HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2016 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 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, November 16, 2016 at 8:31 a.m., after
which the following Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock (excused 12:34 p.m.)
Honorable Gary L. Hooser (present at 8:41 a.m.)
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as excused).
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Chair, the next item are
interviews. This is for the Police Commission, Roy Morita, for a term ending
December 31, 2019.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Morita, welcome back.
INTERVIEWS:
POLICE COMMISSION:
• Roy M. Morita —Term ending 12/31/2019
ROY M. MORITA: Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, and
Members of the Council.
Council Chair Rapozo: Good morning. You are being nominated for
a term on the Police Commission. At this point, you can give an overview about
yourself, and then we can open up the floor for questions.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Morita: Chair, if you remember, six (6) years ago,
when I was asked to be on the Civil Service Commission, I asked you to write a
letter of recommendation, and I will say this in a nice way, but you said, "Yes, I will
be good and I will learn how the government operates." I appreciate that and I have
learned a lot in the six (6) years, so I am looking forward to another six (6) with the
Police Commission.
Council Chair Rapozo: Everyone has their application in their
packet. Are there any questions for Mr. Morita? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning.
Mr. Morita: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for your service on the Civil
Service Commission because you did some very important things in the past six (6)
years. I appreciate that because it took a lot of work.
Mr. Morita: It did.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this time around, you are being appointed
to the Police Commission and you have indicated your understanding of the Police
Commission's work. You did not mention that part of it is to appoint or dismiss the
Chief of Police, and I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that
responsibility.
Mr. Morita: I am. I think there are six (6) commissions
that have the appointing authority. I know that the Police Commission, Fire
Commission, Civil Service Commission, Planning Commission, and the Board of
Water Supply have that authority.
Council Chair Rapozo: Also Liquor Control Commission.
Mr. Morita: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are familiar with the process of
evaluating performance on an annual basis, I presume, because that is what I
presume the Civil Service Commission did.
Mr. Morita: The first year that I was on, for some reason
we did not do it. I think it was because they had the wage freeze. Every year after
that, we would do it in either October or November.
COUNCIL MEETING 3 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. You understand the importance of
that responsibility, right?
Mr. Morita: Absolutely. In fact, the Civil Service
Commission, about three (3) years ago, decided to change the evaluation and make
it a little bit more detailed and specific. It took us two and a half (2.5) years to
change that evaluation.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you were intimately involved with the
evaluation process?
Mr. Morita: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Now you will be applying it in
another context with the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
Mr. Morita: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Coming in, do you have any priorities
or key issues that you see coming up for the Police Commission that you think need
to be addressed?
Mr. Morita: I am not sure if it is an upcoming issue, but
on a daily basis pretty much, you see in the news about officers getting shot and
things like that. So for me, one of the important matters would be the safety of the
police officers while on-duty and off-duty.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is excellent. I think that is a concern of
everyone. Luckily, we do not have those issues as frequently, perhaps, as some
places on the mainland.
Mr. Morita: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: But is still a concern, nonetheless.
Mr. Morita: I am hoping that it stays away from this
island.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Police Commission serves as a lay body
between a paramilitary organization and the community, so there is a lot of
community interest that the Police Commission holds. Do you have any concerns in
that arena?
COUNCIL MEETING 4 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Morita: It is another issue that we went over when I
was on the Civil Service Commission, especially with the media. To be honest, I
would be more comfortable if there was an issue that they contact the Chair of the
Police Commission to get information and/or the Public Information Officer (PIO). I
think it states that we can make statements, as long as it does not involve names
and things like that. I am not comfortable, not that I do not like the media or
anything like that, but they have a tendency to misinterpret what you are trying to
say.
Councilmember Yukimura: So your concern is with the protocol of the
media and how it interfaces or interviews commissioners versus the chair of the
commission or the PIO?
Mr. Morita: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morita: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Roy? I just have one
and it is kind of a follow-up. Are you familiar with the past history between the
Police Commission, the Mayor, and the Chief of Police? I am not sure if you were
informed or made aware of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding that
lawsuit that was filed. Are you aware of that or were you made aware of that?
Mr. Morita: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, because no one made anyone aware.
The press did not cover it and the County did not come out with a press release. I
did ask the Police Commission to issue a press release because I think it is very
important, but the Supreme Court made a ruling that basically rejected the appeal
of the Mayor that the Mayor felt that he had the control of hiring, firing, and
disciplining the Chief. That case had statewide ramifications. All of the four (4)
counties were waiting for that decision to be made and it was made a couple of
weeks ago. I left for one (1) week, came back, and still there was no press release. I
was just curious if you were made aware that, in fact, as of this date—and it is the
final decision of the Supreme Court—that the responsibility to discipline the Chief
lies solely with the Police Commission. So you were not made aware of that?
Mr. Morita: I did not expect to be aware until I am
confirmed here, and then possibly get involved. Moving forward, we have to abide
by whatever the decision was made by the Supreme Court. Whether I like it or not,
at this point, it is all moot.
COUNCIL MEETING 5 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I am trying to use this medium or
this venue to make the people aware because that, to me...if it had gone the other
way, it would have made the press release the very next day; one would have been
issued the very next day. I know there is no reporter here and they probably will
not print it anyway because I know they were made aware. It is a very critical
component of a system as it relates to the oversight of the Police Department. I
guess I just wanted to bring that up. As far as the safety of the police officers, I am
glad to hear that because that is really my priority. Everyone thinks that it will
never happen here or may not happen here, but if you follow the police involved
shootings or police killings throughout the country, there is no shortage of small
municipalities like ours that has one of their officers killed and it just turns the
whole community upside down. Just because we are small does not mean that it
cannot happen here.
Mr. Morita: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am glad to hear that you have that as a
priority. I appreciate your willingness to serve. Thank you.
Mr. Morita: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. You are excused. Thanks again, Roy.
