax, was there a significant increase in the miles
of roads that were paved?
Mr. Tabata: Not necessarily.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the question.
Mr. Tabata: Not necessarily because we did not increase
the amount of funds we used to do the paving. It was what we had been using, but
we let it aggregate for two (2) years; however, we need to be reminded that it was not
simply repaving and resurfacing that we did. We also started to go back and
reconstruct roads. So you are going to see a significant amount of roads were being
reconstructed and not necessarily in typical lane miles if we are just to resurface.
Council Chair Rapozo: In addition, to the increase in costs, right?
Mr. Tabata: Right. The increased costs, because we did
the reconstruction, more than anything, affected the amount of lane miles that we
did resurface.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. Understood.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, did you have...
Councilmember Yukimura: How long have you been doing the one million
two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) a year accumulated to two million four
hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) biennial?
Mr. Tabata: Since we came aboard in 2010, we did that
initial proposal. I believe in 2012, we did resurfacing and again in 2014. 2016 is
ready to hit the streets for procurement.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 55 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Are there any other questions for
Lyle or Ken? Go ahead, Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Maybe Ken can answer this, but maybe it is
the Mayor or Nadine that should be answering it. Based on the moneys set aside for
road repairs in the current budget, and based on the desire to address some of the
one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) backlog of needed repairs, if there is no
kind of tax increase, General Excise Tax (GET), or vehicle weight, or gas, what is the
Administration doing with the budget to prioritize and put more money towards road
repairs? Has there been any kind of increase over the last few years as far as making
that a priority, if it is a priority because they ask for increased taxes is a priority?
There is also a way to make it a budget priority.
Mr. Tabata: I can attempt to answer that. Our strategy
has been to utilize some of that fund to also do our collector roads. In 2013, we did
several collector roads. We can increase by just putting our twenty percent (20%)
match, eighty percent (80%) more funds to do the federal aid roads. So that is the
strategy that we are moving forward with. We did our first set of collector roads last
year. It is a little bit more complicated because it requires the federal government
requires more detailed engineering drawings than to just do straight resurfacing. For
straight resurfacing, we give a section of the roadway that we want to resurface and
then the contractor bids on it that way. For the federal aid roads, we need full
construction drawings.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Based on your ability, your operations, and
how much you can do each year, within the budget, you have already budgeted the
funding to the level that you can handle as far as road repairs?
Mr. Tabata: We are resurfacing to the amount of money
that we are supplied.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right.
Mr. Tabata: Not to the capability of our division.
Councilmember Kuali`i: What is the difference between how much
more capability you have if you had more funding, and has any of that additional
funding been provided in the existing budget with real property tax revenue,
expenses, revenues, and budgeted for?
Mr. Tabata: By our Auditor's findings, we only used
Highway Funds. So whatever is generated for the Highway Fund, that is what we
put towards our roadways.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Did we deplete our Highway Fund? Is it so
low that we need to increase the tax to have more money to do what you need to do?
COUNCIL MEETING 56 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: I cannot tell you what is in the treasury. I do
not get that, but I do know that whatever we are supplied in our budget annually, we
use to the best of our ability. So say, we propose the GET of half percent (0.5%), that
would have given us what came about to be about a little over eight million
dollars ($8,000,000) a year for resurfacing and road repairs. We definitely created a
plan to implement spending all of these funds annually.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would just be interested, and maybe it takes
a follow-up and you can get back to me later, is to know the difference between the
capacity that we have, the maximum amount of we could be doing every year...
Mr. Tabata: Well, it is all contracted out.
Councilmember Kuali`i: ...if we had how much more money?
Mr. Tabata: It is based on the contractor's ability.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right. I do not know what that is.
Mr. Tabata: We contract it out. They can do the eight
million dollars ($8,000,000) a year. They can.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And they can do eight million
dollars ($8,000,000) a year and they are doing...
Mr. Tabata: They can do more.
Councilmember Kuali`i: How much is being done now?
Mr. Tabata: Right now?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes? Two million dollars ($2,000,000)? One
million dollars ($1,000,000)?
Mr. Tabata: Two million four hundred thousand
dollars ($2,400,000).
Councilmember Kuali`i: Two million four hundred thousand
dollars ($2,400,000)?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, every other year.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And they have the capability to do eight
million dollars ($8,000,000) a year?
COUNCIL MEETING 57 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: The contractor will man up to whatever
money we want to put on the street.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Hiring people from outside...
Mr. Tabata: Exactly.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Flying people in from California?
Mr. Tabata: Right now...
Councilmember Kuali`i: What is realistic?
Mr. Tabata: Right now on this island, we have three (3)
paving companies between us and the State doing resurfacing. Everything on
Kaumuali`i Highway getting to Lihu`e is State. They broke it up into three (3)
different segments. I believe they had three (3) contractors working on it, and at
same time, those contractors were working on our resurfacing last year.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser and then
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Hooser: Just a brief question. I understand it is
preferable to use only Highway Funds for highway projects, and you said that the
Auditor suggested that or required that. It is also my understanding that we can use
general operating funds, if we want to. Is that incorrect?
Mr. Tabata: I defer to Director of Finance.
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct. You could use general funds.
I think the philosophy would be is that the pressure we want to add to real property
tax payers who account for eighty percent (80%) of the General Fund revenue, plus
knowing the recent actions of the Legislature to continue to cap the Transient
Accommodations Tax at the County's share for yet another year. Are we as a County
wanting to, again, put more pressure on real property taxpayers?
Councilmember Hooser: I just wanted to make sure it is clear for the
public that we do not have to raise weight or fuel taxes to fund highway
improvements. There are other funds that we could use, if we wanted to. They are
not limited to those, number one. Also to point out this Council and the
Administration continues to put forward spending measures, raises for employees,
and the police cars we talked about. Those are all operating funds that could have
been directed towards highway improvements if the Administration and the Council
COUNCIL MEETING 58 MAY 4, 2016
choose to do so. Is that correct? There is no prohibition using those funds. Those are
policy decisions.
Mr. Shimonishi: That is correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura
Councilmember Yukimura: Lyle, you folks have actually given us at least
for three (3) years, list of roads that have been prioritized that if you get money for,
you will be able to spend it.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: You actually have a plan for that?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Based on...
Mr. Tabata: Based on the GET funds available. That is
what we create that submittal for.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. I know you folks...
Mr. Tabata: Our GET presentation.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know it is for that source of money, but
whatever the source of money, you have a plan.
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have prioritized the roads based on
severity of need?
Mr. Tabata: Severity of need, and we also tying in traffic
volume and destination.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So it is a far more objective set of
criteria for prioritizing roads than we have had in the past?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think you have really developed with your
MicroPAVER program.
COUNCIL MEETING 59 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you actually have a plan, which is
important because we do not want to fund something for which there is no plan.
Alright. Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: I wanted to just add Councilmember Kuali`i's
question about capacity. The City and County of Honolulu does a combination of
resurfacing their own and contracting. They do five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000) a year, so the capacity is there.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would suggest that the Walmart in Honolulu
makes a whole lot of money than the Walmart here too, right?
Mr. Tabata: Exactly.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is apples and oranges.
Mr. Tabata: Critical mass is the key.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Are there another questions?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just went over earlier that the legislation of
the previous Council in 2013 raised approximately two million two hundred thousand
dollars ($2,200,000) additional taxes through the vehicle weight tax, and then
another one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) annually from the
fuel tax increases. So that total is three million four hundred thousand
dollars ($3,400,000) more revenue than we had in 2012 and prior. My question is,
most of that three million four hundred thousand dollars ($3,400,000) in additional
revenue just went to subsidize normal operations that were being depleted because
we are saying that well, we only have one million two hundred thousand
dollars ($1,200,000) every year. So every two (2) years, we pave two million four
hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000). I am thinking where has all of the excess
gone? This is just a mere small portion of the total that we collect. I mean, there is
so much more that has been collected year after year after year. I thought that was
sufficient to cover the normal operations and what have you with the Roads Division,
Transportation Agency, and Auto Maintenance. Where did the increase...did they all
just spread out to cover normal operations?
Mr. Shimonishi: Councilmember Kagawa, if you look in those
years, what was executed was funding part of the bus, transportation operations,
from the Highway Fund when it was previously all General Fund. I think roughly
between two million dollars ($2,000,000) to three million dollars ($3,000,000), two
million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000) maybe went to fund our transit
operations to help alleviate some of the pressure on the General Fund as well. You
COUNCIL MEETING 60 MAY 4, 2016
are correct in that it got absorbed through other operating costs as well as negotiated
bargaining increases and so on. I think if you look at where the revenue went and
was spent, you will find that would be a big piece of it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Here is my main question then, if
Councilmember Yukimura's legislation were to pass, this one before and it is a really
large hypothetical question, it would raise six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000)
for the fuel tax, an additional two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000)
and seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) additionally in motor vehicle
weight tax, totaling approximately three million eight hundred thousand
dollars ($3,800,000) of additional taxes through vehicles. How much of that would be
spread out among normal operations and how much would be left to pave roads if we
do this, or are we saying well this legislation passes, we guarantee that the full three
million eight hundred thousand dollars ($3,800,000) will go to repaving roads? Is
that a fair statement?
Mr. Tabata: If you designate it to only go to road
resurfacing and repairs, then that is the designation. I have no choice, but to use it
for road repairs. If you make the amendment on the floor, then that is where I will
be having it designated to be spent.
Councilmember Kagawa: I actually thought the last increases were
going to do that, but I guess not. Anyway, I am ready. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Just a brief follow-up on that. You may have
already answered the question and I apologize if I am asking a redundant question.
Of the moneys spent today repaving, how much of that is General Fund?
Mr. Tabata: None.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Would there be any supplanting of
general funds if this passes?
Mr. Tabata: I believe that is what the last two (2) increases
did, was allow roads to not rely on the General Fund any more.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: The only General Fund the Roads Division
spends is for non-highway repairs. We do work for the Department of Parks &
Recreation, we do work for other departments in the County that we cannot use the
Highway Fund for, so we use the General Fund moneys.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 61 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: But nothing prevents and I cannot remember
when...it was probably four (4) years ago or five (5) years ago the Council in the
budget process put in an additional...I do not know if you were here Lyle. Maybe it
was before your time. I am sure it was before your time, but the Council put in an
extra...Councilmember Yukimura, you were here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Three million dollars ($3,000,000) or so, four
million dollars ($4,000,000) from the General Fund into the paving fund to get more
roads paved, but that was a while back. That was a one-time deal.
Mr. Tabata: Yes, it was before my time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser is correct that if it is
a priority of the County, the Council, and the Administration, we can definitely use
General Fund money instead of raising taxes. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to thank Council Vice Chair for his
questions because it is clearly my intent that these moneys be used for repaving
programs, but it is not specifically earmarked as such and I will be preparing an
amendment to that effect because it is a very good point. I expect and intend that it
be used, and I think this Administration would use it for that, but just to make
everything binding, I think we need an amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: My question is about the ability to get those
jobs contracted and not through any fault of the Administration, but just the process,
right? You put out contractors bid. The process takes so long. How many
contractors? You have three (3) contractors on the island and they are hung up on
State jobs or maybe existing County jobs. Do we really have the capacity? I think
Councilmember Kuali`i was asking, what is the capacity for this Administration to
manage providing you have funds, because no sense proving five million dollars
($5,000,000) in paving money, but logistically and because of procurement law we
cannot reach that just because of the ability of contractors. I do not know how you
figure that out.
Mr. Tabata: I believe that for the ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) or I would say the eight million dollars ($8,000,000) plus, just
short of nine million dollars ($9,000,000) that we had brought forward with GET, we
had anticipated a need of one (1), perhaps two (2) inspectors depending on how spread
across the island we ventured. However, with the amount that is currently on the
floor, we would not need another person, and we would strategize saying to limit the
amount of mobilization costs in one (1) section of the island and moving across.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
COUNCIL MEETING 62 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: My question is not about how the County
would respond because I know we could definitely manage it. It is not so much our
side, it is the private sector, the contractor's side.
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there enough contractors?
Mr. Tabata: I believe so.
Council Chair Rapozo: You believe there are?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The State has been doing extensive repaving,
and I think at some point in the past, we have had some concerns about whether
there would be more than one bidder and so forth. But now that the State is doing so
much, would you say that problem has been mitigated?
Mr. Tabata: I believe so. They have been able to bring the
extra...with the extra volume and they proved that what we were saying all along,
that with more volume we would get more people bidding, and they have.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you know how many miles of road the
State has repaved and plan to repave?
Mr. Tabata: They started all the way from Pacific Missile
Range Facility (PMRF) and working their way all the way in. I believe the last
segment here by halfway bridge is it for now. Then they had gone out last year to do
the community outreach to pave from right outside of Kapa'a Town, all the way to
Princeville. That is the next phase over the next two (2) years that is going to be
happening
Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe about twenty (20) miles a year?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, about there.
Councilmember Yukimura: If they are doing miles (20) miles a year, how
many miles do we do on the average every two (2) years?
Mr. Tabata: With the two million four hundred thousand
dollars ($2,400,000), we recently completed just about seven (7) miles. It was in the
report.
COUNCIL MEETING 63 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I know. I saw it.
Mr. Tabata: I think it was just about seven (7) miles total.
Councilmember Yukimura: Seven (7) miles?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: With collector roads?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we were to double that, we are looking at
say fifteen (15) miles, if you...
Mr. Tabata: Yes. In 2012, remember we had that money
that carried over from previous administrations that believe we had just about six
million dollars ($6,000,000). We did fifteen (15) miles.
Councilmember Yukimura: Fifteen (15) miles? Okay. Alright. Would we
be in the ballpark of what State has been doing, and they have not had problems
getting bidders?
Mr. Tabata: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. We actually should try to do this before
the price of oil goes up because then the price of asphalt goes up, and everything goes
up.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you for the perspective that we are
looking at it from. The total bill we are looking at is one hundred five million
dollars ($105,000,000), is that correct?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: About there?
Mr. Tabata: That was the estimate at that time. We have
revisited and even came to the conclusion that — and I supplied the report to
COUNCIL MEETING 64 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura, and I think we should share it with everybody. It is
significant. I do not have the number right off the top of my head.
Councilmember Chock: Is it more?
Mr. Tabata: But for us to be sustainable, we created a
seventeen (17) year plan to get us into a cycle, and again, we go back to the definition
of sustainable. To me, sustainable is something that is repeatable that we can as a
County continue, so that we do not get to the situation where we are today.
Councilmember Chock: The plan you are talking about is based on the
GET?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, the GET funds.
Councilmember Chock: Right.
Mr. Tabata: We are talking about significantly less. We
are going to have to revisit.
Councilmember Chock: Right. I guess that is what I am trying to get
at. With the two million four hundred thousand dollars ($2,400,000) every two (2)
years...
Mr. Tabata: We will never catch up.
Councilmember Chock: We will never, even with the three million
eight hundred thousand dollars ($3,800,000), we are looking at twenty (20) plus years
to breakeven if at that.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. I believe Ed Renaud does computation
for us based on five million dollars ($5,000,000), and it did not end in thirty (30) years.
It kept going. Based on the GET, the eight million dollars ($8,000,000) to ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) a year, we calculated a conservative number, which we were
asked to do, was seventeen (17) years to get us into a distinct cycle.
Councilmember Chock: The right amount per year in order to get on
that plan is eight million dollars ($8,000,000) annually. Is that correct?
Mr. Tabata: I think it was increasing over time.
Councilmember Chock: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: The question is what would happen after the
ten (10) years if GET went away. Well, we just kept taking it out to the point where
we did complete everything and it was not a repeatable cycle.
COUNCIL MEETING 65 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: The one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) that we talk about all the time, that is the County portion or
is that total?
Mr. Tabata: That is the County match to...
Councilmember Yukimura: We are matching.
Mr. Tabata: ...also work with federal funds to do the
collector roads.
Council Chair Rapozo: So the one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) does not include the federal funds?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura
Councilmember Yukimura: Does it cover bridges as well as roads?
Mr. Tabata: No, that was just for road resurfacing. That
bridge was a whole different...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, okay.
Mr. Tabata: Remember the GET was for twenty million
dollars ($20,000,000), and then just the road portion was a little over eight million
dollars ($8,000,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: That is why I proposed the seventeen
cents ($0.17) and some vehicle weight tax because that would have given us ten
million dollars ($10,000,000) a year. I think Ken you told me it would then cover
bridges. It would cover road repaving and bridges.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I wanted to ask Lyle, when you say that...we
have allowed ourselves to get to such a place like somebody paying off a mortgage by
paying so little that we are only paying off the interest and not reducing the...
Mr. Tabata: Good characterization, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Tabata: Nothing on the principal.
COUNCIL MEETING 66 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: And borrowing more.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Extending the mortgage by using equity and
spending more paying minimum. You will never catch up.
Councilmember Yukimura: You never catch up.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is a great analogy.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I might have missed it earlier, and even in
some prior presentation, but the one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) backlog,
that represents how many years of not doing how much?
Mr. Tabata: I cannot answer that.
Councilmember Kuali`i: At one point, there was an amount that we
should do every year.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Or was there never really a plan even
twenty (20) years ago, of how to keep up with the roads? I would imagine there must
have been an amount that we were supposed to be doing every year, and so over what
period of time did we not do it and that we come to the place of one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000)? It seems that the Highway Fund as it currently exists, unless
we drastically increase the rates, it would not be enough to address such a backlog
because this backlog came as a result of many years? How many years? Five (5)
years? Twenty (20) years?
Mr. Tabata: Before our first resurfacing that our
Administration performed in 2012, there had not been any resurfacing for the five (5)
previous years.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The year prior to the five (5)years of not being
done, was on a certain schedule? In five (5) years we got one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000)...
Mr. Tabata: They had a schedule; however...
Councilmember Kuali`i: It was not adequate?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 67 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: It was not doing enough and then for five (5)
years, not doing any?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: For that periods of not doing enough, which
might have been another ten years (10) to twenty (20) years plus the five (5) years of
not doing any, we have gotten this one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000)
backlog. It does seem too then that the only we can flip that is to invest as much time
as we have not invested. If it took twenty-five (25) years to get us into this backlog,
it may take us at least ten (10) years to get out of this backlog.
Mr. Tabata: I had mentioned that we did a comprehensive
review that said it will take minimum, seventeen (17) years.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay. In that comprehensive view of
seventeen (17) years, we did that analyses for GET, of what it would take, right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes
Councilmember Kuali`i: Have we done the same thing for vehicle
weight and gas?
Mr. Tabata: No.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Or have we done the same thing for the
existing budget, real property tax out of operating budget, because I would say that
we have to look at every way that this is possible. We have been backed into a corner
by the legislature on the GET as far as when we can vote on that, and obviously with
Councilmember Yukimura reintroducing this, we can vote on the vehicle weight tax
and the fuel tax any time. We can come up every month or every two (2) months, and
neither of those mechanisms get to go to the voters, but on how we spend real property
tax, the voters can decide on that. I am looking at and just asked at possibly
proposing a charter amendment where the people can vote on how we pay for this
backlog because a one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) backlog cannot be
addressed with what Councilmember Yukimura is proposing today.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Councilmember Kuali`i: We are making decisions for the people on
increasing their taxes at a time when we are dealing with the budget. I agree with
some of the other Councilmembers that we should not be raising any taxes, not GET,
not fuel, and not vehicle weight. If it is such a backlog and we get the people's outcry
to say "we need to find the money to fix these roads," then the people can play a role
in that by supporting a charter amendment much like they supported a charter
amount years ago for an Open Space Fund. We are not talking about regular
COUNCIL MEETING 68 MAY 4, 2016
maintenance year in and year out. We are talking about a one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) backlog that came about in a twenty (20) year period. So maybe
the people can step up and say, "Yes, we get it. We see it all over the island and we
are going to vote to create a special fund to help the Administration deal with
addressing the backlog." I think that is an option. I just figured it out and I am going
to propose that. I am going to work with the Department of Finance.
