HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2016 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 3, 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, August 3, 2016 at 8:32 a.m., after which the following
Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock (present at 11:26 a.m.)
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura (present at 8:36 a.m.)
Honorable Mel Rapozo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion or 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: Just for everyone's information, we have an
Executive Session that we will take at 1:30 p.m. That is the only time specific item.
The motion to approve the agenda as circulated was then put, and carried by
a vote of 5:0:2 (Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were excused).
MINUTES of the following meeting of the Council:
July 6, 2016 Council Meeting
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve the Minutes as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i, and carried by a vote of 5:0:2
(Councilmembers Chock and Yukimura were excused).
COUNCIL MEETING 2 AUGUST 3, 2016
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Council Chair, there are
two (2) Special Order items of the day.
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY:
C 2016-162 Communication (07/08/2016) from the County Attorney,
requesting authorization to expend additional funds up to $30,000.00 for Special
Counsel's continued representation of Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., in his official capacity
as the Mayor of the County of Kaua`i, in Kaua`i Police Commission, et al. vs. Bernard
P. Carvalho, Jr., in his official capacity as the Mayor of the County of Kauai, Civil
No. 12-1-0229 (Fifth Circuit Court); CAAP NOS. CAAP-12-0001123 & 13-0000015
(Hawai`i Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals), and related matters:
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-162 for the record, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Previous Councils have gone over this matter
and I think at some point, we have to accept the decision and stop appealing and
appealing and appealing, and wasting taxpayer money to make a point on a decision
that has been made. We need to accept it at some point. As a private citizen, if the
Mayor wants to appeal it, I think he is free to use his own money to go and appeal it,
but I do not feel that we can keep wasting money on this issue. It is clear as far as
the research that I have done that it was always the intent of the Charter to follow
the decision of what has been made and that the Mayor cannot fire, hire, or reprimand
the Chief of Police. It has always been the Police Commission that had that right and
that was specific because it relates to public safety. Thank you, Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is Mauna Kea around? Can
somebody let him know that it is 8:36 a.m. and that it is his item, and he needs to be
here? Anyone else? Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a different viewpoint than the prior
speaker and believe that we do need to settle this and it is an incredibly important
issue. One court came out and said, "The Mayor was responsible for supervising," and
the second court came out and said, "No, the Police Commission is responsible for
supervising the Chief of Police." The issue of the management of the Police
Department and all of the different people that are involved in there is a very
complicated one...
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Councilmember Hooser: ...and I think it needs to be reconciled. Until
we run the appeal through, we really will not know the definitive answer. As
Councilmembers, we certainly are not in a position of supervising the Chief of Police
or hiring and firing the Chief of Police, but we do have to deal with the actions of the
Police Department, most of which are done in Executive Session and sometimes
involves writing checks for actions that violate various rules and whatnot. We
are not in the position of supervising the Chief of Police. The Police Commission is a
part-time body and they are not administratively staffed to supervise the Chief of
Police. They meet once a month, they are volunteers, and they are in no position to
COUNCIL MEETING 3 AUGUST 3, 2016
supervise the Chief of Police on a regular basis. Now that the Mayor who is in the
position, now that authority is in question, I think it is incredibly important that this
be sorted out. There have been a number of issues and problems overlapping all three
over the past few years. I think we need to run the appeal out. Sure, it costs money,
it is an investment, but there are many problems with the management and this is
not the management of the Chief of Police, but the management of the Police
Department, in general. That includes all bodies. I am not focusing on the Police
Department or the Chief of Police. I am talking about the Police Commission itself
and the Mayor's relationship with them. This is very important. There have been
many problems and issues, multiple actions with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and allegations of discrimination and retaliation since I have
been here on the Council. When asked the question, "Who is in charge?" The answer
is, "It does not seem like anybody is in charged." We need to get to the bottom of this
and ultimately, I believe we need to look at the Charter and see what charter
amendments need to be made to clarify this, but we need to start with following this
through to the end and supporting an appeal. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion before I
suspend the rules? I have a question for Mauna Kea and then we do have someone
who has signed up to speak.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Why is C 2016-162 for thirty thousand dollars
($30,000) and C 2016-163 for fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000)?
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: Could you repeat that?
Council Chair Rapozo: The request for funding for the
representation of the Mayor is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) and the Police
Commission's request is fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Why is the Mayor's
request double of what Police Commission's request is?
Mr. Trask: Thank you. For the record, Mauna Kea Trask,
County Attorney. I called both Special Counsels independently and asked them what
would be their anticipated need assuming the total completion of the case. Therefore,
assuming the Supreme Court accepts the writ, requires briefing, requires response of
briefing, schedules oral argument, and oral argument is had. They both gave me the
respective numbers. Mr. Fuji said thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) and Ms. Chang
said fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). I did not inform the other of the other request.
It seemed improper to me. I wanted to speak with them individually so they would
not have the numbers or say, "Oh, if they are asking for this much, I will take that
much." The difference is because the Mayor in this case, as the appellant, would be
in the moving position and so the Mayor's attorney would have to prepare the writ
and any reply to objections to the writ, opening briefing, if requested, and answer
brief and/or as the Police Commission's Attorney would be in the responsive position.
Generally, the moving position would have more to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is Mr. Fuji's hourly rate?
Mr. Trask: Mr. Fuji's hourly rate is more.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, what is that number?
COUNCIL MEETING 4 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Trask: I will grab my folder. I believe the information
was provided and under the contract, it is three hundred dollars ($300) per hour for
partners, one hundred ninety dollars ($190) for associates, and seventy-five dollars
($75) for paralegal.
Council Chair Rapozo: And Ms. Chang?
Mr. Trask: Ms. Chang is somewhere around two hundred
dollars ($200) per hour, but Mr. Morimoto provided that to you; therefore, I do not
have a copy of that memorandum.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: That was the result of independent
procurement processes selection, et cetera.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I understand. One last question and you
may not know the answer to this, but when was the last time did the Mayor utilize
his Chief Executive Officer (CEO) authority and disciplined any County employee?
Which is what the State Judge said. He is the CEO and he can discipline anybody in
the County. Has he ever exercised that authority as a CEO to discipline? If you do
not know, that is fine.
Mr. Trask: In 2001, Mayor Maryanne Kusaka...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, the current Mayor.
Mr. Trask: I do not know, but in 2001, Mayor Maryanne
Kusaka placed Chief of Police Freitas on administrative leave for one hundred twenty
(120) days. I do not know. It depends because this is a Commission employee, et
cetera, but this similar situation has been taken before by a mayor of this County
against a chief of police on this County under the authority of...or who was a
commission appointee in this County.
Council Chair Rapozo: Was that case litigated at all?
Mr. Trask: Chief of Police Freitas case?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Trask: No, it was not. According to the Honolulu
Advertiser dated Friday, August 17, 2001, it says, "(Inaudible) was in response
unanimous request by Kauai Police Commission." I am just speculating, but it
appears from the story that the Police Commission requested Mayor Kusaka to take
that action, which can be interpreted as an indication that they felt that the Mayor
had the authority. I want to mention one more thing about this because I think the
question is being framed too broadly. If you look at, does the question being asked in
the briefs and it has been discussed is, does the Mayor have overall authority to
suspend and discipline? However, if you look at the facts as presented and I want to
cite from the briefs because this is what was discussed in court. It states, "On or about
February 2nd," and this is from the Police Commission's brief, "Kaua`i Police Chief
Darryl D. Perry was suspended for seven (7) day's worth by the Mayor because of an
ongoing investigation stemming from a complaint filed against high ranking officials
within the Kaua`i Police Department by an officer employed at police headquarters."
This statement was supported by the declaration of, at that time, Chair Ernest
COUNCIL MEETING 5 AUGUST 3, 2016
Kanekoa, Jr., of the Police Commission. If you look at the decision by the Intermediate
Court of Appeals (ICA), on page 10, they discussed the Charter and the provisions
related to the Chief of Police and the Police Commission. In their opinion, they bold
certain areas of the Charter, which they find relevant and they discussed. What I
thought was interesting in looking at this is that under Section 11.03 it says, the
Police Commission shall generally adopt rules that they may consider necessary for
the conduct of its business; review the annual budget prepared by the Chief and make
recommendations to the Mayor; receive, consider, and investigate charges brought by
the public against the conduct of the department of any of its members. D. Refer all
matters relating to administration of the department to the Chief of Police. E. Adopt
such rules to regulate political activities of the members of the police department. I
think the issue therefore is framed too broadly because what you have here was an
internal complaint. It looks like by the Charter, I do not know if ICA missed this or
what, but I think they did. This would have been referred to the Chief of Police, so I
do not know how, according to the briefs, this came out of an internal dispute; a
complaint filed against the Chief of Police. I do not know how the Police Commission
could have addressed this because it would have been administrative. I think that is
the specific question, does the Mayor have power to take action involving a personnel
dispute, administrative within the department, where it looks like under the Charter,
the Commission cannot act? That is the appropriate question. Again, we are talking
about general practicality issues; we are talking about personnel type of things, which
is what, I think, is relevant in looking at this. I have also reviewed all the exhibits
that were attached to the Commission's motion regarding exerts from Charter Review
Commission back from 1965 up until 1967 and it looks like they discussed appointing
and firing, there is no mention of suspension or discipline. There are many broad
discussions about even the utility of administrative boards and commissions versus
policy boards and commissions. The trend at that time was for a responsible
government answerable to the people, and they found that administrative boards
with administrative authority did not remove politics. It actually created their own
little political issues, which relates to all these questions, I guess.
Council Chair Rapozo: As far as 2001, it is a completely different
scenario. The Commission unanimously supported that administrative leave and I do
not believe the Commission has the authority to sign the personnel form to put
anybody on administrative leave. The Human Resources (HR) forms would have to
go to the Administration. Anyway, this is not the place to argue the case. By the way,
Corlis Chang is three hundred twenty dollars ($320) an hour.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is significant. Any other questions for
Mauna Kea? Again, I do not want to debate the case, that is going to be done at the
court, but if you have any questions as far as the process going forward...
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do appreciate you raising some of the issues
in the case because if we do not vote for this, they are not going to be litigated in
court. It is not going to the highest court in the State and I think you have actually,
for me anyway, outlined many of the issues that still remain unresolved. Is it not
true that this will not be resolved unless we appeal or support the appeal in the
ultimate decision by the Supreme Court?
Mr. Trask: On those questions, first off, I want to clarify.
The Charter mandates that the County Attorney represent all parts of the County.
If this is not funded today, that does not mean that this case does not go to the
COUNCIL MEETING 6 AUGUST 3, 2016
Supreme Court. It just means your Office of the County Attorney will be the one who
has to go through with it if the Mayor decides to appeal. What I said last time at the
Council Meeting was that I wanted to avoid that situation. I need to take care of the
day-to-day business of this County and the Special Counsel Account is for special
circumstances that necessity such employment, and I do not know what would be a
more special circumstance than this. When you have two (2) County agencies, two
(2) County departments taking their legal question...I do not think this is a feud, I
think this is honest and a good legal question to vet and you need to go to the Courts
sometimes. I do not think this is a feud. The Chief of Police is not even a party of this
lawsuit and I would like to make that clear. These are two (2) high-ranking
departments having a question about legality. There is precedent to show in the past
that the County has taken similar action in this way. So I do not think it is nuance,
novel, or out-of-the-blue either. I think it is understandable how this happened; this
is a question. I do not think the Police Commission is doing something bad, I do not
think the Mayor is doing anything bad, this is what happens sometimes. The reason
why you have Special Counsel is to have these people represented other than our
Office because we have the day-to-day things. I do think that jurisdictions are split
and as the court has said, both sides make reasonable arguments and the case law is
not clear. That is an invitation, to me to, take it to the Supreme Court. That is the
finality. In a question like this, which not only affects our County and all appointed
commissions; including Planning, HR, Liquor, Fire, and Police, it affects every other
county jurisdiction and state boards. If this goes up to appeal, it is likely you will see
either state and/or county amicus briefs on perhaps both sides. It is a big question
and Kauai asks the hard, legal questions as we have seen. I think it deserves a
Supreme Court decision.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Mr. Trask?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mr. Trask if we go to the Supreme Court and
the appeal decision comes out the same way that it has come out now, would it be
"looked at" as a waste of money?
Mr. Trask: I do not think so because it was worth the
question. I think the questions need to be answered. I do not think that any Supreme
Court case is a waste of money because it provides clarity and more importantly, it
provides finality. It also allows the legislative body's both the county and state and
even the people to say, "Okay, if this is what this means, then maybe we want to
change it," but they will know why, how, and what questions to do that. That is kind
of the process. That is how the court appropriately fits in this structure.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is every decision that the court makes always
left unopen as to who is right unless we go all the way to the highest court or is it
financially feasible to at some point accept a ruling and just move on? I am talking
about every case you can think about; private citizen, government...is the court
system meant to always go to the Supreme Court to feel better about the initial
decision? We do not have unlimited funds.
Mr. Trask: I think absolutely not.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is my question.
Mr. Trask: But in this case, when you look at the total
aggregate Special Counsel from both sides comes out to about eighty thousand dollars
($80,000), you are questioning the fundamental structure of the Charter, and the
COUNCIL MEETING 7 AUGUST 3, 2016
courts are interpreting something that was wrote back in the 1960s. I think it is
deserving. This County has put way more money, hundreds of thousands of dollars
into other cases, which in my own personal, professional view are not as worthy to
ask or not as worth to seek. But even those situations did not involve intra-county
disputes and this is a question and if they cannot via agreement or whatever, come
to those terms, that is why the courts exist. I think in this overall "No," but in this
special case, "Yes." Considering the degree of question and the amount, it is relatively
inexpensive and we have the money to take this to finality.
Councilmember Kagawa: I understand. Did any other mayor in the
history of Kaua`i try to reprimand or fire the Chief of Police?
Mr. Trask: Again, I know Mayor Kusaka in 2001 put
Chief of Police Freitas on administrative leave for one hundred twenty (120) days or
four (4) months versus seven (7) days in this case.
Councilmember Kagawa: Was the County Attorney ever asked the
question who is right? Did the Commission accept Mayor Kusaka's decision?
Mr. Trask: The Commission actually asked Mayor
Kusaka to do it, which I think was an acknowledgment...
Councilmember Kagawa: That is the big difference.
Mr. Trask: At that time, it was an acknowledgement of
her authority. That is the thing too. We are really looking at personalities. The Chief
of Police is a great person, the Mayor is a great person, and people have their opinions
about them, but what we really need to do is look at the letter of the law because we
have to keep it that way otherwise how the law is interpreted changes. For instance,
if this was okay in 2001, but it is not okay now, to me that is personality-based. We
need to stick by the word or we are going astray.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mr. Trask, can you clarify? The statement
that you just made is very different from what happened when Mayor Carvalho
reprimanded or suspended Chief of Police Perry. The Kusaka decision had the
blessings of the Police Commission. Mayor Carvalho's decision did not have the
blessing of the Police Commission. That is a very big difference.
Mr. Trask: The Charter does not say, "With the blessing
of the Commission." By the Police Commission's acting...that is why I said that it
"could be acknowledged" that it is because they recognized that they did not have that
authority. That is why we are talking statutory construction. It is a dry, legal issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for the County Attorney?
Thank you. With that, do we have registered speakers?
Mr. Trask: I would just like to add one more thing if I
could. I know that we came here today because of an even split vote. I do not have
any idea of how this vote is going today, but given the absence of Councilmember
Chock, I would ask this be deferred to later today when he is present so that we could
have a finality. I would like a final vote because the judgement has been filed as of
last Friday, so the clock is ticking as we speak. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 8 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I will leave it up to the will of the Council. I
do not know how the vote is going to go either, but it is what it is. Can I have the
first registered speaker.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registered speaker is Glenn
Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Thank you,
Council Chair. Thank you, BC. You have a copy of my testimony and I will read it for
the viewing public. The Intermediate Court of Appeals has rendered its decision Civil
No. 12-1-0029 denying the Mayor the power to fire or discipline the Chief of Police.
The Mayor is evidently seeking to appeal that decision to the Hawai`i Supreme Court
and asking for thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the appeal, and the Chief of Police
is asking for fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to oppose the appeal. In my view, the
great majority of our citizens believe the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision was
correct and that the Police Commission, which is empowered to hire the Chief of
Police, should also be empowered to discipline or fire the Chief of Police and would
not see the justification of spending another forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) on
the case since it has already costed the taxpayers nearly one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000) since it began in 2012. In his A Better Kauai article of July 28th,
Walter Lewis factually goes into more detail about this case and I hope all of you had
a chance to read it. I have a copy here. As usual, Mr. Lewis had no other thought in
mind when writing this story other than analyzing our problems and trying to save
our taxpayers a lot of unnecessary money.
As Council Chair Rapozo stated at our last Council Meeting, the Court has
rendered its decision, and Councilmember Kagawa said the same thing, so let us
accept it, move on, and refuse to spend more tax money on what amounts to an ego
trip for the Mayor.
In the wisdom of those who wrote our Charter, I am sure that they said that
our Police Commission has the power to hire and fire the Chief of Police and it would
certainly follow that they would have the far lesser responsibility to discipline him.
That is why the language is not included in the Charter. For me, the Commissions
are meant to be a firewall between the Mayor and his political views and their duties
to be independent or otherwise we would not need any Commission. We would let the
Mayor have complete power over all affairs of operating our government. He would
basically have dictatorial powers with doing that. I do not see the sense in spending
more money when the court has ruled on this. I thought that Councilmember Hooser
brought up a point, as Councilmember Yukimura has, there are certain areas here
that may have to be done, but not taking away the powers of the Police Commission,
I think is most obvious. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Mickens. Does anyone else
wish to testify on this matter? Seeing none. Please.
PAT HUNTER WILLIAMS: Pat Hunter Williams. I actually did not
expect to testify on this. I am actually here for a Resolution about reduce speed signs;
however, I was also concerned about the issue. I feel that it was shocking to read that
approximately eight thousand dollars ($80,000) has already been spent. I respect Mr.
Trask and think he spoke so intelligently; however, from a perspective of a former
Department of Education (DOE) teacher, the additional forty-five thousand dollars
($45,000)being requested was more than my salary for a year. I think many residents
feel the same way. They are just shocked about these numbers continuing to go on
and on. I would suggest because I do agree that obviously there needs to be some sort
COUNCIL MEETING 9 AUGUST 3, 2016
of finality. Perhaps there needs to be more clarity to either the roll of the Commission
or perhaps even an addition to the Charter. That would perhaps result in less of a
cost, but would in fact result in the same thing—bringing finality. I was very involved
in advocating for the formation of the Fire Commission for the exact same reason,
which is to ensure that it be depoliticized, which is exactly the comments made from
the Police Commission. It is not seeking to offend anybody, accuse anybody, or speak
poorly of anybody. It is just a matter of dollars and cents to me and perhaps the goal
could be accomplished in another way that is far more economical to the County.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to
testify? Seeing none, the meeting is called back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Councilmember
Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would like to follow-up on the County
Attorney's recommendation that we defer the vote until all seven (7) members are
here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Let us not defer anything yet, let us
have some discussion before we...
Councilmember Kagawa: I would like to vote now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Pat, for being here today. I think
the overwhelming...in fact all of the testimony I have received as a Councilmember
via E-mail or from people on the street was to, "Stop the bleeding. Enough." Take the
personalities out of it. Take Bernard's name out and take the Chief of Police's name
out. Mr. Mickens' testimony says that it is the Chief of Police requesting the money
and that is not accurate. This has nothing to do with the Chief of Police. It is about
the Commission and the Mayor. Take those bodies out of it and just look at what the
heck was the Charter supposed to mean. Pat, you said it best and I think your
perception of the process for the Fire Commission was no different from the 1960s
when they said, "We need to take the politics out of the Police Department." I really
appreciate Mauna Kea because he sounds so convincing and he is right in what he
says, that is one (1) perspective, but then there is a perspective of the people that has
to pay the bill. If everyone thought on this island or if the majority of people thought,
no, the Mayor has the right to fire the Chief of Police or discipline the Chief of Police,
they would be E-mailing us saying, "Take this further. I do not think it is right. I do
not think the Commission should be the one," but that has not happened. Not with
me anyway. In my mind, it is clear that the public wants the Police Department
depoliticized. This comes up every so often, "They are only volunteers. They are only
laypeople." I mean, really? The only difference between a volunteer and us is that
we are paid and they do not, but the commitment, the skill level, and the
ability...because you do not get paid does not mean you are incompetent. I disagree
and get offended when people say, "They are only volunteers." We have a Boards and
Commissions Department that are supposed to educate, train, and so forth and if that
is not happening that is their kuleana. My point is this, the intent as I see it and as
the ICA saw it was that hey, the Mayor does not have that right and if we want to do
it, we change the Charter. We have two (2) request today. One is for thirty thousand
dollars ($30,000)for the Mayor's appeal and then the Commission's attorney is saying
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). Why the disparity? The hourly rate for our
COUNCIL MEETING 10 AUGUST 3, 2016
Commission attorney is more than the hourly rate of the Mayor's attorney and yet it
is double. Why? I am going to be honest right now that attorney that is representing
the Mayor, Mr. Fuji from O`ahu, has not impressed me at all over the last few years.
He has not. In fact, I believe this Council in the prior County Attorney's
administration said, "Do not hire that person anymore." He led us down the wrong
road in other cases. Yet the attorney representing the Commission, Corlis Chang,
did the appeal to ICA at no charge because she felt so strong that the contents of the
Charter had been violated. I am going to suggest that we receive this, as was the
motion made, and the Office of the County Attorney can represent the Mayor if the
Mayor chooses to take this further. Then in the next item with the Commission
Attorney Corlis Chang, because the Office of the County Attorney has brought up the
fact of the China Wall and the conflict, he is going to have to segregate the office and
take the entire staff out of the...so the County Attorney can represent the Mayor and
I would suggest the we approve the funding for the next item where you do not have
to set up China Wall anymore. You have the Office of the County Attorney
representing the Mayor and the Commission will continue the representation of the
Commission. Two (2) separate bodies representing two (2)...because at some point, I
agree that this needs finality because I agree with the result, but there are those that
disagree and think that it needs to be vetted out. I respect that position as well. I
agree to put Mauna Kea's office in that position where they have to represent two (2)
sides that are in the same building is difficult. I will bring up my suggestion at the
next issue, but at this point, I do not see why we should approve thirty thousand
dollars ($30,000) funding, double of which what the other attorney is asking, for an
attorney that I have absolute no confidence in. Any other discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate your thinking about how this
might actually get before the Supreme Court. I would like to just suspend the rules
and have Mauna Kea respond to that idea.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion before I suspend the
rules? If not, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Trask: Aloha, for the record, Mauna Kea Trask,
County Attorney.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Trask, it is my position that there needs
to be a resolution and not through second-guessing of the public or even the Council,
but through the court process. Council Chair has suggested another way to get this
done and I wondered what your thoughts are in terms of this idea.
Mr. Trask: The request before you from the Office of the
County Attorney is for both. I will leave that at that and acknowledging that this
Council has plenary authority to decide whether to fund all, none, or one (1) or the
other. Again, the request is for both and only because we are all people and I just
really hope...I have been practicing attorney for about ten (10) or eleven (11) years
right now and people have opinions about what you do, even your own family. Hawai`i
Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rule 1.2 says an attorney's representation of
any client is not an endorsement of the moral, legal, or any position of theirs. I think
this would be difficult nonetheless, because I know the Police Commission and the
Police Department appreciate me, I would like to think. I am just afraid how this will
affect that, but you do have authority to make the call as you want.