Mr. Morita: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: May we have the next interviewee, please?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next interviewee is Mia Shiraishi for the
Board of Ethics, term ending December 31, 2018.
BOARD OF ETHICS:
• Mia R. Shiraishi — Term ending 12/31/2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Good morning.
MIA SHIRAISHI: Good morning.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think this is your first time here.
Ms. Shiraishi: This is.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, good. Welcome.
COUNCIL MEETING 6 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ms. Shiraishi: Thank you for having me.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are being nominated as a board member
for the Board of Ethics, and as we do with all the nominees, we ask that you give us
an overview and reasons why you want to serve, and then we will have discussion
and questions for you afterwards.
Ms. Shiraishi: Okay. Thank you very much. Mia Shiraishi,
for the record. I was born and raised on Kaua`i in Lihu`e. I went to high school at
Punahou and following that, I did my undergrad at the University of Pennsylvania.
Once I graduated, I went to law school at the University of Washington. Upon
graduating, I spent an additional two (2) years in Seattle, working as an attorney,
doing worker's compensation law. Finally, I got to move back home a little over
one (1) year ago, and I am here to stay. I am very happy to be working as an
attorney in Lihu`e. I really do feel that a position on the Board of Ethics is
somewhere that I could be useful to the community. With my legal background and
training, I feel that a position on the Board of Ethics fits squarely within my
background, knowledge, and skillset. Since I am back and here to stay, I am really
looking forward to becoming more involved in the community and helping out in
whatever way that I can and be useful to you.
(Councilmember Hooser was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Wow. Thank you. Any questions for Mia?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you so much for considering serving
the community. I appreciate it. Welcome home.
Ms. Shiraishi: Thank you.
Councilmember Chock: One of the things that occur with the Board
of Ethics is that we often get into situations where we have to address in ethics,
concern right in the middle of an important issue or a decision that needs to be
made. I was wondering if you had any ideas or thoughts about how we might be
able to be a little more proactive at that board to kind of vet what potential conflicts
might occur prior to. For us, even as elected officials, we do not sign a disclosure
form until we are elected to kind of vet out what those potential issues might be. I
would like to be able to see how some of those issues can come to light before they
get politicized, because I think often times when we get to that point, it gets much
more difficult to act on things. If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them. If
not, not a problem, but if you see your role specifically on the Board of Ethics and
what you might bring to it in light of these concerns.
COUNCIL MEETING 7 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ms. Shiraishi: I think it is very important to have open
communication on the board and to have a very good and free flow of
communication between the members so that there are no surprises or whatnot,
down the road. One of the things that I think is important to consider and look at
as a member of the board is to look at precedence and how that plays into decisions
going forward.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Mia.
Ms. Shiraishi: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: It delights me no end to see a young person
willing to be part of the governance of the County and to see that you have come
home. I am really thankful that you are willing to serve. Similar to
Councilmember Chock, in working with ethics issues as a Councilmember, being a
subject of complaints, as well as bringing complaints before the Board of Ethics, I
have wondered about our process because often times we are not sure whether there
is a violation of ethics, someone from the public or even the Councilmember. Yet,
the only way to request a ruling is to file a complaint, which presumes that there is
a violation. I guess my question or my request is that when you get on the board
that you might look at that process and see if there is also...maybe it is something
like requesting a declaratory judgment, but that revolves an actual conflict...some
process maybe and maybe exploring other processes elsewhere in the State, as well
as the country, where you could make an inquiry without presuming a complaint or
a violation. With your legal background, I think it would be very helpful to take a
look at that.
Ms. Shiraishi: Yes, I agree that, that would be a very
valuable thing to look into. I know there is not supposed to be any sort of stigma
associated with filing a new complaint until a decision is made, one way or the
other, but I do feel like you have valid concerns and that is something that
definitely feel is important.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Your mentioning of precedence
is interesting because a question that I asked Judge Fernandez, who was before us
recently as an appointee for the position, was how we could get the board to follow
precedence or be more sensitive about that, because there does not seem to be a
formal process with the commission to consider precedence.
Ms. Shiraishi: I see.
COUNCIL MEETING 8 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Again, someone with your legal background
might help look at that process and see whether there are ways we could make it
better.
Ms. Shiraishi: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am excited that you will be joining the
Board of Ethics.
Ms. Shiraishi: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think you will bring a lot of valuable
insights. Thank you.
Ms. Shiraishi: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. As Councilmember
Yukimura was asking her question and stating that the only venue to file a
complaint was to actually file a complaint with the Board of Ethics and I saw our
County Attorney shaking his head, so I just wanted to make sure that we had
clarity as to the true process, because I would not want the public to hear
Ms. Shiraishi going through the interview and the Council here stating an untrue
statement and the public not being clear as to what the actual way is that we can
clarify ethics problems. I do not know if you wanted Mauna Kea to quickly sum up
some of the misstatements that were made.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not think today is appropriate for that.
Mia, I apologize that you were caught in the crossfire, but as I understand it, there
is a two (2) track process at the Board of Ethics. One is a formal complaint, which
the person that you are complaining against has certain rights, and then the second
option is you can request a ruling on an ethics issue on whether or not it is a
conflict. That is the second part. You do not have to file an official complaint with
that. Like Mr. Morita, he was not aware of certain things, not even appointed yet.
So I just wanted to put that on the record right now. Although, I do agree that, like
in the Office of Information Practices (OIP), if we have an OIP Sunshine Law issue
or a transparency issue, we can actually call OIP and speak to an attorney of the
day and they can give us a verbal opinion. I understand that the Board of Ethics is
not a full-time position, so it is kind of hard to expect the commission to provide
that service, but I think what we are looking for is somehow when we get into an
issue and we need an ethics ruling, that there is someone that we can call. The
County Attorney by Charter is not the arbiter of the ethics law; it is the Board of
COUNCIL MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ethics. That is something that warrants some discussion and that is where we will
be able to have the discussion. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: On that note, I just want to thank Mia for
applying. I cannot think of somebody more credible to serve on this position.