Mr. Tabata: Not to short-change the people who came
before me, they did what they could. When we came in, budgeting for road
resurfacing and road repairs was based on this is amount of money you have, match
it. Make the roads match the amount of money you have.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right.
Mr. Tabata: I imagine previous administrations did the
same thing. They were given this amount of money and so you select the roads based
on the highest need to match the money you have.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Obviously we cannot fault the people who are
doing the work.
Mr. Tabata: We still do that today.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But the people who made the budget who did
it, made a mistake there. So previous Mayors and previous Councils did not allocate
enough money, especially if you asked for it. What was an appropriate amount?
Maybe it really was not asked for, too. But never mind. That happened in the past.
We have to fix what is going forward.
Mr. Tabata: I believe we did...
Councilmember Kuali`i: And there is ways to do it.
Mr. Tabata: We did submit...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on for both sides because I have heard
it several times today. One (1) person talk at a time because the poor lady that has
to type this stuff goes nuts, and when we see the minutes, it says, "inaudible,
inaudible, inaudible." Please...
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not just you. It is everybody. Let the
person finish what they are saying and then we respond, because poor thing.
Anyway.
COUNCIL MEETING 69 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Tabata: Just to support what we did submit, it was the
GET. We did all of this work that you are describing and I further refined it at
Councilmember Yukimura's request. Instead of it ending in ten (10) years, I came up
with seventeen (17) years. I will not say, "I came up." My team, the Roads Division,
took three and a half(31/4) months and they came up with what we came up with.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I see your hand, Councilmember Yukimura.
Just in the past, the technology that you folks have today, and this is to your credit,
Lyle and since you folks came to the Administration. It was really a political process
as far as what roads got paved. I say"political" not in a negative way. It was basically
report driven. Somebody would call the Mayor's Office, somebody would call the
Roads Division, somebody would call the Council and say, "When are you folks going
to pave my road," that went into the funnel, and then at some point the Department
of Public Works would look at the list and determined the need. If you ran the same
analysis we did today, back ten (10) of fifteen (15)years ago, you would have the same
result. I think more roads would fit into the category of needing to be repaved or
being rebuilt, but on the surface it does not look that way so the people are not
complaining. I think that is where my question on the one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) projects is. Out of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000)
on the list, what roads are in that need? What is the Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 because
you are right? It would be tough to get to all of those roads, but we have to start
somewhere. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The problem in addressing this problem is
when you reconstruct or repave the road, whatever solution is appropriate, you then
have to keep it maintained because otherwise while you are fixing all the other roads,
you allow the newly paved roads to deteriorate further. Then you are in a constant
cycle and not able to catch up. That is why you need a certain amount of money at
one time. It is not a matter of just putting in a little bit at a time, and that is why
the previous proposal that I made would have yielded ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) a year. That is what I understood would have covered the road
and bridge repairs. It is a huge amount to pay, even though if you really looked at, I
think it was like if this was a one dollar and thirty cents ($1.30) a month, it might
have been five dollars ($5) to ten dollars ($10) a month, which is a bigger burden.
Now if you are saving one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) a gallon, you have that leeway
to spend. If the gas prices go up, it becomes impossible to put a fuel tax or vehicle
weight tax in place, and that is why the time is now. With gas prices cheaper, the
asphalt prices are cheaper. It is like will we take up this window now or will we let
it pass? Regarding Councilmember Kuali`i's statement, we do not have to have a
charter amendment. We just have to have people say "We want to stop the bleeding.
Do pass something here that will help fund this so that we can have good roads now
and into the future." I mean, people can say that right now and we are the people
COUNCIL MEETING 70 MAY 4, 2016
doing the budget right now. We say all those people doing the budget in prior years,
they missed the boat and they did not get it done. Well, now is the time for us, but
we do need support from the public because the public can keep saying "kick the can
down the road," and then the likelihood is that we will, but then, where will this
island end up?
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Again, this is from you are CPAs, N&K CPA,
Inc., and the spreadsheet on performance on highway and street repaving. If you look
at year 2006, we did eleven point zero five (11.05) miles. In 2007, we did eleven (11)
miles, and in 2008 we did thirteen point six (13.6) miles. If I had a pointer, I could
show the line I am looking at. It is the sixth line from the top. In 2009, we did
seventeen (17) miles, 2010 seventeen point five (17.5) miles, in 2011 we did ten point
two (10.2) miles, 2012 was blank. Zero (0). In 2013, we did nine (9) miles, in 2014 we
did eight point four (8.4) miles, and in 2015 was another blank. What happened
during those years I would say from 2011 to 2015? Was it a lack of funding why we
performed so poorly in repaving?
Mr. Tabata: The blank years is because we went into that
every other year, remember, aggregated funds. We significantly changed how we
resurfaced because remember, we were going into this heavy reconstruction of roads,
and that significantly reduced the lane miles. That is why you see miles heavy
upfront because they are just putting resurfacing, and as we found when we came in,
and people in the community have testified under resurface the amounts of tons per
mile we placed, we over surfaced tons per mile. We have stricter restrictions, but the
majority of the reduction is because we have gone into heavy reconstruction of roads.
Councilmember Kagawa: Basically we are doing a higher quality of a
job now per mile?
Mr. Tabata: Only time will tell, but that is the intent, that
we are going a better job.
Councilmember Kagawa: But if we are going every other year, how
come in 2013 and 2014, we...
Mr. Tabata: I am not sure. Maybe that is how it got
reported.
Councilmember Kagawa: Maybe the contract was split?
Mr. Tabata: The contract went out in 2012 and then it was
completed in 2014. Over the two (2) years, maybe that is the receipts that were
booked. Then in 2014, we went out to bid again, so it is in 2015 it got done. Now we
COUNCIL MEETING 71 MAY 4, 2016
are going out to 2016, which then is going to end up in 2017. I am not sure how it
gets booked and recorded accounting wise, but something needs to be a little bit...
Councilmember Kagawa: I am sure that the accountants pulled the
miles from the contracts to the road resurfacing companies because the accountants
do not tend to fudge or maybe up numbers.
Mr. Tabata: No, but the miles are correct. But where it
exactly falls in what year, I am not sure.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: You may have signed the contract, but when
the roads actually got paved might have varied?
Mr. Tabata: Right. I believe what you see in 2013 and
2014 is what was let out in 2012 because that adds up close to sixteen (16) miles
including collector roads. I believe 2013 is when Kekaha Road was completed. So we
have those funds in there, too.
Councilmember Yukimura: Lyle, when you say that the roads are repaved
better and sometimes reconstructed, because that is the right way to do it, does that
mean that they will presumably last longer?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: And therefore, we should be getting more for
our money?
Mr. Tabata: You will see like we just as we let out a
contract for slurry seal, you have to follow within five (5) years after you resurface
with this other treatment that can extend the life. Slurry seal is what we saw on
Hardy Street. We are doing a treatment like that to then extend the wear life of the
pavement.
Councilmember Yukimura: So timing is very important and...
Mr. Tabata: Very important.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...the implementation of the repaving
program?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ken, in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013,
budget-wise, we were trying to get out of a big hole, right?
COUNCIL MEETING 72 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Shimonishi: Correct. Fiscal Years 2011, 2012, and 2013,
resulted in rather large deficits and the rundown of the Fund Balance.
Councilmember Yukimura: We did not have the freedom to take from
General Fund or whatever at that point. We were actually trying to remove things
like the bus from the General Fund if we found other places to fund it by. In 2006
and 2007, could we have been using General Fund money or is this all Highway Fund
money?
Council Chair Rapozo: I believe it is all Highway Fund money. I
think that only one (1) year, and I am trying to think back when, but that one (1) year
we put in the extra money. Prior, I think it is always been...
Councilmember Yukimura: Did we not use bond money sometime, too,
until we were told because of GASB or whatever it was? I think we stopped. I think
we were using bond money to maybe much earlier.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, thank you. We
will not be taking public testimony today. I am just kidding, Glenn. I saw your
fingernails go into the armrest of that chair. Do we have any registered speakers?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes we do, Chair. The first registered speaker
is Glenn Mickens, followed by Lonnie Sykos.
Council Chair Rapozo: Breathe, Glenn.
Mr. Mickens: I think only you and Councilmember
Yukimura have probably been here as long as I have been testifying about this issue,
right? I do not think the rest of you were here at that time, but I know you keep on
saying...okay. There has been a lot of great questions asked today, particularly by
you, Councilmember Kagawa, but I have not heard answers. After reading Proposed
Draft Bills Nos. 2630 and 2631 that are proposed to raise our fuel tax, vehicle weight
tax, and registration fees, the only exclamatory word I can think of is "insanity." Bill
No. 2630 states that "the one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) road repair bill
was due to deferred maintenance accumulated over many years and was cause by a
failure of public officials to put enough revenues in the Highway Fund through fuel
and vehicle weight tax and registration fees." Our vehicle rate tax was recently raised
and now due to incompetence in the system, we, the taxpayers, are asked to pay more
money to rectify their mistake. Unbelievable. Before continually raising our taxes,
what are we not finding out where the tax money is going, as Councilmember Kagawa
keeps on asking, particularly our fuel and weight tax? For three (3) years, none of
our roads got repaved even though our Council appropriated millions of dollars to do
this job just as budget has been appropriated over the years. I think has been roughly
one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) a year that were supposedly
to be paved, and we were paving the roads illegally at that time. Again, those of you
who were here have seen me repetitiously and factually show you how we were
COUNCIL MEETING 73 MAY 4, 2016
spending millions of dollars for asphalt cement (AC) repaving, and we are not getting
the material we were paying for. No one was willing to investigate and find out who
was responsible for this illegal action so now you want to penalize the public with
more taxes to pay for these gross mistakes. I can take any of you to a section of Hauiki
Road anytime you want that was repaved in October of 2010, and show you where
the center section is all cracked and coming off due to improper amount of AC not one
and a half (1%) we paid for put down for the final lift. With all due respect to my
friend Larry Dill, he was not our engineer at the time and rectified this illegal mistake
when he came on-board as was being pointed out. Now that we are paving the roads
properly, it is going to cost more obviously, which I have been screaming about year
after year after year, and nobody wanted to do anything about it. Further, to repave
a mile of road twenty (20) feet wide costs three hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($350,000), but the multi-use path has cost us five million two hundred
thousand dollars ($5,200,000) per mile and more for a ten (10) feet wide four (4) inch
slab of cement. Why was there no investigation to see why this is happen by wasting
more tax money? Both the roads and path are eighty percent (80%) funded by the
federal government with twenty percent (20%) from our pockets. All of our money.
What about the millions of dollars of waste in the building and maintenance of our
bridges? Councilmember Yukimura, you brought that up about the bridges again.
Council Chair Rapozo: Glenn, that is your first three (3) minutes.
Mr. Mickens: Okay. I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I failed to say that we are going to take
the Communication with the Bill and Resolution. If you testified during the
Communication, you will not be allowed to testify again at the Bill or Resolution. If
you want to speak on the Bill now, that is fine because it is covered by the
Communication. If you use up your time here, then you will not be able to speak at
the Bill or Resolution.
Mr. Mickens: I will come back for my other three (3)
minutes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Anybody else? Yes, we have Lonnie
signed up. Anyone else after Lonnie?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Matt Bernabe.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. It is obvious to
everybody that we have to put more money into our roads. The question here is how
are we going to manage our money and how are we going to manage the process,
which has been disastrous for the tax paying public for the last twenty-five (25) years
or so. What we are looking for, our objection to increasing taxes on anything, is the
COUNCIL MEETING 74 MAY 4, 2016
fact that we do not see an increase in efficiency. I will stop here and say tip of the
hat to our Acting County Engineer and our previous one for their very good efforts in
creating a road repair and paving plan. I have nothing, but admiration for what they
do, but their hands are tied in the big picture. It is the big picture that is the problem
for the public. We do not see outside of Lyle. We do not see where there is going to
be either in increase in efficiency or competency in handling the money. We have
been told through the years and again today that the money that was taken from us
in taxes and we, the public, were told that the rationale for the taxation was roads
and then significant amounts of the money get sucked into other areas, which I am
sure need money, but that is not how our process works. Our process, due process,
what is right for us taxpayers, is you have to tell us in advance what you are going to
spend the money on before you take the money from us. Tip of the hat to
Councilmember Yukimura. I would say that relying on faith that the Administration
will spend the money the way they say will is an utter joke. We have been through
twenty-five (25) years of that and that is why our roads are in such a horrible shape.
If you want to collect money from us for roads, make sure it is earmarked for that and
cannot be sucked into some other aspect. I will use my other three (3) minutes later.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Bernabe.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe, for the record. I am also going
to attempt to answer Councilmember Kagawa's question. In 2013, you folks
apparently came up with this multi-modal transportation model. We have seen a
super aggressive beautification of streets like Hardy Street, but also the
implementation of a bunch of bike trails that in some cases are not even legal. If you
couple that with the amount of time wasted, in my opinion, looking for Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant for Rice Street, not to
mention the two million dollars ($2,000,000) that we would have to match that
thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000), and we are sitting here having this discussion,
I have got to be honest, that is where you find your money. You tell these people, how
much did it cost for that illegal bike trail? Even if it is thirty thousand dollars
($30,000), that is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) that could have gone to one road.
The one that we had the after-the-fact resolution that they came here and did not
have any due process? The TIGER grant, is one of our best roads in the inventory.
Why are we talking about ripping it up and destroying it? That is allocated time and
energy just for coming here and dealing with the process of that TIGER grant, that
they could be addressing that energy and money somewhere else. I live in Kapa`a.
The road going up to Kapa'a High School and Mahelona Medical Center on Kawaihau
Road, the section from the highway up, that is like a motorcycle track with a bunch
of"whoopee doos." I swear it is a bunch of"whoopee doos." How long have I see that
road like that? That is a road that could have been addressed. It is actually in more
dire street than Hardy Street was. Let us take a fieldtrip. Let us see some of these
County roads. The way these people are spending the money is ridiculous. They are
wasting our money. This multi-mode has sucked the energy of the focus of all we are
talking about. They are not focused on resurfacing roads. We have about what, three
COUNCIL MEETING 75 MAY 4, 2016
hundred (300) miles of roads. Even at twenty (20) miles a year, that is a very
small...that is not even ten percent (10%) of our roads per year resurfaced if that is
three hundred (300) miles. What is the percentage of the roadways that O`ahu does
per year? You want to throw out O`ahu as an example of they are this and they are
that, what is the outright percentage that they resurface of their roads every year?
We have have peanuts. I am embarrassed to hear we have only done nine (9) miles,
ten (10) miles, or twelve (12) miles. Embarrassing. I am ashamed.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I wanted to ask Mr. Bernabe a question.
Mr. Bernabe: I hope I have an answer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, you should have it because it is to
restate or rephrase.
Mr. Bernabe: Oh, perfect.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not a new question.
Mr. Bernabe: Better yet. Matt Bernabe again.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you think we should repave more roads
than we have repaving now? Do you not believe we need more money for it? So do
you oppose this Bill? I just want to be clear about your position.
Mr. Bernabe: I oppose this Bill because they spend our
money bad. Is that a clear answer?
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, that is clear.
Mr. Rosa: For the record, Joe Rosa. Again, I never hear
this thing mentioned from the year 2004 to 2014. Where did all of the money go? It
was spent on something that I heard people come up here and say that by doing it
will solve the transportation problem, but yet, to me it is a white elephant. Traffic is
still a problem. The infrastructure is still a problem. I have heard all of the previous
County mayors saying their prime objective was to fix the infrastructure, but yet,
they did nothing from 2004 to 2014. Where did the gas money or vehicle weight tax
money go? It went to something that is a white elephant, the bike path. The bike
path is completed to Wailua, but it has not solved anything in that corridor. Who is
pulling the blinds over the people's eyes on Kaua`i? It was the previous County
Engineering Division coming in saying that is going to solve the problem because it
was going to take the cyclists off the highways and put them on the bike path. I have
COUNCIL MEETING 76 MAY 4, 2016
not seen it. I testified before here and now the person who made that statement, I
chased him out of here. I said there is no justification, and today, there is no
justification. I worked thirty-six (36) years with highways, and a lot of these things
here is neglected. Today I can say the same thing. It is neglect because the highway
maintenance, they cannot even do the trimming of the sides because there is only
one (1) road in and one (1) road out. That is why I always emphasized alternate
routes so people can do their work sufficiently, do it right, and keep the life of the
highway. Take Kiipu Road. That is another road that is in jeopardy. This was a
County road that the County took over, widened it up, realigned it, and today it is in
chaos. Again, it is one of the roads that the County has in jeopardy. Puhi Road was
the same thing. You see, they can say anything, but then again, the roads always get
fixed on the evening years, the so-called election years, and then paving comes to be
priority where a politician would live on our a Councilmember or a Department Head
would live on. So that is how it was. It was not done with a need of repairs to be
done.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay Joe. That is your first three (3) minutes.
Mr. Rosa: I will be back.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wanting to speak for
the first time? Mr. Taylor.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and Members of the Council, my name
is Ken Taylor. We all know that we need to fix the roads. They are in terrible shape,
but the problem is the inefficiency of the County government not needing to raise
more taxes. Some examples, Big Save market space across the street. It has been
sitting there empty there for six (6) years to seven (7) years. I do not know what it
was generated in rentals before, but somewhere between twenty thousand
dollars ($20,000) and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) a month, sitting there empty
for six (6) years to seven (7) years. To put salt in the wound, we turn around and rent
space across the street for the Office of the County Auditor's, and I understand it is
around fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) a month. If these numbers are not correct,
we can be corrected. I have been on the island about twelve (12) years now and I have
heard year after year after year, Mr. Mickens coming up here and talking about the
quality of the road repair and what has not been done. He has taken some of you and
past Councilmembers up and showed you the problems. Never once has anybody
bothered to start an investigation as to what the heck is going on. It is time, before
you start raising taxes, to get the problem at-hand straight. It puts the burden on all
of you. You have the authority to do the investigation. Where is the money going?
We heard that for three (3) years there was no road repair done because we are going
to get a big chunk of money, and then we can be more efficient and get a better price.
Where did the money go? We did not see any big increases in road repair. These are
the things that need to be dealt with before you raise the taxes. We have been told
over and over again that you folks control the purse strings. Well, let us see how you
control the purse strings. Investigate where the money is going and why we are not
COUNCIL MEETING 77 MAY 4, 2016
being as efficient as we should be with the tax dollars that are now currently coming
in? Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for
the first time?
NORMA DOCTOR SPARKS: Norma Doctor Sparks. I would ask that this
not move forward because there is no additional information that can actually show
that additional taxes should be imposed. I do not even know really what the existing
funding for the roads in the budget at this time is and how much federal funding we
are pursuing. It is unclear whether or not the surplus or the lack of spending of about
twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) funds in
the budget are due to savings in personnel budget, which sometimes cannot be
touched, or whether it is operating funds, which can then be touched. I do know that
we do need to have some good roads. It is important to all of us; however, we also
need to manage our budget as well. Until we can actually find out exactly what the
budget is and what our priorities are as a County, then I do not think we should
impose any additional taxes on all of us. I do know there should be some designation
that any of these taxes, if increased, should be designated only for specific things. I
am not even sure that the gas tax, for example, which I believe has a designation, has
actually been used by the County in that way that it was designated. Again, because
there is not enough information and trying to figure this out as we go along based on
maybe or perhaps, is not good enough. Until it is better, then we should not move
forward with any tax on us at all. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on, Norma. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Ms. Sparks, do you feel that we should not go
to a public hearing, that we should stop it on first reading?