COUNCIL MEETING 11 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I have also expressed my concerns before
about the particular counsel who is representing this position and actually, your brief
analysis of the appeal potential makes me think that your office is quite good in
thinking about this actual case because you are so in tuned with the structure of
governance and the Charter. I know it will create additional hardship on the Office
to be involved in such a major issue. I think we do have to count the cost of what that
does to your Office's ability, but I do have concerns too about the counsel who has
been representing the Mayor. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Mr. Trask? If not,
thank you very much.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
Councilmember Hooser: Yes, I want to reiterate I think we should have
all of the members here since it is an important decision, number one. Number two,
I want to reiterate that I support the County Attorney's position on funding both of
these positions otherwise we put the Office of the County Attorney in an adversarial
role against the Police Commission. We need finality on this. I think that the six
thousand (6,000) pound gorilla in the room is politics. Several people have said,
including the Chair and others in the audience that the intent was to depoliticize the
Police Department and the Police Commission. I think anyone who pays attention to
the politics knows that the Chair of the Police Commission is actively campaigning
for the four (4) Councilmembers here and actively campaigning against this
Councilmember here who is the chair of the Public Safety Committee. This is the
Chair of the Police Commission actively campaigning. The rules in the Charter says,
"The Police Commission shall," this is what the Charter says the Police Commission
is supposed to do, "Adopt such rules to regulate political activities of the members of
the Police Department," which includes the Police Commissioners themselves. To my
knowledge, there are no such rules. We have an active politicization, if you would, of
the Police Commission as we sit here. Last election, a Police Commissioner actually
ran for the Council, as did the Chief of Police and we are saying give the power to the
Police Commission because it is non-political? I think we are trying to fool the public
in fooling ourselves. I think we need to look very closely as how this is all managed. I
think we need to make charter amendments and actively work toward depoliticizing
this entire process and it starts with following this through to the appeal. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I really do not know how to respond to that
because that was some serious allegations, but I am going to take the high road and
I would ask the rest of us to take the high road and let the people judge those
comments on their own. I almost want to take a recess, but I will not. The public
deserves better than that from us and that is all I will say. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: The entire fiasco happened prior to me even
coming on the Council. When the decisions were made by the Mayor, it just baffled
me as to why he did not work through the normal process of what Mayor Kusaka did
and work with the Police Commission instead of making such a rash decision that
would challenge a rule that has been followed by all other Mayors. Councilmember
Yukimura was a mayor and I am sure she did not agree with every decision of her
Chief of Police, but did she fire or reprimand the Chief of Police on her own? She did
not. As far as the allegations by Councilmember Hooser, the fact of the matter is Bill
No. 2491 still has backlashes and if you want to blame anything,just point to yourself
because Bill No. 2491 is why you are getting backlash and not this police decision.
COUNCIL MEETING 12 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have heard a lot of the testimony as well and
the testimony from the one testifier today is the way I see it as well. It is a matter of
dollars and cents. Every five thousand dollars ($5,000) and ten thousand dollars
($10,000) that we spend is important and we should not waste. During the political
season, we always talk about efficiency, accountability, ending government waste,
and I see this as waste. Waste, because to me logic tells me that the individual or the
body that has the right authority to hire also has the authority to fire. Why would
you give them the authority to hire if not also to fire and the authority to fire? This
directly ties to discipline because in a progressive discipline system, it starts working
its way. You discipline, you suspend for a length of time, and as it gets progressively
serious to the point of firing. The Police Commission is there for a purpose and they
have a serious job, they meet regularly, and there are very highly qualified people on
there. Yes, they are all volunteers, but they are no different from us as the Council.
They are representing the people, they are doing serious work, they all come from
diverse backgrounds, and we look up to them and respect them. Their meetings are
even televised so the community gets to actively see their work. It is not about taking
power away from the Mayor. As I see it, it is their power and authority already. If
the Charter needs to be clarified to make that clear once and for all, then that is
where we should be going. It does not cost any money for this body or the citizens to
put forward a charter amendment to clarify it. The Charter Review Commission
always works on charter amendments to cleanup and clarity the Charter, so maybe
this is a matter that needs to be handled in that way to get it right, which how I see
it and how I have heard from the constituents. I am not going to support the funding.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it would be courtesy to at least allow
since Councilmember Chock is coming at 11:30 a.m. to allow him to weigh on this
issue as well. I would like to see us extend that courtesy. But on the issue itself, I
never had any reason to try to suspend or discipline the Chief of Police, but as Mayor,
I did experience the many difficulties that come from trying to run a public
corporation and have department heads who are appointed by Commissions, and to
whom you have no power to hire or fire, and to deliver the vision that I was elected
for and not have department heads who were aligned with that. If you think about
it, to try and discipline, to have a lay body of volunteers who do not know the day-to-
day performance of a department head, this executive-level manager, to do the
disciplining is unheard of in the business sector because you do not have this line of
accountability. To say that this commission system...that it is very clear that the
Commission is the one who should suspend is...I do not think really good governance.
The thing is that there is a law and the interpreter of the law is the Supreme Court
of Hawai`i and this is a Hawai`i law. For us to second-guess what the law is and say,
"We should not find out from the ultimate interpreter of the law of what the law is,"
is not right. Even if we were to do a charter amendment, what would be the proper
charter amendment? What is the structure of government that really works well? I
think it is important. The fact that the Commission had to ask Mayor Kusaka to
suspend does indicate to me that the Commission does not have the power to suspend.
Even if they want to, the proper process would be to tie into the Human Resources'
system, which is the Mayor. If the Commission wants to suspend they ask the Mayor,
but if the Mayor wants to suspend as the day-to-day supervisor of the department
head, I believe that is also a power. I cannot be the ultimate interpreter of the law,
it should be the Hawaii Supreme Court.
COUNCIL MEETING 13 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: For me, it is not about stopping the process.
The process is going to continue. We are deciding on who is going to defend whom and
I think we have three (3) options. Option 1 is to approve all of these and have the two
(2) attorneys fight it. Option 2 is to approve only one (1) and do not approve the other.
Finally, Option 3 is you do not approve any and the County Attorney has to take on
both sides. That is where I am at now. I think Council Chair brought up a good
compromise because at the last meeting Mr. Trask's biggest concern was his own
Office fighting each other on this case. I have heard a lot from the public and just
being on television, I had a lot of people coming up to me and talking to me about it
at some of the events that I attended. I think my decision last time was hard and I
think it is hard now, but for me I am leaning in the favor of a compromise and the
compromise would be let Mr. Trask's Office defend the Mayor, we vote on the other
money, and see how it goes. Ultimately, there may not even be a case. They can send
the appeal and the Supreme Court may reject it and it is done, but we really do not
know how it will go and it is not up to us. It is going one way or the other. That is the
way I will be voting.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This is not"any case." It is a case that involves
the structure of governance and government. I think it is very important to resolve,
as it has been pointed out by Councilmember Kaneshiro that there are alternative
ways to address it. I am going to be voting for this because I want to respect the
County Attorney's judgement about needing Special Counsel. I have expressed my
reservations about the particular counsel that has been chosen. I like the Chair's
suggestion that there is a fallback position to still get the case to court and I am
concerned about the strain that it will put on the Office of the County Attorney and
how that will impact our needs of the Office of the County Attorney service.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else?
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have one last thing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead, I am sorry.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just wanted to add that the Commissioner
having the authority to hire, fire, and discipline does not mean that the Mayor has
no day-to-day operational/managerial role. Of course the Mayor does, but the Mayor
needs to work with the Commission. Ultimately, the Commission helps the Mayor
make the final decision, a democratic body of diverse individuals help to make such
big decision. In some communities, the voters even vote for their Chief of Police. The
depoliticizing of this means you make it larger than one (1) person's decision and you
have a democratic body, such as the Police Commission of respective people in the
community, to help the Mayor get to that place when it is difficult. Of course, it is
difficult. That is why it should be where the Mayor actually works with the
Commission and the Commission does not act without the Mayor and the Mayor does
not act without the Commission. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Last chance. Okay.
Our job as the Council, we are the policymakers. We make policy. We set policy. We
have the ability to change policy by introducing a bill, a resolution, or whatever the
case may be. Since I have been on the Council since 2002, I have never seen any
COUNCIL MEETING 14 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember introduce a resolution for a charter amendment to clarify because I
think everybody was quite clear that the Mayor does not have authority. We never
had reason to believe or argue, but because of this issue now, opinions have been
made. Even when this happened a few years ago, no member came forward with a
charter amendment to clarify it. I guess my point is this; the problem with this
Country today is the policies are being sent to the Supreme Courts to determine
policy. It is not their job. Their job is to interpret law, not set policy, and give
councilmembers, legislatures, and congressional people a protective shell that they
can hide behind. No, we set the policy. This is a policy decision. Does this body here
today believe that the Mayor has the right to discipline the Chief of Police? That is
what we are arguing today. You have the ICA ruling that says, "No." So, if you want
to go and try another court to maybe get a different result, that is your prerogative.
It has been stated many times that not funding this will stop the litigation, which is
not true. We have heard that from the County Attorney. It will continue if the Mayor
chooses to. If the Mayor chooses to move forward on the appeal, it will go. It is just
that our County Attorney, who I have the ought most confidence in, I have seen the
work of that Office since the new County Attorney took over and I have...like
Councilmember Yukimura said, I have more confidence in Mauna Kea than I do with
the person that we hired who is asking for double the money of the other attorney. I
have no problem. Yes, it is going to take away resources, but that is his job—he is the
County Attorney. And then this whole thing about the day-to-day operation. I can
tell by the discussion on the table that probably not all of my colleagues do not watch
the Police Commission meetings. That is clear to me, but I do. How many times has
the Mayor attended a Police Commission meeting? Aside from giving away
proclamations or whatever, how many times has the Mayor sat at that meeting as an
ex-officio member, which he is and had the discussions with that Commission as it
relates to the day-to-day operations of the Police Department?None. None that I have
watched. How can he be in tune with the day-to-day operations without being at the
meetings? It was also alleged that "they only meet once a month," and that is not
true. They meet more than once a month. How can the Mayor sit back and be familiar
with the day-to-day if he is not participating in the process that is designated for that
department, which is the Police Commission meetings? However, because he is paid
and because he is the Mayor is the reason he can and the Police Commission because
they are not paid should have no say? That is offensive. Those people on that
Commission are credible, respectable people. They are doing the best they can to
make the department better. They deal with the day-to-day. They hear the reports
from the traffic, patrol, detectives, special units, Chief of Police, from everybody every
single meeting they get the update. They are familiar with the day-to-day. They deal
with the complaints from the public, not the Mayor, but you are going to give him the
right? If that is what you want, do a charter amendment and let the people decide. I
can tell you every testimony I received on this agrees with what the ICA said and do
you know what? I speak for the people and not for Mel Rapozo. That is what the
people want and that is what they deserve. With that, the motion is to receive. I am
going to take the vote. I asked you folks and that is it. The motion is to receive. Roll
call.
The motion to receive C 2016-162 for the record was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR RECEIPT: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST RECEIPT: Hooser, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 AUGUST 3, 2016
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next item is C 2016-163.
C 2016-163 Communication (07/08/2016) from the Office of the County
Attorney, requesting authorization to expend additional funds up to $15,000.00 for
Special Counsel's continued representation of the Kaua`i Police Commission and
the Kaua`i Police Commission Members, in their official capacity, in Kaua`i Police
Commission, et al. vs. Bernard P. Carvalho. Jr., in his official capacity as the Mayor
of the County of Kaua`i, Civil No. 12-1-0229 (Fifth Circuit Court); CAAP NOS. CAAP-
12-0001123 & 13-0000015 (Hawai`i Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals)
and related matters: Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve C 2016-163,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Discussion? Any public testimony?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We have one (1) registered speaker, Glenn
Mickens.
Council Chair Rapozo: He already testified. Mr. Mickens, did you
want to testify again?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Mr. Mickens: No, it is the same testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, roll call.
The motion to approve C 2016-163 was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is it a tie vote again?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Five (5) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, motion carried. Next item, please.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2016-167 Communication (07/13/2016) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Fourth 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 Kauai for
COUNCIL MEETING 16 AUGUST 3, 2016
Fiscal Year 2015-2016: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-167 for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
C 2016-168 Communication (07/15/2016) from the Acting County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Establishing A School Zone With
A 15-Mile Per Hour (MPH) Speed Limit For A Portion Of Kukuihale Road, Kawaihau
District, County Of Kaua`i: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-168 for
the record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
C 2016-169 Communication (07/20/2016) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Period 12 Financial Reports — Detailed
Budget Report, Statement of Revenues (Estimated and Actual), Statement of
Expenditures and Encumbrances, and Revenue Report as of June 30, 2016, pursuant
to Section 21 of Ordinance No. B-2015-796, relating to the Operating Budget of the
County of Kaua`i for the Fiscal Year 2015-2016: Councilmember Kagawa moved
to receive C 2016-169 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or 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 receive C 2016-167, C 2016-168, and C 2016-169 for the record
was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was
excused).
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2016-170 Communication (07/01/2016) from the Director of Economic
Development, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and expend funds, in
the amount of$15,000, from the Hawai`i Lodging and Tourism Authority Charity
Walk, to be used for the 2016-2017 Kaua`i Tourism Strategic Implementation Plan.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, we received a letter dated
July 29th from...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. For those in the audience, turn off
your cellphones, please. Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We received a letter dated July 29th from the
Office of the Economic Development requesting that this item be received as they
have been notified that funds are no longer available.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-170 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 17 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Just for clarification, it is not that the funds
are not available. It is that the Tourism Authority felt that we did not qualify and
that the County should not be eligible for those funds. That is the real reason. It is
not that the funds are not available; it is because they did not want to give it to us.
With that, any discussion or public testimony? I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
ANNE PUNOHU: Aloha, Anne Punohu. I came here today to
speak on this issue. I am glad the decision is made, but I have something to say. The
Administration has no right to ask for any funds from the Hawai`i Lodging and
Tourism Authority Charity Walk. The Hawai`i Lodging and Tourism Authority
Charity Walk funds are only supposed to be...and I am speaking as a recipient of
many of those funds. I find it appalling, I am very upset and angry, and that is why
I am here today because how dare the Administration ask for funds from the Hawai`i
Lodging and Tourism Charity Walk. Those people walk every day to take care of
people like myself and many others in this community who need help. How dare they
ask for funds for this? I am very glad with the decision; however, let us hope this does
not set a precedent and I hope that I never have to see something like this on the
agenda again. Mahalo, aloha.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Further discussion?
Councilmember Hooser.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Hooser: I just have to reiterate what the speaker said.
When I first saw the item on the agenda, I thought, "What in the world are we taking
charity funds from the Hawai`i Lodging and Tourism Charity Walk for." I am glad to
see that we are not going to be doing that apparently. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing
none.
The motion to receive C 2016-170 for the record was then put, and carried by
a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2016-171 Communication (07/08/2016) from the Housing Director,
requesting Council approval of the following:
a. The fee simple sale of property located at 2080 Manawalea
Street, #604, Lihu`e, Hawai`i 96766 Tax Map Key (TMK):
(4) 3-3-003-036-0032, for not more than $275,000.00, to a
participant of the County's Affordable Housing Waitlist whose
COUNCIL MEETING 18 AUGUST 3, 2016
household income does not exceed 140% of the Kaua`i Median
Household Income (KMHI); and
b. Authorize the County Clerk to sign legal documents related to
the sale transaction.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve C 2016-171, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to express my gladness that we
are exercising a buyback on a house that is affordable and will go to someone who
needs an affordable house and is on our County Affordable Housing Waitlist.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion?
The motion to approve C 2016-171 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
(Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as not present.)
C 2016-172 Communication (07/11/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration for inclusion in the 2017 Hawai`i State
Association of Counties (HSAC) and County of Kaua`i Legislative Packages, A
Bill for An Act Relating to Tort Liability, to delete the sunset provision for the
liability exceptions for county lifeguards: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve
C 2016-172, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, I just want to thank you for
introducing this as we know 2017 is the sunset date, so it is very important to remove
that date so that we can continue to have protection against tort for our County
lifeguards who provide such an important service to the public; both residents and
visitors.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Any other discussion?
This is one of the items that has been on our, not only Hawai`i State Associations of
Counties (HSAC), but our County packages as well, this goes up to the Legislature
every year and can you imagine that we have to fight for this to the State? This Bill
protects our lifeguards when they go out and do rescues, basically, it gives them some
immunity from being sued. Whoever drafted this Bill way back put an end date that,
"Okay, after this point, the State is not going to indemnify our lifeguards." So, if they
go out and get sued, they are on their own. Now, that is really silly to think and every
year we have to go up to fight for this. The Fire Department has been really active,
the Lifeguard Associations have been, and then you get this lobby group, the personal
injury attorneys, who fight against us. Apparently, they are more successful because
every year we basically are told that "We will deal with it next year." A couple of
times they have extended the sunset date. That sunset date needs to go. I am asking
and begging all of you as we get through the political season, you still got some time
COUNCIL MEETING 19 AUGUST 3, 2016
before some State races are going to be decided, ask them what is their commitment
to this Bill? This needs to go. It needs to be in perpetuity and not a sunset date. I
am asking for your help and this is for everybody that is watching because apparently
we are not being heard when we get to the Legislature. This is the last year. This
sunsets in June. Please, as you go to the fundraisers, as you go and see all these folks
running, ask them what is their commitment is to the Beach Liability Bill because it
is that important. Any other discussion?
The motion to approve C 2016-172 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6*:0:1
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of County of Kauai,
Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded
as an affirmative for the motion; Councilmember Chock was excused).
(Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as present.)
C 2016-173 Communication (07/12/2016) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend State General Funds for Fiscal
Year 2017 and to indemnify the State Executive Office on Aging, in the amount of
$88,863.00 to be used by the County of Kaua`i, Agency on Elderly Affairs for the
operating costs of the Aging and Disability Resource Center: Councilmember
Kaneshiro moved to approve C 2016-173, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? 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 2016-173 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we take C 2016-176 since Kealoha is
present.
There being no objections, C 2016-176 was taken out of order.
C 2016-176 Communication (07/18/2016) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval to receive and expend Federal funds for Fiscal Year 2017
and to indemnify the State Executive Office on Aging, in the amount of$551,641.00
to be used by the County of Kaua`i, Agency on Elderly Affairs for the provision of
Title III services of the Older Americans Act which includes information and referral,
outreach, legal assistance, congregate meals, home delivered meals, evidence based
programs such as EnhanceFitness or Better Choices, Better Health, and caregiver
support services: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2016-176, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question for Kealoha.
COUNCIL MEETING 20 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LUDVINA K. TAKAHASHI, Executive on Aging: Kealoha Takahashi,
Elderly Affairs.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. My question is, is this the same,
more, or less than the prior year?
Ms. Takahashi: The same. This is federal funds.
Councilmember Kagawa: So, the same amount. I guess the follow-up
question is, does it mean any increase or decrease, in any particular area, or is it
services for all of these things that it benefits, will basically remain the same?
Ms. Takahashi: That is correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Kealoha. Thank you for being
here. My question is about legal services.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is this for a continuing contract or will you be
going out with a request for proposal?
Ms. Takahashi: We have amended the contract, so it is
extended for another year. We do go out for proposal. Currently, we have the Legal
Aid Society, who is our contractor.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am concerned because I have been getting
feedback from some elderly about the services and I wondered how you evaluate
whether the elderly are being served adequately.
Ms. Takahashi: We do surveys and get feedback in that
fashion.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because some are coming to me. The question
is for every elderly person who goes to Legal Aid for services, do they fill out a form
about whether they are satisfied with their services or whether they were able to get
services? So that you sort of have an idea of what the need is when people go and
whether it is being met.
Ms. Takahashi: Currently, no, but we will work on that.
COUNCIL MEETING 21 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know how one would do that exactly,
but because I have been getting some feedback about it, I thought maybe you could
find a way to measure that somehow, that would be good.
Ms. Takahashi: I have a meeting with the contractors next
week so we will cover that item.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is there any unmet need with regards to
congregate meals and home delivered meals? Are there kupuna who are requesting
and who qualify that are not being serviced because they have to be on a waitlist or
anything like that?
Ms. Takahashi: Currently, we do have a waitlist for home
delivered meals.
Councilmember Kuali`i: What is the status of the waitlist? Is it very
large?
Ms. Takahashi: Right now, we have sixteen (16) on the
waitlist and I am not sure how long they were on the waitlist. I will need to check.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Each year you get these federal funds and you
move the waitlist or new people come and people get off the waitlist and more people
come on to the list?
Ms. Takahashi: Usually some of the participants either decide
not to continue or they are deceased, then we put someone new on. Pretty much when
we have them on the program, we do an assessment every year to see their eligibility
and it continues, if not, we will dispense at that time, but usually it is for a long time.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Is this program strictly federal funded or do
we have other sources of funding?
Ms. Takahashi: For the home delivered meals, it is federal,
state, and county funding.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Federal, state, and county.
Ms. Takahashi: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am wondering if during budget time, if
during the course of the year you average a certain amount on the waitlist, if you did
not ask for more money from the County to eliminate the waitlist because sixteen (16)
does not seem like a lot. I do not know what it averages throughout the year, but it is
something to think about in the next cycle. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 22 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, thank you very
much.
Ms. Takahashi: Thank you.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
The motion to approve C 2016-176 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2016-174 Communication (07/15/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration for inclusion in the 2017 Hawai`i State
Association of Counties (HSAC) and County of Kauai Legislative Packages, a
proposed amendment to Chapter 291C, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS), that would
direct the traffic fines and forfeitures collected for uncontested traffic infractions to
the county in which the citation was issued. Further, should the Bill be approved by
the State Legislature, all funds derived from unadjudicated traffic infractions be
directed towards addressing the County's backlog in road resurfacing, repairs, or
reconstruction: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2016-174, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? This is another one that we
have taken off the HSAC package because we wanted to focus on other ones, but as
the State has been keeping the cap on our Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) and
we are trying to find additional streams of revenues for the Counties, I feel that it is
the right time now to go back. This is not taking any money away from the State,
this is creating new money on the unadjudicated fines; traffic tickets that the people
just pay the fine. So it is our County police that writes the ticket, it is our County
Prosecutor that processes it, and then the violator pays the fine to the State. We
should get a portion of that and again, this is just another way of generating revenues
for the Counties. We are hopefully going to try again and just to let everybody know
that the items that we are voting on today are for both the HSAC Legislative package
as well as the County's Legislative package. The County's one will go to the Mayor
and hopefully he signs it and it becomes part of the County's Legislative package.
HSAC's will go to HSAC, we need four (4) votes on the HSAC board, and then it
becomes part of the Legislative package for HSAC. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you know how much of those adjudicated
fines add up to?
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have it. It is going to be dependent on
the percentage. I do not have the numbers, but I can get that for you. I think Aida
might have it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, I think that would be good to know.
Also, where is that money going now?
Council Chair Rapozo: It just stays with the State.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: So, we are taking money away from them
than?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, because we are looking for a possible
surcharge so it will be added on to the existing fees and it would not be much.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is one way of doing it without impacting
the State.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do we know how much the surcharge will
produce?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is all going to be dependent on the
discussions. I expect the same result, they are going to just through this straight in
the rubbish can, but we want to give it a shot. We want to try...or at least resurface
the discussion with the State. Hopefully now because they are so adamant about not
removing the cap that they will entertain these other opportunities for the Counties.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is just that in order for us to argue for it, it
would be good to at least know what figures we are talking about.
Council Chair Rapozo: That discussion will actually come at some
point. I am trying to get this on the HSAC, so we can hear from all four (4) Counties,
and then that discussion will happen. If it gets approved there, it will get modified
there, it will come back to the Councils, and then we can have the discussion at that
point.
Councilmember Yukimura: That would be fine. It is just that if you do a
percentage, you want to know what the base is and that is how you would decide
where to set the percentage level.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, and I agree. It is just that we want to
have that broad discussion at HSAC so that all Counties can contribute.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I did not want to do it Kaua`i centric and
then...it is amazing what happens at those HSAC Meetings some times.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know. Because we do not all track the HSAC
Meetings, if that can be circulated to us as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure thing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
COUNCIL MEETING 24 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Chair, I agree with the points that you made
and I would just say that I hope that this can pass our Council and all four (4)
Counties so that the Legislature can have one (1) more thing to consider. If passed,
we can have our people talk to our legislators and fight for this County and our
deserved revenue with the TAT and this as well. I think the issue about the State not
having to expend time or resources to collect because these are unadjudicated, so
there is no court time. Yes, it will be revenue that they would not get, but they are
not doing anything to get that revenue right now. Our County police is issuing the
tickets and then the person who is being ticketed is just paying is. We should at least
get some of that because we are expending the time and resources. It is an uphill
battle, but each county can work all their legislators and go from there, but I think it
needs to be part of the discussion as far as the revenue for the counties.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate all the efforts to increase the
revenues. I just want, for the record, to ask the Administration to really propose a
plan on roads in limbo because when I was lobbying for the excise tax in 2015, they
tried to subvert our revenue effort by saying you can have the excise tax, but here you
take care of roads in limbo, which would have totally negated the excise tax if they
had given it to us. Therefore, we have to be prepared. That issue has to be resolved.