Thank you, Mia. I just want to let you know that there were two (2) decisions that I
had interest in with the Board of Ethics, and basically, they are 0 for 2. I was not
satisfied with their rulings on both and I hope that you will add a breath of fresh air
to that board. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Thank you, Mia. I
appreciate your willingness to serve. Welcome back home. It is so nice to see you
folks come back home. My son is still in Oregon and I wish he would come back
home, but he is not.
Ms. Shiraishi: You never know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Your dad is in the audience. Sherman
Shiraishi is a well-known, respected attorney here. He must be a proud dad. One
thing I just was thinking is now you can retire and you do not have to change the
sign on your office. She can walk right in. Thank you, Mia.
Ms. Shiraishi: Thank you for having me.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next candidate, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next candidate is Donna Apisa for the
Planning Commission, term ending December 31, 2018.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
• Donna Apisa —Term ending 12/31/2018
Council Chair Rapozo: Good morning, Donna. Welcome to the
Council Chambers.
DONNA APISA: Good morning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have you ever served on a commission?
Ms. Apisa: I served on a real estate commission at the
State, but not at the County level.
COUNCIL MEETING 10 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. It is always nice to see a new face
here.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: The process is very simple. Can you open up
with an overview of yourself and why you want to serve? We will open it up for
questions afterwards.
Ms. Apisa: Okay. For starters, I was born and raised on
a small farm in Michigan. I grew up in a place similar to Kaua`i, I suppose, worked
hard out in the fields and neighbors knew neighbors and helped each other. I lived
on O`ahu in the `70s for ten (10) years and discovered Kaua`i in 1981 and said,
"Wow, where have I been all my life?" It was a rural lifestyle, but it was always
warm. This has been my home for the last thirty-five (35) years and I plan to stay
here, live and die here. I have been involved in the Chamber of Commerce, Board of
Realtors, and various other functions, but not on a County board. I have been asked
to serve on the Planning Commission and I think I could give a very unbiased and
open opinion. I care about Kauai as my home, so here I am.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much, Donna. I appreciate
you willing to step up and serve. Any questions? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Aloha Donna. Good morning.
Ms. Apisa: Aloha.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It is kind of hard to believe that you have not
already been on a commission because I know you have done so much in our
community in many different roles. I think that this is an excellent fit for you and I
think you will do great work for us on the Planning Commission. Do you have any
thoughts on what might be your first big challenges or what you are looking forward
to, as far as serving on the Planning Commission?
Ms. Apisa: I do not have any expectations. I know from
my experience or having served on other organizations, I always walk away with
more than I feel like I am able to give. I am ready to learn and I am sure sometimes
there are tough decisions, but I will spend the time to learn what I can and make a
fair and honest decision.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to say mahalo nui loa for all that
you have already given to our community and thank you for stepping up and being
willing to serve on the Planning Commission.
COUNCIL MEETING 11 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning.
Ms. Apisa: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am so delighted that you are willing to
serve on the Planning Commission.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think that the decisions it makes are
among the most far-reaching of any commission, so thank you. You indicate that
the main duty of the Planning Commission is to give sound advice to the Mayor,
County Council, and Planning Director, and that is certainly the case in many
instances and the one that is coming up—I was just at the last community meeting
last night on the General Plan Update—is one area that you will be involved with
soon. In that case, it is a matter of giving advice because the recommendations of
the Planning Commission are not final and they will come up to the Council and the
Mayor for final action. There are some actions that are final at the Planning
Commission level and I was wondering whether you were aware of that.
Ms. Apisa: As far as like use permits and things like
that?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. They are pretty much the final
decisions, except for court appeal, but that is kind of extraordinary. So you are
familiar with use permits, Class IV permits, and those kinds of permits?
Ms. Apisa: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: You will get more familiar, but they are final
decisions of the Planning Commission or in the system, more like. Okay. Do you
have any particular issues that you feel should be addressed in the planning
system?
Ms. Apisa: Well, with a realtor background, the one
thing I hear about are the time it takes for building permits to get processed, but
that is about the only thing that comes to mind.
COUNCIL MEETING 12 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, that is something that I think a lot of
people, especially those involved in the development and building process, have
concerns about. I think your work in the Planning Commission will address part of
it. Part of it is not really under the Planning Department, but you will be able to
take a look at some parts of it, I think. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Donna?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you for being willing to serve.
Ms. Apisa: Sure.
Councilmember Kagawa: There have been some bills discussed
recently to perhaps allow multi-family dwellings or Additional Dwelling Units
(ADUs), residential units, or rental units on lots a lot smaller than the norm, which
is ten thousand (10,000), possibly bringing it down to as small as four thousand
(4,000) square feet or so. I see that your residence is in Princeville.
Ms. Apisa: Actually, I live in Kilauea. My main office is
in Princeville, but I live in Kilauea.
Councilmember Kagawa: I guess some of the concerns brought up were
that perhaps the north shore area would be opening up the door for Transient
Vacation Rentals (TVRs) and bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) to expand when we
actually want them to reduce. So with these types of bills, perhaps leaving out
Kilauea to north shore and not allowing those there—do you think that is an option
that we should seriously look at?
Ms. Apisa: Maybe I understand and maybe to
paraphrase or repeat it back, you are asking if it would be wise to allow additional
dwelling units for...
Councilmember Kagawa: The entire island, except those areas that the
Council sees that could be in danger of being taking advantage of.
Ms. Apisa: As everyone knows, there is a dire need for
residential housing and I do not see how allowing additional...I guess if you allow
additional dwelling units, I do not see how they would become a vacation rental
because you have a pretty good bill in place right now that you have to have been
doing that and registered prior to 2008. I think that is a pretty good bill in place
and there is some natural attrition, too, because some people buy it and convert it to
COUNCIL MEETING 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
residents. I do not really see TVRs as growing, especially outside of a Vacation
Destination Area (VDA).