Ms. Sparks: I do. I do not think that the public hearing
will give any more information unless before a public hearing more information that
is more definite can be given to the public.
Councilmember Yukimura: It does allow for that.
Ms. Sparks: It does.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, that was beyond the restate or
rephrase, but I appreciate that. Councilmember Yukimura will have an opportunity
to discuss her position on going forward to a public hearing and Committee at a later
time. Thank you.
Ms. Sparks: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 78 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to speak for the first
time? Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart: For the record, Bruce Hart. In 1969, my
stepmother brought a brand new Chevy Nova for two thousand six hundred
ninety-five dollars ($2,695). I remember what Council Chair Rapozo said. He said it
upsets him when you say it is just twenty dollars ($20), and it just makes you wonder
that same car today will cost you thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). As a member of
the public, I keep wondering when it is going to end. Are our keiki going to be paying
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for a Chevy Nova in another thirty (30) or
forty (40) years? Are we going to have a road backlog of five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000)? This is not crazy talk. I just gave you the numbers and I
have lived long enough to see it. It is just insane. At some point, I remember
Councilmember Kuali`i said, at some point we have to begin. This problem is
overwhelming so we can all see that we have to begin somewhere, but is that
beginning just repeating a pattern of raising taxes to the people? Whenever a
business runs into a problem like this, they have though find another way. They
cannot just go to the public and say, "Well, there is all these situations and all of these
numbers" and just wear us down. This is the GET, and it is being called something
else. Taxes are taxes. Come on. We just have to tackle it at some point. We are
going to have to find creative ways to generate revenue. As a member of the public,
I am not against the government. It is not just a blanket statement. I am against
the government taxing the people. We are asking you to do something, fix the road,
but we are frustrated. We are really just frustrated over "well, it is only twenty
dollars ($20)." Two thousand six hundred ninety-five dollars ($2,695), and now it
costs thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). We just wonder when it is going to end.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to speak for the first
time? I do not think there is anybody else here. Going back, does anybody want to
speak for a second time, starting with Glenn?
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. For the
record, Glenn Mickens. Councilmember Yukimura brought up bridges. Council
Chair Rapozo and Councilmember Yukimura were both here when we sat here until
4:30 in the morning and built Olohena Bridge over a ditch. It was not even a river.
It was not a stream. It was a ditch. We spent four million eight hundred thousand
dollars ($4,800,000) on that, and we had proof that the ACROW people would have
built it for $600,000, but we did not do it. Why? We spent twelve million
dollars ($12,000,000) redoing the Kilauea Bridge. They would have built it for under
one million dollars ($1,000,000). I personally spoke to the ACROW people and they
said that. Why? We talk about waste. We are talking about twelve million
dollars ($12,000,000) as opposed to under one million dollars ($1,000,000). Start
going after the waste in the system before we even think or talk about raising taxes
again. This goes on and on. The system that we have obviously needs changing. You
have heard this like a broken record. We need a county manager type of system. At
COUNCIL MEETING 79 MAY 4, 2016
least you are going to have somebody responsible. When something goes wrong, the
Mayor is going to sitting here at the desk with you folks.
Council Chair Rapozo: Glenn, that is another item on the agenda.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are on the tax rate.
Mr. Mickens: Okay. I got you Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Mickens: Anyway, we have to do something about the
waste in this system, obviously. You keep talking about it, Councilmember Kagawa,
we are broke, but we keep on spending money like it is going out of style or you are
talking about we have excess at the end of the year, so what do we do with it? Well,
we better spend it. We do not want to save it or put it back into the General Fund or
anything, right? Let us go ahead and spend it because we have other things to spend
it for. We have to be prudent with what we are doing. You do with your own bank
accounts, do you not? If we keep on spending, we take one (1) credit card and
go...well, some people do, I guess. But it is not the way you will get your head above
water. Anyway, I do hope again, that we will investigate and find out the wrongdoing
in the system before we even talk about taxes. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to speak for a second
time? It is Lonnie, Matt, Joe, and then Ken.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. Just a couple of
points here, number one, one of the problems that our roads have currently that this
Bill is not going address and, in fact is just throwing good money after bad, is there
are no longer ever any truck scales on our highways. Although that is a State
function, the County Council and the Mayor have the bully pulpit to the go to our
State Legislators to get some funding to bring the highway scales back. Of the
vehicles that are the most obvious ones to be violating the weight limits are the ones
either owned or hired by the County that are moving solid waste around. Our road
surfacing is not designed to be running like an interstate that has a gazillion
eighteen-wheelers fully loaded all the time. When we allow overloaded vehicles on
our roads, it tears them up and just costs us more money. We have a bunch of issues
that all need to be dealt with in order to not throw good money after bad. The one
hundred million dollar ($100,000,000), if I did my math correct, comes out to about
one hundred four thousand dollars ($1,400) per person, that is man, woman, and
child. If we want to take that burden off of the elderly and infants, we probably are
two thousand eight hundred dollars ($2,800) to three thousand dollars ($3,000) or
something per person in order to pay for the roads. Coming from that perspective,
the Administration and the Council wants to ask me to give the County one thousand
COUNCIL MEETING 80 MAY 4, 2016
four hundred dollars ($1,400) to fix the roads. My question is how is my money going
to be spent, which from the public has been the theme of the meeting which is we do
not believe our money has been well spent and we do not see any evidence that it will
be better spent than it was. All of the questions that have been raised about what
has happened in the past and the value of our money, my observation to the County
Council is please hire an auditor. This is what the auditor is for. The fact that all of
these questions exist and we cannot get the answers is because the Council fails in
its duty to provide the public with an auditor. So get us an auditor as part of getting
our roads repaved. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Hang on. Is Matt
gone? Okay, Joe.
Mr. Rosa: For the record, Joe Rosa. I do not know...a
long time before the County had a regular road maintenance crew that went around
to patch roads and do whatever. I do not see that done anymore. I do not even see
them coming into the residential areas, more on the edge of right-of-way and things
like that there. There is a lot of things that they do not do anymore. I hear Lyle
comes up here and they say that they reconstruct. Well as the State maintenance...I
had to go out with the State maintenance crew to tell them to reconstruct an area
that is a failure. It was not done by the contractors that is going to add to the cost of
paving. You had the maintenance crews that had money set aside for road
maintenance. We used go out and tell the maintenance department how much money
do you have this year for maintenance, and they utilized that money. I would go out
there and we had to dig a ten by ten (10x10), or a twelve by ten (12x10), or whatever
and fixed it that afternoon by using asphalt treated base, bring up to the public, get
it all ready for the contractor to come in and just pave the road. Not this double
dealing that you have to...you had a road maintenance crew. You utilized that
manpower. Those are the kind of things that I see the County, they do not run that
thing right. The simple things that can be taken care of because it was not a failure
sometimes. It was because there is a spring underneath there and that is not a
failure. A spring would keep it wet and moist and just be spongy. Then it starts
getting alligator cracks and then it starts spreading out from maybe a foot area go to
four (4) feet or five (5) feet, and then you have to get down to the base because you
have to put drain pipes underneath there, perforated pipe. All of these kind of things
are part of maintenance. Talk is easy to say, but there are things of knowing about
materials. When we go to paving classes, the engineers are not there. It is the
inspectors. I never did see County inspectors at any of the seminars that I attended
in Honolulu. So that is what I experienced coming in. I can back my experience
against an engineering degree because I have a little bit more know-how by going to
the seminars, and those were given by the paving companies. A lot of it is lack of
maintenance too, as I say. If they do not grade the shoulders, then the water stays
on the edge and another then you start getting it in between the cracks. Another
thing...
Council Chair Rapozo: Joe
COUNCIL MEETING 81 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Rosa: Yes, I am going to end it. Another thing, you
do not use slurry seal on the main highway because it causes slick coat and causes
accidents.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Rosa: You can use it on a basketball court, but not a
highway.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rosa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and Members of Council, Ken Taylor. If
the efficiency of the County operation was much better, I would be the first to approve
a tax increase. Gas taxes should be increased, but under the circumstances, I find it
very difficult to be supportive of it. I would look at a thirty cents ($0.30), forty
cents ($0.40), or fifty cents ($0.50) a gallon increase. I think that is where it should
be for many reasons. But again, there is so many problems with the County
operations that you cannot feel comfortable with moving forward with increasing
taxes because we have no idea how much is going to get squandered off into other
areas or something else happening to it, the job is not getting done, and down the
road we are going to need more tax because we are still behind the 8-ball on getting
the work done. Even if you could, over the next ten (10) years, get caught up on this
one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) operation, by the end of ten (10) years,
there is going another ten (10) years' worth of one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) worth of work that needs to be done, and it is going to be a
vicious circle. It has to become a more efficient operation because the maintenance
is going to go on and on and on. It needs to be addressed as an overall package to
look at what is needed. One million dollars ($1,000,000) a year certainly is not going
to solve the problem when you have three hundred (300) miles of roadway to
maintain. Something has to be looked at and a better plan putting together as to
what you are going to do. You are talking about doing a catch-up on one hundred
million dollars ($100,000,000) worth of backlog work in ten (10) years, but what about
all the work that is going to be needed at the end of that ten (10) years and the ten (10)
years after that? I know we do not have to worry about it. We are going to be gone,
right, so it is not a problem, but it is a problem. It needs to be the efficiency starting
at this table, demanding that the Administration perform. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Seeing none we will call the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 82 MAY 4, 2016
Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion? Again, this is just
the Communication. We will be discussing the Bill and the Resolution later today.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to say that Hardy Street and Rice
Street were not in their essence repaving jobs. They are or were and will be complete
streets projects to encourage walking and biking. How will these complete streets
benefit our community? They will get cars off the road and they will make those who
are willing to do active transportation, i.e. walking, biking, and riding transit,
healthier while they do car drivers a favor by moving around the island without
getting into a car. I want to thank Lonnie Sykos for recognizing the vast improvement
that the Department of Public Works has made in how they handle roads, both
assessing and repaving. Five (5) years ago, we did not have a system for objectively
assessing roads and costing out the repairs that are necessary. We did not have an
actual cost, we did not even know what total bill was, and we did not have any plan
as to how we were going to repave our roads. Now, we have all three (3). The
Department of Public Works took about a year or more to find out the system, the
software, the consultants that could show us how to assess these roads, and they have
also come forth with the figure that we have to plan around, the cost figure, and they
actually have a plan for repaving. Now we are saying "oh, but we still do not have
enough to start addressing this problem." Well, if we do not have enough now, we
will never have enough assurance of efficiency, and we are just going to let this
problem grow bigger and bigger. Is that what we want to do? Well, if you want to
analyze corruption or inefficiencies, let us do that, too, but to say we are not going to
move on this problem that gets worse and worse every day that we delay it, does not
make sense to me. I am hopeful that we will be able to somehow begin to address
this issue and at least allow at a definite time, a place for the public to give testimony
on this issue so that we can have complete understanding of what our choices are. I
think people really do want to have their roads in good condition, and if they do not
want to have it now, they will five (5) years from now, when it is going to get really
bad. It is our job as leaders to look ahead and to address the problem before it gets
worse.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is this our time to speak?
Council Chair Rapozo: For the Communication.
Councilmember Kagawa: Well, I just want to kind of put into
perspective. I mean, we are talking about why are we here? Why are we in this
predicament? Let us start by where did the County start getting into this hole that
we keep talking about? It was five (5) years ago that the state Legislature started
capping the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT). What that resulted in was a loss
of about twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000)
a year. Cumulatively, you are talking about fifty-two million dollars ($52,000,000)
COUNCIL MEETING 83 MAY 4, 2016
over the past four (4) years. In response, this Council, what they started to do
three (3) years ago was they first removed the property tax cap. By removing the cap,
that probably raised an initial ten million dollars ($10,000,000) a year or so, and they
increased the fuel taxes, the car registration fees, and the vehicle weight taxes. So
you could say that you lifted the cap, you raised the vehicle taxes, and you more than
made up for the amount, but basically I think it comes out to a wash with how the
County was operating with four (4) or five (5) years ago. Again, that is before I came
on-board, the TAT got capped. Again, I guess when you look at these taxes and you
try and justify it to the taxpayers, what they are looking for is they are looking for
some great outcome that is going to come if they are asked to pay more. I think
Council Chair Rapozo touched upon it the other week when we talked about the GET
because we all know that poor people have multiple vehicles just like people who are
wealthy. Not everybody can ride the bus or walk to wherever they need to go to drop
their kids to school. I mean, even Kapa'a low income. How do you walk from there
to Kapa'a Elementary school? It is much too far. Is the bus reliable for them to go to
the school? A lot of times, no. It leaves too early. So it is all about convenience and
how people choose to drive and such is not for us here it tell them, "you have this
option and you do that option" No. The taxes on the vehicles, we need to justify why
we are doing it. I do not see the evidence have proven to show that if we raise these
taxes, we raise your vehicle taxes another three million four hundred thousand
dollars ($3,400,000) with this passage of this Bill, three million four hundred
thousand dollars ($3,400,000) a year, that you will see improvements. I do not see it.
I think we need to prove, the Administration needs to prove in small ways to the
public that we can do the job and we are finally capable of doing the job. Then, I think
we should consider this Bill. I think it is premature at this point. I applaud
Councilmember Yukimura. When she puts these Bills forth on the agenda, it gives
us time to discuss the flaws, the history, the future, and the present of where we are
at. I think there is always good that comes out of that. It is not pleasant to discuss
it sometimes, but at least for the public, you are getting multiple opportunities to
hear about where we are at, why you look at certain roads such as Kawaihau Road.
I just drove on that road and it is in terrible shape. It is a highly used road to get to
school. We talk about Olohena Road. Before, there are complaints constantly coming
to the Council about Waimea. They are saying behind the main highway in the town
is bad. What are we going? Lucy Wright Park, that road going there is bad. Kalaheo,
I just drove to Kalaheo to go to a party at Kai Ikena. Those roads are bad. The makua
ones are bad. How are we going to get a plan in place that actually shows the
taxpayers, here, you are going to be paying...what did we say, twenty dollars ($20) a
month more, and this is the benefit? Your roads are going to be looking better. I do
not see the evidence. It is difficult for me to adopt this kind of legislation at this time.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any other discussion again?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I just want to say for the average car,
both the vehicle weight tax that has been proposed and the fuel tax that has been
COUNCIL MEETING 84 MAY 4, 2016
proposed, would be five dollars ($5) a month. I also want to say that I have taken in,
in good faith, the comments about how we can make sure that the moneys that are
raised by these increases are used for road repaving. The staff has developed an
amendment, but until we act on the Bill, I will not be able to introduce that
amendment. Right now, we are just talking about the Communication. I just want
to let you know that I will be introducing that amendment when we come to the Bill
and Resolution.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other comments? I will just
make my comments now and it will carry through to discussion of the Bill and the
Resolution. We just had a discussion earlier today about how we should be only
purchasing things that we absolutely need in these tough times, and likewise, I would
say that taxpayers should not be subject to any increases in tax, any kind of tax,
unless absolutely necessary. We just talked about a thirteen million nine hundred
thousand dollar ($13,900,000) surplus that Councilmember Kagawa talks about, that
every year we have a surplus. Every year, this year, we will have a surplus. If you
go throughout the year and you look at all of the unbudgeted objects or items or
services that we have funded throughout the year, the Administration, as well as the
Council's approval, what would that make that surplus? It would be more. It would
be higher. I guess my point is it is not absolutely necessary at this time to raise taxes.
I am not suggesting that we deplete the surplus or attempt to hit the surplus, but it
all comes down to what are priorities are. Councilmember Hooser said best. If paving
of roads are a priority, we have the money. We have the money. If we create
efficiencies within the government, you would generate savings, which would add to
the surplus or could be diverted to other priority projects such as paving. How do we
identify the inefficiencies? I hear all of the audience saying investigate the bums,
and do your job. Well, that is harsh investigation. There is no reason for me to believe
there is any kind of malicious activity or behavior going on with the Administration,
but I also believe that there is room for improvement for non-malicious reasons. In
our office as well, we tried to do a couple of things here with the new Council to create
better efficiencies and we have been successful, but there is always room for
improvement. How do we identify that? Again, audits are best way. But when we
identify the inefficiencies, then we make the adjustments. When we make the
adjustments, that creates additional savings. Those savings equates to dollars that
should be diverted to the priorities. That is how we do it. We just do not continue to
feed the beast, I guess is what I am saying, and that is what I heard from several
members going around, was that it is not about trust. It is about that we know and
the Administration knows there are ways to be more efficient. Politically, it is always
difficult because it may involve positions, it may involve warm bodies, and it may
involve changes in the way that we do things, the cultural precedence that has been
set, but the reality is, that is why you need an external organization or agency to
come in and tell us these are what we recommend. Then it becomes a decision. We
know there is room for improvement in all areas, but we have to identify that. With
a thirteen million dollar ($13,000,000) surplus, add in the inefficiencies that we could
fix, that may be fifteen million dollar ($15,000,000) surplus. There may be a sixteen
million dollar ($16,000,000) surplus, really. Now you take three million dollars
COUNCIL MEETING 85 MAY 4, 2016
($3,000,000) of that and move it over to paving with the proviso that it can only used
for paving. Then you do not need to raise taxes. I have a hard time telling the people,
"Hey, we just got off the subject that you cannot buy this or you cannot buy that. No
trucks, no this or that, and then we are going to raise taxes." I think it is everybody's
job, Administration, as well as this body, to try to explore how we can save more
money and then again, as Councilmember Hooser, what I got out of his comments
earlier on is it is a priority issue. It is not a money issue. We can choose to use
General Fund money to fund paving projects. I think that is one of the General Fund
money to use for paving? No. I think you create more efficient operations and save
the money. As we go through the budget decision-making, each of us will have the
duty and the responsibility to go through the lines and determine what can wait and
what cannot wait. If paving is a priority, then maybe we should look for about three
million dollars ($3,000,000) or four million dollars ($4,000,000) in savings that are
not needed now and can wait until next year, or is there a cheaper way to do things
that we do? That is what we are supposed to do and that is what I am hoping we will
do this year in decision-making as opposed to just poof, we hope next year we have a
better year because it is not going to happen. If we continue to do things the same
way, I will guarantee you the results will always be the same. It will always be the
same. We will never caught up to this problem. Anyway, I promise I will not reiterate
that when we get to the Bill or the...and my light is off. With that, the motion is to
receive.
The motion to receive C 2016-115 for the record was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. It is 12:22 p.m. We have
C 2016-116. I know we cannot get that done in next six (6) minutes. With that, I
think it is appropriate to take our lunch break at this time and we will be back at
1:30 p.m. for the public hearings. I believe we have two (2) public hearings.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Waikomo Road and Lihu`e Planning District.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have two (2) public hearings at 1:30 p.m.
Let us be back at 1:30 p.m.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:22 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:09 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you read C 2016-116, please?
C 2016-116 Communication (04/28/2016) from Councilmember Yukimura,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Proposed Draft Bill to amend Section 5-2.3,
Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, to increase the motor vehicle weight tax for
COUNCIL MEETING 86 MAY 4, 2016
all motor vehicles designed for carrying passengers and for trucks, or non-commercial
vehicles by $0.01, and an increase of$0.02 for vehicles designed for carrying property.
(Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as present.)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-116 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, we do have registered speakers also.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Thank you. I just want to say this is a
companion Bill so that we could change either Bill to meet our public policy needs. It
increases the vehicle weight tax one cent ($0.01) on passenger vehicles and two
cents ($0.02) on heavy freight commercial vehicles. I believe it would bring us up to
what the rates are in Honolulu right now, which I think they needed in order to repair
their roads, and for passenger vehicles, the most of it will cost is forty-four
dollars ($44) a year or less than five dollars ($5) a month.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Are there any questions of the
introducer before I call for public testimony? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: The question about the forty-four
dollars ($44) a year, is that the most it will cost possibly?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, that it will add to. That is what it will
increase the cost.