I have suggested a joint task force to do that, but it will rear its head at the time you
do not want it to rear its head, if you do not invest it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Is there any public
testimony? Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Thank you,
Council Chair. Do we not have a lobbyist over there or our representatives that are
supposed to be fighting for these things? That is our money, right? We do not have
to raise excise tax. The money we get from traffic tickets et cetera or the TAT, that is
our money. Who do we have that is fighting for it? Why should we make a resolution
to send over? Why do you need to go through HSAC to be able to do this? I mean,
they will disregard it anyway. It just seems like we should have some
representatives, lobbyists, or something over there fighting for us saying, "We do not
have to tell the people that we want to raise their tax just to pay for more fixing of
our roads." All we have to do is get the moneys that we deserve. We are paying our
Police Department to go out and give traffic tickets, so why should we not be able to
get the moneys that we paid for? It just seems wrong that we do not have somebody
over there. We have four (4) representatives, Ron and et cetera, but I do not hear from
them that they are really trying to get these things for us. Thank you, Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The lobbyists are our State
Senator and the three (3) Representatives.
BRUCE HART: I, too, want to commend and encourage each
and every one of you to continue to look at other ways to support revenue for the
roads. I said the last time and since the TAT was brought up, I made my position of
the TAT. We deserve a greater share. Now just how much of the greater share, that
is up for discussion, but the State seems to be of a mind that they will not even discuss
it with us. I would just like to say to the State, "Come on people. We are all struggling
COUNCIL MEETING 25 AUGUST 3, 2016
and we are looking for ways, so let us open the door and let us discuss this." Maybe
Mr. Mickens should get a job over there. Anyhow, keep working at it. We will find a
way. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Seeing none, I will call the
meeting back to order. Further discussion? Councilmember Kuali`i.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kuali`i: I am not sure on the last part of this summary
statement that the funds be directed towards addressing the County's backlog and
road resurfacing, repairs, or reconstruction. Is that a limitation or is it just going
to...because I would think that we need to also add road safety. I have been hearing
so much from constituents about...and a lot of it is the highway, so it is the State
Highway, but the need for crosswalks and lowering the speed limit. We have an issue
coming up today and it seems like if this is traffic fines, that not only should it go to
the roads resurfacing, repairs, and reconstruction because we know so much about
the one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) backlog, but different Counties may
not have the same issue. I do not believe they do. For us, this is one (1) of the
priorities. I think if it is totally specified like limiting it, I would like to add road
safety.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is not specified in the Bill because we do not
think the State should be telling us how to spend that money, but that would be our
position. Our position would be that those funds would be used for those. Right now,
if the Bill passes, it would be the Counties choice on how to use those funds. Those
funds would come in...
Councilmember Kuali`i: Do we know why it is listed here like that?
The last part of the communication says...
Council Chair Rapozo: That was my suggestion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But it is not a limitation?
Council Chair Rapozo: Not in the Bill.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Should the Bill pass, then the County would
have the discussion of where those funds will be utilized.
Councilmember Kuali`i: If we do talk about where it could be utilized
and we do mention the backlog of resurfacing, repairs, and reconstruction, let us
make sure we also mention road safety because I think it is important.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hopefully we can get the Bill at least passed
at HSAC so we can get the funding source and then we can have the discussion on
how those funds will be used. Any other discussion? Seeing none.
COUNCIL MEETING 26 AUGUST 3, 2016
The motion to approve C 2016-174 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2016-175 Communication (07/15/2016) from the Deputy Planning Director,
requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and expend State Fiscal Year 2017
funds, and indemnify the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State Historic Preservation Division and the National Park Service, in the
amount of$2,000.00 with an anticipated in-kind match of$1,200.00 from the County
of Kauai Planning Department, to be used to procure services of a consultant to
promote historic preservation at the grass roots level and to nominate the Hanapepe
Bridge to the State of Hawaii and National Register of Historic Places:
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve C 2016-175, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion before we call for public
testimony? Any public testimony? I will suspend the rules. Anybody registered to
speak?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
DOROTHEA HAYASHI: Dorothea Hayashi. Good morning, Council
Chair and Councilmembers. I am hoping that this will...well, it said Hanapepe
Bridge and I am concerned. Should we put in 1911 just to identify because there are
two (2) bridges in Hanapepe? The resolution today will finally bring closure to the
hopes of many people who have cared for and have really pushed for the historic
registration of the 1911 Hanapepe Bridge. Thank you also to the present Historic
Preservation Commission members for their help in getting us here today. Before
beginning this journey of the repairs of the bridge, my hair was much, much darker,
so you can see it has been a long, long road. When I joined a few residents to begin
the effort to repair the bridge, we believed the bridge was on the historic list. It was
on the Hawaii State Historic Bridges Inventory, but then politics is a strange animal.
The words were deceiving because it did nothing to protect the historic existence of
the bridge. We were informed that the structure of the bridge could be altered
because it was not officially placed on the historic list. Confusing as it was to us,
private citizens, so within our little group, one (1) person took it upon herself because
she felt that our hopes would be taken away. She went through the process assured
that it would go all the way up to the National Register of Historic Places ("National
Register"). It was about a year or two (2) ago that we found out the promise was never
fulfilled. Once again, a few of us appealed to the Kauai Historic Preservation Review
Commission and this is the result of their efforts to help us get this unique bridge,
which is one of a kind already in the State of Hawaii if you read the inventory on the
description of the bridge. We gray-haired citizens used this bridge in our youth and
we feel that it deserves to be historically recognized. Together with the worn-out
bridge, let us always remember how the people of the 1911s lived and worked in our
little town using this bridge. Why are we constantly changing our towns to look like
cities of the mainland, United States of America (USA)? We, in Hawaii, have had a
unique life that is now disappearing before our eyes as we are changing our streets
and everywhere we see it. I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to
testify? Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 AUGUST 3, 2016
ELSIE GODBEY: My name is Elsie Godbey. I guess we are
asking for some help in registering the National Register with one thousand two
hundred dollars ($1,200) amount from the Council approval to help us. Anyway, I
hope you will okay it because I feel that our association, which is now formulated by
business and professional association that started in the mid-1980s or something like
that and under it was the main street program. For the association to be on the main
street program, we were required to hire a consultant and it cost us, I do not know
the exact amount now, but it costs us about two thousand dollars ($2,000) to hire this
consultant. We were determined to preserve our town. We had to fundraise a lot to
be able to keep this consultant and be on the main street program. I feel that the
association then and now and the main street program, we raised a lot of money to
keep going. We had a lot of fundraisers, good fundraisers, raft race, and other
activities. It ran us very tired having to have fundraisers every year to pay for the
consultant and also other things of course. I feel that this thousand two dollars
($1,200) from you to help us get on the National Register and have help to apply for
the National Register would be really nothing to what we went through to try to
preserve our town. I just got word on Monday to address this, so I am not real
organized. When Ron Kouchi was on the Council, there were minor things that
should have been done to keep the bridge in repair, such as the first railing had wires
that never got fixed and it was just open and we felt that it was dangerous. It was
meant to keep the little kids from going over to into the river. Anyway, when he was
on the Council, he came down and we...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on real quick. Is there anyone else
wishing to testify on this matter? Seeing none, you can continue.
Ms. Godbey: We asked him if they could repair it. Just a
simple little wiring that was a safety thing for little kids on the first railing and he
did. That was about the last time I know of where any help was given. It has been
years since pedestrian bridge has been blocked for us to use and I think it is about
time that something gets done. We celebrated our 100th year anniversary of the
bridge and even then, the pedestrian bridge was closed. It still is now. It is really a
shame that we have had to endure that. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Godbey: Can I say one more thing?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Ms. Godbey: Going through my notes, we had applied to be
on the National Register and looking at all these notes, this was years ago. It is during
the time when the State Preservation Office had turmoil where the head of the
preservation had to be transferred because they were not doing their job. They had
backlog of reviews and the Historic Preservation Office spent job money on cars and
iPads. This was when we sent in our application and when I would call the office,
they would tell me they were still reviewing it and they would refer back to Kaua`i
protocol. State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) submitted no significant effect
and...anyway I cannot read. Anyway, we did contact the State after we put in an
application and I had call Ross Stephenson twice about where our application was
COUNCIL MEETING 28 AUGUST 3, 2016
and at that time I was told that he was sick. I called his home and he said that our
application was sent to the National Register and that was it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none.
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question for Planning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ka'aina. I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KA`AINA S. HULL, Deputy Planning Director: Deputy Planning Director
Ka`aina Hull.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Ka'aina.
Mr. Hull: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does the Planning Department plan to
procure a consultant with a total of three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200), with
a specific project of getting the Hanapepe Bridge on the Historic Register?
Mr. Hull: The funds are not County funds. It was part
of the certified local government program, which is under the Department of Interior
at the federal government's level, which they dole out moneys to various Counties or
municipalities that have adopted the certified local government program concerning
historic preservation. It is a grant application process which we anticipate two
thousand dollars ($2,000) being utilized for a hiring of a consultant and roughly one
thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) will be soft match from the County. That
would be for the specific purpose of a consultant drafting the nomination papers up
for the Hanapepe Bridge to be nominated to both the State and National registry.
Councilmember Yukimura: And that is pretty much going to be the
assignment. Is there any other thing that you will be expecting of this consultant?
Mr. Hull: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: The sole purpose is this?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. The bridge is already on the State
Register? No? It is neither the State nor the National at this point.
Mr. Hull: One of the charges of the Kaua`i Certified
Local Government Program is to maintain a historic inventory of historical structures
throughout the island. On that inventory are structures that have been identified as
COUNCIL MEETING 29 AUGUST 3, 2016
historic, which one of them is the Hanapepe Bridge. The next level of essentially
establishing it as a historic site is the State Registry and then the National Registry.
The State and the National Registry are a fairly similar process and as testified by
members of the public as they testified for several years before the Kaua`i Historic
Preservation Review Commission that it should be put on both registries. Ultimately,
the Kaua`i Historic Preservation Review Commission agreed with that testimony and
understood that the programs that are currently for laypeople in the public to get
these nominations done, so ultimately a motion was made and the board decided to
apply for these funds.
Councilmember Yukimura: How will the proposed repairs affect the
bridge?
Mr. Hull: It depends on how the nomination itself goes.
There is a common misconception in the public that if you are on these registries, that
repairs or modifications cannot be done and that is false. There are two (2) different
layers for both public and private sector. Quite frankly, if it is a public structure that
is over fifty (50)years old, automatically gets bumped into that category of historically
significant and cannot move forward without State Historic Preservation Review
Division approving the project. If the nomination is made, ultimately it depends on
what the nomination highlights as historically significant. If there are sections of the
bridge that are not found to be particularly historically significant, later on repairs
or modifications are possible, and even to the point that some changes can be made
to historical structures even if it is found that that particular section, say it would be
a railing or it could be the walkway, is found to be significant within the nomination
papers. Insofar as the applicant, which in this case would be the Department of Public
Works, has proper or acceptable mitigation measures that are deemed acceptable by
the State Historic Preservation Division. It depends what type of repairs and
modifications are being proposed. I can say one example is the bridge in Wailua that
is on both the State and National Registry and it is at a point of such disarray that it
needs to be fully replaced. Like I said, it is on the State and National Registry. They
went through their review, they did their environmental assessment process, they
consulted SHPD, and they are doing a full-scale replacement of the bridge that meets
the review and requirements of SHPD. It is not to say that repairs and/or
replacements cannot happen once it is on the registry.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does the Department of Public Works have
plans for repairs of this bridge?
Mr. Hull: There are plans for repair. We have been in
discussions with the Department of Public Works ever since this nomination issue
came up. There is a current waterline being proposed on the bridge, which has been
reviewed by the Kaua`i Historic Preservation Review Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: It has or has not?
Mr. Hull: Has been.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 30 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hull: There are additional repairs just to keep up
with the structural integrity that were recently submitted to the Kaua`i Historic
Preservation Review Commission and those repairs were found to be in keeping with
the historical significance of the bridge. There are discussions of ten (10) or twelve
(12) years down the line, I know, of a full whole scale replacement of the bridge
possibly, but above and beyond that, I am not aware.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for the Planning
Department? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Ka aina. Along the lines of
Councilmember Yukimura's questions, is there any financial advantage or
significance of being on either list for federal or state funding if we go the route of
restoring the bridge exactly the way it was?
Mr. Hull: Councilmember Kagawa, I know for private
structures, indeed, there is a financial incentive as far as tax incentives. For public
structures, I would have to double check. I do not believe there would be a specific
financial incentive though.
Councilmember Kagawa: I believe all of our bridges qualify for federal
matching, but I was wondering if it is on the National Registry, can you even get a
higher match?
Mr. Hull: I would have to get back to you on that. I do
not know that off the top of my head. I apologize.
Councilmember Kagawa: Second question is, it is interesting that I
received a call from a person who just acquired the first gas station on Kaua`i and
they are encountering significant problems with trying to fix the building and meet
the needs of the historic preservation building. From what I understand, it is all
rotten and old. It seems to be really strict that they need to try and to the upmost
get it back to how it looked because it was the first gas station on Kauai. I am
wondering why is the government agency so strict with that gas station and then the
County when it comes to this bridge, it is easy for us right from the beginning to say,
"Well, the walkway is not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required and
therefore we are going to go with significant modifications to the original bridge." I
am wondering is it that the government can be less strict on itself than the private
sector?
Mr. Hull: No, I would have to know about the specific
gas station, but I would say that it is the flip that is much stricter on government. In
fact, the government structure, just in it of itself of being a government structure and
being older than fifty (50) years old, someone automatically bumps it into this further
regulatory historic review by historic agencies without it even being on the registry,
as opposed to if it is a private structure that is not on the registry and over fifty (50)
years old, it does not get the same scrutinization. But if it is on the registry, it is
almost like you have the public structure over fifty (50) years old that is going to be
viewed at a higher level of scrutiny and the only way that a private structure would
COUNCIL MEETING 31 AUGUST 3, 2016
get that same scrutiny is if it was on the registry, so it is kind of the flip. It is also a
case-by-case on what is being specifically proposed for that gas station.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Given that position of private and public
structures, is that why SHPD has been reviewing the issues of Hanapepe Bridge even
though it is not on either register?
Mr. Hull: I do not understand your question.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just the fact that it is a public structure that
is over one hundred (100) years old is throwing it into their review because you said
they are not on either register right now.
Mr. Hull: Yes, the improvements that were proposed for
when say the Department of Water was doing the water line and when the
Department of Public Works were doing the minor repairs, those got reviewed by the
Kaua`i Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) no matter what, as well
as SHPD, just because it is a public structure that is over fifty (50) years old. It got
dumped up as well because it was on the inventory and then further scrutinization
and looking at actual nomination comes from just a lot of the overall community
testimony and community input at the KHPRC level to get this on the list.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so there are three (3) categories that I
heard, a public structure over fifty (50) years old, and then there is something about
being on the inventory, am I correct?
Mr. Hull: You could actually say there are four (4)
levels. For the bridge there is a public structure that is over fifty (50) years old is just
one level of review.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Hull: A public structure that is over fifty (50) years
old and on the Kaua`i Historic Inventory, which is another level, and then third level
would be the State Historic Registry, and then the fourth and final level would be the
Federal Historic Registry.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you. I never did understand that,
so I appreciate the education. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for the Planning
Department? If not, thank you. Further discussion?
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to thank the two (2) women that
testified for their persistence. I thought this bridge was already on the registry, I
COUNCIL MEETING 32 AUGUST 3, 2016
really did, and I was not aware of the turmoil back then. I think this Council had
been told that that bridge was on the registry. Thank you to the Planning
Department for helping out the community and of course the community for just not
stopping.I appreciate that.
The motion to approve C 2016-175 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2016-177 Communication (07/21/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
transmitting for Council consideration for inclusion in the 2017 Hawai`i State
Association of Counties (HSAC) and County of Kaua`i Legislative Packages, A Bill for
An Act making an appropriation for Emergency Medical Services, to appropriate
funds to the Department of Health for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 for the purchase of an
ambulance vehicle and the operational costs for one ambulance unit, including
equipment, supplies, and personnel costs for state-certified emergency medical
services personnel, for a 24-hour, 7-days-a-week ambulance unit for the County of
Kaua`i: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2016-177, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. At this point, I will suspend the
rules and I will give my brief background, and then ask representatives that are here
to maybe expand or answer questions. The reason this is on is asking for HSAC's
support. At the last legislative session, there were several requests for funding of
ambulances throughout the State. The legislature did not really take a look at that.
It was just a lot of money. Another bill was introduced to basically create a rapid
response unit and that did not go. I am told that the American Medical Response
(AMR) has basically come together and they are going to come up with one (1) request
for one (1) new ambulance in this next legislative session, and Kauai happens to be
the first County that they will be seeking funding. That is why we have this here
today. If that needs to be corrected, I see the correctors here. Is anyone here prepared
to come up? Yes, please. I will suspend the rules. We have three (3) seats. I received
a call from the Fire Chief last night and asked, "Hey, what is going on?" He thought
we were taking over the ambulance and that is not what this is about. This is simply
about getting State funding to put one (1) more ambulance station here on Kauai.
SPEEDY BAILEY: Thank you, Chair Rapozo and
Councilmembers. My name is Speedy Bailey and I am the Regional Director for
American Medical Response. It has probably been about fifteen (15) years since I
have been in front of the Council. I see some familiar faces. This is the Operations
Manager Tito Villanueva, on Kaua`i. Thank you for this initiative. We appreciate
the discussion and the support. You are correct when you say that there were a
number of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) bills in front of the legislature this
session. None of them passed. It was a very difficult session in terms of all of the
priorities. A lot of money for hospitals and health care, but EMS was not funded
although we had a large support from the Kaua`i initiative. We got to the very last
day, the very last hearing, and it was deferred because it was not funded from the
Finance Committees. Again, we appreciate this initiative. We have since met with
the State Department of Health. Dr. Brownstein who is the Chair of the EMS branch
sends his regards. He is sorry he could not be here on the short notice, but he is
supportive of the initiative, and would like me to communicate that. As an EMS
community, we have been meeting, but it is not just American Medical Response that
COUNCIL MEETING 33 AUGUST 3, 2016
is meeting, but all the providers throughout the State, such as the City and County
of Honolulu, the Hawai`i County Fire Department, the EMS Branch, the colleges, and
sort of setting the vision and the path for the strategic plan in terms of initiatives.
Those discussions are going on and I will be clear that there are a number of
initiatives, one which is Kaua`i's Ambulance Service. I would like to mention that we
have not had an initiate here on Kauai since 1992, so in terms of the Statewide
system, there have been a number of other projects throughout the State. As a group
of stakeholders, we are meeting and setting a priority list of which Kaua`i is on the
list, but there is also Palma, Big Island, and the City and County of Honolulu has its
request. Those are being discussed and vetted, if you will. Again, we appreciate this.
I think it would be helpful. It is helpful to have this discussion. I think that the
County stepping up and initiating this speaks to the community need. Like I
mentioned since 1992, no EMS ambulances, which is not such a bad thing. Kaua`i has
had a very good system. I managed EMS across the State, we have operations in every
County and I applaud what Kaua`i has done throughout its history with a cooperation
and collaboration between the American Medical Response and the Fire Department.
You have one of the best-integrated systems in the State and I say that without pause
because like, I said we do services throughout the State. Certainly, there has been
growth on Kaua`i, you all see it. In 1992, we probably had one (1) ambulance for every
ten thousand (10,000) people and that number has changed from fifty thousand
(50,000) to ninety thousand (90,000), with all of your visitors and commuters. There
are big city issues with traffic and so taking care of the population on Kaua`i both
geographically and the population demographic, this is a good time and good a
discussion to have. I am available for any questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are we treating these men as resource people
right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Speedy and
Tito. Thank you for being here. What is the cost that we are advocating for the
purchase of an ambulance and the operational costs for one (1) ambulance unit
including equipment, supplies, and personnel costs for a twenty-four (24) hour,
7-days-a-week ambulance unit?
Mr. Bailey: Thank you. The bill that was put forth to the
legislature was for one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) for an
ambulance service twenty-four-seven (24/7) and that is life support. That is the same
price that we have been discussing in our budget preparations with the State going
forward, so that would be the total costs, everything included.
Councilmember Yukimura: There is the ambulance you buy, which is a
one-time cost for the life of the ambulance.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the life of an ambulance?
COUNCIL MEETING 34 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Bailey: Well, under the State contract, it is either
seven (7) years or two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) miles, whichever comes first.
The cost of that is amortized over the life of that ambulance.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is your operational cost per year? Is it
one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000)?
Mr. Bailey: Yes. That would be the cost of everything
included such as personnel, equipment, supplies, fuel, rent...
Councilmember Yukimura: That is your annual cost?
Mr. Bailey: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: How many ambulances do you have today on
Kauai?
Mr. Bailey: We have five (5) under contract with the State
of Hawaii.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Bailey: Five (5) twenty-four-seven.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is costing us right now five (5) times one
million three hundred dollars ($1,300,000)?
Mr. Bailey: Probably just shy of that because one million
three hundred dollars ($1,300,000) is today's cost.
Councilmember Yukimura: So that is at least six million dollars
($6,000,000).
Mr. Bailey: Yes. Just to put things sort of in perspective,
the County of Honolulu asked for an ambulance last year and their request was for
two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) for the same service.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, because they are servicing one million
(1,000,000) people, we are servicing with de facto visitor population about ninety
thousand (90,000), right?
Mr. Bailey: The marginal difference between the
numbers of calls they run and what we run is not where the cost is incurred, but I
just wanted to give you that perspective because often you give people the figure and
there is no reference point in terms of the comparison.
Councilmember Yukimura: The cost, which is very onerous for us, is we
are a spread out low density population.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
COUNCIL MEETING 35 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: So we are trying to cover a large area, but
there is not that many people in the area as compared to a city.
Mr. Bailey: That is definitely correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Davis, California has the same population we
have and they have two (2) fire stations and we have, what is it eight (8)?
Mr. Bailey: Just by comparison what I would tell you is
that if I put an ambulance in Honolulu, it would be one million three hundred
thousand dollars ($1,300,000). If I put one in Maui, it would be one million three
hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), same as the Big Island. That is our cost.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, but you might need more one million
three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) cost centers.
Mr. Bailey: Certainly, there are twenty (20) ambulances
on Oahu for the one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have to take a caption break in about
four (4) minutes. If we have a lot more questions for them, we will take the break,
and then come back. If we can finish this up, we can go straight.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is fine. Let us take a break.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. We will take a caption break. Ten (10)
minutes.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 10:27 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:39 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I will call the meeting back to order.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: My other question actually involves the Fire
Department, could we get someone from the Fire Department?
Council Chair Rapozo: We will bring them up after.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because my concern, which I have
expressed very clearly during budget is about the overlap between our Fire
Department and I did ask the Fire Department to tell me what is the cost of
Emergency Medical Service response from the Fire Department. I think the
taxpayers are concerned about the overlapping services and the huge costs that are
being incurred from both well-intended, highly professional respondents; the Fire
Department and AMR. I have this concern, that is why I would like the Fire
Department to come forward.
COUNCIL MEETING 36 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: We will obviously allow the Fire Department
to come up, but I do not see the relevance because it is two (2) separate functions. It
is not so much AMR, but EMS throughout the State, thank you for that correction.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is paid for by the State.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: And obviously, the Fire Department, which
provides the first responder very well on Kauai, I must say, is funded by the County.
This is to supplement the ambulance stations on Kauai by adding one (1) more
ambulance which obviously will alleviate some of the stresses on the Fire
Department.
Mr. Bailey: I would add that there is precedent for this on
Maui and the Big Island where the County and the State and on Maui, in particular,
ourselves; AMR, collaborate on the medivac here and the County puts in funds and
the State puts in funds and we operate that. We have been doing this for a dozen
years now. Through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County and
the State, the moneys transferred to the Department of Health to run those services,
so this collaboration is being done today.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just speaking for myself, I do not want
the County to be responsible for the EMS on Kauai, at this point. That is not
something I want to get involved with. I think the way it is run now, on Kauai, I can
only speak for Kauai because I do not really care about the other islands, but on
Kauai, it works well.
Mr. Bailey: It does.
Council Chair Rapozo: And yet there is that shortage. You have
five (5) ambulances and if there is a major accident, you take two (2), possibly three
(3) out of there, and then you get one (1) or two (2) servicing the island. It is really to
supplement and if we can get the State support on this, it would help.
Councilmember Yukimura: There are five (5) ambulances right now, so it
would be six (6)?
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: And then we have eight (8) fire stations,
which often both you and they are responding.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: And I understand in some other Counties, the
fire department does not respond to every medical incident and to me that would
make sense if there could be coordination. I also think that our effort to go to the
•
COUNCIL MEETING 37 AUGUST 3, 2016
legislature to get funding would be much more favorably received if there were a
better integration of response and service. These are thirteen (13) highly expensive
centers of response and eighty percent (80%)...I may be wrong, but a high percentage
of fire departments responses are medical responses. That is why I am asking about
this because when we go before the legislature if they are worth their money, they
will be asking the same questions.