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions? If not,
thank you very much, Donna. I will say, kind of like what Councilmember Kuali`i
said, that you have been everywhere in the community. It is like every time we are
at a community event, you are there. I appreciate your contributions to the
community and I am looking forward to see you serve on the Planning Commission.
Ms. Apisa: Thank you very much. I look forward to
hearing from you all. Thank you. Good job to you folks. I know it is not easy.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next candidate is for the Board of Water
Supply, Thomas Canute, for a term ending December 31, 2019.
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY:
• Thomas J. Canute —Term ending 12/31/2019
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Canute.
THOMAS J. CANUTE: Good morning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Good morning. Welcome. We have another
first timer here to serve on a County commission. Correct?
Mr. Canute: That is correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Welcome. Thank you for your willingness to
serve. If you could just start off with an overview about yourself and your reasons
for wanting to serve. We will open it up for questions afterwards. You are being
nominated for the Board of Water Supply.
Mr. Canute: That is correct. My name is Thomas Canute.
I have worked for First Hawaiian Bank for thirty-five (35) years. I am currently the
Vice President and Branch Manager for the Lihu`e office. I am married and I have
three (3) children, who are all grown, and I live in Hanapepe.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions
for Mr. Canute? Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 14 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi Tom. Good morning.
Mr. Canute: Good morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is your understanding of the Board of
Water Supply's duties?
Mr. Canute: My understanding is that they look at policy
and for the Board of Water Supply in terms of the financial aspects of raising
money, making sure that they are fiscally responsible to the community for future
development, water needs, and water use.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is true. They also are responsible for
appointing and/or dismissing the head engineer or the water director. Were you not
aware of that?
Mr. Canute: No, I was not aware of that.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is really important because it is the
person who runs the department. So you will be involved in executive evaluation of
performance and direction to a certain extent. Although, there is a line in the
Charter between...the board is supposed to mainly set policy and not cross the line
into management...wait...excuse me...the Board of Water Supply is a manager, too.
They do have management functions. They are the only commission that has
management functions. You will, I think, look at or give direction to the manager.
So that is a really big responsibility, too. Do you have any particular aspects of the
Board of Water Supply functioning that you are interested in or concerned about?
Mr. Canute: I currently sit on the Kaua`i Habitat for
Humanity Board, so I know that there is currently something in front of the Board
of Water Supply right now regarding providing a lower Facilities Reserve Charge
(FRC) for affordable housing. Obviously, Kaua`i Habitat is very interested in that
and if that ended up going into my term on the Board of Water Supply, I would
obviously have to declare my conflict of interest to that situation. Again, being a
nonprofit, it is not entirely a conflict, but it probably would be appropriate if I did
not vote on such a measure.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is something that you should consult with
the attorneys and maybe the Board of Ethics on.
Mr. Canute: Right.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: At the same time, I think if it is a Habitat for
Humanity application before the board, there would definitely be a conflict of
interest. If it is a generalized issue regarding affordable housing, I do not know if
there would be a conflict of interest. The other way of looking at it is that you
would bring valuable insight from an affordable housing perspective. The other
side of the equation is who then pays for the charges that are subsidized or that
subsidy portion, and how will the County have a viable budget into the future?
Those are the issues. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Canute: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Tom, for being willing to serve.
I think the change of the FRC from like four thousand six hundred dollars ($4,600)
to fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) was one of the worst decisions I have seen on
a board of all time, to go in one (1) year with a ten thousand dollar ($10,000)
increase. I hear that the affordable housing proposal, but to me, all local housing,
housing for your families and kids, should be included as well for local residents. I
do not know why only the affordable rental is going to have a break. It just does not
make sense to me. Anyway, I was just wondering what your take on that is. I can
see the rationale, "We do not want to charge the existing ratepayers the cost of new
homes coming on board," but in any normal business practice or government
practice of raising fees, you go gradually. You go one thousand dollars ($1,000) a
year until you hit where you want to be. To just jump ten thousand dollars
($10,000)—what is your feeling on that?
Mr. Canute: Being that I have not been on the board, I do
not really understand all of the fiscal issues or complexities of why the Board of
Water Supply decided that, that was an appropriate decision at that time. What I
can say is that I am very passionate about affordable housing and I think there is a
real lack of affordable housing on the island. To increase the cost to the FRC charge
for those building affordable housing is only going to discourage them from doing so.
It is only going to increase the cost because the margins of building affordable
housing is already smaller than it would be to build more expensive housing. If you
increase the cost of the FRC charge, it is only going to further discourage
developers. In the case of the County and Kaua`i Habitat, I do not understand why
the County would still have to pay the FRC charge when they are building
affordable housing, because you are really paying yourself, essentially.
Councilmember Yukimura: No.
Mr. Canute: You are not? Okay, so if it is a separate
entity, you are still paying it, but the County is still going to build affordable
COUNCIL MEETING 16 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
housing. For the Kaua`i Habitat, that is certainly going to cause us to have to come
up with...if you are building one hundred (100) homes, that is a lot of money for an
additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000) here. As far as whether or not everybody
should pay or not pay the additional charge, there are some people that certainly
can afford to pay it, people that are well-heeled that have a lot of money that are
coming here. I really do not think that we should be assessing those that are
willing to develop affordable housing.
Councilmember Kagawa: Tom, to clarify, my point is not to
increase...we have a housing shortage.
Mr. Canute: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: So I am talking about increasing all housing
opportunities. To go with gradual step increases overtime, would that not make a
lot more sense if we have a housing crunch? I think we are short five thousand
(5,000) homes right now, as we speak, on Kaua`i. That ten thousand dollar
($10,000) jump in one (1) year does the opposite, right?