Councilmember Hooser: So what would the additional costs would be?
Councilmember Yukimura: Forty-four dollars ($44).
Councilmember Hooser: Forty-four dollars ($44)?
Councilmember Yukimura: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions? If not, I will
suspend the rules with no objection.
COUNCIL MEETING 87 MAY 4, 2016
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we have the first registered speaker?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, the first registered speaker is Glenn
Mickens followed by Lonnie Sykos.
Council Chair Rapozo: Glenn.
Mr. Mickens: I will give my time to Walter Lewis.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. We are on the vehicle weight tax...do you
know what? I apologize. We had scheduled the charter amendment at 1:30 p.m.
following the public hearing. I had asked Peter Morimoto.
Councilmember Yukimura: So let us just leave this in suspension.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Let us do that. I did ask Peter to let the
staff know. Apparently, I did not let you know. If there is no objection, can we take
the charter amendment discussion at least to allow Mr. Lewis an opportunity to
testify because he has personal matters he has to take care of at home? Is there any
objection to that? Thank you. With that, can we read the Resolution?
There being no objections, Resolution No. 2016-42 was taken out of order.
Resolution No. 2016-42 — RESOLUTION PROPOSING A CHARTER
AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE INSTITUTION OF A COUNCIL-MANAGER
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: The ultimate motion, as I has said earlier,
would be to refer this to the Committee on May 11th.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer Resolution No. 2016-42 to the
May 11, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, seconded by Councilmember
Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. With that, I will
suspend the rules. Mr. Lewis. How many people are willing to testify on this matter?
Just one (1) more? Glenn, I thought you were giving your time to Walter.
Mr. Mickens: How much time did I have left?
Council Chair Rapozo: You had one (1) more minute after Mr. Lewis
takes your three (3).
COUNCIL MEETING 88 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Mickens: I had three (3) more after that.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. You were giving three (3) minutes to
Walter, you used two early, so you have one (1) minute.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are doing this to accommodate Mr. Lewis
so he cannot get here. I do not want to see this happen every week where everybody
is going to be giving each other their time. Anyway Mr. Lewis, you can proceed.
WALTER LEWIS: Good afternoon Councilmembers. I am
Walter Lewis.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Mr. Lewis: Thank you for the accommodation. Since
2006, I have studied the governmental organization generally known as the
Council-Manager form of government. In essence, it consists of a qualified and
experienced manager appointed by the Council to have responsibility for the
administration of all of the County's operation. In my view, the system by reason of
it is off stated characteristics of accountability, transparency, continuity, and
efficiency would provide Kaua`i a far better government than the arrangement now
in place. I would unhesitatingly recommend it to you, but I am not here today to
praise the benefits of the system, rather, I am presenting testimony as to the specific
proposal to amend your Charter that is being offered today to be submitted to the
voters. It has been thoughtfully prepared to contain provisions that the Council
might approve, but that should not be the ultimate purpose. The charter amendment
should provide to voters the changes in the way the County is governed. What the
voters are entitled to be given is a proposal that is restrictive to those terms that are
required to create properly and implement the Council-Manager form of government.
It may be attractive to some Councilmembers to include terms in the proposed
amendment in addition to those required for the system, but the voters should be
given a proposal that is free from riders. In other words, our voters should be given
the opportunity for an up-and-down vote on the Council-Manager form of government
itself without any embellishments. A prime illustration of this point is the provision
in the draft proposal that would extend Councilmembers' terms, which have been
always two (2) years, to four (4) years and to provide for staggered elections of the
Council. This provision may have merit and may well be popular with
Councilmembers who would need to stand for election only every four (4) years, but
whether the Councilmembers have four (4) instead of two (2) year terms is not critical
to the creation and implementation of the Council-Manager form of government, and
the appearances of that provision are dreadful. In the proposal, many voters will see
the Council as seeking to enlarge its powers and also extend their terms in a proposal
made by the Council itself. There is also to be noted that efforts to extend the
Councilmembers' terms have previously been before voters and have been rejected.
COUNCIL MEETING 89 MAY 4, 2016
Excuse me. Public support for the Council-Manager form of government is growing,
but its solidity is uncertain. The unneeded inclusion of term provisions is likely to
seriously and perhaps fatally, jeopardize the passage of what should be limited to a
proposal for the system. I could give other illustrations, and I have given Council
Chair Rapozo, a list of items which I think may be considered in this regard.
Another provision of serious concern is the failure to give the county manager
authority over the manager...
Council Chair Rapozo: I have to stop you there, you can go ahead
with Mr. Micken's three (3) minutes.
Mr. Lewis: Do you wish me to go on?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Another provision of serious
concern is the failure of the county manager authority being given over to the
manager and engineer of the Water Department. It is anomalous to establish a
county manager who should have responsibility for an authority over all County
operations, but to make him only a partial county manager by withholding his powers
over one (1) department. One of the strong selling points of the system is the
accountability of the manager to the Council for effective operations of all of the
various County functions. It is irrational to make this exception.
A second reason for avoiding this discussion is that the current Charter is
flawed by giving the Board of Water the authority to manage the department. It is
universal corporate practice that executives manages operations and Boards provide
guidance and policy.
Councilmembers, I have one (1) other critical point I would like to make. The
measure you are considering today may well be the most important one you will ever
have. The future of our County will depend on how efficient our County government
is. Each of you has probably formed your own view about the proposal, but there is a
huge difference between your vote on adopting the manager proposal and your vote
on whether a resolution should be submitted to the electorate for their vote on the
matter. Regardless of your personal views, when in due course, you vote on
submission of the measure, I believe you will be derelict in your duties if you deprive
our voters of the opportunity to decide on the form of government that they wish to
have on this island.
In conclusion, I would strongly urge you one, to avoid condemning the proposal
to death by poisoning it with previously voter rejected provisions regarding Council
terms of service; and two, by failing to give the manager authority over all of the
County's operations and not providing the trademark accountability that the
Council-Manager form of government should have. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL MEETING 90 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis. Next
speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next speaker is Norma Doctor Sparks.
Council Chair Rapozo: Norma.
Ms. Sparks: Good afternoon, Norma Doctor Sparks. I had
some comments about working under an executive. I actually worked under that
kind of system in Santa Clara, which is Silicon Valley as well as Los Angeles County.
As a department head, it was easy for me to actually manage the departments that I
was involved with because the message was very clear, in their case, the Board of
Supervisors laid out exactly what we had to do and the executive would just make
sure we would follow that through. There was not a lot of confusion about how things
should be managed. When I was a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii,
one of the departments that I advised and counsel was Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs (DCCA). I was very involved with the Boards and Commissions for
the State of Hawaii. I agree with the previous speaker in that the Boards and
Commissions that might have been under the presented or that may at this present
time be given an autonomous right to manage their departments should not occur,
that all departments should go under a county manager.
I also wanted to have a clarification that two (2) years may not be enough. I
think it is very interesting that it does talk about local experience rather than just
government because I for one, although I would not be applying, would not qualify
because most of my work has been, for example, in the State of Hawaii. People who
have worked for the State and managed and had been appointed would probably not
qualify because of the word "local." Also, the idea of administrative. I think the word
"administrative" could also be clarified so we are not talking about administrative
assistants who are generally secretarial work, et cetera, but it should be someone who
has been an administrator or a manager.
The other area that I wanted to also talk about is that it should be made very
clear that the county manager serves at-will and at-will of the Council. It is very
difficult in Los Angeles and Santa Clara County to actually get rid of a county
manager because it was required to have all nine (9) or all five (5) votes in order to
remove them. The present proposal talks about having a public hearing as to whether
or not the county manager should be released. I think that having that provision is
not a good thing for this County. It would just allow all of this drama to occur in the
public when it actually could be a personnel issue. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Are there any other registered
speakers? Anybody else wishing to testify? Mr. Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. When I looked
at this on the internet, I was shocked to see in there the provisions about changing
COUNCIL MEETING 91 MAY 4, 2016
the terms for the County Council. The political term for that is corruption. You have
corrupted the process of the manager, right? You have already had discussions about
your terms. That is a completely separate issue and it has nothing to do with the
county manager. Whether your terms are for six (6) months or six (6) years, it has
nothing to do with the county manager's job. I think you should take that out of this
because it is problematic. It introduces an entire issue into this question about
whether a manager would better service or not by drawing into the politics of your
terms. The whole point of having a manager is to try and remove politics from the
Administration of our tax money. That is never possible to do entirely. As one of the
basic foundations of how our system works, all through our legal process there is a
differentiation between people who are elected to office who are politicians, and
people who are hire or appointed. Appointees are also considered political figures,
whereas people who are hired are public servants, which is not to say that the elected
people are not as well.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Mr. Sykos: What is problematic with the political side of
it is the short-term benefit of making decisions that are popular to get votes, lead
ultimately to long-term problems like we have been talking about today, our one
hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) shortfall in fixing our roads. We are in the
position we are in with our roads because of political decisions that were repeatedly
made in the past. It was political decisions to take all of the money out of repaving
roads and use that money to hire, pay for new personnel, and to expand other County
services. So that is the point of having a manager, to keep us on-track and to try and
keep political expediency out of our day-to-day operations. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify for
the first time? Ken.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of Council, Ken Taylor. I
support this proposal or Resolution moving forward. I think the important thing that
each of you have to remember is that by sending this to the voters, it is not necessarily
saying that you support it or do not support it, but you are doing the job that you are
supposed to be doing by giving the people of the community the opportunity to make
a decision how they want to be governed. That is the most important part of this
process because they will make a decision and vote it up or down, and I think by
cluttering it with any other activities at this point in time, is defeating the purpose
of looking at the management style of government.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Taylor: While I do not disagree that Council terms
should be four (4) years and staggered, that is another issue and it should not disturb
this. I would also like to say that many of the discussion items on this morning's
agenda are just prime examples of why we need to consider moving forward with
COUNCIL MEETING 92 MAY 4, 2016
looking at a different method of governing our community. As I say, the most
important thing is giving the people of the community the opportunity to make the
decision, one way or another, as to how they want to be governed. It is not your
choice. It is just you are giving them the opportunity, and I think that is the most
important thing at this point in time. I look forward to this moving forward, I hope
that you will all see that it gets on the ballot in November, and the people have an
opportunity to make a decision. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify for the first
time? Second time? If not, we will call the meeting back to order...oh. You folks have
to stand up or something. Do not fight back there, just somebody come up. Go ahead.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you. For the record, Glenn Mickens. I
just wanted to say that I completely agree with testimonies of Walter Lewis and I
believe you received copies of Carl Imparato's E-mails, particularly where Walter
says that whether Councilmembers have four (4) instead of the present two (2) year
terms is not critical to the creation and implementation of the Council-Manager form
of government. Carl said "I believe that it is both inappropriate and unnecessary to
bundle the undermining of term limits for the Councilmembers with the
Council-Manager form of government proposal." Let us implement the
Council-Manager form of government first and then get into the details like the terms
later. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Glenn.
Ms. Sparks: Norma Doctor Sparks. I would like to
continue about qualifications. I think that it would also be important not necessarily
in the Charter, but at least in the recruitment and job description, to have the
candidate have budgetary experience preferably with state and federal funding as
well as working with bargaining units, employee unions. Both in California and
Hawai`i, I have had to work with a number of different employee unions, and they
very crucial to whether or not work can be done effectively within an organization. I
like the idea of the non-residency and requiring someone to become a resident within
ninety (90) days, because I think it lessens the requirement that someone knows
Kaua`i, but places most of qualifications based on knowledge and experience.
The other thing I was concerned about is about the provision of having an
acting county manager. I think that having an acting county manager should be
limited. I have seen many times where someone is held in an acting position and
then that acting position is used to qualify that person for the actual position. I know
it happens a lot of times, but actually, I do think that in order to have the best person
to do this work, particularly when the County is facing the kinds of financial issues
that it is facing, that to have someone who is qualified from the get-go is most
important. I think that the idea of having a county manager for the island of Kaua`i
is a great idea. I do think though that people need to also understand that it does not
necessarily mean that politics will not be involved with the county manager because
COUNCIL MEETING 93 MAY 4, 2016
it does. Whenever someone is appointed by a political entity, that person then has to
become a little political as well. However, having that consistent and direct direction
is very helpful to managers and workers in any jurisdiction. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Go ahead.
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: Aloha Council Chair Rapozo and
Members of the Council. Mauna Kea Trask, County Attorney. I just wanted to
request, if I could, I have done a lot of historic research on this issue gearing up to be
prepared to look at this proposal. I would like an opportunity to do a presentation to
provide legal and historical context for this entire issue. I think a lot of testimony
today, and I am sure a lot of people in the public, are not aware that this issue has
been going on since 1961. The original proposal by the public administration system
pursuant to Act 191 in the State Legislature originally recommended a
Council-Manager form of government as pursuant to the report. That was actually
rejected by voters of Kaua`i and the Charter Review Commission largely on
recommendation of the Board of Supervisors at the time. There is also two (2) civil
suits in 1966 whereby people sued for rid of mandamus in the Fifth Circuit Court to
force the Charter Review Commission to bring this issue to the ballot this year, and
the Court denied it saying that the public is such a big issue, they needed time to look
at it, specifically this issue of local self-government, our home rule system, and what
we want our system to look like deserves in-depth analyses. Some of the things that
was said here today, for instance, the Water Department. I do not know if Mr. Lewis
knows about Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) 54, which provides for Board of Water
Supply. I think there is a lot of good information out there that the people need to
hear, input that you need to have, and input that they need to have. When this
process started, the Charter Commission at that time in the 1960s, brought each and
every department head to them, looked at what they needed to do, and asked them
what would make their job better. I do not think that has happened either Charter
Review Commission or here, so that is just my request. You can grant it if you would
like, but I do have a lot of information I could provide as succinctly as I can. I think
it would be good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Sykos. The
Water Department is not in this Resolution. It is irrelevant as to what HRS says
because the Board of Water is not included in this proposal. Our laws are different
from some places on the mainland, but anyway, go ahead, Mr. Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. I would like to
thank Mauna Kea for what he just said to us and for all the research that he has
done. We, the public, are very interested in learning what he has discovered. I would
have to say that I am personally leaning towards wanting a manager versus the
system that we have today. I am not in favor of what I read about with these riders
attached to the manager's position, specifically the term limits. I think that it would
be an act of wisdom for the County to get the information from our County Attorney
COUNCIL MEETING 94 MAY 4, 2016
and digest that before we move forward with the terminology of what would go on the
ballot. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we start the discussion, again, the idea
is to get this off to Committee where we will have the discussions and we can have
Mauna Kea present a brief...I mean, we just want something really brief as far as the
information that we need to know. A couple of topics I want to touch on that as said
earlier, I know Mr. Sykos said this was a corrupted process by changing the term
limits of the Council. Peter Morimoto and the Committee did a lot of work on this.
The information in this proposal, which is our starting point, is really based off
ICMA's model charter or their best practices. That does not mean we have to follow
it, and we may not. I took offense to that, basically. We are going to go through this
whole change in structural government so we can get four (4) years. I do not think
that realistic and I do not think that is what is happening. We are following a model
or best practices suggested by the international association because when the public
asks, we have that backing, the support, of an organization that has been doing this
for a very long time.
The other comment Norma talked about the local government. It says "in a
local government." So whether your local government was in Santa Clara or New
York, and the provision of not having to be a resident here, really opened the door for
anyone throughout the Country from applying and being appointing to this position
simply because you are not going to find someone here. That is just the reality of
this. You are not going to find someone here that has county manager experience
living on this island. So more than likely when we initially start this process should
this pass, you are almost going to have to have someone with that kind of experience
to do that transition.
Then as far as the bargaining units, one of the successes in the mainland that
we are not enjoy here is the fact that many municipalities in the mainland negotiate
their union contracts within their county. We do not do that here. We get one (1)
vote in the State. So that county manager will not have the ability to negotiate with
the United Public Workers (UPW) and Hawai`i Government Employees
Association (HGEA). That is not going to happen. They will negotiate along with the
other four (4) counties and the Governor, and remember the Governor only needs
one (1) of the four (4) county votes to secure a contract. That is one of the differences
between us here in Hawai`i and in the mainland. They were shocked when
Councilmember Chock and I met with the existing county managers. When we told
them how it is done here, they were flabbergasted, like what? Up there, they
negotiate their only contracts within their jurisdictions. So it is a lot different.
COUNCIL MEETING 95 MAY 4, 2016
Anyway, is there any further discussion? I just wanted to clarify some of the
comments that were made earlier. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. It is kind
of difficult to vote to put this on the ballot when the other islands, especially City and
County Honolulu, which is much bigger and they have all kinds of problems going on
now especially with the rail and all of that mess that they have going on. They have
not adopted this system because it is not a clear-cut improvement. A lot of it will
depend on who we choose and how successful would that person be. I have seen
enough failure in the University of Hawai`i, for example, where we have hired these
athletic directors and presidents with all of these accolades, and they have turned out
to be complete failures. My fear is that if we put this on the ballot, like Walter said,
let the voters choose, they will not be choosing for the difference in government. What
they will be voting on is how do I feel about the County government right now? Are
there a lot of problems and do I think that voting for the Council-Manager form of
government will make things better? A lot of them will check "yes," but in reality, if
we have a failure as a county manager that may on paper have all the accolades that
we desire and all the recommendations that they have been successful, and that
person turns out to be a failure, then everybody suffers. The community suffers and
nothing will get done. The Council's decision will be an everlasting failure of a
decision. It is kind of difficult to put forth something like this on the ballot knowing
that this is not a guaranteed improvement. A lot of it will depend on who we choose.
If we choose somebody like a Ben Jay, or Mary Rita Cooke (M.R.C.) Greenwood, or
what have you on paper being the success that they are and coming here and being a
total flop. I think let us keep the system that we have, at least every four (4) years,
if the people are not happy, they can vote the mayor out. They should look at that.
If they are totally not happy, go in a different direction in two (2) years with the
mayor's race. Go with somebody out of the box, but the voters have that choice. If
we continue to vote the same mayor with the same people under them, you are going
to get the same results. I think that is the power of the voters, is to vote out the
mayor, vote out his administrative managing director, and with that, hopefully all of
the top department heads and just vote a total change of direction. But we have not
had that for the past twenty (20) years or so. We have basically the same old same
old, and that is upon the voters. Not having different options with different
managerial people, unfortunately, maybe it is not too glamorous to run for mayor and
come with all of the headaches and expectations. Again, that is the choice that we
have, and to bring in this person from the mainland and expecting Superman results,
I think is unrealistic as well. I think we are wasting our time. I have said that before.
Let us move on to more important business. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I think it is no secret what my position is. We
have heard it...I mean, we have had this issue come up a lot of times. There has been
a lot of opportunity for testimony, for written testimony, and I have not really seen a
COUNCIL MEETING 96 MAY 4, 2016
whole wave of testimony coming in saying that they want to see this change. Again,
it all goes back to the question, what is wrong with our current system and how do
we fix that? You hear efficiency, transparency, accountability, and continuity.
Efficiency, a county manager will face the same challenges as Council-Mayor form of
government faces especially with a highly unionized workforce that we have.
Transparency, everything that the County does right now is open to criticism, unless
it is in Executive Session. The County does work to be transparent. We have been
moving towards the opengov system where people can see the actual numbers of our
budget and everything. Accountability, there is always accountability whether it is
to the voters, the residents, or the Council. Continuity, how can the people wanting
continuity comes up here and publicly support term limits?