Mr. Bailey: I hear your concerns. EMS really, if you see
one (1) EMS system, you have seen one (1) EMS system. I can tell you that
throughout the State, every EMS system is a little different in some of those dynamics
that you just mentioned. It is true on Oahu, they do not go one hundred percent
(100%) of the ambulance calls. They go on the ones that are triage out in certain
circumstances when ambulances are detained and not able to respond and inpatient
conditions where it warrants having both departments responding. On Maui, it is
very similar in like and very much so on the Big Island, which is the fire service, EMS
is integrated, so they have their own protocols of when they ascend their engines and
their ambulances. It is very prevalent across the Country wherever city and
whatever counties, they have different models. I am here to answer any questions. I
believe Kauai has a very well integrated system. It is true that they run probably on
every call that we respond to, which is a little different than the other Counties and
you made mention of that. The benefit is for the patients that are getting thirteen
(13) response apparatus from different parts of Kauai versus five (5) ambulances or
eight (8).
Councilmember Yukimura: How does a population like us sustain that
cost?
Mr. Bailey: I do not know if I have the answer to that, but
I can certainly respond to any EMS part of that equation.
Councilmember Yukimura: It sounds to me that the way to discriminate
in terms of which ones to go to and which ones not to go to or which ones need both
or which ones need only one would be largely in the dispatch operation. It would
require a level of expertise and training that might be perhaps more cost effective in
terms of putting money there and then developing a system that is integrated.
Mr. Bailey: There are systems like that. I will just add
that the dispatching of these services on Kauai is through the Police Department, so
you are adding another agency into this mix.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, why can you not upgrade the police
dispatch center?
Council Chair Rapozo: Listen...
Mr. Bailey: No, you could.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hand on. Again, we are going into policy. This
request is for funding for an ambulance. I understand what Councilmember
Yukimura is going through and what the questions she is having. I am not sure where
she is going through with it because our firefighters are not paid by the hour. They
COUNCIL MEETING 38 AUGUST 3, 2016
do not get paid by the call. They are paid by salary. You pay fuel when you go on a
call. I have to say this because I just ran into a lady last night who was one of the
biggest opponent of the helicopter, when Kaua`i came up with this plan to purchase
a helicopter. She self-admitted, "I thought the Council was wrong," until last week
when she broke her ankle up in Alaka`i Swamp and last night I saw her and she said,
"I tell you, I was wrong." I say that because...if you are going to cut funds...the
patient that needs that medical service, when they see the red truck versus the white
ambulance, they are happy. They are getting the treatment. Our Fire Department,
the rescue people are not trained and equipped to do what the ambulance does. They
are two (2) separate entities. I understand that you want to cut costs, but I do not
see the relevance to this discussion because this is to add a new ambulance. As far as
how the County and Fire Department wants to run in conjunction with the EMS, that
is their call. That is not your call. You folks are here to...
Councilmember Yukimura: That is why I asked to have the Fire
Department.
Council Chair Rapozo: And I said that we would bring them up after
we questioned these men. If you have question, as it relates to the ambulance here,
not how they interact with the Fire Department, we can ask the Fire Department.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well the interaction takes two (2) entities and
I am asking for some design thinking in terms of the services that are in two (2)
agencies, but I am asking for out-of-the-box thinking and design and cooperation that
might give the people of Kaua`i a better designed service and more cost effective. Yes,
the helicopter may be a very important service to have, but the type of helicopter that
we bought could have been much more cost effective. That is what I am talking about,
what is the most cost effective designed service that...and do not be in silos, that is
my job, that is their job, and we are not going to talk or we are not going to look at a
new combination or possibility so that we can give taxpayers better service for their
money.
Council Chair Rapozo: Your contract is with the State.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Not the County.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we would have to fit our design to your
operations here on Kaua`i, if we wanted to share responsibilities and so forth.
Councilmember Yukimura: Not necessarily, Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: You know...
Councilmember Yukimura: Two (2) agencies could get together,
cooperate, and design the system.
COUNCIL MEETING 39 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Bailey: I hear your concern and I am here to answer
questions. I want to tell you that we do have collaboration discussions with the Fire
Department and talk about design.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good.
Mr. Bailey: Tito sits within their EMS Committee to talk
about going forward.
Councilmember Yukimura: Great.
Mr. Bailey: So we are looking at those things. Your
concerns are noted. I think we have heard it in your budget hearings and in our
discussions with you, and so it is what we do as a private provider in the State of
Hawai`i is to work with all these agencies to find out the best and the most efficient
use of dollars. When I compare Honolulu's cost against our private cost, it is a
significant savings and dollars and that is not your kuleana necessarily, but I say
that because I believe that in EMS, Kaua`i is getting best value and best quality for
what the State is paying for services. Okay, the whole integration with the Fire
Department as they think forward, is a worthy discussion that we should be having
and we are having now off-line, if you will. Your concerns are noted and it is not any
different than the same discussion that might be happening in San Mateo, Seattle,
or Arizona. This is the EMS conundrum and healthcare conundrum going forward.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I think it might have been Tito who told
me, and I also read in the paper about the system that is actually now looking at the
causes of people needing emergency medical service and finding out that a chronic
few are the ones that are causing a great part of the cost of the system. Now the work
with, whether it is fall prevention in the home or that kind of thing, with the chronic
few is really cutting the service needs and that is very creative thinking. That is
what I am hoping we are going to do jointly to get the most cost effective services and
my measuring stick is the cost per capita.
Mr. Bailey: Thank you. That is happening. The injury
prevention discussion in collaboration again with the Fire Department where we are
working together, because injury prevention is the front-end of the EMS situation.
So, the more we can do to mitigate chronic disease, traffic mishaps, falls, or whatever
through education and environmental strategies, I think the Fire Department is well
documented in doing that for fire prevention, and we are doing it in EMS. That helps
to alleviate unnecessary use of ambulance service, unnecessary use of emergency
rooms and then better care for those that need it. We are all onboard with that
concept. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is the same goal I am speaking of
underlying my question about how you can better integrate. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Fire Department, are you folks
prepared to discuss this today? I apologize, this was late notice. Oh, the Chief is here.
That was perfect timing, Chief.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 AUGUST 3, 2016
ROBERT F. WESTERMAN, Fire Chief: You are welcome, Chair.
Thank you. For the record, Robert Westerman, Fire Chief.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chief, we had a piece of this discussion at
budget session, but there are five (5) emergency medical centers on this island, or
response teams or whatever you want to call it, and eight (8) fire stations that also
respond to medical emergencies at different modes or different levels. One emergency
medical station is one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), annually.
I asked Lieutenant Vaughan what the cost of our emergency medical services are. I
do not know if you have the figure off the top of your head, but if it is eighty percent
(80%) of our calls are...I do not remember the exact figure, but it was something like
that, are emergency medical calls. Is that eighty percent (80%) of the Fire
Department's budget?
Mr. Westerman: No, it would be nice if it was a simple eighty
percent (80%) number.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. Is it fifty percent (50%)?
Mr. Westerman: Well. We have never evaluated exactly what
every call cost us, per call/per call time. You are right, about eighty percent (80%) of
our calls are medical calls, but the cost of a medical call is a little cheaper than the
cost of a fire call. The amount of people that respond are different, the total number
of people that respond are different, and the amount of work effort that is put in is
different. We have not done that type of analysis. It is just part of our response mode
that we respond to all medical emergencies, as the first-responder units, prior to the
ambulance arriving, which is a higher level of care. We talked about that in budget
about improving our next level of care to make it a little higher, but we still do not
have Mobile Intensive Care Technicians (MICTs) and state certified Emergency
Medical Technicians (EMTs), and so the ambulance responding is still a requirement
of the job. Occasionally, we cancel them, but that does not happen very often.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and we have fire engines responding to
emergency medical calls.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Which is very expensive.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: And necessary because we also have to have
firefighters and availability, but I think it is time to think about a different delivery
model. You, in fact, told me about a model of a nurse in a car going to respond. I think
it was in Santa Clara, California, for certain kinds of emergencies. I am just asking
and I hear that there is already some beginning of this and I am really glad if there
is, but I believe that when we go forward on this very worthy quest to the State
legislature, they will have those questions too. The better our responses are and we
can show that we are really coordinating, where we have been upgrading our
COUNCIL MEETING 41 AUGUST 3, 2016
dispatch, if that is the area that is going to help us respond better, that will help us
in our cause to get more moneys for emergency medical.
Mr. Westerman: I agree to all the above and all the above is not
tomorrow. All the above is in the near future and some of it maybe in the farther
future.
Councilmember Yukimura: Absolutely.
Mr. Westerman: I could not agree with you more. I think we
need to find a better more efficient way to respond and still provide the same level of
service that we are providing today. How does that model look? We worked with our
strategic planning committee and looked at several models nationally. Community-
based paramedicine of which you are talking about and other services programs other
than fire ambulance responding, but they are actually still part of the network. They
are either part of the ambulance service in this case they are separate on Kaua`i, or
they are part of the Fire Department. Yes, we would like to be there sooner than later,
but it is very challenging day-to-day just to make ends meet with the budget and then
try to figure out how we can work that into our strategic plan and move it forward.
Working with our partners at AMR, working with the State Department of Health, I
do not think there is anybody up there who does not agree that maybe our model is a
little stiff and maybe there could be some flexibility in it. Then again, even AMR and
Kaua`i Fire Department in and of themselves, do not have the power to make that
change. We can make some recommendations and steer some committees to move
that way in the future and I think we are, but we just do not have that power to do it
today.
Councilmember Yukimura: As a member of a policy body that is also a
budget body, I am making that request.
Mr. Westerman: Good.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because I think as policymakers,
theoretically we have the power are interested in a new model because of the
challenge of servicing low density spread out population and the increasing cost, we
have to find some new models. I am very thankful that you are already starting to
talk about it and look into it. It is easier for me to support something like this
knowing that the system is responding to change and to modernization. Just to slap
another additional unit on a system that needs some modernizing, would be harder.
Mr. Westerman: I would be remissed if I did not say that this
is not because we need to modernize the system. This is simply because we have
grown and our partners have a need to have another ambulance. Their call load is of
that level that they need that extra support. We are here to support them saying that
they need this additional ambulance and they offered all types of versions in last
year's legislation and we kind of know what happened last year. We all got slapped
because every County has the same problem and they all went in at the same time
saying, "Hey, we all have to have an increased level of service," and the legislature
said, "Hey, wait a minute. Let us find ways and let us make sure we are doing it right.
Let us try to establish some priorities. You, as a group, talking about the State, trying
to come up with a plan on how we can systematically go through the system and
COUNCIL MEETING 42 AUGUST 3, 2016
improve it where it needs to be improved." It is not just that we are not antiquated,
we are just undersized. Again, the models, I would like to always go back and talk
about the models, we have to be very careful. We are a very unique model. You cannot
take a model out of some other city and town in the mainland and plop it right here
on Kaua`i because we are very unique in that we do not have any mutual aid
agreements. If you go to a city in New Mexico, they might not be very big, fire
department wise, and the city same in our size, but that is because the nine (9) cities
that are around them are including the counties provide that additional service that
we get and the only way we can get that is providing fire and ambulance at the level
that we provide. It does get a little more expensive only because the only way to
provide the service is to provide more bodies because we cannot just call on Honolulu
to come over and respond to a call. This is part of the dilemma that AMR is in, which
is we have gotten big and their model says in order to provide the service that the
State wants them to provide, they are saying we will need another ambulance to do
that. Can we relieve some of that and I think we do by being able to get there sooner
for them in some cases, but should we be the panacea to replace it? At this point, we
are not ready.
Councilmember Yukimura: Nobody is asking for that. I am asking for a
mutually tailored design for Kaua`i after you do all the research about how other
places are doing it.
Mr. Westerman: Yes, thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: And because we cannot respond to the growth
just by adding units, we need to find a way to respond to the growth cost effectively.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Westerman: Thank you. I apologize, I am getting ready for
travel. Junior Lifeguards are competing this weekend and we are taking everybody
over to the Oceans Safety Conference, which by the way thank you for passing the
Tort Liability Bill because that would be the number one item on our agenda as the
County's meet to discuss the tort liability sun setting again.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have to reel this back in. We are going all
over the place, but I appreciate that. We had discussed that. Any other questions for
the Fire Department? I appreciate you coming, Chief, and I am trying to get us back
on track.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Good luck with the junior lifeguards. Any
public testimony? Do we have any registered speakers?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, we have one (1) registered
speaker, Anne Punohu.
Ms. Punohu: Aloha Chair, my name is Anne Punohu and I
want to support all of the testimonies so far. I have something personally I want to
say from the standpoint of the public. I want another ambulance on Kaua`i and I do
not care what it costs. I do not want to hear about how much it costs to save a life.
COUNCIL MEETING 43 AUGUST 3, 2016
When people respond, these first responders respond whether it is the ambulance or
the Fire Department or a nurse in a car, nobody is going to sit there and calculate the
cost of gas, the cost of what it cost to drive that vehicle there, or what is actually
costing to do their job. They are there to help people regardless of where they live on
the island, or what their social economic condition is or what is causing them to be
called such as a fall versus something else. When we start getting into policy, where
we may be looking at different kinds of peripheral services, which may impact
somebody's care based on social economic conditions or where they live or what the
situation is. We are getting into extremely dangerous water. You cannot compare the
needs that we have on our island to other places on the mainland because as you
heard, they can call fifty (50) other people from fifty (50) other states to come and
help them and we do not have that option. We are on an island. We need the amount
of the services that we have. We need the eight (8) stations because of our ocean
conditions, we have invited more tourist to come here, and we have all types of
situations at Na Pali Coast. When the ambulances are busy and the Fire Department
is busy dragging people out of the water, mostly visitors, and a local person is up in
Wailua who is having a heartache, what do you do when all the ambulances are out?
Would one (1) more come in handy at that point in time? Which is more important?
There comes a point where costs does not trump life. Mahalo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Mr. Mickens.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Council Chair. For the record,
Glenn Mickens. I just want to sincerely thank these people for the great job that they
do. I had a slight motorcycle accident a few years ago, they were there in an
unbelievable amount of time. They took me to the hospital, Dr. Downs sewed me up,
and did a great job. They are doing their job, whatever it cost; I think they are worth
it. I am not quite sure they have to have the big fire engine if it is a medical emergency
thing all the time following them. I am not sure why that is. There must be a reason.
I just want to make sure that I thank these people and whatever the cost is, is well
worth it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart: For the record, Bruce Hart. I want to echo
what everyone has said. Although I would like to point out that the Chief was quite
clear that he is looking at cost effective models. In other words, that is on the plate
and it is always on the plate. That is good. We need to move towards that, so I am in
agreement with Councilmember Yukimura, but I am really on agreement with
everybody on this. We just need to keep moving forward to make it more efficient,
but right now is right now. We need to deal with the situation today and not create
a situation where we do not have the services necessary to take care of the public.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Chief, can I ask you to come up
again? Maybe I am missing it; I do not know. There was a time that the Police
Department responded to every medical call. When I was in the Department, we
responded to every single medical call and because back then there was only eight (8)
beats, and now you have ten (10), because those medical calls took the officers away
from the street for other calls. There was an administrative decision made to say,
"Unless it is a crime or a traffic accident, they will respond, but if it is a heart
COUNCIL MEETING 44 AUGUST 3, 2016
situation, the police officers will not respond unless requested." It was not done to
save money. It was more because of the availability of officers. You were taking them
away from other situations. My question is, if tomorrow you said, "Hey, no more
responding to medical," what would be the savings to the County?
Mr. Westerman: None.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is my point. I am not sure where this is
going, but...maybe the fuel, like I said earlier.
Mr. Westerman: Maybe the fuel cost.
Council Chair Rapozo: Like you stated earlier, your function is
different from the medics. They are the ones that are certified, so for you to say, "We
are not going to send them out," there is no real savings to this County, correct?
Mr. Westerman: Correct. Like you said, the cost that would
cost us in fuel to drive to each location would really be the only significant savings.
In fact, we have set some policies where we do not respond. An example is the boat
when it comes in, because the patient is under doctor's care when it comes in, it is
more of a transfer than us...
Council Chair Rapozo: Are you talking about the cruise ship?
Mr. Westerman: The cruise ship, I am sorry, yes. Almost every
single time when those cruise ships come in, we would be down just standing there
helping AMR move a patient, we do no-patient care, and AMR was usually there in
time, but they are already under doctor's care.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Westerman: And some of the clinics, depending on the call,
we work with them to not call the Fire Department because there is no need for us to
be there if you are under doctor's care and you are going to do a transport from a
clinic to the hospital. Therefore, they do not call 911 for an emergency now. We have
done a few of these things, but that is limited, but an attempt to try to reduce that.
We did work with the Police Department and give them Automated External
Defibrillators (AEDs) so they have AEDs or they did have AEDs in all of their vehicles
and were train in case they need to use them. In case they happen to be in a park or
something and they can respond to that and have an AED available.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think I know the answer, but can you answer
Mr. Micken's question on why we take the large fire truck to every response.
Mr. Westerman: Again, it is crew integrity. If we just sent two
(2) people to the call and they went out to the far-end of the district, we had a fire
call, we would get there without enough people in order to provide safe operations for
a fire call. Again, if they are on the far-end of the district on a call and then the
engine has to come later, then you have two (2) people there without really anything
COUNCIL MEETING 45 AUGUST 3, 2016
other than a small truck with a little bit amount of water to provide any support. It
is all about crew integrity and keeping the crews together when we respond to calls.
Councilmember Kagawa: For a subsequent call. If a subsequent call
comes, you have the truck there to go to the next call.
Mr. Westerman: We do that, especially in District 1, where we
have some of the most calls and is the largest district. They will break apart as a crew
more often than anybody to go to another medical call if in fact the ambulance tells
us, "We are bringing the second ambulance in from"...it might even by Koloa, then
we will break our crew apart only to provide that lifesaving support for that little bit
amount of time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Chief. I will call the meeting back
to order. Any further discussion?
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to say that this is really about
adding another ambulance on Kaua`i due to just growth. We have outgrown the
system that we have. That is what this is all about. The internal policies between
the Fire Department and ambulance, again, I do not think this affects the Fire
Department at all because their call rate to medicals are eighty percent (80%). That
is just one of those things...you cannot run government like a business in all cases
because if we did that, we would probably have two (2) fire stations or three (3) fire
stations. You cannot operate like that because you have all the issues and situations
that require public safety. That is just one of those things. Anne, you hit it right on
the head. What is it? One (1) more ambulance paid for by the State; that is what this
bill does. It is paid for by the State. If you get a red truck pulled up with that
ambulance that is more power to the victim or patient that needs that help. I
remember as a cop watching that fire truck always get there before the ambulance
pretty much eighty percent (80%) of the time, seventy percent (70%) of the time
because there were just more of them than there were ambulances. The way they
perform...even today, when they come up at the hotel to assist our guest who get hurt
or sick. It is the Fire Department that typically gets there first. That extra two (2) or
three (3) minutes could save a life. We are blessed that as a byproduct of our fire
program, we get that to assist with the EMS. It is just one (1) more ambulance, paid
for by the State to address the need because of our growth. I hope we can get this
passed and get this to HSAC. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I want to piggyback a little bit on that. I think
some discussion has been made about why the State does not send the services of
EMS here to this County. I think the argument has been made by the Counties that
that is a great idea, but what the State needs to do is if they want to push that
forward, they need to fund not only the salaries, operations, and moneys, but the
retirement contributions as well. There was talk about the State giving more in a
form of TAT, or what have you, to cover only salaries and operation and the Counties
would be paying for retirement. To me, I think that would be a very unfair deal for
us. We get more responsibility without getting the full cost that the State collects the
most money as far as tax revenue and they have been handling that situation for all
COUNCIL MEETING 46 AUGUST 3, 2016
of these years. If you are going to give a fair deal in a sake of better efficiency, at least
give us the fair share of funds. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: You say it is one million three hundred
thousand dollars ($1,300,000) year after year after year, but is State money. Yes, it
is State money that we could ask for, for affordable house. It is State money that we
could ask for an adolescent drug treatment, there are so many needs. The
responsibility is still there to make sure that it is cost effective. I am not talking about
cutting services. I am talking about how we provide, as the Fire Chief said that, the
same level of services that we are doing today, but do it in a more efficient cost
effective way. Use technology, use whatever and there is another way. Right now, we
have a Fire Department that is design mainly for fire response and that is twenty
percent (20%) of the response. Maybe we need to design it more for emergency
medical, first responder if that needs to be done, but if you have six (6) ambulance
stations, can they also do first responder?Is there a way of doing first responder more
cheaply? Even though it is State money, it is the same taxpayer. We have to be
thoughtful, efficient, and innovative in how we do the response. That is all I am
asking. I hear a really positive response to that. I see that there are efforts to already
begin to do that and I am very grateful.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion? I just wish
we applied that same scrutiny to transportation expansion. When we have those
discussions on the expansion of our bus system, this level of scrutiny does not exist.
This one is for public safety and ambulance. I am surprised at some of the discussion,
but it is what it is. I think we desperately need another ambulance. I also believe we
desperately need another beat on the police force, but this one is State. It is State
funded and it is an opportunity that the State can get behind and we can eventually
catch up to the need in our EMS system on Kauai.
The motion to approve C 2016-177 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
C 2016-178 Communication (07/22/2016) from Councilmember Yukimura,
transmitting for Council consideration for inclusion in the 2017 Hawai`i State
Association of Counties (HSAC) and County of Kaua`i Legislative Packages, a
proposed amendment to Section 76-77, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), that would
exempt from civil services positions of non-elected chief executive officers or heads of
the executive branch of county government. This would facilitate a Council-Manager
form of governance should the people of a county choose to institute that form of
government: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2016-178, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, did you want to
explain your proposal?
Councilmember Yukimura: In considering the Council-Manager form of
government, we discovered that there is a problem with the State's statute governing
civil service and, at least as presently worded, it requires the County Manager to be
COUNCIL MEETING 47 AUGUST 3, 2016
in the civil service process and that is contrary in its core functioning to the
Council-Manager form of government. Therefore, to enable us to consider a
Council-Manager form of government, I am proposing this. This does not require a
Council-Manager form of government; it simply enables it for any County that wants
to put this on the ballot.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, on your
amendment, it states, "Positions of non-elected chief executive officers or heads of the
executive branch of county government," which would be the County Manager?
Would that be the executive branch?
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it would be either.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know if the County Manager would
fall under the legislative branch.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, the County Manager is an executive.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so this covers that?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other discussion before I call for
public testimony? I will suspend the rules. Do we have any registered speakers?
(Councilmember Chock was noted as present.)
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Mickens: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Thank you,
Council Chair. I really want to compliment Councilmember Yukimura for keeping
this issue alive. I had a lot of people call me and talk to me expressing their bitter
disappointment in not being able to vote on this County Manager issue not going
forward with it. There has been a lot of time involved in this thing, but again, I really
appreciate Councilmember Yukimura pursuing it, keeping it alive. I think it is an
extremely important issue. I have not heard anybody offer an alternate means of
taking care of the problems on this island. We offered this issue, obviously, and I
think it would work. It has worked in the rest of the nation. This technical legal issue
on it, I think Walter Lewis addressed it very well. I think it could have been easily
addressed if that was the roadblock, but I think there was some other extra
circumstances prohibiting it. I hope that it is not a day late and a buck short, but we
do keep trying to continue this. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none. I
will call the meeting back to order. Further discussion? Councilmember Kuali`i.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kuali`i: I will just say that in the response earlier from
the Deputy Attorney General, they had basically recommended this. It is a long way
COUNCIL MEETING 48 AUGUST 3, 2016
to go, but it is a start. The legislature would actually have to take action and amend
the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS).
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair. In your absence on
a few occasions at HSAC, we have discussed the County Manager. As an update, on
the various Counties, Maui had considered it. We had considered it and we have had
several brief discussions on where we were at and what the members had thought
about it, therefore, this is nothing new for HSAC. You have been there on occasions
where they have talked about it as well, as each County has an opportunity to talk
about current issues before them. Those are the moments when we have talked about
it; therefore, this is nothing new. It allows us or future Councils that may want to
take up this issue to put it on the ballot, at least will put up something to the voters
that can work the way intended and not put it on, maybe get it to pass, and when
problems occur, we find out that the Council cannot control the hiring or firing of the
manager. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion?
The motion to approve C 2016-178 was then put, and unanimously carried.