Mr. Canute: The fact that housing prices have spiked so
significantly in such a short period of time would seem to indicate that certainly the
demand is outpacing the supply right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your response.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Tom? I guess the
way I compare it is, imagine if at the bank your board of directors came back and
said, "We are going to raise the interest rates on loans from four percent (4%) to
fourteen percent (14%)." Out of your hands...
Mr. Canute: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just like it is out of our hands on the County
Council because we do not control anything that the Department of Water does. It
is frustrating and I think you sense that. It is fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000),
plus all of the other fees and costs to build a new home today takes an affordable
unit out of affordability and we are hoping that the Department of Water can take a
look at that and at least see that part of it because you are just not going to be able
to get these homes affordable. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The money you say that the County saves
from the FRC is going to the same entity, but actually, the money saved is for the
Housing Agency's budget on housing. The money that is being taken away does not
COUNCIL MEETING 17 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
go back to the County Department of Water for development of water
infrastructure.
Mr. Canute: Well, it ends up in the County Department of
Water's trust funds for future development and infrastructure for the Department
of Water. Correct?
Councilmember Yukimura: What?
Mr. Canute: So the extra money they are raising will end
up in trust funds that are available for the Department of Water to develop
additional infrastructure and repairs down the road.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it will save the project developer money
for the affordable housing.
Mr. Canute: No, but what I am saying though is if the
Department of Water, the extra money they are getting is at the expense of the
County, but at the benefit of the Department of Water to have money in their trust
funds available to develop future projects.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it is to pay for the costs, all of the
infrastructure, the tanks, and water source that are going to feed the housing
project that was approved.
Mr. Canute: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it is a deficit.
Mr. Canute: To the County?
Councilmember Yukimura: To the County Department of Water and its
efforts to have a sustainable water system.
Council Chair Rapozo: A lot of challenges.
Mr. Canute: I obviously have a lot to learn.
Council Chair Rapozo: You will do fine, Tom.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 18 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Anymore questions? If not, thank you very
much, Tom. I appreciate your willingness to serve and looking forward to it. Thank
you.
Mr. Canute: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Can we go to the Consent Calendar
real quick? Wait, Mr. Furfaro wants to say something.
JAY FURFARO, Boards and Commissions Administrator: Good morning,
Chair and Councilmembers. I do want to say that if there are any particular
questions on the operation as it comes to orientation and so forth, my office is really
prepared to respond to any of your questions on the operational procedure. For
example, with Councilmember Chock's question about identifying potential conflicts
and challenges, I just want to remind you all that in Executive Session for the
Board of Ethics, they actually review the disclosures. So if there is something that
goes off with a red flag, there is an opportunity and the County Attorney's Office
fully staffs these commissions to guide them, as well as should we have candidates
successful for Planning and so forth, they do get a final orientation before they are
sworn in by the Planning Director. I just want to point out, Chair, that there are
some operational issues that are in place and if you have any questions, I will be
happy to answer them in writing. Thank you for the time this morning.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for making that clarification. I
appreciate that.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2016-240 Communications (09/29/2016 & 10/26/2016) from Michael P.
Victorino, Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC) President, transmitting for
the Kauai County Council's consideration, the following proposals to be included in
the 2017 HSAC Legislative Package, which were approved by the HSAC Executive
Committee on August 23, 2016, September 26, 2016, and October 24, 2016:
2017 HSAC LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE PROPOSALS:
1. A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability (County of
Kaua`i)
2. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic Fines
(County of Kaua`i)
3. A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation For Emergency
Medical Services (County of Kauai)
4. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(City & County of Honolulu)
COUNCIL MEETING 19 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
5. A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise Control (City & County
of Honolulu)
6. A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings (County
of Maui)
7. A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For
Persons With Disabilities (County of Maui)
8. A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient Accommodations
Tax (County of Maui)
9. A Bill For An Act Relating To The Conveyance Tax (County
of Maui)
10.A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records (County
of Maui)
11.A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural Lands
(County of Maui)
12.A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use (County of Maui)
13.A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining (County
of Maui)
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2016-240 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or public testimony?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is coming up in the Resolution at the
end and we can have discussion at that time, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. My plan is to take each item
individually and have a discussion on each item when we get to that point.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any public testimony?
The motion to receive C 2016-240 for the record was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Let us take a recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 9:13 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:31 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 20 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. Can we
have the next item, please?
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2016-241 Communication (10/17/2016) from the Chief of Police, requesting
Council approval to receive and expend Fiscal Year 2014 STOP Violence Against
Women Formula Grant Federal funds for the Sex Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE)
program, in the amount of $48,595.00, which will be used to provide stand-by pay,
training, and non-reporting exams for SANE nurses; and approval to indemnify the
State of Hawai`i, Department of the Attorney General for the term commencing
December 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve
C 2016-241, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or public testimony?
The motion to approve C 2016-241 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We are on page number 3, C 2016-242.
C 2016-242 Communication (10/31/2016) from the Executive on
Transportation, requesting Council approval of indemnification provisions
contained in the Donation, Waiver of Liability, and Indemnification Agreement for
Surplus Personal Property, by and between the County of Kaua`i and the University
of Hawai`i, for the benefit of Kaua`i Community College, to utilize the vehicles in
connection with the University's vehicle maintenance, repair, and mechanic
programs at Kaua`i Community College, including allowing Kaua`i Community
College to use engines and related operating and safety systems as educational
instructional aides:
• Donation, Waiver of Liability, and Indemnification Agreement
for Surplus Personal Property
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve C 2016-242, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am really pleased that this is happening. I
love that the buses will be used when we can no longer use them in our bus system
for training community college students in how to maintain, repair, and do the
COUNCIL MEETING 21 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
mechanics of bus systems because I am anticipating that we will have a lot of buses
to fix in the future. I hope that there will be buses that run on renewable energy.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before we go on, Celia, can you come up real
quick? I have one question. If there are no objections, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
CELIA M. MAHIKOA, Executive on Transportation: Aloha. Celia
Mahikoa, Executive on Transportation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for being here. I just have one
question. By any chance, are these the buses that we got from Honolulu?