We also hear cost-savings. There is nothing a county manager can do that a
mayor and managing director cannot do right now. The cost of the Mayor's Office, we
had a whole presentation on pros and cons. The cost of a Mayor's Office versus the
county manager, there is no difference. A mayor can reduce the size of his office just
as a county manager could.
The success of a government is determined more by the person in charge rather
than the system. You can have a good mayor or you can have a bad mayor. You can
have a good county manager or you can have a bad county manager. We are talking
about here changing our entire structure of government, the entire thing. It shifts
power to the Council, there is no separation of powers, and the voters lose the power
to pick who is in charge. I do not think it is reasonable to solve our current problems
by changing the entire system and expecting all of our problems to be resolved and
this new system will have no flaws or repercussions. It has always been specifically
identify what you do not like about our system right now, and let us work to fix that
rather than change the entire system.
I have heard it is our obligation to allow citizens to vote on this. I do not think
so. The citizens can decide. The citizens can initiate this with a charter amendment
petition, and it takes five percent (5%) of the registers voters on Kaua`i, two
thousand (2,000) voters, and the citizens can put this on the ballot. If citizens really
wanted to push this, they could. Again, what is the problem now and how do we fix
that? That is what I want to see. Keep our system of government, identify the
problems, and fix that. We can look at ICMA best management practices and look at
other examples, but we do not change our entire system. That is my opinion on it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to respond to Councilmember
Kaneshiro's discussion. He says there is no major difference. I think there is one (1)
major difference, and the one major difference is that the person who manages the
County under the Council-Manager form of government is not elected. Under the
strong Council-Mayor form of government, our present-day system, the Mayor is
elected, and the positions and the department heads are sometimes politically
COUNCIL MEETING 97 MAY 4, 2016
appointed not for their merit or their professional qualifications, but for their political
connections. That is a major factor affecting the quality of County government. So
that is the major difference, and I do not know how you can change it by a minor
amendment to the present system.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that it?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Anyone else? Did you want to respond?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I will respond in the whole thing what I think
Councilmember Yukimura is talking about, is taking the politics out of situation. But
you can look at any example. A Council-Mayor form of government and
Council-Manager form of government is going to have politics no matter what. The
county manager is going to be elected by vote by Councilmembers that are elected by
the voters. I cannot remember what we had in here if it was a supermajority or just
a majority, but there is going to be politics no matter what you do. When I said there
is no difference, I meant there is going to be challenges no matter what. There is no
golden egg system that is not going to present any challenges. We cannot expect
voters to vote on this and say "this is going to be the perfect system with no problems"
because that is not true. There will be problems and that is all I was trying to say.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate the response. I mean, I think
that is what we are here to do, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Exactly. This is a big change.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is not putting up a crosswalk, that is for
sure. This is an attempt to change the structure of government. I appreciate the
dialogue, I really do.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe you are absolutely right, there is
politics in both systems. I think the structure of one minimizes the politics, but does
not eliminate it. As I said before, there are other pieces that have to be in place to
really fulfill the purpose of a Council-Manager form of government. The ethics rules
are really important. The procedure of securing or selecting department heads is also
very important. If a county manager does not go through a process where there is an
announcement and applications are solicited, and we go through a process such as
what we have done with the County Auditor and the County Clerk in recent year,
COUNCIL MEETING 98 MAY 4, 2016
that process could be very political. So setting up the process and setting up the
qualifications are all important pieces. If you let that go, if you do not pay attention
to those pieces too, you either create a good system or else a weak system for achieving
what you want. The other accountability, I think, that is stronger in the
Council-Manager form of government is that the manager has to produce results. So
there is less incentive on the part of the manager to select somebody politically
because they have to produce results, which is not necessarily true of the political
system, and that is why we have the problems recurring over and over and over from
administration to administration, from Council to Council, because we do not really
solve the problem, and the people who make the decision about whether we are in
office or not, are not really looking at whether the problems are really being solved.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I will just again point to the University of
Hawaii presidency. We went from Evan Dobelle to Virginia Hinshaw to
M.R.C. Greenwood. Three (3) bad managers in a row with all of the accolades from
the mainland. So let us get real. The likelihood that we choose a manager that is not
as good as he or she is on paper is very likely. How do you account that to the voters?
This Council-Manager form of government that you voted for is going to be an option
to the current one and it is worse. I mean, that is the fear.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think that is a very good point. The question
is should the people of Hawaii elect the President of the University of Hawaii (UH)?
Do you think we will get better results through a political process or is there a way
that — I mean, there are corporations that have successfully found...
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...a good leader. How do you do that?
Council Chair Rapozo: I apologize. Councilmember Kualii had his
hand up for a while. Go ahead.
Councilmember Kualii: I will just say that I think it is an important
consideration. I am willing to look at it in further detail to see what improvements
are possible. I do think, however, that we should follow best practices. There are
probably hundreds of cities that have been doing it for a long time and the research
with ICMA says what it says insofar as best practices. It is best practice to have
four (4) year terms and staggered. If you think about it, now, the new Council under
this system will have full authority. We will not be the ones responsible or future
Council will not be responsible for making all policy decisions. There will be no
Mayor. There will be no Mayor to make decisions contradictory to Council decisions.
The buck stops here. The county manager will manage operations, but he or she will
come to the future Council every time there is a policy decision to be made. How
about this, the biggest one I think, whatever powers the Council has now with budget
COUNCIL MEETING 99 MAY 4, 2016
is not one hundred percent (100%). This Council can do what it does with the budget,
right? Four (4) votes, five (5) votes, to add, to subtract. The Mayor can veto and what
have you. If we thought it was important to have some new program that we funded
and the Mayor disagreed, the money could be there and he could choose not to spend
that. All of that money and all of the direction from this Council would not become
action on behalf of the citizens. In this new system, this Council makes the final
decision and that county manager, whether he or she likes it or not, needs do their
job and implement the politic decision, if you will, that was made by this body. If they
do not and five (5) out of seven (7) or whatever it takes, that person gets fired and the
next person gets hired. What people are talking about as far as efficiency, is just the
potential that the system would allow for political decisions to be made by one (1)
entity alone without any kind of conflict and for the manager to just manage and just
get the job done. I see that there is potential there, especially there is potential if a
new manager came in and did a wholesale relook at the make-up of our operations.
Council Chair Rapozo talks about consolidation sometimes. We have kind of put that
back to the Administration for years, and they have been taking little tiny baby steps
with the Vacancy Review Committee and doing some changes that lowers the budget
a tiny bit, but when you are talking about one hundred eighty million
dollars ($180,000,000) even with a two hundred thousand dollar ($200,000) or five
hundred thousand dollar ($500,000) cut, that is less than point five percent (0.5%).
It is not going to get us to where we need go with a one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) backlog. The biggest power I see potentially in this system, is
one (1) entity having one hundred percent (100%) control of the budget. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody else? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. For all of the reasons discussed
today, I will be supporting moving this discussion forward and look forward to diving
deeper into the proposal here. I think one, there has been a lot of work already done
in putting this together and there are some sticking points that we need to continue
to look at. The bottom line for me is this discussion that we are having does provide
a few advantages to looking at the Council-Manager form of government. One of
them is that there is less political division, in my opinion. The second is that it also
provides an avenue for us to have some professional experience as opposed to no
professional experience is what we are advocating for now. I would prefer to start
the slate with having some background, and this avenue does provide that. When
the mayor or manager is accountable by the request of a deciding body, then it is
likely the outcome will be different.
I think the term limits can be discussed, and I would agree with those opposing
the measure that there is no guaranty and there will be issues, guaranteed. Any
transition such as this would have huge implications, but does that mean we should
not aspire to a structure that might be more efficient towards a team vision towards
more inclusiveness in the process? I think this might, and that is why I am
supporting continuing this discussion. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 100 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I also will be supporting moving it forward for
further discussion. At the end of the day, this will be one of the most if not the most
important decision any Council has made in many years. Ultimately, the voters will
decide, if in fact, this Council passes something out, the voters will be the ones that
ultimately decide. I would encourage people in the community to understand how
important this is and to engage the process, to actually go online and read the changes
that are being proposed, perhaps watch some of these discussions, and provide their
input into it. The devil is in details, ultimately, and the best ideas can fall to the
wayside if the details are not worked out. I think that is going to be very important
for all of us to look over the content of this measure, look at the details, and try to
anticipate the various consequences, both intended and unintended. I agree the term
limit issue for me, is not a deal breaker. I think best practice is staggered terms and
the only way to stagger terms is four (4) year terms, I would think. I also agree that
the perception of the community may not recognize that and may see it as well the
Council is just trying to get more power to the Council, and that kind of thing. That
kind of decision perhaps can be made later. I am going to be looking over the details.
I also agree with what some of my colleagues who are opposing the measure have
said, that we will not eliminate politics from the processes. I think we will reduce it
to a great extent, perhaps, but the hiring is still a political process, and
Councilmembers in the future, could very well try to influence the county manager
in hiring jobs and opportunities, or that kind of thing. It is a process worth exploring,
and if we can make it better for our community, I think we should take that step. I
will be voting yes today. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura, you
spoke three (3) times already. I know you were responding to Councilmember
Kaneshiro, so I will let you go ahead and wrap it up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. If I have been asked whether I
would support this Council-Manager form of government several years ago, I would
have said adamantly no because I have been on the Council body for many years and
I have seen how the Council selected its Clerk. We did not have an auditor position
way back, so it was mainly the Clerk and some of our attorneys. It was never
announced or advertised. It was done sometimes just by the Council Chair and
sometimes very politically. I would back then have no confidence that we could select
a professional person on an objective basis based on qualifications. But in the last
four (4) years or so, I have really seen an improvement. I have seen that it can
actually work to select a professional clerk and auditor. Kudos and commendations
to our staff, who have helped set up that process and also to all of the
Councilmembers, who have...and Council Chair Rapozo, who have really wanted
such a process because the majority of this Council could have easy said, "No, we will
just pick whoever we want," and that is how it has happened in the past, either the
Chair has said it or else four (4) people have agreed. I have more faith now that we
COUNCIL MEETING 101 MAY 4, 2016
might be able to do this in a professional way that honors the trust that the people of
this island put in us and could lead to a better government. I am hopeful.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Well, let me just
again, respond to some of the comments made earlier. First of all, I want to thank
the Committee that was formed and looked into this. They did a lot of work. It
frustrates me when people accuse this Council of being part-time because that is the
part they do not see. They do not see the countless meetings that go on.
Councilmember Kaneshiro, Councilmember Chock, and Councilmember Kuali`i spent
a lot of time on this. I just want to say thank you. Again, if I wanted it to be a political
thing, I would be on the Committee and kick Councilmember Kaneshiro off because
I wanted someone that was not fully embraced in the concept on that Committee, and
that is why I selected Councilmember Kaneshiro so he could provide that opposing,
if you will, eyeballs. I want to thank the Committee and especially Councilmember
Chock for doing...Councilmember Chock is over here and we are having our
discussion and workshops, and he is E-mailing ICMA with the connections that he
has established over the last year or so. Thank you all for that.
One of the things I think Councilmember Kaneshiro mentioned that the voters
would not be able to pick who is in charge anymore, and that is not true because the
voters would still pick the Council and the Council would be in charge. The county
manager is going to be in charge of his appointees and he is going to be in charge of
the function, the executive, the managing, but at the end of the day, the Council will
be in charge and there will be no question like Councilmember Yukimura said or
Councilmember Kuali`i said. When the Council makes the determination...if this
morning did not convince you that we need a different system, nothing will. It
happens more and more frequently now, where we are here asking questions, I do not
know, I have to get back to you. I really do not know that number. I mean, really,
that is the reality of it. Of course we will have challenges in a new system. To expect
that we will not is just not realistic, but how long have we had the strong
Council-Mayor form of government? Dating back to...I do not know who the first
mayor was. Who was the first mayor? You had a Board of Supervisors, but I do not
know who the first mayor was. Councilmember Yukimura, you are not that old,
right? It was not that long ago, right? I am going to pick on Councilmember
Yukimura because she was a mayor. We always had challenges and then the next
mayor had challenges, and then the mayor after that had challenges. Every system
will have challenges, but it is not working. It is not working.
Then I have to address the UH because Councilmember Kagawa is exactly
right. UH hired some horrific people, but the difference is the public is did not vote
for the people who appointed those horrific people. It was done by a president or a
committee. They do not have accountability to the public. That is the big difference.
We do. If the Council picks...let us say I think it requires five (5) to pick this person.
So if five (5) Councilmembers could go out there and first of all, five (5) have to agree
on somebody. That is going to be challenging. Just say five (5) goes out and agree on
a person, chances are with today's diverse Councils, look at it historically. When I
COUNCIL MEETING 102 MAY 4, 2016
started, there was a clear majority and that is hard to get nowadays. So to get five (5)
of a Council to pick one (1) person with the credentials that are outlined in this
amendment, it is going to be difficult. It will be political to a certain extent. Our
auditor position is a good example of a process difficult to fill because of some
requirements, nonetheless the pay, and so forth. The process is a good process.
Again, the requirements set forth by the amendment would ensure that whoever is
selected at least have the basic experience, knowledge, and education to move this
process forward. I am excited, but Councilmember Hooser said it best, that it is
probably most important decision this Council or any Council will ever make because
should this pass, it is going to change the way business is done on this island forever.
It is significant. What gets me, this has been in discussion for how long now? A long
time, months, and not one (1) article in the paper. They write about everything else,
but something as significant as this, you would think would get some ink, but none.
She left today because I do not know, maybe she has her deadline. Would you not
want to write about this thing? This is major. The public obviously is going to have
to pay attention and be informed because this is going to be a very big decision.
Anyway, the motion is to refer to the Committee. Is there any further discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Was there a motion?
Council Chair Rapozo: There was a motion, Councilmember Kuali`i's
extended motion that was corrected.
The motion to refer Resolution No. 2016-42 to the May 11, 2016 Committee of
the Whole meeting was then put, and carried by a vote of 5:2 (Councilmembers
Kagawa and Kaneshiro voting no).
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. 5:2. Thank you very much. Motion
carried. Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, would you like to go back to page 3,
C 2016-116?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Thank you for you allowing me to divert
the schedule a little bit. Okay. I forgot where we were to be honest with you. Oh,
that is right. We were going to do public testimony.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just have a clarifying question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead please.
Councilmember Kagawa: This can be to the staff or Councilmember
Yukimura or whoever worked on this item. Can you reiterate, it will be one
cent ($0.01) increase to the passenger vehicles, and two cents ($0.02) to the freight?
Is that what it is?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, freight vehicles.
COUNCIL MEETING 103 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: And a two cent ($0.02) increase to the freight.
The two cents ($0.02)would be about seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000), and
the one cent ($0.01) is one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). Are
those the totals?
Councilmember Yukimura: It would be three million two hundred
thousand dollars ($3,200,000) minus seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000) would be from the private vehicles.
Councilmember Yukimura: Passenger vehicles.
Council Chair Rapozo: Passenger vehicles.
Councilmember Kagawa: What?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000) would be raised from the passenger vehicles?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct...no. Seven hundred thousand
dollars ($700,000) would be from the passenger vehicles.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, freight vehicles.
Council Chair Rapozo: I mean, yes, from the freight vehicles.
Councilmember Kagawa: Seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000).
Oh, I had it opposite. The heavy vehicles, the commercial vehicles, would be about
seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000)?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: And the passenger vehicles would raise how
much?
Councilmember Yukimura: Two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Two million five hundred thousand
dollars ($2,500,000), so a total of three million two hundred thousand
dollars ($3,200,000)?
COUNCIL MEETING 104 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Per year. Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: That was the Department of Finance's
estimate based on the current weights that we have on the island.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any other discussion?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
testify on this? I know we had registered speakers, Jade.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we start with the first one?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registered speaker was Glenn
Mickens.
Council Chair Rapozo: He is gone.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Followed by Lonnie Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: Good afternoon, Council. Lonnie Sykos, for
the record. Council Chair Rapozo, I had a question in trying to understand this. The
seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) for the commercial vehicles and the two
million one hundred thousand dollars ($2,100,000) for private vehicles, is that new
money or is that total revenue including the new money?
Council Chair Rapozo: New.
Councilmember Yukimura: New money.
Mr. Sykos: If I am reading this correctly, we will be
raising the rate one cent ($0.01) per pound?
Councilmember Yukimura: For passenger vehicles.
Mr. Sykos: For passenger. So we have basically got...
COUNCIL MEETING 105 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, actually...
Mr. Sykos: ...two hundred million (200,000,000) pounds
of passenger vehicles in order for one cent ($0.01) to make that kind of money? I am
just trying to understand the figures. I am not disputing them. I am just trying to
understand them.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Sykos: The observation that I will have that I have
not made before in the past, times money here, is what is problematic for especially
the poor with the vehicle taxes is that you are required it pay all of it at one (1) time
whereas the gasoline tax is spread out every time you go to the gas station. From
one (1) perspective, it is death by one thousand (1,000) cuts versus death by one (1).
The flipside of it is at the gas pump, incrementally, it is much easier to budget for
and handle than it is to lose even forty dollars ($40) or whatever is a lot of money if
you do not have forty dollars ($40). Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Did we have any other speakers?
If not, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of Council, my name is
Ken Taylor. I am opposed to this. One of the problems with continuing adding tax
to registration is that I have no choice where when you put the tax on the gas, I can
now make a decision how much I use my vehicle and whether I want to pay to buy
the gas or not. It becomes a very difficult situation for people with fixed incomes and
low incomes where you are forced, if you want to own an automobile, to pay higher
and higher taxes. Registration fees should only be covering the costs of the
registration operation. It should not be to make money for road repairs and so on.
That should be under the gas tax and that is why I said earlier if the efficiency of the
County operations was at best, then I would be happy to support forty cents ($0.40)
to fifty cents ($0.50) a gallon tax to cover the cost of road maintenance and that
activity. As I said, with gas tax, I have a choice. I can make the decision to buy or
not buy. With registration, I have no choice. I have to register and pay the tax.
Please pass this on. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
Ms. Sparks: Norma Doctor Sparks. I oppose any tax at
this time because of my same concerns that I expressed earlier that I said in my
testimony previously. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing
to testify?
COUNCIL MEETING 106 MAY 4, 2016
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, thank you. I just want to say that if we
were to pass this, this would bring us up to what Maui is at this point. People have
said Maui has nice roads or nicer roads. So it is not like it is getting us outside of
reality. It is much less than Honolulu has right now in terms of an individual car
owner and how much they have to pay. So that is just another fact I would like people
to know. Again, if we do not do something, the costs will get bigger, the bill will get
bigger.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: There is no question that we need to take
action on our roads, and we have had some of this discussion. I did not have
comments earlier, but I think there are other ways to approach this issue. Though I
am open to the discussion, having a public hearing, and letting the public weigh-in, I
will not be supporting an increase in either the fuel tax or the weight tax as we sit
here today. Again, I think there are other ways to fund it. To put it into perspective
for many people, I just registered my car, my small truck, three thousand (3,000)
pound small Toyota pickup truck. It cost me one hundred eighty dollars ($180), which
at minimum wage, is almost a week out of someone's life when you look at their gross
pay and their net pay. People on fixed income, the one hundred eighty dollars ($180),
and that is without the increase. The weight tax increase is about a thirty
percent (30%) increase. It goes from two cents ($0.02) to three cents ($0.03) so
something like that, or one cent ($0.01) to three cents ($0.03). It is a large increase.