C 2016-179 Communication (07/25/2016) from Council Vice Chair Kagawa,
transmitting for Council consideration, proposed amendments to Chapter 19, Kaua`i
County Code 1987, as amended, to make legal both the consumption and purchase of
alcohol/intoxicating liquor beverages throughout the entirety of the Wailua Golf
Course: Councilmember Kagawa moved to receive C 2016-179 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? This will be taken up
probably in the next few minutes in Bills For First Reading, therefore, if you want to
testify on this communication, we will connect it with the Bill. If you want to testify
now, you can, and if not, you can wait for the Bill. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does anybody know the rationale for this?
Councilmember Kagawa: I do.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Currently, if you go to the golf course, we have
a large bullet board for all golfers that pertain to rules on the course and gives notices
of big upcoming events. It is located right in between both the men and women's
restroom. There is a large sign that cites our County ordinance that says any
consumption or use of alcohol is prohibited on the course. As a golfer, it is common
knowledge that people bring their own beer and consume on the golf course. There
is no one that monitors or checks it. I guess if there were ever a case where the alcohol
is promoting detrimental behavior on the course, I am sure the management or
COUNCIL MEETING 49 AUGUST 3, 2016
starters would go out there on the course and try and fix the problem. Alcohol is
already used, the sign is ignored, the rules are ignored, the law is ignored, and what
looks on the outside is that we are promoting alcohol use on the course. I think this
Bill will actually reduce alcohol use on the course because what will happen is if we
have a vendor, like on a private golf course, serving alcohol to paying customers, they
will monitor the illegal alcohol users because the law prohibits the use of alcohol, and
you will not be able to bring your own beer later. We talk all the time about,
"Subsidizing the course one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) and
this has to stop. Why is the County subsidizing golf?" The fact of the matter is that
the County subsidizes all sports: baseball, football, soccer, you name it, tennis.
Nobody breaks even when it comes to parks and recreation, but I think what we can
do is we can increase the amount of visitor play and that will add greatly to the
revenue. I believe we have by far the greatest public golf course in the State, if not,
in the Country. The play there is relatively slow if you look at times after ten o'clock
(10:00). The question is, are we missing out on visitor golfers that want to have a few
beers on the course and are not bringing it thinking and go to Kiahuna Golf Club,
Puakea Golf Course, or Kaua`i Lagoons Golf Club? All of the competing courses on
Kauai have alcohol beverage carts. The vendor there is struggling and has asked.
People come up asking, "Can I buy alcohol," when they make their pit stop after the
9th hole. In order to drink alcohol, they have to consume it inside the restaurant. This
will allow the vendor to now have a beverage cart. Whoever the vendor is, I think it
may have to go back out to bid as far as who will serve it, so this will come later on
down the line. I do not know if it will come down in 2018 or what have you, but I see
this as a solution to try to increase more play from the visitors and that way it will
reduce the subsidy that the County makes to the golf course. If we get more of the
visitor play, I believe we can significantly cut into that deficit that the County pays
into the golf course. Why would a visitor not want to play on the best public course in
the State? The fact of the matter is that we do have a lot of play, but I think there are
a lot of opportunities for golfing that we are missing. This may be one of the big
reasons why. That is just my...I proposed a bill based on a request. Myself and
Councilmember Chock had worked with the vendor, we see it as a legitimate request
and I think the public should chime in and tell us what they feel. If you look at what
is currently happening, the illegal consumption of alcohol on the course, then I think
what we need to do is if we want to stop that, we need to at least hire a marshal for
the course that can monitor that. I do not think any abusive behavior is happening
now. I think people basically are controlling themselves out on the course and so I
am kind of mixed as to whether we need to hire a marshal at this time. This is just
an option, an option to look at how we can reduce subsidy to the golf course because
I believe that the visitor play can be significantly increased. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for the explanation and so it
sounds like this is standard practice at most golf courses, so that is what you are
proposing to institute at Wailua, a standard practice for allowing alcohol. Do you
know whether these are done at other public golf courses around the State?
Councilmember Kagawa: Not to my knowledge. The public ones that I
have played at when I was in college at Honolulu, Ala Wai Golf Course and Pali Golf
Course, same thing happens, you bring your own beer in a discrete way.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is like drinking at parks. It is illegal, but
people do it and as long as they are responsible...
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not standard practice for public golf
courses, but it is for private golf course and you are suggesting that they would be an
appropriate practice for Wailua?
Councilmember Kagawa: I have not decided on my final vote, but I want
to see what the public feels.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are we giving Wailua Golf Course every
opportunity to spread the use of that course to all of the visitors to come here to golf?
I think we are missing a segment of it that enjoys recreational golf and consuming
alcohol.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Is there somebody from the golf course that
will be here to answer questions?
Councilmember Kagawa: I think someone will be here at the Committee
Meeting. I will have everybody here that the Councilmember want.
Councilmember Hooser: I guess my question is about capacity. The
suggestion is that we want to increase visitor play. It was my understanding that it
was already at capacity and locals were having trouble getting on there some times.
Do we have openings?
Councilmember Kagawa: A lot of openings.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Councilmember Kagawa: On the weekdays after ten o'clock (10:00), it is
wide open. For a beautiful course such as Wailua, that everybody praises, it is pretty
sad now that our visitor totals are so high. Part of the reason is that we have some
great private courses at affordable deals like Puakea Golf Course, Kiahuna Golf Club,
and Kaua`i Lagoons Golf Club. It is a tough market, but I think that Wailua can
increase its play. The negative affect on the other courses is also a consideration, so
it will be interesting to see what the public feels about this.
Councilmember Hooser: Was there any investigation in terms of risk
assessment or additional liability for the County, that kind of thing from alcohol?
COUNCIL MEETING 51 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Well, Jenelle from Council Services has done
some research and you can check with some of the documents that she gathered from
the various agencies, but basically we allow alcohol consumption at the Kaua`i
Memorial Convention Hall and we are just adding Wailua Golf Course to that venue.
Council Chair Rapozo: I believe the concessionaire would have to
produce the liability insurance with that added liability and would have to release
the County, I would assume. I think I read that in Jenelle's E-mail.
Councilmember Kagawa: If I missed anything significant or if I am way
off base, Jenelle can correct me. Not right now. Okay, she can correct me later. I just
gave what was off the top of my head of my feelings of why we came to this option. It
is not a solution because it is not approve yet. It is just an option.
Council Chair Rapozo: The other thing is that it would not impact the
current vendor because according to the Procurement Office, it would have to go
through a whole new procurement process. The current vendor has inquired, but this
would not be available to anyone until the next bid for that contract. I think that is
important.
Councilmember Kagawa: Can I add something?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: That large sign that says it is illegal to
consume alcohol on the course, and a lot of alcohol is consume on the course currently.
For the visitors who want to play and would enjoy their experience more, and the
potential ones who are not coming because we do not have the amenity, I think we
are losing out on a segment of that and that should be a consideration.
Council Chair Rapozo: No more discussion. Is there anybody
registered to speak? Anyone wishing to speak? Mr. Mickens.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Council Chair. For the record,
Glenn Mickens. I have to disagree with my friend Councilmember Kagawa. I think
the police have enough problems with driving under the influence (DUIs) to try and
increase the use of alcohol anyplace. I know I am in the minority. I am a teetotaler,
have been all my life. I just do not see the use of alcohol or any drug anyplace in a
means to increase participation at a place. If somebody wants to play golf, I do not
think they have to worry about whether drinking or how much they are going to be
drinking, but for me, I just see it as another means of people doing something that...I
never drank, but I understand that one (1) beer is enough. There is enough alcohol in
that to have an impact on your coordination to stop a car in time. To increase it just
for the sake of having more people at the golf course, I would be against it. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hart.
COUNCIL MEETING 52 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hart: For the record, Bruce Hart. I have serious
concerns. The County and the government is held to a greater standard, a higher
standard than the private sector. The private sector has their own issues in regards
to liability. The County has a whole different set of issues. For the County to lend
approval to drinking on a golf course, do we become then the County, the de facto
social host. There are social host laws and are there for a reason. It just seems to me
that the County again lending approval to drinking on a golf course, for instance,
what is going to happen if an intoxicated individual runs over with a golf cart another
person? But I think the most serious issue to me is one that is not limited just to this,
the golf course. This issue has come up in my own life in regards to social host laws,
people drinking wherever it is, usually at private parties within residential
neighborhoods and then they get in their motor vehicles and drive away. I personally
have witnessed on dozens of occasions people drinking on public parks and then
driving away. The fact that we do not have the adequate resources to enforce what
is an obvious illegal act at the golf course is not reason to make it legal. I think also
of what kind of message it sends to our youth in regards to this drug, alcohol, and
how in my opinion and experience that alcohol is the gateway drug to our youth. It
is often almost always the first drug that they experience as they are growing up. I
understand that drinking is legal in certain situations and I am not saying it should
not be, but I do not think we should promote drinking. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anne.
Ms. Punohu: Aloha. Anne Punohu. I am sorry
Councilmember Kagawa, I cannot agree with you on this one. Our public golf course
is there for a reason; first, they are not here for tourists, they are here for us. The
public golf course is there because the tourists have nice, beautiful, expensive golf
courses to go play golf on and our kids do not have a place to play golf that they can
afford. My youngest daughter, Kanani, had some great opportunity and experienced
for the first time to play golf through an afterschool program on the public golf course.
I would not have approve as a parent if I knew there were going to be alcohol served
there. I just feel that in this instance...we decided that we were not going to allow
drinking in our public parks, but we do it anyway, right? Okay. Same as we bring
alcohol to the public golf course because we want to. I agree with the last speaker, I
do not think we should be promoting drugs or alcohol in our County facilities because
it sets a bad example. One of the reasons why people will go to a public golf course, if
they are visiting, is if they have large families because if you are here on a budget
and staying in a nice place, and you may be want to play with you and your husband,
that is great. But if you are here with your family, it is prohibitive for some visitors
to do that. Some visitors will attend our public golf course because they have large
families. That means that there are more children there and I do not think that this
is the best way to solve the revenue issues for the public golf course. It is a public golf
course. It is for the public and it is for the people of Kaua`i, mostly, and that is who
we want to promote it for. If we are going to talk about one sport needing alcohol to
make that sport amenable for more people, then you are opening up a Pandora's Box
for all...how about at our baseball games. Why do we not serve alcohol for the soccer
games? Hey, that is a great idea. No, it is not a great idea. I appreciate what you are
trying to say and everything and I love both of you, but I go against Councilmember
Yukimura all the time and she is family. I have to go against you on this one. Mahalo.
COUNCIL MEETING 53 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Further discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Council Chair. That is why it is
great that we have the options and the time to discuss matters. The fact of the matter
is we need to consider that Wailua Golf Course was without a restaurant
concessionaire for almost two (2) years at one point. You talk about the play, it was
slower than slow when we did not have the restaurant concessionaire there. At the
same time we also did not have a golf pro shop. There were two (2) features at Wailua
Golf Course, most beautiful public course in the State that had those missing
features. This was a suggestion made by the current vendor and he is not doing it for
himself because he does not know if he is going to win the next bid, if this option is
there, because a new bid will have to be done. He is just saying that under the current
situation, he does not see extending his contract any longer and where will we be
again? Will we be without a restaurant concessionaire for the next two (2) years
again? What will happen to our subsidy? Will our subsidy grow again as it did back
then. As policymakers, our job is to take the public input, take the private vendor
input, and try to find solutions. If the public sediment says, "Even though we may
risk not having a vendor, we do not want it," then fine. I think the votes will reflect
whatever the public wants and that is why we have this before us. It is not myself or
Councilmember Chock, or Council Chair Rapozo who want to promote alcohol for golf.
No. I think what we are trying to do is we are trying to prevent this golf course from
ever having it operate without a restaurant concessionaire again, which is tragic as
we are struggling financially and we are concerned about the subsidy to the golf
course. Again, this is not set in stone. My vote is not set in stone. We have more
opportunities at the public hearing to discuss this. Councilmember Hooser and myself
have a lot of questions about the Department of Parks & Recreation as to how this
will work. Who will monitor illegal consumption of alcohol without buying it from
the vender? How will we handle that situation? What will it take as far as adding a
possible full-time marshal or what have you? There are a lot of questions that need
to be asked, but it is just first reading and hopefully we can get support to at least to
go to public hearing and the Committee Meeting. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I want to thank Councilmember Kagawa.
This request did come from the vendor initially and I actually appreciate the
comments that have come from the public thus far this morning, and I want to hear
more. I am going to be supporting it on first reading for a couple reasons. One (1) is
we have to be competitive and we have to figure out how to run some of our services
more like a business. My hope is that this opens up the opportunity to discuss how to
do that. In the end, of course, if this is not the right avenue, then I think the Council
will respond properly, but I think we need to hear from our golfers and all people,
especially the youth who use our course. This is what this is for, is to put it on the
table. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
COUNCIL MEETING 54 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: I respect Councilmembers responding to the
vendor's needs and requests, first of all, but I have serious concerns about going in
this direction. One (1) accident caused by alcohol, a car turned over, a car in a ditch,
or somebody gets hurts; just one (1) accident could wipe everything out in terms of
additional revenue for the County. I think it sends the wrong message also. I have
not played golf in a long time, but I have enjoyed in the past and I have enjoyed a
beer on the course. At the same time, I do not think we should encourage that
especially on a public golf course that is used extensively by families. Junior golf is a
huge part of program out there that I think we should support. Inadvertently sending
a message that we cannot have fun, we cannot really play golf, and have a good time
without a drink, I think rubs me a little bit the wrong way. I am not supporting this,
but will be open to perhaps changing my mind depending or what the testimony
comes in the future. I know now, I do not think it is a good idea. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will be voting for this on first reading to get
it to a public hearing. I do have concerns. I would like to know what the other golf
courses where alcohol is allowed are experiencing with respect to problems with
alcohol. That is something that would be good if we could get that data. I particularly
appreciate Anne's reminder that young people are on the course and that is a
consideration that would have to be addressed if this Bill were to go through. I do
think that input from the public will be important, golfers as well as others, but I
think we need to move it forward to a public hearing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The only thing that I would add is that
wherever we end up with this, if we do not move forward with the approval, we still
have to than address what the common/current practice is. As far as liability and
insurance, I think if we have a formal policy and then we have the individual vendor
responsible with the insurance, it is all a lot cleaner. I think we probably have as
much liability right now or maybe even more than if we take action to create a policy,
after looking at all of what makes sense. To now have the practice and no
enforcement, we are just as responsible, I think.
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion?
The motion to receive C 2016-179 for the record was then put, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair, did you want to take a roll call
on the Bill?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, let us take the Bill. This was just the
communication. Was your vote a yes?
Councilmember Hooser: I will say yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 55 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, unanimous on the communication. Let
us go straight to the Bill.
There being no objections, Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2635) was taken out of
order.
BILL FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2635) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 19, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
WAILUA GOLF COURSE: Councilmember Kuali`i moved for passage of Proposed
Draft Bill (No. 2635) on first reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing
thereon by scheduled for September 7, 2016, and referred to the Public Works /Parks
& Recreation Committee, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Further discussion? Any public testimony on
this Bill?
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:
Council Chair Rapozo: Roll call.
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2635) on first reading, that
it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon by scheduled for
September 7, 2016, and referred to the Public Works / Parks & Recreation
Committee was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST PASSAGE: Hooser TOTAL — 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes and one (1) no.
Council Chair Rapozo: That motion was for passage on first reading
and get it to a public hearing. Councilmember Kuali`i, when is the public hearing set
for?
Councilmember Kuali`i: September 7th.
Council Chair Rapozo: September 7th at 1:30 p.m. Next item, please.
CLAIM:
C 2016-180 Communication (07/22/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kauai by Charles M. Cecil, for
COUNCIL MEETING 56 AUGUST 3, 2016
damage to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer C 2016-180 to the County Attorney's Office for
disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or 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 refer C 2016-180 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition
and/or report back to the Council was then put, and unanimously carried.
COMMITTEE REPORT:
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PL 2016-07) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved as Amended on second and final
reading:
"Bill No. 2627, Draft 1 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 10, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING
A NEW ARTICLE 5B, RELATING TO THE LIHU`E PLANNING DISTRICT
(County of Kauai, Applicant),"
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
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.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2016-50 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COUNTY BUS
STOP ALONG KAWAIHAU ROAD, KAWAIHAU DISTRICT, COUNTY OF KAUAI:
Councilmember Kagawa moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-50, seconded by
Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? I will suspend the rules. We
had a question regarding the ADA compliance on the bus stop. Is the Administration
prepared to address that today? Okay, we will take the public testimony after we
receive the report.
COUNCIL MEETING 57 AUGUST 3, 2016
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
CELIA M. MAHIKOA, Executive on Transportation: Celia Mahikoa with
the County Transportation Agency.
LINDA NULAND, ADA Coordinator: Linda Nuland, ADA
Coordinator.
MICHAEL MOULE, Chief of Engineering Division: Michael Moule,
Chief of Engineering, Department of Public Works.
Council Chair Rapozo: The only question we had after the last
discussion was whether or not the site was ADA compatible or if we were required to
make it ADA compatible. That was the only question we had.
Ms. Mahikoa: From that point, I believe that we had
consulted with the Engineering Division as well as the ADA Coordinator upon review
of the location as well as what the requirements are, it was deem that the location
would be ADA accessible; it is compliant, yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other questions? If not, thank you
very much.
Ms. Nuland: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any public testimony? Alice.
ALICE PARKER: Alice Parker, for the record. I am wondering
about accessible crosswalk to the bus stop, just so that people with access challenges
can make sure they can get to the bus stop. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will send over a memorandum having them
take a look at that. I am not familiar with that area, but we can have them take a
look at that. Any other public testimony? Further discussion? Seeing none. Roll call.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-50 was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
COUNCIL MEETING 58 AUGUST 3, 2016
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Resolution No. 2016-52 —RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL ZONE
WITH A 15-MILE PER HOUR (MPH) SPEED LIMIT FOR A PORTION OF
KUKUIHALE ROAD, KAWAIHAU DISTRICT, COUNTY OF KAUAI:
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for approval of Resolution No. 2016-52, seconded
by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Public testimony? Seeing
none. Roll call.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think she wanted to speak.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry. I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Ms. Williams: Hi, Pat Hunter Williams. I know it is not the
policy of the Chair or protocol to entertain questions from speakers, but I just want
to seek clarification. Will there be discussion right now prior to a vote on the
Resolution?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have called for discussion, but there was
none. If you did want to have us...
Ms. Williams: No, not for me, from Councilmembers.
Otherwise, I will respectfully ask a Councilmember recuse him or herself.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Williams: If you are not going to have discussion
amongst Councilmembers, then no problem.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Let us take a short recess and I can
chat with the testifier. Let us take a five (5) minute recess.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 11:54 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 12:00 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I will call the meeting back to order. Thank
you for your indulgence. We are on Resolution No. 2016-52. If there are no further
comments or any more discussion, may we have roll call?
COUNCIL MEETING 59 AUGUST 3, 2016
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-52 was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST APPROVAL: 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.
BILL FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2627, Draft 2 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 10, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW
ARTICLE 5B, RELATING TO THE LIHU`E PLANNING DISTRICT: Councilmember
Kuali`i moved for adoption of Bill No. 2627, Draft 2, on second and final reading, and
that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Bill No. 2627, Draft 2 as circulated,
and as shown in the Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as
Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kagawa: This is just a housekeeping amendment. If you
look on page 2, item (6)(c)(1), we just did a change from three thousand five hundred
(3,500) to five thousand (5,000) square feet.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2627, Draft 2 as circulated, and as shown in the
Floor Amendment which is attached hereto as Attachment 1 was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is a housekeeping amendment. Any more
amendments? That amendment did pass unanimously. We are back to the main
motion. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I have a question for the Administration.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, which department?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Planning Department.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will suspend the rules.
COUNCIL MEETING 60 AUGUST 3, 2016
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: We have been through this a lot, continually
thinking about it. I know at one point we were trying to make it affordable and now we
are just trying to increase housing. I guess I had two (2) questions and you may have
touched on it before, but I have been getting a lot of comments on it too. In looking at
this Bill, should it be an island-wide policy rather than specific to Lihu`e and
Hanama'ulu?
Mr. Hull: Deputy Planning Director Ka`aina Hull for the
Planning Department.Yes, Councilmember Kaneshiro, the point is well taken. I believe
other Councilmembers have expressed that in previous Council Meetings. I can say we
have actually received a fair amount of input from the public as far as it being now on
the Council agenda and has been getting more publicity. We have taken a fair amount
of phone calls and I can think of at least one (1) or two (2)written pieces of input stating
that it should be island-wide. When the Department originally drafted it up, it was
really spurring off of the Lihu`e Community Plan that was recently adopted. I was
looking at very specific policy recommendations within that plan. That is a recently
adopted plan. Other areas, I have not gone through the planning process and therefore,
that is why there are certain measures like that in their assumptions, but at the same
time and on the same note, some of those community areas, their plans are decades old.
I would not say that it is a conclusion that it cannot be implemented island-wide. I
think it there is movement on this Council to want to look at it being island-wide, the
Department has no objections to that, except just for the fact that the way this is
currently drafted, it would constitute a substantial change and would require going
back to the Planning Commission. Having said that, the current iteration of the draft
bill does have a stay of one hundred fifty (150) days of adoption...sorry, excuse me. If it
is adopted, it has a stay of one hundred fifty (150) days stating that it will not be
implemented for at least one hundred fifty (150) days, which is roughly five (5) months.
If adopted today, it would take five (5) or six (6) months before actually being
implemented, which is roughly about the time it would take to go back to the Planning
Commission to review opening it up to the rest of the island. If there is a request to that,
we can definitely review that back at the Planning Commission for opening it up to the
rest of the island.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
(Council Chair Rapozo, the presiding officer, relinquished Chairmanship to
Councilmember Kagawa.)
Councilmember Kaneshiro: In thinking about this entire thing, housing
is critical, we are trying to think of how do we increase the number of units we have on
the island, and so I am thinking about this policy as far as this is specific to Lihu`e-
Hanama`ulu, but our housing crisis as a whole island. Now taking out the affordable
part, is it still necessary to limit the size of the Additional Rental Unit (ARU)?
COUNCIL MEETING 61 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hull: The size of dwelling units often do directly
correlate a result in a certain prize level being maintained. The smaller the units are,
the more it is going to be aimed at that entry level type of housing market be it new
families, kupuna, and single individuals. The larger the structure is, often you will see,
the higher rental rates it is going to be, just based on market principles. That is why
we proposed that. It was actually in direct discussions among other groups, but with
the Board of Realtors who acknowledged that in their business if it is a larger structure,
they can make more revenue off it and they would appreciate that. However, they also
acknowledge the fact that they have long vast cues of people, some realtors have twenty
(20), thirty (30) clients deep waiting for these smaller units and these smaller type of
units, at least from the Board of Realtors perspective, are really not much of a supply
for it. There is no inventory for it. Therefore, providing for that particular sector was
important for both the Department in drafting as well as looking at input from the
stakeholders and addressing arguably more dire needs. There is a housing need and
there is a housing crisis throughout the island, but then you look at the gradation of
pockets where there is little to no inventory, it seem that that was a major pocket that
is missing from the inventory here on Kauai.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: If we are trying to promote housing...are we
trying to tying our arms by limiting the size of the additional residential unit because
whether it is a small unit or a bigger unit, if somebody moves in that means there is
another opening for someone else somewhere else. By adding inventory, it opens up
more housing. I am having a hard time thinking about the whole policy and what is the
biggest bang for our buck as far as this Bill goes. Is it to make it island-wide, take out
the restrictions for the size, or does it go with the current Bill we have where it is specific
to Lihu`e and you limit the size? That is what I have been contemplating over the last
week since passing it out of Committee.
Councilmember Kagawa: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Are you saying that any change to the
geographic area beyond the Lihu`e District, which includes Hanama`ulu, Puhi, and
Lihu`e, would require a different bill? Is there an amendment to change and add to the
existing geographic area?
Mr. Hull: The way that this is on the agenda and what is
proposed is an amendment to Chapter 10, so to look at Kaua`i overall as a whole island
of opening up this to, there would be two (2) potential avenues. One would be Chapter
8, which is the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and would require a new bill because
it is not concerning Chapter 10. The other avenue that could be done is looking at each
respective development plan and/or community plan for each geographical area on
Kaua`i which is no Chapter 10, so that could be done via an amendment. Even an
amendment of that nature would be substantial in nature so that it would require going
back to the Planning Commission for further review at that level.