Ms. Mahikoa: No. These are seven (7) that were fully
utilized in our fleet beyond their useful lives.
Council Chair Rapozo: You did not want the Honolulu ones?
Ms. Mahikoa: Those were not an option at this point.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am not going to discuss that because
it is not on the agenda, but can the staff send something over? I want to know the
status of those Honolulu buses. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So they are the result of our replacement
program, correct?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, that is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have a policy, whereafter so many miles
or so many years, we replace the buses so we can be sure that we have
well-operating buses.
Ms. Mahikoa: Ideally. That would be the greatest way to
operate it. We have been replacing them as funding has become available to replace
them. We are allowed to replace them at either one hundred fifty thousand
(150,000) miles or five (5) years of use, whichever comes first. That gives us the
allowable point to dispose of. Typically, we are able to, through the great
maintenance program that we have with our shop team, get them to double that on
the odometers, so three hundred thousand (300,000) miles is typically where we end
up disposing them.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Good. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 22 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: My question was going to be how many, and
you just said seven (7) that were fully utilized.
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So it is seven (7) that came out of operational
circulation, if you will, because of the age of the vehicles.
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So will more come out every year?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: How many is anticipated next year?
Ms. Mahikoa: I believe we have funds that will allow us to
replace, I believe, it is twelve (12) of them at this point.
Councilmember Kuali`i: This approval is just for the seven (7)?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, the seven (7) that were disposed of in
the last round of disposals. So next year, we will be disposing of additionally.
Councilmember Kuali`i: By the word "donation," that means that
these are being given to them? So will they own it and be able to fix it and sell it as
they please?
Ms. Mahikoa: There are stipulations included within the
agreement that we have with Kaua`i Community College (KCC) and the University
of Hawai`i (UH) that disallows them from being able to use it for that purpose.
They are to use it for educational purposes.
Councilmember Kuali`i: My logic tells me that the purpose of training
and fixing means that once the vehicle is fixed, it is fixed; it is maintained or what
have you. Are you just saying that they are breaking it apart and teaching them
how to build it?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, that is my understanding.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: Do they need seven (7)? There must be some
value to the County in being able to auction, if you will, whatever useful life there is
still left on the vehicles. Are we doing some of that as well or is it all going to KCC?
Ms. Mahikoa: Actually, these vehicles are result of having
gone through that required auction process and they were not purchased. They
were remaining and would have needed to be junked, so this is actually an excellent
use for them, rather than just going through the junking.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So in the auction process, you take any bids
or was there a minimum bid that was not met?
Ms. Mahikoa: We are typically required to set a minimum
bid for them.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So when a minimum bid is not met, you
cannot go any lower, so you are then going to junk it? Something seems wrong with
that. What was the minimum bid? I am curious.
Ms. Mahikoa: I can look that up for you, but they are
typically set at either two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or five hundred dollars
($500).
Councilmember Kuali`i: Were the buses still operational when they
were auctioned? Could they have been driven?
Ms. Mahikoa: My Program Specialist may be able to better
answer that.
JEREMY LEE, Program Specialist III: Council Chair and
Councilmembers, for the record, Jeremy Lee. Most of the vehicles were in operable
condition and some of them were not. So the total of seven (7) vehicles did go
through the auction process as stipulated by the procurement office. None of them
sold. They were all marked at two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for sale. I believe we
received no bids for each of them. So what we were left with was paying to have
them towed and adding junk to our island. In this case, we are saving the County
money and allowing KCC to have an educational benefit as a result.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So just to be clear, you said of the seven (7),
most of them were in operable condition, which meant that the person who bought
it for two hundred fifty dollars ($250) could have drove it off and use it?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 24 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i: How do we publicize the auction? I would
imagine there are nonprofits with youth programs that need to transport them and
if it can pass safety standards, it would be something that they would be interested
in. I would just imagine that.
Mr. Lee: The question might be best answered by the
procurement office.
Councilmember Kuali`i: By who?
Mr. Lee: The Purchasing Department. We do not run
the procurement for that auction.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Okay.
Mr. Lee: We just provide the information of the
vehicles to them and they execute that process of auction.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: One of the reasons we discard them is
because even though they are still running, the repairs and the unreliability of it
would be far more costly than to keep them running, right?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Even though you might actually be able to
drive it off the auction block, you just do not know how much longer it will drive or
you are going to have to make constant and more expensive repairs.
Ms. Mahikoa: Exactly.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. There are some rationale behind why
we are doing it and probably why people do not buy it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. I am just curious, but
how many miles is the average of these seven (7) vehicles, 2005 through 2008
models? They are all ElDorado's, right?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 25 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: So how many miles on average were put on
these vehicles?
Mr. Lee: I do not know if the document listed it, but it
was probably about two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) to three hundred
thousand (300,000) for vehicles or over.
Councilmember Kagawa: Going forward, are the ElDorado's the only
types of vehicles or do we feel like they are efficient, given the costs and we are
going to stay with that line?
Mr. Lee: Purchasing requires us to go open bid, so
Invitation For Bids (IFBs). When we do open bid, anybody can bid on it. There are
multiple manufacturers that can bid on our type of vehicles. So we go and put it out
to bid and whoever is the lowest bidder, in this case, would win the contract.
Councilmember Kagawa: But does efficiency and past history of
vehicles not count? If you had a line of vehicles that were breaking down a lot
sooner than a vehicle that we had in the past...is it always low bid or do we look at
low bid, plus efficiency of the vehicle?