I understand incrementally, it might sound like much, but when you take the fifty
dollar ($50) increase and you add it on to what you are already paying, it is
significant. I think we need to look at other ways of shifting the burden away from
local residents to possibly the visitor industry and/or just getting our priorities in
order and taking general funds to repair our roads. We do need to repair our roads,
but raising taxes at this time is not an option for me. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is just funny how the timing of things...on
Friday, I had a call from a good friend that he owns a delivery business. He delivers
paper goods, meats, and whatever. He said that he calculated this year's increase
and it was five hundred dollars ($500) per truck, his delivery vans. He did not even
know that we had a bill coming up that will increase it another two cents ($0.02).
That increase there that he got that five hundred dollar ($500) increase was based on
a half a cent ($0.005), and we are going to go two cents ($0.02) up from the three
dollars ($3) and go to five cents ($0.05) on freight vehicles. The question he had for
me, besides did I vote on it, which was no, was what am I getting for that additional
COUNCIL MEETING 107 MAY 4, 2016
five hundred dollars ($500)? Please tell me. What is being done with that? That is
why I had the questions today for the Department of Public Works. What roads have
we fixed, because the freight business benefits nothing from the bike path or the
walking path? Zero (0). They will benefit by having better roads so they do not have
to fix their vehicles from the bumps or when they fix tires that get damaged. I could
not answer that question, and I have his name if any of you want to call him because
you all know who he is. If you could answer that for him, I think he will have an
easier time understanding why we increased it the last time, because so far what I
heard today was that whatever increases we made in the past from 2013 all went to
subsidize growing labor costs and whatever costs in all departments including roads,
transportation, automotive, and auto maintenance. We did not apply any of the
increases to repave any more roads. With that logic, how can we expect to raise
another four million four hundred thousand dollars ($4,400,000) more per year and
expect that our Department of Public Works and County Engineer will be successful
in doing any significant improvements? I have zero (0) confidence right now in our
road repaving ability. Seriously. I think what the Administration needs do is they
need to get a plan together to us, a short-term plan, and come to us with some type
of request on a limited scale, maybe half the size of the four million four hundred
thousand dollars ($4,400,000), and perhaps this Council in its wisdom of scrutinizing
the budget can come up with a majority of those funds through our budget cutting. I
myself, have at least one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) that I
will be proposing. If we are looking at two million two hundred thousand
dollars ($2,200,000), you folks all find one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) each
and we will be close to that. Let us prove to the public we can do it on a small scale
before we consider giving them four million four hundred thousand
dollars ($4,400,000) and expecting that we are going to see any significant
improvements because the previous three million eight hundred thousand
dollars ($3,800,000) that we raised did nothing in that area of improving roads,
zero (0). All we did was we supported the growing government and more government
waste. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just have a question for Vice Chair Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: It was five hundred dollars ($500) more? Was
that the increase or was that the total bill?
Councilmember Kagawa: That is what he said, but I do not know if he
is...sometimes when businessman are upset, they exaggerate a little bit. I do not
know.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 108 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: I can give you his name, if you want.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to say that I really appreciate all of the
questions, additional concerns, and prospective raised. For one thing, I do not think
we can find any service that has not increased in cost because of inflation whether it
is airline fares or the cost of food or whatever, there is this increase and therefore, we
know that we have had to...one of our errors in governance has been to not increase
registration fees, or planning fees, or whatever for years. Prior to the last two
cents ($0.02)/two cents ($0.02) increase in fuel tax, we had not raised the fuel tax for
fourteen (14) years. That is why when we wait that long, then the jump has to be
higher in order to cover just inflation. It is actually wise to increase it a little at a
time regularly and I see that Maui has started to do that. I think even our
departments have started to review fees. So to have that in place, and two
cents ($0.02)/two cents ($0.02) is nothing more than that, actually I think. So that is
one (1) thing we have to keep in mind. The other thing is I do not think that the two
cents ($0.02)/two cents ($0.02) went to waste because one, it covered inflation of
fourteen (14) years, and two, I think enabled us to expand bus services up until
10:00 p.m. and on weekends. That is a return on investment, and that costs one
million dollars ($1,000,000) more each year. I believe that helped many families. The
ridership skyrocketed because people could go to work and then they could come home
from work, when the bus service went to until 10:00 p.m.
The last thing I want to say is Council Chair Rapozo has said "Let us cut two
million dollars ($2,000,000) to three million dollars ($3,000,000)." Every time we
have done that, collective bargaining increases have soaked it all up again. So that
is the trouble. Then we have a status quo budget, and I agree there is still waste we
can look for. The Police Department have cut overtime, Solid Waste Division has cut
overtime, and they are all starting to try to do that. But just the status quo budget
is not what we have been elected to do because we have been elected to look into the
future and what kind of services we need into the future. Bus service is one of them,
which eventually is going to help in so many ways, from global warming to healthier
communities. We have to have a way to reasonably expand the budget. I agree with
you all, we have to keep pressing on efficiency of service.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kuali`i. It
seems like déjà vu.
Councilmember Kuali`i: For one thing, I think we have to stop blaming
collective bargaining increases and we have to start thinking about every year during
the budget, there are many vacant positions and it is our chance to delete positions
and to reorganize this County so that it is working more efficiently. Collective
bargaining increases are out of our direct control as far as negotiated Statewide. The
COUNCIL MEETING 109 MAY 4, 2016
Mayor has one (1) vote. From the lowest level of our staff, they are doing an important
job in providing the services that we are trying to provide, but we have control of the
budget, and there are plenty of vacant positions. We are chipping away at it only
little by little. We have got to do more. Keep working at it when we come up to the
budget.
As far as all of this with the fuel tax or the vehicle weight tax, I think we have
to look at it and break it down. How much vehicle weight tax and fuel tax is enough
every year to collect to do the average maintenance needed every year? We are at
that rate already. What we are trying to do by increasing the rates to make up for a
one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) backlog is impossible. We are never going
to be able to raise it enough. We need to separate that out and not try to slam it all
on now with such a huge increase and make up for fourteen (14) years of no increase.
We have to find another way. There is at least three (3) or four (4) other options that
we have talked about in the budget, other sources. The one idea that I am pursuing
is the potential charter amendment. This is not the way to do it, not to address the
one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) backlog.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? This is just the Communication.
We will have more opportunity to speak when the Bill hits. I am hoping that...
Councilmember Kuali`i: You are confusing us when you do some
together with the resolution...
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, that was more so that we can expedite
the process. I am going make my comments here and when we get to the Bill and the
Resolution, I expect to vote. I obviously will not stop anyone from making comments,
but my intent is once we get there, everything has been said, and we can proceed with
the vote. But if everyone else is done, I will make my comments here, and again, I
will not make it later. Just a few words that came to mind as I was listening to the
testimonies of everybody including the Administration, anxiety, stress, frustration,
anger, mistrust, these emotions are what go through our public's minds on a daily
basis. When everyone reads in the paper "Council considering tax/fee increase." I
am going read this E-mail. I am not going to mention names because it was a personal
E-mail, but it is from someone that apparently watches this broadcast live. I am
going read it because I think it pretty much speaks, and that is why I do not need a
public hearing, for me personally, because this is the consistent response I get from
the public when I am going through me daily routines. It says, "Council Chair
Rapozo, please help me understand why once something is voted down two (2) months
later, it is proposed in a different way over and over just like the raises that we just
did until it passes? Why do not you just cut the overspending instead of taxing us to
death? Maybe some Councilmembers have money to throw away, but half of the
island does not. You just keep presenting the idea until people are tired and then
pass it. You all need to open your eyes and see the overspending, but nobody wants
to say no in an election year or any other year. The budget keeps growing, but nothing
gets better. You all make the decisions for everyone and I guess if you have the money
COUNCIL MEETING 110 MAY 4, 2016
to pay the increase, then it does not affect you. You Councilmembers, are supposed
to represent the people, so cut the budget and find the money there." This is the most
compelling part. It says, "Please do not say it is only two cents ($0.02) in fuel and
forty-four dollars ($44) in weight tax. Forty-four dollars ($44) is someone's family's
grocery bill. I have a hard time understanding where Council is coming from saying
it is only a few cents." That just came in a while ago. We have to make this decision.
I commend Councilmember Yukimura. To come out with a tax increase this
close to an election one would argue that it is political suicide. So I commend her.
She is right. We have got to get the money somewhere. I think Councilmember
Hooser knows about the barking dog bill years ago where he caught some major flack,
rotten shrimp, eggs, and everything else, but it takes guts to put something like this
out. As I spoke with Councilmember Yukimura the other day, I feel her desperation
because where do you get the money? The State capping us on the TAT did not help.
That just irritates me to no end. If we had gotten our fair share, this would not be on
the table today. It would not be here. We would not be even discussing this today,
but we are because it is one (1) option to raise revenues to fix the roads. I agree with
some of my colleagues here, that there has to be another way, that we have got...we
talk about collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not the issue that I see is
the problem. What the problem is, and I may do this when we do decision-making,
compare our staff's salaries from Council Services and compare it with their cohorts
or counterparts across the street. You will see that the salaries of personnel across
the street that do what our staff on this side of the street does is double. So what?
As the Chair, do I say, "Do you know what? Let us just up all of ours." That would
be irresponsible. At some point, somebody has to assess what the tasks and duties
are and make some adjustments. But that is what the problem is. We have too many
employees getting paid too much money. That is the problem. How do you fix that?
Councilmember Kuali`i is right. We get the vacant positions, that is how. You do it
through attrition. You do not go out there and kick people out of their seats get rid
of their livelihoods, but we have to start by attrition and as positions are no longer
needed, you get rid of it, not dollar-fund. No. You get rid of it because the
dollar-funded position create an opportunity for the Administration to hire a contract
position, which takes up more and more money. No. Get rid of it. You do not need
it. If you have not hired for six (6) months and you are functioning, you do not need
it. Get rid of it. We operate with three (3) people less now than we did last year and
we function. They struggle, but we function, and I expect the same from across the
street. Until that happens, I have a really tough time making the people pay in taxes.
I am done. With that, this is a Communication to receive.
The motion to receive C 2016-116 for the record was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Do you know what? We are
going to take a caption break. Sorry, BC. Ten (10) minute recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 3:37 p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING 111 MAY 4, 2016
The meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item is Claims.
CLAIMS:
C 2016-117 Communication (04/12/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by GEICO Insurance as
subrogee for Lilane Corpuz, for damages to her vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06,
Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
C 2016-118 Communication (04/20/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by DTRIC Insurance as
subrogee for Cale Akana, for damages to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06,
Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
C 2016-119 Communication (04/21/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Allstate Insurance as
subrogee for Deldrene Robia, for damages to her vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06,
Charter of the County of Kauai.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion, please?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2016-117, C 2016-118, and
C 2016-119 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition and/or report back
to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to refer C 2016-117, C 2016-118, and C 2016-119 to the County
Attorney's Office for disposition and/or report back to the Council was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2016-06) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
COUNCIL MEETING 112 MAY 4, 2016
"PWPR 2016-05 Communication (04/11/2016) from Council Chair
Rapozo, requesting the presence of the Managing Director, the County
Attorney, and the Acting County Engineer, to provide a briefing on solid waste
solutions as it relates to Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget appropriation requests,"
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PS 2016-03) submitted by the Public Safety Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2623 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 15A OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE KAUAI COUNTY FIRE CODE,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 113 MAY 4, 2016
HOUSING & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-HT 2016-02) submitted by the Housing & Transportation
Committee, recommending that the following be Approved:
"C 2016-100 Communication (04/01/2016) from the Housing Director,
requesting Council approval to decline the repurchase of Unit No. 701 in
Ho`okena at Puhi, 2080 Manawalea Street, Lihu`e, Hawai`i, Tax Map
Key (TMK) (4) 3-3-003-036-0041, and grant the owner a one-year waiver of the
buyback provision to allow for the market sale of the property by the owner,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE:
A report (No. CR-COW 2016-05) submitted by the Committee of the Whole,
recommending that the following be Approved as Amended on second and final
reading:
"Bill No. 2624 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR BARGAINING UNIT 14
BETWEEN JULY 1, 2015 AND JUNE 30, 2017,"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 114 MAY 4, 2016
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Motion carried. Next item,
please.
Resolution No. 2016-41 — RESOLUTION TO RE-AUTHORIZE THE
NOMINATION OF ENTERPRISE ZONES FOR CONSIDERATION AND
DESIGNATION BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-41, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Your amendment, Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have an amendment?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a housekeeping amendment.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to amend Resolution No. 2016-41 as circulated,
as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated
here in as Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, I am going to suspend
the rule and have Mr. Costa, who has been patiently waiting to explain what this is
all about.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
GEORGE K. COSTA, Director of Economic Development: Aloha,
Council Chair Rapozo and honorable Councilmembers. For the record, George Costa,
Director for the Office of Economic Development. The Enterprise Zone program was
started back in early 1990s by the State Legislature and the Department of Business,
Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT), basically for job creation. It was or is
a partnership between the State, County, and private businesses to one, maintain
jobs and also stimulate job creation. The Lihu`e Enterprise Zone started twenty (20)
years ago in 1996. It just expired April 30th. Right after that, in 1997, the Kapa'a
Enterprise Zone, which includes Anahola, was created. Also that same month, the
North Shore Enterprise Zone was created, which includes Kilauea and Hanalei. Then
a couple months later also in 1997, the West Kaua`i zone, which includes from Port
Allen all the way to Kekaha was created. Then lastly, what is now called the South
Central Zone from `Ele`ele, Port Allen all the way to Hanama`ulu. I am here before
you today in hopes that this Resolution will be passed. What we are doing now is
because the Lihu`e Enterprise Zone expired, we are incorporating it...the
recommendation of DBEDT is to incorporate the Lihu`e zone as part of the South
Central zone. So the South Central zone becomes one (1) major zone to be included
with the other three (3) zones on Kauai. This reauthorization would extend the
four (4) enterprise zones for Kaua`i for another twenty (20) years. The main benefit
COUNCIL MEETING 115 MAY 4, 2016
of the enterprise zone is that new companies or existing companies have an exemption
from the General Excise Tax for a period of seven (7) years. During the seven (7)
years, they file annual reports mainly to show job growth or job creation in those
companies. Currently, Kaua`i has nineteen (19) companies that are part of the
Enterprise Zone Program. In the 2014 annual report, it showed that these
nineteen (19) companies generated five million five hundred thousand
dollars ($5,500,000) worth of revenue, and these nineteen (19) companies that are
still part of the program for seven (7) years, have created fifteen (15)jobs so far. It is
a great benefit for our business community, and I would like to ask for your assistance
in helping to pass this Resolution that we can extend the enterprise zones for another
twenty (20) years. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you for the information. Could we find
out the nineteen (19) companies, who they are, the nature of their business, and
which district they are located?
Mr. Costa: I have the list of companies that I can forward
to the Council. There is a list of eligible industries for the enterprise zone. As far as
the eligible companies, they are in agriculture, manufacturing, wholesaling, aviation,
and marine maintenance and repair. Those are the four (4) categories that...excuse
me. One (1) company is in Information Technology (IT) for Kaua`i. I have a
breakdown of those companies and I can forward that to the Council.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I might have them here.
Mr. Costa: Yes. I provided it in a handout earlier.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for your presentation, George. You
said nineteen (19) companies created fifteen (15)jobs and you gave another statistic?
Mr. Costa: Five million five hundred thousand
dollars ($5,500,000) revenue generated in 2014.
Councilmember Yukimura: Five million five hundred thousand
dollars ($5,500,000) revenue generated.
Mr. Costa: By those nineteen (19) companies. The 2015
report is not out yet. We will be soon getting that from DBEDT.
COUNCIL MEETING 116 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: And that meant that we forewent a certain
amount of excise tax?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it would be what, four percent (4%) of the
five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000) revenues?
Mr. Costa: You could do an estimate. I contacted DBEDT
to find out exactly, but they do not actually get the returns from these companies.
They have a form that is submitted to DBEDT that shows revenue. They do not
actually receive the income tax reporting forms from the companies, they can
guesstimate just by the revenue generated, but they cannot exactly go to print and
say two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) of General Excise Tax was foregone.
Councilmember Yukimura: What was the guesstimate?
Mr. Costa: About two hundred thousand
dollars ($200,000) from the five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: Over seven (7) years?
Mr. Costa: No, that was just for 2014.
Councilmember Yukimura: For one (1) year?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I mean, I noticed there is small
businesses and mainly start-ups. Those are the kinds of businesses we want to
encourage, so that is good. I just wanted to know the facts behind it.
Mr. Costa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser and then
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Hooser: Do you have a breakdown of you said five
million dollars ($5,000,000)?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Hooser: Is it broken down among these businesses?
Mr. Costa: I can get it from DBEDT.
COUNCIL MEETING 117 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Mr. Costa: Right now, the report shows who the
companies are and it shows by industry what the revenue was, but it does not show
by company. I am sure I can get that.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I noticed most of the businesses here
are very small businesses or small start-ups, but I also see Agrogenetics Inc., which
is DOW AgroSciences.
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Hooser: And they are presently suing the County of
Kaua`i.
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Hooser: Do they qualify for this as well as Aunty
Lilikoi?
Mr. Costa: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Do you need this approval today?
Mr. Costa: Yes, that would be...
Councilmember Hooser: I mean, is it time sensitive?
Mr. Costa: It needs go to the Governor seeking his
approval. It goes to DBEDT and then the Director, Luis Salaveria, sends a request
to the Governor to extend the enterprise zones for another twenty (20) years or
re-authorize.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I would like to see a breakdown of who
is getting all of the tax benefits, if possible, before I vote on it.
Mr. Costa: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock and then
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Chock: George, can you clarify if it is a ten
percent (10%) increase? Is it in revenue or is it employee based annually in order to
be eligible for the program?
COUNCIL MEETING 118 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Costa: For a new business, it is a ten percent (10%)
increase for employees. If you have, like I will say Monkeypod Jam is one of the
companies. So she is the sole proprietor. She started with one (1) person, herself,
and she needs to show an increase ten percent (10%) every year for seven (7) years.
So at the end of seven (7) years, she at least needs to add one (1) more employee, and
the same can be said for other companies with more employees. Every year, they
should show a ten percent (10%) increase in the labor force.
Councilmember Chock: So after seven (7) years, Monkeypod Jam
needs to have how many more?
Mr. Costa: One (1) employee.
Councilmember Chock: Just one (1) more employee?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any more questions? Go ahead. I forgot you.
Go ahead.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The Resolution is just to extend the existing
zones, the zones that cover our County?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: All of the business or economic areas on the
island is covered in one of these zones?
Mr. Costa: Right, the entire island of Kaua`i is covered.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It was five (5) zones and now it will be four (4).
Mr. Costa: Four (4).
Councilmember Kuali`i: And South Central is incorporating Lihu`e,
which used to be its own separate zone?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: All we are going for the State is reconfirming
that we are renewing these zones?
Mr. Costa: We support the Enterprise Zone Program.
COUNCIL MEETING 119 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: But the program is a State program?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Run by DBEDT.
Mr. Costa: Run by DBEDT, but as I mentioned, it is a
partnership. So depending on the Counties, they have additional benefits.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Right.
Mr. Costa: Other Counties have more tax benefits.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The State benefit is one hundred
percent (100%) exemption from GET and eighty percent (80%) non-refundable income
tax credit first year?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But on the County benefits, it says "each
County government also offers additional benefits that may include one (1) or more
of the following..."
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And it has property tax adjustment, zoning or
building permit waivers or variances, and priority permit process.
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Our County only primarily has the expedited
permit process?
Mr. Costa: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: We do not have tax breaks?
Mr. Costa: No, we do not.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Those tax breaks are State provided tax
breaks?
Mr. Costa: Well, the County can add tax breaks, but I do
not think we are in that position.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But right now we do not have them?
COUNCIL MEETING 120 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Costa: Yes. When we have start-up companies, they
usually ask me or our Office of Economic Development (OED) staff members for
assistance in their permitting to help with the process, and that is County's benefit.