COUNCIL MEETING 62 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Obviously going from one district to the entire
island is one little trial pilot, if you will, versus the entire island, so you do not know
what could happen as far as growth, density, traffic, and all the things that come with
"if it all happens in one place," without that community necessarily chiming in, in
advance.
Mr. Hull: In preliminarily speaking, if it gets sent back
we would have to entertain what would be the best vehicle to look at; Chapter 8 or
Chapter 10. Again, preliminarily speaking, I would say that I would be leaning towards
the Chapter 10 vehicle because in the Chapter 10 process, you are looking at each
specific development plan for each specific community. You have a North Shore
Development Plan, East Kaua`i Development Plan, you have the Lihu`e Community
Plan, the South Kaua`i Community Plan, and then a West Kaua`i Community Plan. We
would essentially be going into each one of those to make adjustments so that it would
be allowed island-wide and at that time each community is able to chime in on whether
or not they feel it would be appropriate, which I do not think there is any objection from
the Department on having to go through that process. Particularly given some of the
Council's comments to that effect and like I said because we have been actually
receiving a fair amount of public input from individuals that are saying, "Why not from
my side of the island?"
Councilmember Kuali`i: Another thought I had and I want to run it by
you, I may have mentioned it a little bit last time is in my Hawaiian Homestead
community, I have been hearing from different people interested in accelerating or
finding different partners to get involved with helping to create more housing faster.
They are talking about things like tiny homes and the lots typically on the Hawaiian
Homestead properties are all ten thousand (10,000) square feet, at a minimum. There
was an experimental project in Hanapepe which had smaller lots with marked
development wants, and people fought for it to not go that way. Hawaiian homes, in
essence, is pretty much about as affordable as it comes in the island. Granted there is
that limitation where it is only available to people who are fifty percent (50%) of
Hawaiian ancestry, but it is still housing for people that live on Kauai. I think at a
minimum if the Department would not be ready...if we could not go island-wide and
maybe we should not for different reasons, that we should look at the Hawaiian
Homestead lands. There are thousands of acres, there are housing that exists on big
lots, many of the families are multi-generational and expanding, and there would be
additional housing that people could live with their family, but not with their family.
Sort of in a separate dwelling and they would not be taking up other housing that is
already limited for everyone else.
(Councilmember Kagawa returned Chairmanship to Council Chair Rapozo.)
Mr. Hull: To that point, Councilmember Kualii, I think
looking at all avenues and typically Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) are
task with looking at specifically providing housing opportunities for Native Hawaiian
people. The obstacle that the County sometimes runs into is that it is more of a
COUNCIL MEETING 63 AUGUST 3, 2016
partnership process than it is a review process and that is because Hawaiian
Homelands are strictly exempt from zoning review. The density parameters and/or size
restrictions and/or entitlements that zoning allows for, DHHL is not subject to that.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In effect,Anahola on DHHL lands could do this
without any ordinance from the County?
Mr. Hull: It would be subject to DHHL review.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. So, it would be DHHL rules that have to
be changed, not any County zoning, right?
Mr. Hull: Yes. If DHHL say that you can put x amount
of units on a particular lot of record, they can do that without having approval by the
Planning Department.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they have a lot more leeway to do
experimentation for small houses, big houses, or whatever?
Mr. Hull: I do not want to speak for DHHL under their
parameters and rules and regulations because they do have their own set that they have
to meet, but I can say that they do not required to meet the zoning review and
regulations.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does enlarging the size of the unit increase the
speculative pressures? I think Planning has been really pushing smaller sizes to control
cost and speculation and so to enlarge it...would Planning support that?
Mr. Hull: I cannot say whether or whether not we would
object to or support it at this point. Much of the speculative aspects of housing are
removed from this particular topic because they are prohibited from Condominium
Property Regime (CPR), so they will not be able to sell the unit off. To my comments to
Councilmember Kaneshiro, the primary intent of reducing the footprint is just so that
it is particularly aimed at that entry-level housing market; those single individuals,
newer families, and kupuna. My first apartment I lived in was seven hundred (700)
square feet and the first house I bought was eight hundred (800) square feet, so that is
kind of like the entry-level market. Like I said with discussions with the Board of
Realtors, that is where they seem to have the biggest needs.They could derive and make
more income on larger units, but the biggest needs that they seem to point out is where
there is an inventory that these long cues of people waiting for access to units for rental
were those individuals looking for the smaller one (1) to two (2) bedroom or studio
apartments.
COUNCIL MEETING 64 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: And they are less problematic in that parking
probably does not have to be a plentiful as if you had room for three (3) bedroom unit,
larger size, right, and even draw on water sources. If you begin to talk about Facilities
Reserve Charges (FRCs), is also less, is it not?
Mr. Hull: Right now...
Councilmember Yukimura: By controlling size.
Mr. Hull: There is some merit to the discretion for
whether or not more parking requirements are needed, but as far as FRC (inaudible),
the size of a dwelling unit does not dictate the FRC cost. You have a two (2) bedroom,
five hundred (500) square foot unit, it is roughly fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). If
it is a five thousand (5,000) square foot unit with twenty (20) bedrooms, it is still fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000), which we had the discussion there and some of us disagreed
with that, but that is where that is today.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Given that the Planning Department
had so much input on this, I would want the Planning Department to give us their
position if we are going to talk about increasing size and would like to know the
rationale in terms of impact, concern, and the overall goal of increasing supply, but also
the points you raised. I certainly hope we are not thinking about doing amendments to
that effect right now. I would really prefer to see how it works in a limited area.
Mr. Hull: While I can confidently say that any move
from outside the geographical area of Lihu`e would be a substantial change. Concerning
the square footage, it was in their original proposal, but I would actually have to defer
to the County Attorney whether or not it is a substantial change or if it would also be
required going back to the Planning Commission. Like I said, because there is the
hundred and fifty (150) day stay on the ordinance as it is drafted right now, we would
not have any objections taking it back to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Yukimura: What was the rationale for the hundred fifty
(150) days stay?
Mr. Hull: I believe Councilmember Kuali`i amended it,
which the Department agreed with and the Council adopted at the Committee level and
that was to allow for further time for a potential incentive bill to come before the Council
and be able to review that and perhaps tie it in tandem with it. There is that five to six
month stay, right now in the draft that is before you folks. All I am saying that, you
have that five (5) to six (6) month stay, there are additional questions that seem to be
coming up and it would be no harm/no foul to take four (4) or five (5) more months to
return this back to the Planning Commission.
•
COUNCIL MEETING 65 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: But if you have a moving target during the one
hundred fifty (150) or one hundred whatever days it is, and you were trying to assess
impacts or something, if you have a moving target, then you are not giving yourself the
one hundred fifty (150) days, if you are constantly changing the proposal.
Mr. Hull: The Department did not propose the one
hundred fifty (150) days; that was adopt here at the Council. I am just saying that the
one hundred fifty (150) days is there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Since this initiative has already gone to the
Planning Commission and then thoroughly vetted, we could pass this as-is and then if
someone wanted to introduce one for another area, then they could do that and it run
separately and this could still be here. Is that correct?
Mr. Hull: That is another possibility.
Councilmember Hooser: It seems like being involved in the General
Plan process/the community plan process, each community wants to maintain its own
identity and some communities might want to increase density and some may not.
Some oceanfront communities, if allowed to build another residence, would not serve
the needs of what we are trying to serve at all, in my opinion, to give the people the
right to build another house on Po`ipu Beach or Hanalei Bay. It is just going to be a
windfall profit even with a small rental in my opinion to those types of people. As you
start looking at the inventory, it seems obvious that some places it would be appropriate
and some places not. Would you agree? Do you think the Planning Department could
agree on a blanket island-wide policy for every single lot?
Mr. Hull: I would not say that it is a form of conclusion
that it should just be solely limited to Lihu`e because the Lihu`e Community Plan says
so and the other community plans do not. As I pointed out previously, several of these
community plans are decades old and have not been updated. There is indeed a housing
crisis, not just in Lihu`e, but throughout the entire island. Like I said, Councilmember,
it can yes indeed be adopted today and would be implemented if the subject language is
adopted in one hundred fifty (150) days. That is one available avenue.
Councilmember Hooser: So, we could adopt this now and then another
vehicle could look at different parts of the island?
Mr. Hull: That is a possibility.
Councilmember Hooser: It is just a little bit frustrating because in the
very initial discussion that we had and I am not sure if you were there or not, but the
Administration was there, was a broader look. It was then suggested to look at Lihu`e
because that is where the community plan is, that is where the infrastructure is, that
COUNCIL MEETING 66 AUGUST 3, 2016
is where the walkable communities are, that is where the jobs are, that is where most
likely the local residents would...is it affordable, if you could, I will use that word
loosely, to be built. I think that is where the discussion has been. In terms of increasing
the size, I think you mentioned correctly that the smaller size provided some additional
impetus, if you would, that the resulting rents and people would tend to go on the more
"affordable," I will use that term, range, because it will be small two (2) bedroom units.
Councilmember Yukimura mentioned it and my concern would be the so-called "super-
houses." If we did not limit it, we could have additional structures of two thousand four
hundred (2,400) square feet, which we are talking about density, traffic, and impacts.
It would substantially change the entire nature of this proposal.
Mr. Hull: I would have to say, "kind of," but not quite. In
the sense that...
Councilmember Hooser: Kind of, but not quite?
Mr. Hull: Yes. In the sense that the properties here for
ARUs, you are talking about a small set that can build and truly take advantage of it
under the ten thousand (10,000) square foot property level. That is because currently
as the Bill sits,you are not allowed to do an ARU if you have an ADU or second dwelling.
We were clear that every single residential property, Lihu`e or otherwise, is entitled to
an ADU or a second dwelling unit. The ADU is for any property that does not qualify
for more than two (2) dwelling units, so depending on the size, density, and lot for that
property, you are entitled to either an ADU or second dwelling unit if you are over ten
thousand (10,000) square feet. The incentives are not there, market-wise and zoning-
wise. If you have entitlement to an ADU to now say, "I am going to subject myself to
this ARU thing where I cannot CPR it right now, and I got a limitation of the size I can
build." Those folks will definitely say, "I am going for the ADU entitlement. I am not
going for the ARU." The ARU is really aimed, more specifically as this is drafted, at
those properties under ten thousand (10,000) square feet...
Councilmember Hooser: Right, exactly.
Mr. Hull: ...which are not going to have that much
buildable area, so to speak, to put these monstrous units in. There is still a very limited
amount of space that they can build on, as well as setbacks. That is the reason I sort of
danced around the question is because, yes, taking out the size will allow for people to
build bigger units, but given the type of properties that this Bill affects, the units would
not necessarily be exorbitantly large. Do not construe that, as that is the Department's
official position of supporting such an amendment. At this point, I would say that we
are not ready to weigh in on whether we object or support to that type of amendment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I did some research, thanks to Aida from
Council Services. I have found that from 1972 we had this ordinance you just talked
COUNCIL MEETING 67 AUGUST 3, 2016
about that limits lots of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more to have an additional
dwelling unit. Then we have a change in 1982, I believe, called it "`ohana zoned." Is
that basically the same thing?
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have some minutes that I wanted to share
because we heard a comment last week from the Councilmember saying that people of
Hanama`ulu and Puhi are perfectly fine. I want to read Mr. Sarita's comments. Is this
Bill going to have that kind of effect? Councilmember Sarita said, "Mike, on your
statement about the neighbors acting as the policeman, so to speak, I do not think it
would work very well. That is how Hanama`ulu became the way it is. The people in
there do not want to take up action against their neighbors and so they try to suffer in
silence. They see what is happening and when they finally say that they have to
complain, the structure is already there and the abuses are going on. Even our Planning
people are not brave enough to go over there and stop it." We say Hanama`ulu people
are fine about it, but apparently in 1982, they were not fine. How many complaints
since 1982 has the Planning Commission investigated about neighbors who have illegal
structures, which this Bill proposes to satisfy some of these?
Mr. Hull: Councilmember Kagawa, we were able to pull
numbers for enforcement in the Lihu`e area at your request at one of the other
Committee Meetings. We were unable to parse out specifically Hanamaulu. We do not
have a geographical information system (GIS) position and the one person with the GIS
capabilities have been out of the office for the past few weeks. We are able to look at
enforcement actions in the Lihu`e area that was encompassed of Puhi, Lihu`e, and
Hanama`ulu altogether ranging back to 1998. There are approximately three hundred
forty-six (346) complaints investigated in that area since 1998. Some of them were for
illegal dwelling units, some of them were for illegal structures, and some of them were
for illegal uses; say commercial uses in residential district, and so on and so forth. Some
of them were just neighborly feuds that resulted in no zoning compliance notices were
issued. There is an array. We cannot specifically parse it out because we do not have it
digitized, but roughly three hundred forty-six (346) for the Lihu`e area. If you want we
can also parse it out to Hanama`ulu, in the next few days, if you would want that.
Councilmember Kagawa: There has been talk about much time being
spent on this Bill,but have there been any measurables or milestones that the Planning
Department and the introducing Councilmembers have projected as success rates of
this Bill?Are we looking at adding five (5)houses in the next year or twenty (20) or fifty
(50)? If we adopt this today, how can we tell that we have had success by cutting in
half, not by one-third (1/3), but half(1/2)? Instead of ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
you only need five thousand (5,000) square feet to put an additional unit. With this, I
would call major change, as the next Council takes over, how can they tell whether this
Bill is successful or not? What are the milestones or measurements that we are going
to be looking at? Would one (1) be a success? Would two (2) be a success? Would one
hundred (100) be a success? What are the goals? So that the average taxpayer or
COUNCIL MEETING 68 AUGUST 3, 2016
neighbor that is going to have more impact, off-street parking filling up the side of his
street, how are we going to tell? Even though you have that now, this Bill has been
successful because we have reached our milestone. Have there been any?
Mr. Hull: We have not established any particular quota
level that we would like to meet with the Bill and it is hard to anticipate. It is just
providing the private sector the opportunity to build these units and it is ultimately
incumbent on whether or not each private property owner wants to build it. I think the
place where the County Administration is coming from is that in having our discussions
with the Housing Agency, DHHL, and philanthropic organizations like Habitat for
Humanity who are putting housing stock in our inventory. The response they gave is,
"We are not even close to meeting our demands and never will." We need to somehow
look to the private sector to say, "How can we get you folks to build the types of units
for that entry-level housing that there is such a high demand for our local population?"
There is definitely construction going on, right? I mean we see it. It is definitely not the
inventory that is meeting our needs as a County. The large houses that are going up in
parts of south Kaua`i and on the north shore, and in fact, in pulling the permit history
from the past five (5) years, the most construction for single-family dwellings were in
the north shore area; in the north shore agricultural lands, in particular. That is where
the private sector is saying, "As a private developer, that is where my safest investment
is. It is not trying to necessarily build these units that are needed for Kaua`i's entry-
level housing market." We are beginning to acknowledge and understand the fact that
it has to be looked at as a business. If it does not make dollars and cents, people are not
going to give from their heart and build these units. Much of the investors are property
owners, contractors are stating that when you look at the fact that it cost fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) for an FRC, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for draftsman,
another five thousand dollars ($5,000) or six thousand dollars ($6,000) for permitting,
and twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for the septic system. They have to drop sixty
thousand dollars ($60,000) to eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) before they stick a
shovel in the ground. They are saying, "My safer investment of I having to invest that
amount is going to be in these larger scale units," and that is where they want to put it.
What we are saying is we need to begin the discussion of saying, "We have to looking at
how we can reduce cost or reduce barriers to entry or to give further incentives to build
the type of inventory that meets our needs as a local population." The first step and not
the only step by any means, but the first step is zoning entitlements. You cannot even
build these units, period, without the zoning approval. That is all I am saying. We need
to remove this first barrier and further discussions need to be had and are being had,
say at the sewer level or water level, but this is just the first step, quite frankly.
Councilmember Kagawa: So as of now if no amendments take place even
if say a bedroom is attached and they are going to turn it into a rental unit and they
want to put in a kitchen and restroom, if they want to come in to the Department of
Public Works and the Planning Department to get the proper permits, would they have
to pay for the separate meter? That was a question from the public. Would they have
to pay the new FRC and have a separate sewer bill, even though they are under the
same roof?
COUNCIL MEETING 69 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hull: Currently, they would pay the separate FRC
because it is under the same roof it would qualify as a multi-family unit, so it would be
roughly nine thousand dollars ($9,000) for the FRC.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Hull: It is a little bit reduced.
Councilmember Kagawa: Like five thousand dollars ($5,000) off.
Mr. Hull: Yes, five thousand dollars ($5,000) off, which it
still a significant chunk of change they have to plop down for the FRC cost.
Councilmember Kagawa: But if they decide to build it separate on the
side, it would be the fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000)?
Mr. Hull: Fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) or fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, this is where we are at. We are at lunch
break. I am not sure what the pleasure of this body is, whether or not we want to
entertain more amendments and have it sent back to Planning. Is the intent to vote on
it today?
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows.
Council Chair Rapozo: If we are prepared to vote today, then I suggest
we take the vote, because this is the last item of the day except for the Executive
Sessions. We can release BC if we can dispose of this item today whether we vote on it
or refer it back to Committee to have discussion. What is the pleasure? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a lot more questions to ask given the
desire to expand and amend the Bill. I think if we can go with this Bill, I am ready to
vote. I think even if we go with this Bill, we are going to have enough discussion to go
considerably over the lunch period, so I think we need to recess for lunch, and then come
back and finish our business.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am not advocating one way or the
other. I am just trying to get what the feeling is.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just saying whether we amend or not, I
think we need to come back.
COUNCIL MEETING 70 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: We cannot amend it today simple because it
has to go back. If we are going to be talking amendments, I will just suggest referring
it back to the Committee next week. If we are going to be having that type of discussion,
I would rather have that in the Committee and not at the full Council. Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am ready to vote on it today for what is before
us. I think you are right. The potential discussion amendments that are being surfaced
will require a lot more work from Planning and of course a different process. That is
why I am moving towards get this one out of the way and move on something else.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I would prefer to vote today and pass this out
and I want to put this on the table that I am willing to work with any Councilmember
to look at moving forward if we wanted to look at other areas or a second bill to increase
value to this entire thing. I think we have worked really hard on this. I think it is
without question suitable for this particular district whether or not it is suitable for
different districts is going to take a whole lot of discussion with a whole lot of
communities. This is suitable for this area. It has been vetted. The size of the units are
clearly designed to appeal to small families, local residents and to keep the rents down.
It has been thoroughly vetted. I would support voting on it today and then looking at
other things and I would be happy to work on that. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it has been vetted for this district and it
would be good to experiment with this district where there is a very clear policy about
growth where there is more likelihood of sewers and infrastructure that supports this
kind of bill. I hope the Planning Department is not advocating that we just go forward
in any district because the infrastructure support is important and also I hope the
Planning Department is not advocating that where we have outdated plans and do not
have a clear community plan, that we would put an overlay before we have an updated
community plan. That sounds really anti-planning to me. To me, there are so many
things to consider about other areas that it would not be okay to move ahead with those
other areas, nor would it be good to hold back an area that we vetted, that could be a
pilot and we would learn from it, and be much more smarter when we are considering
other areas of the island. Besides the fact that if the Planning Department has to vet
all these ARUs and give out permits, if you make it island-wide and you are talking
about limited staff, I mean, what is that going to do to the Planning Department? Not
to mention more enforcement problems because if you put these ARUs in vacation
rental potential areas, you are going to have more Transient Vacation Rental (TVR)
enforcement problems.
COUNCIL MEETING 71 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: We need to wrap this up because I need to
decide whether we are going to take a lunch break or not and we are having a whole
discussion on this. It is a simple decision.Are we going to lunch or refer?If we are going
to have more discussion, I am asking that we refer this to the Committee. Go ahead.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have one (1) quick question of Mr. Hull, one
(1) statement, and then I can vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: So we should recess.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just remember—we are going to recess and we
have two (2) Executive Session items that have to take at 1:30 p.m., so we are looking
at 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. That is what the recess will be. With that, we will recess for
lunch and be back at 1:40 p.m.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 12:39 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 1:40 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmembers Kuali`i and Yukimura were not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order and we are
still on item, Bill No. 2627, Draft 2, as amended. What is the pleasure of this Council?
We only have five (5) Members, but if we can dispose of this now, then we can, if not,
we will move on to the Executive Session, and then come back to this. Councilmember
Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Are the other two (2)Members outside the door
or coming? Do we know?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have no idea.
Councilmember Hooser: I spoke earlier to express my preferences in
terms of voting to move it forward and some of us had and some of us had not.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock had expressed his
desire to vote on it today. Any others? The motion is to approve as amended. If you
want, we can call for the vote and then let the votes fall, and then we can make the
appropriate motion after that.
(Councilmember Kuali`i was noted as present.)
Councilmember Kaneshiro: For me, I wanted to hear what the Planning
Department had to say on it. It is coming from them and what they want to do.
COUNCIL MEETING 72 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, let us recess Bill No. 2627, Draft 2
as amended, and let us move into the Executive Session items.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, Executive Session ES-862.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-862 Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4
and 92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), on behalf of the Council,
the Office of the County Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to
provide the Council with a briefing, discussion and consultation regarding the
Quarterly Report on Pending and Denied Claims. The briefing and consultation
involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities
of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
Councilmember Chock moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-862,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
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 convene in Executive Session for ES-862 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.
ES-863 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes Sections (HRS) 92-4
and 92-5(a)(2), (4), and (8), the purpose of this Executive Session is to consider
matters that require confidentiality under state law, to wit, the hiring of a County
Auditor, including interviewing any candidates, and terms and conditions of
employment. The further purpose of this executive session is to meet with the
Council's legal counsel on questions and issues relating to the Council's powers,
duties, privileges and immunities and/or liabilities, claims and/or potential claims, as
such powers, duties, privileges and immunities and/or liabilities, claims and or
potential claims relate to the foregoing item, and to take such action as the Council
deems appropriate.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for ES-863,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 73 AUGUST 3, 2016
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kuali`i, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: We will convene immediately in the Executive
Session Chambers. BC, unfortunately, you have to hang out and I am not sure how
long this will take.
There being no objections, the Council recessed at 1:43 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 2:51 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. We are
waiting for the Planning Department to come up. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like the Planning Department to
finish up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion as far as the
direction that this body wants to go as far as the Bill that is on the floor today? I have
heard Councilmember Hooser and Councilmember Chock's position. Is there anyone
else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is clear that where we are ready to
go is Lihu'e. We have vetted the issues and we have looked at maps. I do not know
what would hurt us if we went ahead with Lihu'e and then worked out the other
issues in the other areas where there are many more issues, like not having a current
plan in place. For instance, Kalaheo is very limited with no infrastructure or that
kind of thing. Also, to see how the permitting process works and what kind of staff is
needed because we have already been told that the staff is limited right now. Then,
you will have these additional rental units that can be used as visitor units illegally
and then you will have a bigger enforcement problem. There are a lot of issues that
have to be really carefully looked at before you move outside of Lihu`e.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Anyone else? The Planning
Department is here. I will suspend the rules. Any questions? Councilmember Kuali`i.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Mr. Hull, I just wanted to know what is the
eastern boundary of the Lihu`e planning district or the area that the Lihu'e
Community Plan covered?
Mr. Hull: I do not have an actual map to reference it.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Just give a basic description. Is it right past
Hanama`ulu?
Mr. Hull: The edge of Hanama`ulu, correct.
COUNCIL MEETING 74 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Does it include the jail and the golf course?
How far does it go?
Mr. Hull: It would not include the jail and golf course.
It would include the eastern edge of the built-out Hanama`ulu area as well as the
unbuilt-out area across from...where they have the new D.R. Horton Development.
There is a section of land that is within the agricultural zoning district that also folds
with it.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The makai side?
Mr. Hull: The makai side, correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Where all the cows are now?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So it does not go as far as the jail?
Mr. Hull: I do not believe so, but sorry, I do not have the
actual map with me.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Or even the motocross?
Mr. Hull: I do not believe so, but I have to check on that.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And if it does not, what planning district
would that be part of?
Mr. Hull: The east Kauai.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Does it go to the river?
Mr. Hull: I have to double check on that. Sorry,
Councilmember, I did not actually bring the map. As far as this would be concerned,
it would not apply to those lands any way because of the fact that those are all within
the agricultural/open zoning designation.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Except for the five hundred (500), or so, acres
that is Hawaiian Homelands for future housing.
Mr. Hull: Which also is not subject to zoning authority.
Councilmember Kuali`i: You say that, but I actually have in Hawaiian
Homes that they say they follow the County's ordinances, zoning...