Mr. Lee: I better understand your question. When we
build the specs, the specs are built to a federal standard at minimum, and on top of
that, we build into the spec a desired quality of vehicle.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Mr. Lee: So to answer your question, yes, we do
require certain levels of performance for each of the vehicle's components and each
of the manufacturers can meet that.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other questions? We have
had some suspension issues with the buses. Are these seven (7) part of that batch
that had some suspension issues? In other words, if someone was to purchase this
for two hundred fifty dollars ($250), as Councilmember Yukimura said, the cost to
fix the suspension and get it would outweigh the low cost of the actual vehicle. Is
that what you think happens?
Mr. Lee: To clarify your question, are you asking us
about the shimmy that occurs in the buses?
COUNCIL MEETING 26 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Did these seven (7) have that problem
as well?
Mr. Lee: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Wow. Two hundred fifty dollars
($250)—that is something.
Mr. Lee: It is a steal.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Son of a gun, I intended to go to that
auction and I missed it. Dang. If you buy it for two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and
sell for five hundred dollars ($500), you would double your money. Any other
questions? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I just want to clarify. When I asked about
the auction process, you said to ask the Purchasing Department, right? What the
process was to auction, how it was notified to the public, whether...
Mr. Lee: Yes, I am sorry. I do not know what the
process of what they do, their full extent, and how they promote auctions.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I would like to follow-up with the Division of
Purchasing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other questions? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It does not cost anything for us to junk it,
right? What if we wanted to drive it to Puhi and it is no longer useful? Does it cost
us anything?
Mr. Lee: For Reynolds or the recycling place, there is
a towing fee for us to deliver it there because all these vehicles that had a "junk"
status for their title and could not be operated on the road. We would have to pay
the towing company to have it towed over there, so at five hundred dollars ($500) a
pop, we do incur some costs. In this case, KCC is now responsible of incurring that
cost to remove it from our property to theirs for use for educational purposes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just thought that there was a difference,
like if you brought a small vehicle like a regular car, you do not have to pay
anything there. But I thought if you brought a larger vehicle, like a bus or large,
heavy equipment that there was a cost, but there is not, right?
COUNCIL MEETING 27 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Lee: No, the County does not pay any fees for that
service.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Once the vehicle gets to the County site
where we receive junked vehicles, we have to pay to process it and get rid of it,
right?
Mr. Lee: No. We would have to pay the towing fee to
get the vehicle.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, but the Solid Waste Division has to pay.
We pay the contract.
Mr. Lee: There is a contract, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So we have to pay. We either offset it with
people paying for their cost or the County pays...not your department or division,
but the County has to pay for it.
Mr. Lee: There is a contract in place, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? If not, thank you.
Ms. Mahikoa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any public testimony? Mr. Bernabe.
MATTHEW BERNABE: Matthew Bernabe. Good morning everybody.
I would like to first start off by saying that they do a really good job of taking care of
these buses. I went to check it out and it is a clean motor pool. I am a 62 Bravo
from the Army. I used to be in a motor pool. When I trained to be a 62 Bravo, we
worked on all older equipment that were (inaudible), as we are talking about now.
So it is important to have extra vehicles. Even if you have two (2) vehicles that are
being worked on, it is good to have a spare in case they cannot find the part. Some
of these parts might be obsolete, you do not know that. What I would like to say is
that this is an opportunity here to hybridize this program a little further. Why are
we not having the hotels at this discussion with making some deal where the
maintenance is done by KCC, we get them out of the "junk" status, and they use it
COUNCIL MEETING 28 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
to pick up employees to reduce traffic on our road? There has to be some
out-of-the-box thinking that we can tie everything in and not waste anything. I am
not going to go too deep into it, but I was educated on some of the procurement
processes for the bus. There are some inconsistencies that should be looked at. I
was very upset when I learn...I am not going to go into it here...it was a half an
hour lesson to me, if not an hour, but I think we need to investigate what is going
on with this. I will just give a clue. I believe that it is the bus chassis. With that
said, we have to come up with some way to reduce traffic, get these things
operational, and get the kids to learn how to wrench on them. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other public testimony?
Seeing none, we will call the meeting back to order. Further discussion? I just
want to say thank you. I think it is a great program that the college kids get to
work on these types of equipment. The waiver or the agreement clearly says that
they cannot use this...it can never been titled again, so this will never see the road
again. That is awesome for the kids or the students, I should say, because we have
some adults going to school at KCC that will have an opportunity to work on these
things. It is a great, great program. There were also some good suggestions from
Matt. I never thought of that. You have twelve (12) turning over next year and
maybe we can incorporate some other programs and look into some other ways to
get rid of it.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2016-242 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Thank you. Next item.
C 2016-243 Communication (11/04/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
requesting the presence of the Managing Director, to provide the Council with a
briefing on the auction and relocation of the old Kapa'a Police Substation building
near Kapa'a Beach Park: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive C 2016-243 for
the record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, I will suspend the
rules with no objections. Mr. Rezentes. Maybe you can start with a chronology of
this building.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., Managing Director: Wally Rezentes, Jr.
I apologize, I do not have the chronology. I got involved in the process because I
guess it was not being moved timely. I can tell you that it was auctioned...I think it
COUNCIL MEETING 29 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
was at the same time...the last auction...we do it once a year...the same time the
buses normally go out. I have been in communication with the bidder that won a
number of times, numerous times. The progress so far has been that they took out
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) walkway, took out the utilities like
water, sewer, and electrical, and he contracted with a construction company to do
the hauling. I spoke to him actually this morning and he is hoping to have the
building hauled no later than next week. Hopefully, they get it done and they get it
scheduled. He told me that they are going to work on organizing a police escort for
the hauling of the building, but it should be done within a couple of weeks.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is on the agenda because that was the last
answer I got. I do not have the dates. I should have had the dates with me.
Mr. Rezentes: I got on this late. I think this preceded me
working back at the County. I have been in contact with the owner and worked
through any and all permitting issues with the Planning Department, the
Department of Public Works (DPW), et cetera. All of that, I think, is taken care of.