So far, they have been appreciative of that.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: George, does the County have any part in who
gets to get this benefit? It is the State, right?
Mr. Costa: The State, yes. They have an online process.
It used to be manual where you get the form, you fill it out, you mail it to State or you
fax it to the State, and now it is all online. Any interested company can go online and
register with State, and then the State determines if they are eligible, then they
become part of the program.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. I guess what I am saying is it is an
objective process. It is you meet the qualifications or you do not.
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I hear Councilmember Hooser's concern about
specific businesses, but we do not have any say whether or not they are eligible, right?
Mr. Costa: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: The State makes that determination.
Mr. Costa: The State makes that determination.
Council Chair Rapozo: But we need to have these zones
re-authorized...
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: ...so that the other businesses or all of the
businesses can benefit from this program, correct?
Mr. Costa: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: I read the brochure when we met the other
day and I was not really aware of the benefits. I think the reason why we only have
19 companies is because they are not aware.
COUNCIL MEETING 121 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would suggest that we set up an agenda item
for Councilmember Kuali`i's Committee, and maybe can you coordinate with DBEDT
a good day that they can be here as well, so we can really have that discussion and
that information for the businesses and people considering using the Enterprise Zone
Program because it is a benefit. It is an economic driver.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is something that I think that we can
coordinate. I am not sure how long it will take to get the DBEDT people here, but I
would definitely want to see that in the Committee.
Mr. Costa: Okay. They have offered to come if need be.
As I mentioned, it is a partnership. From the County level, we will continue to help
promote the program. In the annual report, it shows the small business fair that we
conduct. So far, we have had three (3) small business fairs, plan to do that on an
annual business. We will have a booth setup for the Enterprise Zone Program. What
we are looking at for the County website more specifically on the OED portion is
promoting the enterprise zone, and then the other part is working with Jon Lekavich
with Small Business Development Corporation. When he does his how to start a
business, we will be part of that as well. There is a lot of outreach that we can to
really promote the program. But I will send that request to DBEDT and see when
they can be here.
Council Chair Rapozo: And then just work with our staff so we can
get it on.
Mr. Costa: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I want to thank Council Chair Rapozo for
making that recommendation. I think that is good. I will be supporting this. I
understand it is a State requirement. I am just a little taken aback when I see a
multi-national corporation next to Aunty Lilikoi saying that they get a one hundred
percent (100%) exemption from General Excise Tax and all of these benefits for a
company that is that large and that is suing the County of Kaua`i. It is a bit troubling,
but I understand that the County is not responsible for that.
Mr. Costa: Right.
COUNCIL MEETING 122 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: For making those rules. I do hope, and I will
put this in writing, that there is some transparency. Even though the State is giving
these benefits, the County is enabling the benefits to happen and participating as a
partner in this. I would think that there is some transparency as to following the
rules, if you would. One of the rules is that at least half of the annual gross receipts
must be from certain activities et cetera, et cetera. I would hope that information
about those activities will be forth coming from DBEDT and through you.
Mr. Costa: Okay.
Councilmember Hooser: I will put something in writing to you. I
appreciate your work and I know you do not make the rules. Thank you.
Mr. Costa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know that you said you would send it over in
writing, but any questions about the enterprise zone, if you could send it over to
George so he can obviously be prepared to answer when it does show up. Again, it is
not a top-top priority, but I think the sooner we can get it on...there a lot of people
right now contemplating starting a business, small business.
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think this is a good tool for new business
start-ups to utilize. Great benefits. At least give them a chance at success. The State
keeps making it difficult for businesses to survive. At least this one program benefits.
We will work on that. Any more questions for Mr. Costa? If not, thank you, George.
Mr. Costa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: While the rules are suspended, is there any
public testimony? Mr. Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. Well, I am
embarrassed to say that I have never heard of this before. I have been a serial
entrepreneur since 1978 in this State. Even here on Kaua`i, one of the businesses I
started, I decided to shut down because of my start-up operating expenses. One of
the things that really grinded me was even though I was losing money, I had to pay
GET. This is a rough one staring at your checkbook, writing a check to pay taxes on
your losses. It is not very much incentive to go into business. This is a great program,
and thank you Council Chair Rapozo, for getting the County and the State together
to come in and give the public some more information about this because it is absurd
that there is only nineteen (19) companies taking advantage of this. Utterly absurd.
We need to take advantage of the opportunities that state gives us to promote
developing businesses on Kaua`i. My thanks to George for coming here, making his
presentation, and bringing this to the attention of the public. We look in forward to
COUNCIL MEETING 123 MAY 4, 2016
hearing from the Office of Economic Development, both the County and the State.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follow:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there further discussion? If not, roll call.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, we have to vote on the amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, let us vote on the amendment. Let us
just do a voice vote on the amendment.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2016-41 as circulated, as shown in the
Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated here in as
Attachment 1, was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, back to the main motion. Roll call.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-41 as amended was then put,
and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2016-43 — RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE COUNTY OF
KAUAI FUEL TAX RATE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2013-47,
DRAFT 3
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion, please?
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve Resolution No. 2016-43 on first
reading, schedule Public Hearing for June 1, 2016, and refer to the Budget &
Finance Committee, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Any further
discussion? Councilmember Yukimura
COUNCIL MEETING 124 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is a matter of stewardship. We have
to malama or take care of the infrastructure that supports life on Kaua`i, that
supports economic development, and that supports people getting from place to place.
When I spoke of collective bargaining, I was not trying to blame that. I was talking
about a fact of budget, and in a way, it is part of inflation. It is just something that
is a fact of our budgeting. I know people have said there has...
Council Chair Rapozo: I really hate to interrupt you, but I can hear
the side bar. Was your motion was to approve on first reading and schedule public
hearing. I think we just...
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, a Resolution...
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: Only because I do not want us to get into that,
so you could just restate the motion.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: And just leave out the approval on first
reading. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to schedule Public Hearing for June 1, 2016,
and refer to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by Councilmember
Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: I apologize for interrupting you. You can start
all over. Reset her time, please.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, I do not have to start all over. People
around here have acknowledged that it is a problem, but nobody has yet really come
up with a solution. I would like to ask that at least we have it fully vetted, discussed,
and go through the process. If at the end and we have gone through the budget
decision-making we find that we do not need it and we have really found another way
to address the problem, then I will be happy to vote against it myself. I just want it
on the table as part of problem-solving because we do have a big problem in front of
us and we need to look at all options. Maybe we will just want to keep the fuel tax
and do away with the vehicle weight tax, although it is the weight that is causing a
lot of damage. So there is some relevance to looking at weight tax. We can still do
half a cent ($0.005) per pound or we can do a quarter cent ($0.025) per pound. We
have the option if we have a vehicle for that kind of problem-solving.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
COUNCIL MEETING 125 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: I have a process question. This is on the
Resolution and we have the Bill coming up. Do we need both of them?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Is that the way it works?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I am not going to be supporting the fuel
tax. I have some discussion on the weight tax, but I am not going to be supporting
the fuel tax.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I held my comments from the...I think we are
on the Consent Calendar or Communication this whole time. My position on this is
what it was two (2) months ago when we had it up. We have the GET vote coming
up, and my position has always been to throw the broader net out. Bigger tax base
with GET, if that does not pass, then we start looking at other options, and that was
the point I made last time and that is the point I am going to make again this time.
So I am not ready to vote on a fuel tax or vehicle weight tax. We look at our taxing
options. If improvements are what we going to focus on, I would rather do a broader
tax first with a bigger tax base. If that fails, then we look at other tax bases or other
options. If GET does not pass, that is gone. We will not have that option again, we
go back to the drawing board, and we look at what we do. That has been my opinion
from the start; take the bigger tax base, bigger amount of money. GET is going to
bring in the amount of money we need to help do the infrastructure. This is only
bringing in a portion of the money and it is a smaller tax base. If we wanted this to
cover what our immediate needs are, then the fuel tax needs to be twenty-five
cents ($0.25) or all of these other thing would have to be raised double or triple.
Again, look at bigger net and bigger tax base, and if that does not pan out, then we
look at our other options and go back to the drawing board, which play include
something like this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. I will be
leaving my comments here as well. This is really about the measures all discussed
today in the Communication including the vehicle tax. I think the question is really
about do we want to solve this road maintenance issue. Of course what I have heard
consistently is that we do. How we do that, of course, is really the question. We
currently budget...what was it? Two million four hundred thousand
dollars ($2,400,000) every two (2) years for our road. At this rate, we will never catch
up to the one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) deficit. We currently have these
options of the GET before us, which is as short as next week where we will be hearing
COUNCIL MEETING 126 MAY 4, 2016
it for our last time. I am not convinced that we have the support to move that forward
at this point as well. It is about looking at all of the options and continuing discussion.
I think I have heard around the table, I think Councilmember Kagawa said that there
was an appreciation that we do continue to have this discussion to figure out how to
best approach this. I fully agree that we have ignored this too long, but I do not think
we will fix years of avoidance with one (1) sweep because I think it will be too much
burden on the taxpayers all at once. We have not heard any real solutions in
testimony. While I did not support the first iteration of this Bill, the fuel tax and the
vehicle weight tax, the first time around, I think at the very least, this is a little more
palatable to start the discussion on. In lieu of the GET decision, I would like to
continue that discussion. I believe the solution is in a combination of funds including
building financial efficiency and savings as we have talked about today. I think those,
as was mentioned in testimony, need to come first. That being said, any increase will
negatively impact our community members, and I understand that. I take that very
seriously. I will not move forward on any tax without a clear pathway for how it is
that we are going to be delivering these services. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, I think I have made my
comments. The motion is to schedule a public hearing for June 1st. Roll call
The motion to schedule public hearing on June 1, 2016, and referred to the
Budget & Finance Committee was then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
BILLS FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2630) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 5-1.1, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
THE COUNTY FUEL TAX: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive Proposed Draft
Bill (No. 2630) for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 127 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call.
The motion to receive Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2630) for the record was then
put, and carried the following vote:
FOR RECEIPT: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5,
AGAINST RECEIPT: Chock, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2631) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 5-2.3, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
MOTOR VEHICLE WEIGHT TAX
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion?
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2631) for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I was not quick enough. I was going to
support a motion to approve. I do not support the measure as it is written now and
would vote against it in a heartbeat. I do believe that it might serve as a vehicle.
Councilmember Chock and I have been at numerous meetings with the attorneys and
staff from the Administration on the possibility of taxing rental cars or charging them
a fee, and to me, that would be an appropriate way to shift the burden from residents
to visitors who I believe use our roadways disproportionately in excess, if you would,
to residents. Residents drive to work and home every day, and visitors drive around
all day long. I believe that there is a nexus to and a valid reason to charge the visitors
more. It is possible, but we were still in discussions that we could amend this
measure to have it apply only to car rentals and increase it to an amount. For
discussion purposes anyway, that might be equivalent to one dollar ($1) a day. A
three hundred dollar ($300) car weight tax on rental cars could very well generate
two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) and not be an excessive
burden to the industry, in my opinion. There is still a lot of discussions to be had to
see if this is a possible path, but I think that it bears looking into and therefore, I
wanted to support this measure as a vehicle to have that discussion, to accelerate the
discussion, and to explore that possibility. I was hoping that we would keep this
measure alive. I will be voting against the motion to receive for that reason. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Chock.
COUNCIL MEETING 128 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Chock: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember
Hooser, for bringing up the discussion. It has been something that we have been
discussing offline for quite a bit. I think we certainly want to look for continued ways
to answer the issues that we have before us when it comes to roads. With the absence
of the TAT or the lifting of the cap of the TAT, we think that perhaps this may be a
vehicle for us to look at moving forward. I will also be voting against the receipt of
this Bill at this time. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. If you look
at the history of the motor vehicle weight tax, and I will just go to 1978, that was
when they increased it a quarter of a one cent ($0.025) for the passenger vehicle and
they lifted it one cent ($0.01) for the freight vehicle in 1978, and that was from
previous legislation done in 1974. They waited four (4) years. The next change came
in 1999, twenty-one (21) years later. They increased the passenger vehicle by half of
a cent ($0.005) and freight vehicle went up to by half of a cent ($0.005) as well. So
twenty-one (21) years later now from 1978 to 1999. Then in 2014, or I believe it was
in 2013, the Council enacted without our votes, Chair and I believe Councilmember
Hooser may have voted no as well. But they waited fourteen (14) years from 1999 to
2013 to raise it point zero seven five cents ($0.075) for the passenger vehicle and half
of a cent ($0.005) for the freight vehicle. As you can see, when these changes are
made, you are talking fractions of a penny. It is taking us twenty (20) years and then
thirteen (13) years, and then here we are now three (3) years later, we want to make
a big jump by one cent ($0.01) for the passenger vehicle and full two cents ($0.02) for
the freight vehicle. I mean, if that is not just outrageous, I do not know what it is. I
think taxpayers look for consistency and business people look for consistency in their
bills. We are still not quite out of recession and it is scary to think that we are saying
well, we need these drastic changes. We just raised it two (2) or three (3) years ago
and we have got to raise it again or else, yes, we will not pave roads. I think that is
pretty...those excuses are very lame. I think in 2013, nobody from the Administration
or Council mentioned that these increases to the fuel taxes and motor vehicle weight
taxes were going to just be subsidizing departments that grew. I think the message
I heard at least, I am not an elephant, I do not recall word-for-word, but what I heard
was that we are going to get the users to pay for the paving that is to come from the
adoption of the legislation. What did they get? They got some improvements alright,
lots of crosswalks, flashing crossing crosswalks, sidewalks, lots of bike paths, lots of
curbs, and a lot of planters. That is what we got. What did the vehicles get? What
did the owners of the commercial vehicles get in the amount of improved roads?
Zero (0), and we are going consider legislation like this again? I think we need to do
the right thing. Let us let the Administration show us some baby steps of how they
can get the job done, and then maybe that will lead to some confidence from this body.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did you have a question?
COUNCIL MEETING 129 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Or a statement and then a question, and then
you tell me who can give us the answer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am interested in what Councilmember
Hooser talked about that him and Councilmember Chock talked about as far as rental
cars and what have you. Who can tell us if this Bill dealing with motor vehicle weight
tax can even be used as a vehicle for one dollar ($1) a day on a rental car surcharge,
if you will?
Councilmember Hooser: I can respond.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: The one dollar ($1) a day is not what we are
proposing. That was an example of the impact on the industry. We do not have a
legal industry to charge one dollar ($1) a day. We do have the legal authority to
charge vehicle weight taxes, and it is a way to describe the impact only the industry
that could be one dollar ($1) a day. We do not have that authority, but have the
authority to charge weight taxes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The only authority is in something like this
where you would actually isolate one (1) industry or one (1) group of vehicles?
Councilmember Hooser: The existing motor vehicle registration
system offers five (5) or six (6) classes of charges.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And right now, all classes pay the same rate?
Councilmember Hooser: I am not in a position to really explore it fully
right now, but the thought was to use this as a vehicle. I will consult with my phone
here and answer your question, if I could. There is passenger vehicles, motorcycles,
commercial vehicles, and trailers. There are five (5) classes, and one (1) of them is
empty. The question is can we use empty class or can we add classes. The concept is
similar as our property tax structure. We have the legal authority to charge property
taxes and we have the legal authority to categorize those classes as to what is used
right now. It is a similar theory. My hope was to use this as a vehicle to...we have
been talking about a lot. We have a vehicle on the table rather than having to assume
it is something new, but we could always submit something new in the future as well.
There is still work to be done on it, but because the budget is here and now, if we
could accelerate the process a little bit, I think it would be helpful.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i, did that answer your
question?
COUNCIL MEETING 130 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a process suggestion. I appreciate that
Councilmember Hooser and Councilmember Chock have been looking at another
possible source of revenue. That is what I have been waiting for and asking for. If
you do not want vehicle weight or fuel tax increases, what is the other solution? I
appreciate there has been some thinking about this. If there is a desire to use this
Bill as a vehicle, I would suggest deferring it and not passing it on first reading
because we do not want to go to public hearing before we get a fairly good idea of what
we are proposing. Deferring it so that we would still have a chance to do a first
reading and set a public hearing so that on first reading you could amend it and then
set a public hearing, which would give the public a better idea of what the bill looks
like when they come and speak about it.
Council Chair Rapozo: A deferral and receipt, in this case, would be
the same because it would restart the clock for two (2) weeks. If you defer this, it goes
for two (2) weeks and then you are back to approving it on first reading. If you receive
it, the clock starts in two (2) weeks when you folks can have the time to put together
a bill that specifically targets what you want to do.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you receive it, then it goes out with a
recommendation for receipt.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, no. This is a Council Meeting.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, this is a Council Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: There is no advantage. It is the same result.
It is the same result if you defer it. I would rather, if in fact, you are talking about a
fee or weight tax on rental car, that the bill be structured around that premise and
not significantly changed to accommodate...I mean, it is the same. I think you know
what I am saying. We are talking about a whole different bill with a whole different
purpose. Again, deferring and receiving gives no advantage to any bill. It is just the
same thing. It is just semantics.
Councilmember Yukimura: But Council Chair Rapozo, receipt would
basically kill it, so I do not think it would come up in next meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, their new bill would is what I am trying
to say. If you defer this today, this Bill shows up, but then you have to you go through
the whole amendment process.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 131 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: If you receive it today, Councilmember Chock
and Councilmember Hooser can work on a new bill that specifically addresses what
there seems to be some interest on this table, and not trying to again retrofit a bill
with a new intent. That is all I am suggesting. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I was going to say the same thing. I do not see
us getting through this process any faster by not having a new bill because this is on
first reading right now. If we defer it, it is going to have to take public hearing and
be on first reading again with the amendment. I would rather see a new bill come in
and we take it from there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: My preference for a new bill also would be
that even within the title, be a little more specific so the public knows specifically
what we are talking about; car rental companies.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, I think that is how it should be where
it is really targeted to what you are trying to do. But obviously that is the pleasure
of this body and whatever you folks want to do. Any other discussion? If there is no
more discussion, I appreciate Councilmember Hooser's discussion and working with
Councilmember Chock on getting something for the visitor industry. Councilmember
Kagawa has talked about it, addressing property taxes for the resorts and vacation
rentals, that industry, to make up for the moneys that we will not be getting for the
TAT. I did bring that up with one (1) hotel man and I think he got really upset. He
said, "You are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg." Well, the State has
left us with no choice. The State has left us looking at other avenues, but why should
the taxpayer, the resident taxpayer, pick up the slack on what visitor industry impact
is? I disagree with that. People are going to be upset. When the visitor industry
realizes that they are now being looked to pick up the slack, that will force them to
maybe show up at the legislature during the TAT hearings, which they never did.
Maybe write a letter to the delegation, which they never did. Maybe that will trigger
some activity from the visitor industry to say, "Now you are going to affect my
pocketbook? Do you know what? We better get involved." Well, too late. The GET,
can anybody answer me this question, why would the State Legislature, who is
supposed to be representing people of their districts, why would they give us a window
to set the GET or whether or not we want to choose to charge a GET? Why would
they put it in the little window, saying "you have to do it by this day or you lose it for
ten (10) years?" Why would they do that? Really, why? To put pressure. Why? Why
should that not just be an ongoing opportunity for the Counties to set a GET
Surcharge as they see it? Why? Does it change the process at State tax office?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I can explain.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I would love to hear it. Go ahead.
COUNCIL MEETING 132 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I spoke to both Committee Chairs, Senate
Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Finance, and they do not
want to leave an open-ended ability to put a tax in for the Counties because they may,
from their side, want to impose an excise tax. It is the same thing that we are
experiencing with the fuel tax and vehicle weight tax. What we do affects their ability
to put a tax out. If they are in constant uncertainty, they are not able to act as freely.