Mr. Hull: Yes, so what Hawaiian Homes generally does
is they will refer the, as I understand it, applicant to the building permit process and
that is more of a safety and health issue to essentially to ensure they are meeting
COUNCIL MEETING 75 AUGUST 3, 2016
building code insofar as the building does not fall down on somebody's head. As far
as zoning regulations...
Councilmember Kuali`i: I have heard it said as basic health and safety
so that the building is structurally sound and nobody gets hurt, but in DHHL's
residential lessee handbook says, "Building structures or improvements must meet
building and zoning codes and other ordinances and regulations of the respective
counties." It seem so broad that it seems like you have to follow everything.
Mr. Hull: Yes, and that is insofar as they are willing to
somewhat, as a separate agency, hold on to those requirements, but on the flipside of
mandating requirements is enforcement. Therefore, arguably somebody from DHHL
could come in and say, "I would like to make sure this is conformance with the zoning
ordinance" and we could explain to them how it is or is not in conformance and if it
is, they would just get a handshake and nod. As far as enforcement, we could not go
out and say, "You are actually violating our density, setbacks, heights, or whatnot."
We have no authority to enforce on those.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But you are saying too that because of DHHL
being exempt, that really the homesteader that wanted to expand in this way only
has to work it out with DHHL and they do not have to do anything with the County.
Mr. Hull: They are not legally obligated under County
law to come before the Planning Department. If DHHL as an entity wants to say to
their applicants, you have to get zoning review and approval to meet zoning code,
DHHL as a separate entity can do that on their applicants.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But you just said that they are not legally
obligated under County law to come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hull: Excuse me, they are not obligated under State
and Federal law, which was a General Attorney opinion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mr. Hull, can you explain procedurally
how...I presume you folks are going to issue an ARU permit.
Mr. Hull: Correct, there will be a zoning permit. It is
also a requirement under the draft proposal before you folks to go through a clearance
form process, which is much akin to the ADU clearance form process where the
applicant will have to go to each respective agency to ensure there are the necessary
infrastructure requirements for the subject property. Much the same way when
people process ADU applications, they first have a ADU clearance form that is
stamped off from each respective agency saying they have the appropriate
COUNCIL MEETING 76 AUGUST 3, 2016
infrastructure in that area for that property to apply and receive approval for a zoning
permit. So, we cannot sign the zoning permit unless that clearance form is first
signed.
Councilmember Yukimura: In other words, they have to meet all the
criteria under the law before you issue an ARU permit?
Mr. Hull: In addition to meeting to all the criteria, they
also ensure that all of the necessary other reviewing agencies and they meet their
laws and/or infrastructure demands.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is what I was talking about. The main
thing is that you do not just issue it based on your Department's requirements. You
are going to make sure that they have the available water and parking. Are you folks
going to examine that parking issue?
Mr. Hull: We will examine the parking, but the water,
we will just have a form of which the Department of Water will say yes or no to
essentially.
Councilmember Yukimura: And sewers?
Mr. Hull: Sewer and/or septic. The Department of
Health would sign off on that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. How are you going to ensure that no
CPR takes place?
Mr. Hull: The CPR process under the Hawaii Real
Estate Commission rules require them to forward the applications to the County
Planning Department to ensure that they are not in violation or breech of any zoning
codes for which if somebody attempted to CPR one of these, we would explain that it
would be a violation of this particular ordinance.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, that is very good. That seems pretty
failsafe. I would presume that in the ARU application or clearance form that they
will sign binding agreement not to do a CPR.
Mr. Hull: Yes, I believe that not only would it have to
recorded in their...
Councilmember Yukimura: Deed?
Mr. Hull: Exactly, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So, it will always setup red flags if they do.
Okay. Does the Planning Department have any objections to moving ahead with
Lihu`e, right?
Mr. Hull: No. That is as drafted, correct.
COUNCIL MEETING 77 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Which would allow us to really see how
this all works?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am looking at 1982 and Jeremy Harris talks
about the Puhi and Koloa properties that were own by Grove Farm Company, LLC
and Grove Farm Company, LLC had covenants and the question was, does the
covenants restrict them to one (1) residence and the answer is yes. Mr. Pratt talks
about how the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), if enacted, would override
the covenants.
Mr. Hull: No. My understanding is that covenants are
established under Real Estate Law with the State, but those covenants are private
contracts between, essentially, those within the association. It is fairly common where
we allow things like chickens and there may be some associations that...in a
residential district, we allow up to four (4) chickens as pets, but in a private
association, it is fairly common to past in residential areas that you do not have any
chicken coops and poultry in your yard and whatnot. That to a certain degree is much
more restrictive than the CZO and the Planning Department will not enforce against
that covenant, but it will be the responsibility of either the individual property owners
or the association itself to take that violator potentially to court or through their own
bylaws for rectification.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mr. Sarita asked, "Have you had complaints
in your Puhi subdivision," and Mr. Pratt answers that parking is a big problem.
Parking and some of the residences who let soapy water run down the street and
other things like that. If we add a lot more to our inventory, do these types of problems
that were talked about in 1982, get worse? That is why I am asking what the
measurables are. That is why I asked for that map and wanted to see what are the
projections were. I hate to run into problems like they did in 1982 and we are
changing something that has been in place for forty-four (44) years, from 1972, and
we are cutting it in half. I am saying, "What is going to be the impact?" Some
Councilmembers say "that Puhi is fine, Hanama`ulu is fine, what are you folks
worried about?" I am worried. I am worried because in 1982 we had big problems.
Mr. Sarita talks about how Hanama'ulu is the way it is now because of the Planning
Department not being brave enough to go there and stop illegal activity. Does this
present possibly more problems down the line as we add inventory? We serve a good
purpose. We serve the purpose that the Lihu`e plan wants more inventory, but with
every good sometimes comes a bad. Like Mr. Pratt said, "Parking is a big problem;"
do we add to the problems encountered in 1982?
Mr. Hull: To put it quite bluntly, Councilmember
Kagawa, when you have further intensification of use, you have more impacts. That
is a given. I am not going to skirt that issue. We are faced with a County of a growing
island, internally, just from natural birth, we are growing. The need to put housing
COUNCIL MEETING 78 AUGUST 3, 2016
and job opportunities for the keiki of this island, we need to ask ourselves how we
want to grow. Do we want to grow up and intensify our internal uses or do we want
to grow out and sprawl into the rural and agriculture lands? For the most part, the
vast majority of input, in particular what we have been doing with the General Plan
as well as the Community Plans that we have done in the past few years, there is a
growing desire to maintain our rural land and agricultural lands. If we are going to
accommodate our own growth, we have to go inside and look how we can further
intensify. You are correct, there will be more on-street parking. You are putting
neighbors closer to each other. I will not skirt that; I will say that definitely there will
be increased on-street parking. That is something we either have to accept with
further intensification or we reject as a County.
Councilmember Kagawa: Regarding Molokoa I and II, they were one (1)
of the first subdivisions to have covenants for single-family housing. We can see that
it is no longer single-family housing, you have brand new duplex right on the turn
pass the Salvation Army that...not duplex, but there are two (2) houses. I guess
one (1) is a residence and the other...if the CZO does not override the covenants, how
do those types of houses get approved?
Mr. Hull: The CZO is a County law and covenant is
essentially a private contract. You can enter into an array of different private
contracts with individual neighbors, with your community and surrounding
neighborhood, which essentially those are associations and the establishing authority
for those covenants. But it is a private contract between you; the property owner,
and that association that everybody is buying into and signing on saying, "I agree to
these rules and regulations." In no way is this reflective of County law. The County
law says that you can put in an ADU or a second dwelling on all of those lots, every
single lot over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, at least, is in the residential zoning
district qualifies either for a second dwelling or an ADU. Therefore, when somebody
comes in for an ADU on a property that qualifies for it under the CZO, we stamp off
and make sure they meet the setback and so on and so forth, but as long as they meet
the rest of our zoning code, we stamp off on it. Now concerning the private contract,
if it is a violation of that...and even if an association comes in and say, "County of
Kaua`i Planning Department how dare you sign off on this one, I have a private
contract with the other owner," and our response would be, "Indeed, that is a private
contract. These entitlements are open to everybody on Kauai. You, as an association,
need to settle your private contracts and private disputes." Something very similar
to that is where the State decided to get involved with the clotheslines and solar water
heaters where there were some covenants written that prohibited clotheslines and
prohibited solar heaters. The State Legislature realized that these are definite
strategies to reducing our energy use and say, "You, as an association, cannot have
those private covenants." We would sign anybody's permit that came in for a solar
water heater or clothesline, so to speak, but it could be a violation of covenants. The
only way you can override those covenants is through State law to say that those
covenants are no longer binding.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am looking at Section 8-26.2 adopted
Ordinance No. 430, August 17, 1982. Number 6 says, "Nothing contained in this
Section shall affect private covenants or deed restrictions that prohibit the
construction of a second dwelling unit on any residential lot." It clearly says that the
covenants shall be honored by this Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEETING 79 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hull: It is not going to affect it and any County law
that would attempt to supersede covenants, I am pretty sure Mauna Kea will jump
right up here and explain what that is problematic. What that is essentially saying
is when they past they past the ADU law, they are not restricting the covenants
saying you can build an ADU, but it does not affect the covenant if there is a more
restrictive covenant. Some of those associations are saying there is a more restrictive
covenant, but it is not going to be the County's domain to enforce it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Let us paint a clear picture. So, if you
wanted to follow the Ordinance and put a second dwelling in Pikake, the association
would probably block it, right?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: But if you want to do it in Molokoa because
the association is no longer strong, with the original members, you can do whatever
you want?
Mr. Hull: It is the responsibility of the association to
enforce their covenants, yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is problematic for me, again. To say well
we want to "open the tool box," is what I heard and give more avenues for adding to
our inventory. "But, Molokoa, because you are old and no longer able to enforce your
covenants, you can do it there, but Pikake, Uluko, Puako, Grove Farm is still strongly
behind you and your association is strong so you cannot put an ARU there because
they will block you." Is that how it works? Because the association members are not
strong in enforcing the old covenants, they are subject to whatever laws we past, but
where the covenants are enforced, these ARU laws will not affect them?
Mr. Hull: All I can say, Councilmember, that it is up to
the associations whether or not they want to enforce their private covenants.
Councilmember Kagawa: What if I put language in that says that
instead of doing what Section 6 did here and say, "Nothing contained in this Section
shall affect private covenants," I will say instead that everything in this bill will
supersede covenants.
Mr. Hull: I would defer that to the County Attorney.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Are we talking about being fair or are
we talking about being selectively fair? Some people value their property just as
much as others value their property in Pikake even though we know Pikake is a prime
place we all want to get to someday, but everybody's home is their castle.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for the Planning
Department? Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am torn on my direction for this. I know the
Bill is no silver-lining, but for me it is a Planning bill.
COUNCIL MEETING 80 AUGUST 3, 2016
Mr. Hull: Yes, the Planning Department introduced the
Bill.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Is this the most effective tool we have now?
Will it accomplish what we are trying to do or are we just wasting your time? Is this
going to accomplish getting more units or do we say, "We do it," and then we say,
"Maybe we should have gotten rid of the size limit on the maximum floor area because
some people feel limited on being able to do it and it does not work out financially." I
am kind of in a limbo. Do we do it just to see as a test, or does the Planning
Department go back and say "we heard a lot from the community." As far as should
it be island-wide policy, the focus has switched from small, affordable to just we need
units for people to live in. What is our direction?
Mr. Hull: All I can say, Councilmember, indeed there is
a Planning Department bill and our desire is to have and it looks like we are very
close to actually having our desire is for action and hopefully passage of this Bill.
That is the Planning Department's recommendation. I can also say, though,
simultaneously that I have been hearing several concerns not just from the public,
but in the array of meetings that I have attended up here, and quite frankly I do not
have the crystal ball, but I am not sure if this is going to pass. There seems to be a
possibility of failing because there are some concerns that some Councilmembers
have about the applicability of it either island-wide or the size of the structure.
Seeing that, I would almost say I would prefer than at risk of losing the ability here
today, should the vote be taken and not passed, that to allay some of the concerns
that have been brought up through these various meetings that it be sent back to the
Planning Commission. There is no harm and foul in that and that there is a one
hundred fifty (150) day stay in the current Bill. It is going to take five (5) or six (6)
months to go if it was voted and passed today. Looking at the possibility that it may
not be passed because there are concerns that had not been allayed in particular
about an island-wide policy and It is not to say that the Department is supportive of
an island-wide policy. The department does not object to an island-wide policy either.
We just did not vet it at the Planning Commission level. That was not the goal at the
time, but hearing these concerns, I would hate for this Bill to lose on a vote because
we did not vet it enough. We could go back and vet it and we could come back with an
island-wide policy. We could also vet it and could come back with the exact same bill
you folks have today, but we did not vet it and I am a little fearful that we may have
the majority going to vote no, and if that is the case, then we have lost the
opportunity. There is some preference of further vetting it at this point to allay some
concerns that have been brought up through this process.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I ask a question?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is there to lose if we pass the Bill and
then work on the other areas?
Mr. Hull: That is to my point, Councilmember
Yukimura, we would love for the Bill to be passed today.
COUNCIL MEETING 81 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Because then we can see how it works.
Mr. Hull: Yes. I am in complete agreement, if we can
pass a bill that is exactly what the Planning Department is hoping for, but what I am
saying is that seeing that there is some hesitancy on parts of some of the Council
because some issues have...that is not believed have been thoroughly vetted, we have
no problem in taking the extra time to relook at this issue.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the way to change it is that people can see
that their concerns can be addressed by passing it today and then working on the
other areas. There is no conflict there—to pass it today and work on the other areas
if our goal is to increase supply, then let us start where we feel all right and where
we thought it through and where we worked on it. Then we can work on the other
areas because there may be some things that we have not looked at that will come
out...but let us not make a mistake on a big area. If we are going to make a mistake,
make it on a small area, and learn from the mistake. We have done everything we
can, I think, to think it through, but there is always a possibility we have overlooked
something and better we do that on a small scale than on a big scale. That seems to
make so much logic to me.
Mr. Hull: I hear the concern, Councilmember
Yukimura, and I am not saying, "Please send it back to us so that we can make it
island-wide," but I am just saying we have had that question multiple times from
different Councilmembers and our only response really is, "We did not vet that issue."
Councilmember Yukimura: Right and so in the vetting of it, it may take
longer than we think it will because it is a lot of issues, so pass what we do now and
then work on the other part, but at least the other part will not delay a part that
allows us to move forward.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am not trying to get into a circular
discussion, but I am just trying to get in a better direction. The original intent of the
bill was for affordable increase units and affordable housing and so now that we took
out the affordable housing part, the question is, is this the best bill to increase the
amount of units in Lihu`e? Was that the intent at the time or was it to say we should
limit it to a size, we are going to try and do this package deal to incentive it, or does
it need to be taken back and say, "Okay, we are going in the direction, we got moved
around because we took out the affordable portion." Now that our main focus is how
we get more units...and I am not saying it has to go island-wide, I am just saying that
maybe the discussion is island-wide, but they say, "No, let us focus it in Lihu`e," but
if the intent is to get more units in Lihu`e, is this the right bill? Do they want to do
something else? Do they want to get rid of the maximum floor size and say let us not
tie the hands of somebody that can possibly do it. Maybe somebody has an extra room
or an extra bathroom and all they need to do is put in a kitchen, but their floor area
is five hundred (500) square feet rather than four hundred (400) square feet. Are we
going to say, "No, they cannot do it?" That is where I am at. That is what I am juggling
and trying to figure out. Let me know what kind of direction we want. Do we do this
and then maybe a few people do it and then we say, "Let us get rid of the square
footage" and then I do not know if the people that have already taken advantage of it
COUNCIL MEETING 82 AUGUST 3, 2016
would say, "I would have liked to build my house with a bigger square footage." I do
not know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: If I remembered correctly, I did watch some of
the Planning Commission Meetings when this was discussed and correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe they had extensive discussions on sizes, whether to go up,
whether to go sideways, and how to do this. They had public meetings and public
discussions, and they had their own with input from you folks on the decision. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hull: On specifically the square footage, yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Just to be clear, the Planning Department's
preference would be if we passed this Bill today.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hull: I emphasis on pass.
Councilmember Hooser: Right, and if worst case situation it did not
pass, there is nothing to prohibit someone from introducing one tomorrow and
sending it to the Planning Commission, but I would like it to pass also. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: An answer to Councilmember Kaneshiro's
question, when we put forth this law assuming we pass it, as people come in, you will
begin to get a sense of whether there are a lot of people who are wanting to exceed
the limit or not. That is what happened in Koloa-Po`ipu after you passed the form
base code,people started coming in saying, "Hey, I want to apply," and then you began
to see...or else they did not come in to apply and in talking to people, you began to
understand what the limitations were, right? So that is one (1) way to get an idea of
where the demand is, where the obstacles are, et cetera; by putting something out,
being conservative, and then changing it if we find that there is no result and we need
to do something else. I actually think we need to have a loan program, but I also think
that we have a lot of homes that the mortgages are already paid and the person or
couple is still living in it and they have issues of their child coming home to—I know
several of them who are coming back from school, wanting to find a job, and wanting
a beginner/starter unit, and also I myself have an issue of older parents who need
more care and therefore might do better in an additional unit that is close by. We
think there is a latent demand for that that it will help produce more supply. I do not
know that they need a loan because some of them are quite capable of another eighty
thousand dollars ($80,000) in expenditures. Why do we not see how it works and then
use it to learn where the obstacles or the risk factors are before we go really wide?
Council Chair Rapozo: The answer to that is real simple, we have
elderly parents in all districts. All residents want to help their parents or their kids
COUNCIL MEETING 83 AUGUST 3, 2016
in all districts, not just Lihu`e. Maybe Councilmember Yukimura lives in Lihu`e, I do
not, therefore I have absolutely nothing to offer my...I do not have elderly parents,
but my kids or anything. That is not the reasoning or the reasons for my thought
process, but I am just saying that whatever need you can identify in Lihu`e is in the
west side, is on the north side, and is on the south side. That is my only concern.
There is a housing issue on every spec of land on this island. Honolulu tried this out.
Honolulu has over one million (1,000,000)people and ten (10) applications. It kind of
gives us a pretty good indication of the success of this type of legislation, but I am
willing to look at it, but again, if you want to assure success, you have to give the
opportunity a chance for success and limiting it to small pockets, I am not sure what
success we are going to achieve. Any other questions of the Planning Department?
Councilmember Yukimura, question? I want to get into the discussion already so we
can move on this.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do the outlined areas have as much
infrastructure like sewers?
Mr. Hull: Some outlining areas have adequate
infrastructure and some do not. That is why I would be hesitant to say, "You should
not do this absent looking at the infrastructure" because at the end of the day, the
way this thing is crafted is we had earlier in the discussion, any single ARU unit that
applies for entitlement has to first demonstrate that the infrastructure is adequate.
Now for some, hooking into sewers is adequate, for others, hooking into a septic tank
system is adequate.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you go island-wide, you will have a lot of
pressures to put sewers in everywhere and that is not possible in such a low density
place, which is why I thought we were maximizing infrastructure within towns, but
then you will spread out the pressure to have infrastructure everywhere.
Councilmember Hooser: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Along the same lines, as long as the person is
willing to put in a septic system, is that sufficient?
Mr. Hull: As we understand it with the Department of
Health, yes, it is.
Councilmember Hooser: So we could have island-wide people along the
coastline adding in, expanding their septic systems, putting in additional units, and
letting them out for thousands of thousands of dollars if we did this island-wide.
Mr. Hull: I would not want to get into that discussion
and speculate as to what is going to happen island-wide. My only point to the
discussion of island-wide is that we recognize that there is some concern and some
perhaps desire to put it island-wide, and we did not vet that at the Planning
Commission. If that is the case, we have no problems returning it back to the
Planning Commission and vetting that issue.
COUNCIL MEETING 84 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Did we ever have a different policy for zoning
such as this for the ADU by district because it has been this way since 1972? Did we
ever say only certain districts have different...which is why I am leaning towards
looking at an island-wide policy or nothing because we have always had an island-
wide policy, right?
Mr. Hull: I cannot think off the top of my head at this
point, but I would have to do further research.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. Councilmember Kagawa, are you
done?
Councilmember Kagawa: No, I am not. Mr. Hull, in 1982, and I will go
back, you have Mr. Pratt talking about problems in Puhi with illegal structures, and
you have Councilmember Sarita, at the time, talking about illegal structures in
Hanama`ulu. The fact of the matter is that from 1982 to current is thirty-four (34)
years and in thirty-four (34) years people have continued and so we have been adding
inventory, probably illegally, but inventory has never stopped in Lihu`e; primarily in
Puhi and Hanama`ulu, right? Adding inventory, rooms, houses, and doing whatever
they need to do to take care of families, we have mentioned that scenario, but it has
never stopped. In 1982 it was bad and it is probably worst right now.
Mr. Hull: There are what we refer to as "black market
structures" in those areas. As far as actual graphs or the actual numbers, we do not
have that data.
Councilmember Kagawa: Knowing that we have a problem and
knowing that we do not even know what is out there, is it good planning policy to
even open the box up more? You do not even have a handle on what the problems we
had in 1982 to now, and you want to even allow more housing when you do not even
know...you do not have a grip on the problem from 1982. Are we going to loosen it up
and open up the toolbox more and cut the property in half and allow what has been
done on something double the size to occur? I would think that you have to do it
backwards. You have to get a handle on what you have and then you open the door
and the toolbox. There is a difference in philosophy at the Planning Commission if
they put in a lot of time in this. I think they should have put a lot of time in trying to
find out what is out there so we know what has been added to the inventory before
we make statements and say, "Well, we are two thousand (2,000) units short in
Lihu`e, but we do not really know what is out there to be honest."
Mr. Hull: The Department can acknowledge that there
are several illegal dwelling units throughout the Lihu`e planning area and possibly
more so than other districts, I am not sure. It would appear an exorbitant number in
particularly in Hanama`ulu and Puhi, but we also looked at it as a consequence of the
crisis we are in. The reason these things are going up is because there is so much
demand and families just cannot afford or cannot find a place to put themselves. We
look at that as a symptom of the problem we have and we are attempting to address
COUNCIL MEETING 85 AUGUST 3, 2016
the problem as opposed to the symptom. By putting more units on, we think we are
attempting to try and address the problem itself. If it is the prerogative, ultimately,
of the County or say the Council wants to look at bringing all of those places into
conformance by .beginning to actively enforce against these violations, I would just
caution in the sense that the only active enforcement that we have actually been
given moneys for and resources for and are doing is for TVRs. It is a decent task at-
hand, but to actually begin actively enforcing against families living in illegal
structures, that is a whole other game. That is another animal when you are
pounding on doors and saying, "We understand you need a place to live and you need
shelter, but you are in violation of the zoning ordinance." Actively going out there
and evicting essential tenants or families adds a whole other element.
Councilmember Kagawa: I hear you and we cannot order you folks what
to do, but what I am saying is the reason why you are telling us to pass this Bill is
because you have a housing crisis in Lihu`e, an inventory problem. How do you know
how big the inventory problem is if you do not even know how many illegal inventory
have been added from 1982 to now? I am just asking a simple question so I can make
a yes or no vote on something to help the Planning Department fix the problem of
having an inventory problem, but I do not even know what the inventory is. Does
that make sense?
Mr. Hull: Yes, definitely, Councilmember.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: One of the good things about this Bill is by
allowing an ARU, some of the units will be able to come into compliance. Whereas, if
we do not pass this ARU Bill, they will not be able to come into compliance because
the density exceeds what is presently allowed. This Bill is allowing increased density.
That is the only way to allow...I do not know if every unit that is illegal right now is
going to be able to become legal, but some will by virtue of allowing a greater density.
If they are already providing affordable housing, that is a good thing to make them
legal and additionally where there is no unit, right now, but this Bill will enable a
unit to be built, small enough so that it will be in the area of greatest need, but will
not create the problems of speculation or TVR pressures. That is going to also help
our housing supply. We can put this in place and see how it works. If it does not
produce a lot of units, we ask why and we begin to address the obstacles that are
preventing them; whether it is financing, parking, or sewers. It is a way to get
information by starting with the best we can determine now and then learning from
it, refining it, and making it better.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am going to try to get us out of this circular
discussion because we are going around and around. Any other questions for the
Planning Department? If not, thank you very much. Does The Garden Island want
to make any comments on this Bill? You are the only one left. We will call the meeting
back to order.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion on the table is to approve as
amended. Councilmember Kagawa.
COUNCIL MEETING 86 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: I cannot support this at this time. I brought
up the covenants issue with some of the new subdivisions like Pikake and Puakoa,
and I would never introduce an amendment, but what I am talking about is a fairness
issue. You have covenants that work for some and not work for others that were
adopted way before—how fair is that? Where in the Bill, we have an inventory
problem, so we are going to follow the Lihu`e Community Plan and we are going to do
a whole Lihu`e area zoning change where you can put these ARUs on lots with a
square footage as small as five thousand (5,000) square feet. Again, I do not think it
is fair to people that fall under old covenants that are no longer actively enforced
because people have sold and the boards have changed and not been active. I do not
think that part is fair. I remember Mr. Dahilig saying that we have an inventory
problem and that is why the community plan was adopted, but how do you know if
you have a large inventory problem, a small inventory problem, no inventory problem
if you do not even know what your inventory is? From 1982, we have had problems
in this...you should read these minutes. I can provide you copies of these minutes. It
talks about Hanama`ulu and Puhi. Former Councilmembers Harris and Sarita would
probably feel very frustrated as we just move forward when they have already told
their Planning Director, at the time, of all the problems that is going on and their
frustration with the process. The residents were feeling helpless, scared, and
suffering in silence because of illegal homeowners next to them just disregarding the
law like the "Wild Wild West" and acting as though this is the third world country.
We are not a third world country. You cannot do whatever you want with your
property. It is not how it works. We can go back to 1970, 1980, and point to all the
Planning Directors and former Councilmembers, but the fact of the matter is I think
we need to just get a handle, not kick people out, but let us find out what the inventory
is of the Lihu`e area; in Hanamd'ulu, Lihu`e, and Puhi. Is it going to cost that much
money to do that? I think that is a good starting place. What is our inventory? Next,
what is the inventory needs? Then when we find out the inventory needs, what is the
plan, what are the measurables, and what do we plan to hit that need as the need
grows? Should we put a ten (10) year plan, twenty (20) year plan, or should we try
just one (1) measure? By reducing lot size, will that solve the problem, or do we need
a larger scope of work that is going to need to fix the problem. This is an example of
"ready, fire, aim." Mr. Mickens would be smiling now, but this is ready, fire, aim, and
I am not willing to "ready, fire, aim" when I see evidence back in 1982 from former
Councilmembers who had problems with the original plan and illegal structures
being put up wherever. People have to do what they have to do, but also neighbors
have the right to have the law enforced, and that is the key. It is not for everybody,
but in being fair, I think the law is the fair place and following the zoning laws, the
laws of the County of Kauai, State of Hawai`i, is a good place to start. I do not think
breaking the law or satisfying breaking the law is the solution. Thank you, Council
Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I hope that four (4) Councilmembers will vote
in support of this today. It is not "ready, fire, aim" or whatever that phrase is. It has
gone through months of vetting and public testimony. To say otherwise is a disservice
to the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and this body, quite frankly.
It has been well thought out. It is not the end-all and I will not support throwing
people out on the streets who are living in someone's house that is in violation of the
COUNCIL MEETING 87 AUGUST 3, 2016
Planning Department. That is ridiculous. We think we have a homeless issue now.
To have a sweep-through Lihu`e or Hanama`ulu, knocking on doors and getting rid of
people because they are living with friends is crazy and unacceptable. We know what
the needs are and this is a small step to deal with that. This is an opportunity that
we can give the people of this district, the people of the island, to have some small
relief. Even if only ten (10) units came out of this, the Housing Agency will tell you,
"that is going to be three million dollars ($3,000,000) to four million dollars
($4,000,000) worth of value," because they do not have to buy the property, put in
infrastructure, and they do not have to build. This is the way, the most efficient, the
most affordable, and the most expeditious way to add new inventory in an appropriate
location. It has been vetted. I agree that there are other parts of the island where this
would be suitable for and I think we should look very careful and consider expanding
it, but at this particular point in time, this issue has been vetted and would provide
some measure of relief. No one else has offered anything at all except criticism of this
issue. There have been no alternative suggestions. No one stepped up to say, "Let us
do this instead." They just said, "This is a bad idea." I personally think it is a good
idea. It is a modest step in the right direction to provide opportunity again for families
to provide a place for mom and dad, or for their children, or for some modest amount
of additional income rentals for young families and single individuals. I am hopeful,
but if not, that is the will of the majority and if they do not want to move forward
with this measure, but I am hopefully they will. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: After hearing all of the discussion and
hearing from the Planning Department, my "no" vote will be a vote to send the
Planning Department back to vet what they did not vet. To perhaps not only vet
island-wide as one (1) option, but also to vet the three (3) main neighborhoods or
cities, if you will, on this island; Lihu`e, Kapa`a, and Waimea. Maybe that could be
another option that is vetted to give more opportunities and fairness to more of the
island if it does not make sense to do the entire island. I understood what Mr. Hull
said about how they could go back, vet it all out, and come back with the same
proposal. Truly if that is what happens, then I will probably be ready to support it,
but today I am not ready to support it for a lot of the reasons that were said. The idea
about the stay and that it takes five (5) months to take effect, in truth, that means
we are in no pressure to make a decision today because even if we decided today, it
would not take effect for five (5) months. Now, we can vote this down today, the
Planning Department can go back to work vet out those other options that I think it
is only right that we see and make our decision based on all of that additional
information. It is right for our constituents. When the time comes and it comes before
us again, we can remove that delay in taking effect, then we will be in a very similar
position. I think if we pass this today, there is no guarantee that there will be the
urgency to get it done. I think we should not pass it today and that is why I am voting
"no."
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This Bill is a chance to increase the supply of
housing on Kauai under conditions that are likely to provide moderately priced
housing. It might not all be affordable, but even if it is in the hundred twenty percent
(120%), one hundred thirty percent (130%), one hundred eighty percent (180%) it is
COUNCIL MEETING 88 AUGUST 3, 2016
going to help. We need more housing and we need it urgently. There is no reason to
hold back Lihu`e while we vet other areas and so we need to vote in favor of increasing
housing supply now because it is so urgent. Also, the information that we will learn
from this process will be valuable in how we develop it elsewhere if that is what we
choose to do. The County is anticipated...I am reading from the Findings and Purpose
of this Bill, "is anticipated to need an additional ten thousand (10,000) new housing
units to accommodate its resident population between 2010 and 2035. The Lihu`e
district is expected to absorb nearly half of this increase which would mean adding
approximately 4,600 units to its current housing stock." The value of Lihu`e is that
these houses will be close to services. That actually has implications for our island-
wide traffic problem if people do not have to come in for the services, but are already
close by. That is the value of Lihu`e. An affordable house anywhere is, especially if
you include transportation cost as part of the cost of housing, which is what United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is doing now, there is
a great value and you are creating mixed use in one (1) area. This has all been vetted
through the planning process. It makes a lot of sense to go with this Bill now and
then to look further to see how we can increase housing supply.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am leaning towards the same as
Councilmember Kuali`i. I am not comfortable passing it now. This Bill does have
traction. I would feel a lot more comfortable just referring back to the Planning
Commission to be vetted because when it originally came...what was the original
purpose? We changed it and then you think back, is this the correct thing we are
trying to do? The original one was to get more units and affordable units and we tried
to do it by limiting size and doing all of these things, but as it went through our
process, we started taking out things and then intent or purpose changed. Now, this
has me thinking maybe we do need to take a step back, sending it back, and say,
"Hey, give us something that is vetted that will make the biggest impact." Whether
we want to keep the Bill as it is, this is what they feel is the best bill, or do we adjust
it, or do we say that we understand the island-wide thing, but the only areas that we
think are critical or we can possibly do it is maybe Kapa'a or the bigger areas, then
we can come back with something that I might feel a little more comfortable with.
Maybe this is my fault because last week I voted for it and I said, "Yes, we are trying
to provide opportunity for housing," but I had a week to think about it and I am
thinking, "Wait, is this the best bill that we are doing or should we have more time
to vet it now that the intent and purpose is to increase units. Is this the best bill for
that?" Should we just concentrate it in Lihu`e or make it island-wide? There are a
lot of things to think about. We had a circular conversation going on relating to what
the intent is and what direction we want to go. I was trying to get comfortable with
it, but I would love to have it get referred back to the Planning Commission, have
them come back with something, and it will just give me a little more assurance. As
we have gone through the process, certain things were taken out of the Bill, and I do
not know if that was the original intent or not. I want to feel a little more comfortable.
I want the Bill to get a little more vetted if the intent of this Bill is to increase units
supply.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
COUNCIL MEETING 89 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Chock: I will be supporting this moving forward. If it
is the will of the body is to refer it, then so be it. On my end, I feel I vetted it well and
we had this Bill go back to the Committee level twice now. The Planning Department
is ready and willing to move this forward. We have not taken any significant steps
forward and we will really need to look at multiple approaches to dealing with our
housing issues today and for tomorrow. I think in our discussions, we are only
scratching the surface of the true needs and the boldness that we will have to take in
order to address that moving forward. It will probably take more additional rezoning
needs to accommodate growth and looking at different types of housing for the future.
I had anticipated that we would hear in a few months and that is why I really thought
by expanding the date on this, which Councilmember Kuali`i had put in as an
amendment, was good to see incentives and waivers on affordable housing to add that
piece to it come to fruition. In addition, we do not enforce covenants and I have a
question whether we really should. I do not think we can and should. We do not have
the budget to enforce on our families, nor do I think we should enforce on our families
who are just trying to make it by adapting the living style that they had to do so, but
we can guide how that growth does occur. That is the reason why we have these
community plans. These community plans differ from region to region. It has been
vetted for the Lihu`e community, but it has not been vetted for the east side. I do not
think we are going to be ready in five (5) months, honestly, to see a plan from the east
side. I hope so, but I do not see it happening and therefore I think that is going to be
very different. I think people in that community are going to have different wants
and needs. The character is certainly different in Kapa`a, or on the east side,
therefore, I am supportive of getting this forward and I can count—it does not look like
it will. By the way, I do agree, I would like to see this be available to every single
family on this island. As I mentioned before, I could definitely take advantage of it
given my current situation, but let us start. I also advocate for small wins and this is
an opportunity for a small win amongst many to see how this can work and improve
upon it because the stakeholders have come to the table and talked about it. We have
a lot of information already on where we are going and what we should be doing, so
either way, wherever it goes...my interest from the very beginning has been do not
end the conversation, do not kill it just because we have not answered a faction of the
needs that are out there in our community for housing. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are there ghosts in here? Somebody heard
that I said, "Kicking people out of their homes." Just read the minutes...people are
hearing things in here. What I said was the Planning Department should determine
what the inventory is out there and if whatever way you can find that out what the
inventory is so we know what is out there and as we target what the need is, we can
find out what kind of plan we are going to make to solve the problem. It might be a
multi-fold solution where it is not only changing lot size, but it might be some other
accommodations dealing with the FRC or what have you. Certainly, we are not going
to kick people out of their homes and there was no Councilmember that mentioned
that around here, but one. Thank you, Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
COUNCIL MEETING 90 AUGUST 3, 2016
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I went all over my notes...I just want to
reiterate, do we have a housing crisis? Yes. Will this Bill accomplish its intended
purpose to encourage construction of additional rental units? I am not sure. I am not
completely comfortable that it will do what it is going to do or intended to do because
we may get a few units. I am just saying that I would feel more comfortable referring
it back, not killing it, but referring it back to the Planning Commission. Let us have
them look at it, and focus on...I feel like maybe when we originally had it with
additional units and affordability, the affordability portion might have hindered the
thinking as far as "how do we really accomplish getting more units in the areas that
we want it." Let us refer it back, let us have them focus on the purpose, which is to
get more units in the supply chain, whether it is in Lihu`e or another area that they
want to expand it to, and then have it come back to us. I would just feel a lot more
comfortable. Referring it back does not mean we are killing it. I just wanted to get a
little more comfortable on it and that is just my own personal feeling.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody else? I think the fact that this Bill,
if passed today, does not take effect for five (5) months, and I think Councilmember
Kuali`i covered this extremely well, but not supporting this today because you do not
believe that all of the issues were vetted and that was admitted by the Planning
Department. The Planning Department themselves said, "We did not vet those issues
out. We did not vet an island-wide application of this ordinance." Voting no today
because you want that to be vetted is not killing the project. Five (5) months is a long
time to get any proposed amendments over to the Planning Commission, reviewed,
and brought back here. The five (5) month waiting period, as Councilmember Kuali`i
stated, would not have to be in the bill. I guess what I am saying is the net effect/net
gain is the passage of this Bill with possibly an increased area of applicability. That
is all that is. Because I am not satisfied with the Lihu`e and I have said this from the
beginning, two (2) things: affordability really bugged me. I was not here because I
had my surgery when the meetings were taken place, but the affordability
requirement was removed here, I believe, at the Council after it came from the
Planning Department. If I was here, I would have suggested that that was a very
significant change. When you take a bill that came from the Planning Department,
that was vet out as an affordable housing measure and it came to the Council, and
we removed it, to me, is a significant change. I was not here and it came this far. I
think the removal of the affordability has to be addressed as well at the Planning
Commission. That is one of the things I think that needs to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. I guess my point is that I am not suggesting that we receive
this, I am not suggesting that we kill it, I am suggesting that we refer this to the
Committee next week so we can put together the appropriate amendments and for
me it is going to be island-wide applicability. Every community on this island has a
need. At the end of the day, it is not going to hold back. I know one (1) of the comments
was that if we do not pass this today, we are holding back Lihu`e, and we are not
holding back Lihu`e. The Bill holds back Lihu`e for five (5) months and if we cannot
get our amendments to the Planning Commission and back within five (5) months,
then we are all messed up. Keeping this alive in Committee and going across to the
Planning Commission does not hold back a thing, absolutely nothing. Once
everything is vetted out and it gets back to the Council, at that point the passage of
that bill should be able to be implemented immediately and not have a five (5) month
waiting period. This would give everyone the opportunity to vet out what needs to be
vetted. I just think the island-wide application is vital for my support because the
fact that we..."Let us pass this one and we will worry about the others later," there
COUNCIL MEETING 91 AUGUST 3, 2016
is no guarantee that this Council or the next Council will ever pass that and then you
create an inequity. I am hoping that we can get more communities involved because
it is not just Lihu`e, Hanama`ulu, and Puhi that have a housing crisis issue.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am a little confused about removing the
affordability from the Bill. As I recall, we only removed the word "affordable" from
the Findings and Purpose.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: We also removed any language regarding real
property tax breaks too, which was the affordability part that the Bill tried to have.
Council Chair Rapozo: There was not only the Findings and Purpose.
There was a chunk that was removed and in fact, the Findings and Purpose was a
housekeeping amendment because all the guts that pertained to the affordability was
removed prior. Therefore, the Findings and Purpose was no longer accurate because
the guts have been taken out.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Maybe I was not here, but I do read the
minutes. I do pay attention at some point.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Council Chair, I wanted clarification. Would
we be referring it back to Committee or can we refer it back to the Planning
Commission?
Council Chair Rapozo: I would suggest referring it back to the
Committee so that our amendments could be forwarded or else what are you going to
send it back with? We can refer it back to the Planning Commission, but there is
nothing for them to vet. They will vet what they feel they need to vet, but if we
wanted to proposed amendments by removing the restrictions to Lihu`e, yes, that
would have to go back. It is whatever you folks want to do. I am fine with sending it
straight back to the Planning Commission and trusting that Mr. Hull will...but
understand that they are not required to address island-wide. They do not have to.
If we do not send it over in a form of an amendment, how are they going to vet it?
That is just my suggestion. I do not know when the next Planning Commission
meeting is and we are probably not going to make it to the September calendar
anyway, but we can propose our amendments and send the amendments. Staff can
correct me if I am wrong, but I would assume if we send it over there, it will have to
come with some sort of proposal. If someone wants to refer it straight to the Planning
Commission, we could, but there is no change.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Therefore, it would be refer it to Committee
and then do any amendments?We had a lot of discussion about looking at the island-
wide, looking at the size, but I am not sure if that is the exact answer, but as far as
the vetting process, I was not sure how we do it. Do we send it back and have them
COUNCIL MEETING 92 AUGUST 3, 2016
do the conversation or we put it back in Committee and have the Planning
Department tell us...I am open either way, but I would be more comfortable referring
it somewhere and getting it a little more comfortable on it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I think the way it normally works is those
Councilmembers that have issues with certain sections would suggest amendments
to resolve those issues and then we would discuss and vote on them. If it needs to go
back to the Planning Commission at that time, we would send it back at that time.
Normally, I think the way the process works is you put a bill on the table, you either
like it or you do not like it, if you want a bigger size, you propose a bigger size, if you
want island-wide, you propose island-wide, and that keeps the discussion going.
Otherwise, the Chair or somebody else has to figure out what everybody wants. I
think it behooves individual Members to propose specific amendments, otherwise, we
are grasping at straws trying to make everybody happy when we do not know what
is going to make anybody happy.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why I am suggesting that it goes back
to the Committee where the amendments can be proposed. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have often tried to listen at what people's
concerns are and then offer amendments to address it. I am not clear, Councilmember
Kaneshiro, what is making you feel uncomfortable?
Council Chair Rapozo: He is uncomfortable. We are not going to try
and convince anybody...the question right now is what do you folks want to do. Do
you want to kill it today or do you want to send it to the Committee. Those are the
options we have today. I am suggesting that we keep it alive. It is not going to impact
the effective date of this ordinance because of the five (5) month waiting. We can meet
with the Planning Department before next week, so they can assist us with some
amendments, get it to the County Attorney to make sure the amendments are legal,
and those amendments can be introduced at next week's Committee Meeting. At the
Committee Meeting, like what Councilmember Hooser said, if it crosses the threshold
of having it to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, it will get sent over there,
and you would hope that we would get that back within two (2) months—well, within
the five (5) month period. I am with Councilmember Kuali`i, if in fact it does get vetted
out and there is some compelling reason why this should not be an island-wide issue,
I am inclined to support that at that time. I am incline to support the bill for the
Lihu`e area, but I do not believe we have vetted it out and I think we need to. We have
an opportunity and it does not impact and I know people are going to take this and
say, "The Councilmembers killed the opportunity." No, there is no opportunity killed
because it will not take effect for five (5) months anyway. We are just trying to get
more information from the Planning Department.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Procedurally what is the motion on the floor
and would we have to remove that, if it was either to receive or approve? Do we need
a motion to refer?
COUNCIL MEETING 93 AUGUST 3, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: If you want it to go back to the Committee,
yes, it would be a motion to refer it to the Planning Committee.
Councilmember Yukimura: It has higher precedence than the main
motion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It would eliminate the other motion.
Councilmember Yukimura: It has higher precedence.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer Bill No. 2627, Draft 2 as amended to
Bill No. 2627, Draft 3 to the August 10, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion on that? Any public
testimony? I know we have Ms. Kanna here.
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:
Councilmember Chock: Third time's the charm.
Council Chair Rapozo: Third time's the charm. With that, the motion
is to refer it to the Planning Committee.
The motion to refer Bill No. 2627, Draft 2 as amended to Bill No. 2627, Draft 3
to the August 10, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. With that, that ends today's
official proceedings. We will reconvene in the Executive Session room in five (5)
minutes.
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.e' • 9 - .tfully submitted,
JAD D� OUNTAIN-TANIGAWA
County Clerk
:dmc
Attachment 1
(August 3, 2016)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2627, Draft 2, A Bill For An Ordinance To Amend Chapter 10, Kaua`i
County Code 1987, As Amended, By Adding A New Article 5B, To Allow For
Construction Of Additional Rental Units In The Lihu`e Planning District
Introduced By: ROSS KAGAWA
Amend Bill No. 2627, Draft 2, SECTION 2, as amended, to read as follows:
"SECTION 2. Chapter 10 of the Kaua`i County Code 1987, as
amended, is hereby amended by adding a new Article 5B, to be appropriately
designated and to read as follows:
"ARTICLE 5B. LIHU`E COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLEMENTING
ORDINANCE
Sec. 10-5B.1 Additional Rental Units.
(a) Definitions. When used in this Article, the following words or phrases
shall have the meaning given in this Section unless it shall be apparent from the
context that another meaning is intended.
(1) "Additional rental unit" means a rental unit that includes a
separate kitchen, bedroom(s) and bathroom facilities, attached or detached
from a dwelling unit that is used for the purpose of a long term rental unit.
When built within an existing residential dwelling unit or attached to one,
the two (2) units together shall constitute a multi-family dwelling.
(b) One additional rental unit may be located on a lot in the Residential
R-4 and R-6 Zoning Districts in the Lihu`e District, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The maximum size of an additional rental unit shall be as
follows:
Lot Area Maximum Floor Area
5,000 to 7,499 sq. ft. - 400 sq. ft.
7,500 sq. ft. or more 800 sq. ft.
(2) One (1) off-street parking space per additional rental unit shall
be provided .tin addition to the required off-street parking for the primary
dwelling unit.
(3) The subdivision of a lot that would separate the additional
rental unit from the primary dwelling unit is prohibited.
(4) Neither the owner or owners, nor the heirs, successors or
assigns of the owner or owners will submit the lot or any portion thereof to a
condominium property regime under the provisions of Hawaii Revised
1
Statutes (HRS) Chapter 514A to separate the ownership of an additional
rental unit from the ownership of its primary dwelling unit;
(5) The additional rental unit shall be used only for long-term
rental or otherwise occupied for periods of at least six (6) months, and shall
not be used as a part of a homestay operation or transient vacation rental;
(6) The owner or owners of the lot shall record covenants running
with the land with the bureau of conveyances or the land court of the State of
Hawaii, or both, as is appropriate, recording those standards set in
subsection (b).
(c) Additional rental units are not permitted:
(1) On lots with a lot area of less than [3,500] 5,000 square feet;
(2) On lots that have more than one dwelling unit, including but not
limited to, more than one (1) single-family dwelling unit, an additional
dwelling unit, a guest house, a multi-family dwelling or dwellings, planned
development housing, or group living facility. An existing additional dwelling
unit or guest house may be converted into an additional rental unit but no
additional dwelling unit or guest house may be constructed;
(3) On lots that do not have direct or driveway access to a State or
County right-of-way that is at least twenty feet (20') in width.
(d) Prior to building permit review for an additional rental unit, the
following public facilities shall be found adequate to service the additional rental
unit:
(1) For sewered areas, the availability and capability of a public
sewer system shall be confirmed in writing by the Department of Public
Works. The availability of a private sewer system or an individual
wastewater system shall be confirmed in writing by the Department of
Health.
(2) The availability of water, including, but not limited to source,
transmission, and storage lines/facilities shall be confirmed in writing by the
Department of Water.
(3) Approval in writing for an additional rental unit from the Fire
Department shall be required.
(4) The lot must have direct access to a street that has an all-
weather surface (asphalt or concrete) roadway pavement continuous to the
major thoroughfare, or if the street does not have such all-weather surface at
the time of application for a building permit, there exist funds specifically
appropriated in the capital improvement budget ordinance for such roadway
pavement. The Planning Director and County Engineer shall apply the
standards and criteria for requiring road improvements established in the
Subdivision Ordinance and the "Kaua`i County Planning Commission Road
2
Widening Policy" (as may be amended) for those roads considered
substandard.
(e) The additional rental unit Facilities Clearance Form as prescribed by
the Planning Director shall be completed prior to application for a building permit
and shall be submitted with the building permit application. All requirements and
conditions on the completed additional rental unit Facilities Clearance Form shall
be met prior to issuance of a building permit based on legal requirements at the
time of building permit issuance. The Planning Director shall certify the additional
rental unit Facilities Clearance Form as complete only if every signature blank on
the form has been signed by the respective department or agency, and the applicant
has signed an affidavit prescribed by the Planning Director verifying that the
applicant understands that completion of an additional rental unit Facilities
Clearance Form does not guarantee or vest any right to a building permit, and that
all conditions and requirements in existence at the time of building permit
application shall be met before a building permit can be issued.
(f) The owner of a structure constructed without a building permit prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, intending to convert that structure to an
additional rental unit, shall obtain an after-the-fact zoning permit and building
permit.
(g) Any permits for existing structures that can be converted into an
additional rental unit shall not be required to pay an after-the-fact permit fee
pursuant to Section 8-3.1(h), Kaua`i County Code 1987, as amended, provided the
application is submitted to the Department of Planning within twelve (12) months
of the adoption of this Ordinance.
(h) If an additional rental unit is found to be in violation of this Article,
the owner shall be subject to those legal procedures and penalties established under
Section 8-3.5."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2016\08-03-16 ARU Bill 2627 D2-RK-YS Ic.doc
•
3