They said, "Look Counties, because our Mayors did go and say we want a one
percent (1%) excise tax and maybe we will not use it, but maybe we will." That was
not well received because they said, "If you want it, that must mean you need it and
you use it, or do not leave us hanging not knowing when you are going to impose one
and then double the impact when we impose it on the common taxpayer." They were
trying to think about not putting a common burden on the taxpayer. That was the
rationale that they gave me.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am glad that is not your perception because
then you are not offended when I say that is ridiculous. So that is not meant to you
Councilmember Yukimura, that is meant to the person who told you that. Half a
percent (0.5%) this year, half a percent (0.5%) next year, and half a percent (0.5%)
the following year, what is it to the State? Who cares? Whether you take it or not, it
is still half a percent (0.5%). I do not know what it was. They wanted us to act, so
they knew where their position was so they could...it does not affect them. Whether
we charge half a percent (0.5%) or not, does not affect the State at all. This is just
this power trip that we are dealing with, and it is finally surfacing that the public
finally seeing it now that the State is just bullies. It is time that we exposed that.
Now as you said, Councilmember Kaneshiro, once you pass this based on existing
law, it is gone. We do not have that opportunity. Why not, is my question. Next
year, the State Legislature could come out with another GET bill that says, "Hey
Counties, you have an opportunity to raise your..." what impact does it have on the
State? Anyway, that is just my position. Somebody has to make up the difference,
and the difference that we are chasing right now is not just one hundred million
dollar ($100,000,000) backlog in paving, it is millions and millions and millions and
millions of dollars of TAT. That is the problem. Going forward, additional revenue.
As the tourist industry is growing well, we do not benefit, but the impacts and cost of
the impacts to this island grows. We do not get the benefit. We do not get the
resources. Anyway, I would suggest that we do go on with the receipt and
Councilmember Hooser and Councilmember Chock can try to get something together
by the next Council Meeting. Again, the end effect will be the same. The end result
will be the same. With that, the motion is to receive. Roll call.
The motion to receive Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2631) for the record was then
put, and carried the following vote:
FOR RECEIPT: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL — 4,
AGAINST RECEIPT: Chock, Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
COUNCIL MEETING 133 MAY 4, 2016
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Four (4) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2623—A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15A OF
THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE KAUAI
COUNTY FIRE CODE: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for adoption of Bill No. 2623 on
second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Seeing none, roll call.
The motion for adoption of Bill No. 2623 on second and final reading, and that it
be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
Bill No. 2624, Draft 1 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR BARGAINING UNIT 14
BETWEEN JULY 1, 2015 AND JUNE 30, 2017: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for
adoption of Bill No. 2624, Draft 1 on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted
to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
COUNCIL MEETING 134 MAY 4, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: I want to thank HGEA. I made an
appointment and spent some time with Gerald and Dill. They shared with me some
of the increases that are going to be occurring with this movement. It is a very
generous package. The beginning lifeguards will going up in the neighborhood of
thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000) to forty-three thousand dollars ($43,000) per
year, starting pay. I really feel like it is very difficult to be in a position of being
broke, deciding what to tax, what not to tax, how we fix roads, and then in one (1)
year, we have an agreement that just makes everybody jump up at least six thousand
dollars ($6,000) to seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for doing the same job they were
doing yesterday. Normally increases take place at the two percent (2%) or one
percent (1%) range per year now that governments are struggling. But the police,
fire, and lifeguards seem to have gotten a different deal when it comes to these
negotiations. It is concerning for me. Number one, it is not sustainable. Number
two, what about the other unions? Soon you are going to have all of these different
professionals with much greater managerial duties getting paid the same as
somebody who is a beginning lifeguard or a beginning fireman. I think what is really
happening is we are having salary inequities going on and it is even worse than salary
inversion because at the end of the day, what you will have is you will have people
going to be lifeguards, firemen, policemen, and all of these other jobs where they have
degrees, they will not be applying for those jobs. We have heard it already from the
Fire Department that they are getting engineers and teachers applying for firefighter
jobs. What in the world is going on? What happened to these other fields? It has
basically become the pay. It is very concerning. I do not know how it is sustainable.
I have never seen any Council deny a negotiated pay increase, but I had to just say
that I am kind of concerned. I think the salaries for different levels of duties are just
becoming all out of whack, and where do we go from here? I do not know, but certainly
I will not stand quiet on it. I see some major issues, I see some major problems, and
it is not sustainable. Is a top management policeman or fireman worth one hundred
seventy-one thousand dollars ($171,000)? Absolutely not, but it is happening. What
do we do? Do we just sit here and say, "Well, it is negotiated, we cannot do anything."
I think if we are thinking about sustainability, we need to start doing something.
What that is, I do not know. If I had the answer, I would do it now. Thank you,
Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: We have had this discussion to some degree
before, and there is an option. We talked about it earlier, about not having any
control over it, but the fact is that we can all vote this down as we could vote other
collective bargaining down. That is under our purview and I think we kind of skip
around that question often, too often. I am more supportive of this than I have of the
police and fire in the past because the lifeguards have been struggling for a long time.
This is one of the units that I think if anything, needs to get up to speed. For that
reason, I am much more supportive today of this. But I think the larger discussion
that we could have is if we decided as a Council that we do not want to move forward,
COUNCIL MEETING 135 MAY 4, 2016
we have some say in this process that they go back to the table and discuss this. We
should have that discussion, a full discussion on it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I think Vice Chair Kagawa and
Councilmember Chock have identified an area that we have to do something about.
I feel the lifeguards were left behind during the time of furlough when even though
they are public safety related, they were furloughed while police and fire were allowed
to get their raises compounded over the two (2) year period, and that put the
lifeguards really far behind. I think some of the increase is important, but the overall
setting of salaries Countywide is a difficult thing. It has been said around this table
that the Council has no powers at all, but in fact, all of these like here today, they are
before us for approval or disapproval. We do have that power and the Administration
has a lot of responsibility as well since they do the negotiating. It is something that
is very much about fairness amongst the different positions in the County.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I am just going to echo a little bit what the
two (2) previous speakers said that we do have power. We should vote in support if
we support it, and vote in opposition if we oppose it. I think it is pretty clear. To say
that we oppose it and then vote in support of it, I think, it sends the wrong message.
It says that either we are empowered by our votes and our positions or we are not. I
am voting in support. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. The issue of sustainability though, is a
real one. It goes back to my comments about every time we found savings, collective
bargaining increases kind of wipe it out. That means that we have no moneys then
for the kinds of initiatives that we have to do to prepare for the future or to address
certain problems. If the collective bargaining system is not sustainable, it impacts
the whole budget and all of our responsibilities.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? I think it is important for the
public to understand the process that we have very little control. Maui was
considering voting down this agreement, but the reality is when, and I have said this
so many times on the floor for so many years, that the County has to get aggressive
when we negotiate the contracts. The labor unions, they serve their members. They
spend the money, they hire negotiators that come from the mainland, and put out the
case in front of the arbitrator. The arbitrator rules based on the information that
they are provided by both sides. Now, we get our butts kicked every negotiation
because they have better negotiators, and I think at some point, the counties and the
mayors are going to have to get together and hire some negotiators that can negotiate
better. That is how we can do this because for one (1) county to hold out, let us say
COUNCIL MEETING 136 MAY 4, 2016
Maui or Kaua`i said no. It goes back to the table. That is not cheap either, to go back
to the arbitrator's table, to go back to the negotiating table, spend all of that money
again, end up in front of an arbitrator again who chances are, will rule the same way
unless we are going to get a better negotiating team. It starts at negotiating. That is
where we have to do a better job. Once the arbitrator rules, it is very difficult, in my
opinion, for any one (1) county to stand out and say "we do not support this" because
we had our support with the negotiations. That is where we have to do a better job.
The unions pay big money for negotiators and they do a great job. I do not read every
single one of them, but I did read the police negotiations. When the negotiators for
State of Hawai`i Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO), which were hired, made
the argument about using our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR),
using our financial situation or fiscal position, the counties made no position against
it. They just said, "Yes, we have no comment." What do you expect the arbitrator to
do? Yet, we are all struggling. Every county is struggling and every county is faced
with the same fiscal dilemma, and yet, we do not make a case that these increases
are going to hurt the fiscal positions of the counties. That is where we have to do a
better job. Once it goes through the process through an arbitrator and it ends up
here, yes, we could say no, but chances of winning that is very slim and it is going to
be costly. With that, anyone else? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to add something briefly. Council
Chair Rapozo pretty much said it, but let us be reminded that during the budget, we
have full authority to vote on positions that are not in the bargaining unit. We have
appointed positions. We have excluded management positions that, by executive
order of the Mayor, just follows the bargaining units. Until we get to the point where
we are negotiating, and if anything, from the top we should set the example. If we
need to be cutting across the board, thinning out, and saying it is not sustainable and
start really addressing that, then let us start with the top and let us start with where
we vote on the budget where things are directly under our control. Yes, this is under
our control, but it is only after the negotiation. It is a little removed because it is
done Statewide. With the top positions that are covered by the Salary Resolution, we
have the ultimate voting budget power, with the appointed people, we have the
ultimate budget voting power, and with the excluding management, we should be
working better with the Mayor to not have it just automatically follow the bargaining
unit raises.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: It is a hard pill to swallow every time these
come up. Without a plan or without things changing, us voting no, I do not see any
happening as far as any changes to what the contract is. It is going to go back into
ash arbitration and we are going to make the same arguments we made. I do not
really see a change. Unless there a major change in the system, or a HRS change, or
something like that, we do not really have much power. I do not know what to do,
but I do not see us voting no and then there is going to be a big change in this anyway.
I am going vote for it. I do know lifeguards, some of their pay is pretty low and I do
COUNCIL MEETING 137 MAY 4, 2016
think they deserve a little more pay. Again, this whole collective bargaining thing
kind of just snowballs once it comes here and it is like everybody has to take a raise
and everybody gets a huge jump. I do not know how to control it from this seat. I
will be looking into what we can do. In the end, there may not be anything we can
do, but it does change who controls the collective bargaining. With the State having
power in that, it really dilutes our power in controlling what we do here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? I should say my comments for
collective bargaining were in general. I do not want anyone to think that I do not
think a lifeguard is worth what this contract pays them because it is. They are worth
it. They are definitely, and especially to the people that are drowning in the ocean. I
am not willing to go and fight the ocean to...I like helping people, but I am not a very
good swimmer and it takes a special person to do that. I am not directing my
comments to this agreement. I am just saying in general, all collective bargaining
agreement, that when you look at...Councilmember Kagawa said it best. It is the
salary...what did you call it? Inequity. It goes for the police and fire as well. These
people are put their lives on the line and then you get someone working in an office
that is working clerical or doing some administrative things. I am not saying that is
not important, but that makes more than an entry level police officer or fireman. Is
that equity? I do not know. It depends. My comments are to collective bargaining in
general, that we need to get a better handle on how it is done. With that, the motion
is to approve. Roll call.
The motion for adoption of Bill No. 2624, Draft 1 on second and final reading,
and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7*,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Kagawa was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative
for the motion.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, can we read us into Executive
Session, and then we will be done for the day for you, BC?
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-848 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney, on behalf of the Council, requests an Executive Session with the Council to
COUNCIL MEETING 138 MAY 4, 2016
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-849 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney, on behalf of the Council, requests an Executive Session to brief the Council
on matters concerning the impact that statutes and constitutional provisions will
have on efforts to change the governmental structure of the County of Kaua`i from
the current system to a Council-Manager form of government, and to discuss the
opinions issued by the Office of the County Attorney as they relate to this matter, and
related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers,
duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they
relate to this agenda item.
ES-850 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council, to provide the Council with
a briefing regarding Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charge
Nos. 486-2013-0005, 486-2013-00342, 486-2013-00047, and 486-2013-00343
concerning the County of Kauai, Kaua`i Police Department, to obtain settlement
authority, and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration
of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the
County as they relate to this agenda item.
ES-851 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council, to provide the Council with
a briefing in the mediation of: Michael S. Kocher, Sr., Individually and on behalf of
the Estate of Michael S. Kocher, Jr.; Patricia Kocher and County of Kaua`i; Irvin
Magayanes, Mediation No. 15-0482-M, to obtain settlement authority, and related
matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties,
privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate
to this agenda item.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Can I get a motion to go into
Executive Session?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-848,
ES-849, ES-850, and ES-851, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
COUNCIL MEETING 139 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of Council, my name is
Ken Taylor. I am speaking in reference to ES-849, going into closed session to brief
the Council on matters concerning the impacts of statutes and constitutional
provisions will have on the effect of changing of the government structure of the
County of Kaua`i. I really have trouble with this because I believe it is a discussion
of rules and regulations that are already existing and how they affect the discussion
of changing the government structure. I really believe that that activity should be
done in a public/open meeting, not behind closed doors. There is absolutely no reason
to justify this discussion behind closed doors. It goes on to talk about well, the
opinions by the Office of the County Attorney as they relate to this matter. Again, if
they have an opinion about the rules and regulations that are currently in place and
how they may affect the discussion, I believe the public has the right to know and
hear what these are, and that it be done in public meetings.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Mr. Taylor: I would ask that you eliminate ES-849 from
your agenda and bring it back to a meeting next meeting. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify? Mr. Sykos.
Mr. Sykos: For the record, Lonnie Sykos. Regarding
ES-848, it would be a good thing for the public if attached to this was the Quarterly
Report on pending and denied claims. That could have been posted electronically on
the website and that this is all public information. These are about lawsuits that
have been entered into court, and therefore, it is public information.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Sykos: Who is launching the lawsuit and why the
lawsuit was filed. The details of it or judgments about it is not what I am asking for.
It is simply a list of who it is and why they sued the County, and whether we paid or
why we denied the claims. This is public record. Why this should be done in
Executive Session is beyond me, likewise with ES-849. I cannot, for the life of me,
think of anything that would create a liability for me, the taxpayer. I can think of
lots of things that might create liability for someone seeking the vote from the public,
but I did not imagine anything that the County Attorney is going to discuss that
would create a liability over the potential charter amendment. I agree with Ken. I
think that the discussion about the charter amendment should be all in public. I
cannot imagine why you need to meet in secret to do it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 140 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Sykos: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Trask, can you come up to the table
please? Councilmember Yukimura, are you going to ask him to come up, too?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: First of all, as relates to ES-849, until we get
in there, I can assure the public that if it is a policy matter, I am not going to allow
that to continue in there. I think you know that, Mauna Kea.
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have stopped discussion. I do not think
any of us is going to participate in a discussion that is a policy discussion. That does
belong out here. So until we get in there, I am not sure what we will discuss. As far
as ES-848 on the claims, it is public record, correct? When someone files a claim
here...
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is public. They can come in and get a copy
of it. I think the personal information is redacted, but the claimant is public, the
amount, and what occurred is public. Is that correct?
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think what I am hearing the public ask, and
I tend to agree as far as the status of the claim, the information of the pending and
denied claims does that become public record when it is denied?
Mr. Trask: I think...
Council Chair Rapozo: My concern is when we deny a claim, it is not
a lawsuit, it is a claim.
Mr. Trask: Yes, these are all claims.
Council Chair Rapozo: Typically what will happen, or the potentially
what can happen is they file a lawsuit if they are not satisfied with the results.
Obviously, if we deny a claim, they have the opportunity to file a civil lawsuit. The
question is pending and denied claims as far as what the public has a right to see, I
guess that is the question...are they entitled to a redacted version because it is not
final? If you need time...
COUNCIL MEETING 141 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Trask: No. Under HRS 46-72 filing of the claim is a
jurisdictional prerequisite to suing the County. So you have to file these claims if you
want to sue the County.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Trask: The statute of limitation is still two (2) years,
irrespective whether we deny it or not. You still have to file within two (2) years.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: A lot of this is how we dealt with it in the past.
I am happy to relook at how we do it. The communications that we give to you and
what this body requests from Office of the County Attorney is generally treated as
confidential until you, the client, releases it. If you want to change the process, I am
happy to do it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not want to change anything. The law
right now or the fact of the matter is when someone files a claim with the County, it
comes through the Office of the County Clerk, it gets posted on the agenda, and it is
public.
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone can come in and say, "I need a copy of
Claim..." we had three (3) today, C 2016-117, C 2016-118, and C 2016-119. We would
have to provide them a redacted version with the personal information taken out. Is
the status of these claims available to the public?
Mr. Trask: If we deny a claim, yes. We send a letter to
the claimant telling them it is denied. That is not a private communication.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is not a private communication?
Mr. Trask: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: Some of the contents or reports, based upon
your discussions, there may be some personal information included therein that we
give you under confidential cover, but we can take that out. We are not...
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not want to be sued by the claimant
because we allowed personal information.
COUNCIL MEETING 142 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Trask: That is kind of the thing. It is a very
case-by-case basis. If anybody wants to make a public records request we are going
to have to answer it anyway. I just want to avoid duplication of work. Whatever we
figure out to make it work, I am fine to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Because it has now been brought to our
attention here on the floor that if anyone would come in, and I will give you a
hypothetical. I understand if you cannot understand it. If Mr. Taylor came in
tomorrow and filled out a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on the status
of denied claims, would we be required to provide him?
Mr. Trask: We would have to look at it. We would have
to evaluate it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The status of denied claims is that they have
been denied.
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: But in terms of status of claims pending, that
is definitely Executive Session material, right?
Mr. Trask: Yes. We would never show you a large part of
the contents of our file. No one is going to see our work product.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Trask: No one is going to see any of that.
Councilmember Yukimura: The claim itself, which is filed, is public
record, and it is on our agenda before we send it to you, that is public record?
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: The claim, when it is filed. What happens to
it during its time with the Office of the County Attorney is not public?
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Once it is denied, then that denial is public.
COUNCIL MEETING 143 MAY 4, 2016
Mr. Trask: Yes. Some of the things we talked to you
about, damage to person, there could be medical things and medical special damages.
We are not going to share that. It depends.
Council Chair Rapozo: But right now, we are not sharing anything?
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: And I think that is the concern. I think what
the public is saying hey, whatever can be released, we want. I am actually more
comfortable if we were to defer this for two (2) weeks.
Mr. Trask: I am happy to do that.
Council Chair Rapozo: What?
Mr. Trask: I am happy to do that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Then you can take a look at
what....because it is it is not in our Council Rules.
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not think it is our determination what we
want to do. I think what the public has a right to see, they need to see. If we can
defer this one for two (2) weeks to the next Council Meeting, Mauna Kea, and then if
you could take a look because I do not know. It is just been the way we have done it,
and that does not make it right.
Mr. Trask: I am happy to do that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: Also for ES-849, are we still talking about
that? I just received...
Council Chair Rapozo: ES-849, I already said. I do not know what
the issue is until we get inside.
Mr. Trask: I just received it yesterday. I am happy to
defer that as well. I just received the Resolution yesterday. I read it once.
Council Chair Rapozo: ES-849?
Mr. Trask: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 144 MAY 4, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, if we decide to defer it...I do have some
questions for ES-849, and I know it belongs in there.
Mr. Trask: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a legal question, but I did not request the
posting for that reason. I just was made aware of that reason today by Peter so that,
we are going ask inside of the Executive Session. Are there any other questions for
Mauna Kea? If not, can we do a deferral out here for ES-848?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to defer ES-848, seconded by Councilmember
Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we do that or do we have to reconsider?
Okay. We can do that.
The motion to defer ES-848 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-849,
ES-850, and ES-851, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call.
The motion to convene in Executive Session for ES-849, ES-850, and ES-851
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa,
Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Yukimura,
Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I '
SCOTT K. SATO
Deputy County Clerk
:aa