Council Chair Rapozo: United Public Works (UPW)?
Mr. Rezentes: No, DPW.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh. What is our remedy? Is there a remedy
for us? Can we charge this guy a daily fee? He purchased the building, he is
supposed to get it out of there, and he has done nothing. I do not know who he is or
she is, but that needs to go. Is there a remedy for us to move it, take it away, and
charge him or bill him? Maybe put a lien on his property?
Mr. Rezentes: One of the remedies, I assume, is to take it
back and re-auction it when we normally do our annual auctions. I am hoping...
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not interested in the sale. Did we get
paid for it?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So it is his now or hers?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not want to re-auction it; I want it off
that property because it is a health hazard, a safety hazard, and it is a problem. I
do not know what...are we just going to let it go? Anyway, let me open it up for
other questions. Mauna Kea, maybe you can come up and help me on this? What is
COUNCIL MEETING 30 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
the County's remedy right now? This has gone on way too long and every time I
ask, I get the same answer, "By the end of this week...in two (2) weeks," and it has
been months already. If you are not prepared, Mauna Kea—I am sorry, I should
have asked you this before. I honestly hoped that by putting it on the agenda,
Wally would have come up and say, "Chair, it has been moved," but it has not been
moved. I want to know what is the County's remedy for people like this...if that
person bought the bus and left the bus, what would we do?
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: For the record, Mauna Kea
Trask, County Attorney. Preliminarily, I apologize, but the County is a corporate
body politic comprised of the people of islands of Kaua`i and Niihau. So we can own
land, we can contract, and sue and be sued in our corporate name. So we would
have generally all rights and duties of a normal landowner. Beyond that, I would
have to look at the specifics and get back to you. I would like to get back to you with
an accurate answer, although, I would like to answer today. So if I could have
two (2) weeks?
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not expect an answer today. Like I said,
I just hoped for a different outcome. This is one of the things that "Da Shadow"
brought up a long time ago, before Wally was here. Even since Wally has been here,
he has been given the runaround by this guy who purchased it and I think it needs
to go. If somebody gets hurt on that property, it is going to be our kuleana. I guess
we do not think about those things, but I do. It is always, "Oh my God, I wish we
had done that," and then we are too late and somebody gets hurt. All of the drug
activity is still going on down there and they are using that damn building.
Anyway, I have asked Scott to pull all of the communications because I want the
public to see that we do not do these things, just put it on the agenda to embarrass
people—we try and when we do not get the answers that we want or we need, then
it shows up on the agenda. This is one of them that I am frustrated with, as you
can tell. Any other questions for Mauna Kea or Wally? If not, thank you.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody in the audience wishing to testify?
Mr. Bernabe.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe, for the record. I actually had
a different testimony lined up because I did not realize that it had been sold
already. In hindsight, well, now we are with the new information, I would like to
just say that I would like to see...I do not know where the funds are going from this
sale if they are not already expended, but I would like it to be recycled into their
substation up by Mahelona, if that is even a possibility. I am not quite sure how it
works. I did not realize that it was sold already. I agree with the Chair that if he
has not picked up his building by "x" amount of time, then something has to be
COUNCIL MEETING 31 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
done. That is ridiculous. I do see the people using them. I go there all of the time
and I see the same things that you folks see. I am in support of moving on this.
Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify? Jerome, this
is the Kapa'a substation. I am not sure if you wanted to testify. Please come up.
Do not be afraid to speak, but stay on the topic of the police substation, which is the
issue that you brought up a long time ago.
JEROME FREITAS: My name is Jerome Freitas. Council Chair
Rapozo, Vice Chair Kagawa, and the rest of the Councilmembers and the staff.
Like I said, this Kapa'a police substation at the Kapa'a Beach Park—I know that
the police moved to the Armory about three (3) years ago. Six (6) months later, I
called the Department of Public Works and asked what they were going to do with
the police substation. This is all written down, black and white, so they cannot
deny this. Whoever made the responses back...they cannot play games. Do the
right thing. The first one was in 2014. They said that they looked into that and
that the Police Department is going to use that for something, and then they are
going to remove it to someplace else, but so far nothing happened. I have another
one dated March 11, 2015, where I asked, "What is the status of the old Kapa'a
substation?" They said, "The substation will be used for Fire Department training.
The Police Department is currently looking for permanent use of the facility and if
none found, the structure will be removed." This was in 2015, one (1) year later.
Another year late, they said that somebody purchased the building. So I asked
them, "What is going to happen?" They said, "It is not their problem. It is the
owner's problem." I told them, "No, but it is on County property." They are
responsible. There are a lot of homeless sleeping in there, too. There is no sign
"Keep Out" or anything like that. That is our liability. The Administration better
start doing the right thing and look for the safety of the public. We have a lot of
things out there that has not been done. I am going to stay on subject and not
mention anything else, but if you want to look at it, I will meet with you folks one
day. A lot of things have not been done for years and years. Do not play the game.
Just do the right thing for everybody. Thank you, Chair, for putting it on the
agenda. I appreciate it very much. If you folks want to check it out, I will show you
one day. Call me up. I will bring all of my pictures so that you know what I am
talking about. I know my time is up. Can I come back for my second three (3)
minutes?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Freitas: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anybody else wishing to testify on this
matter? If not, Jerome, you can have your second three (3) minutes.
COUNCIL MEETING 32 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Freitas: Like I said, I have a lot of E-mails. I forgot
to bring them with me today. A lot of them are from the public saying, "Jerome,
when are they going to move the structure there?" I do not know the last time they
were in Kapa'a to check on that police substation. I guess they had the ramp for the
handicap and it is already gone. Yet, still the people go to sleep there and
underneath there, they have a small gas tank. It is still there yet and has not been
removed. So go out and check around the area, rather than staying in the office and
wondering, "What is going on over here?" The people have the power. We pay your
wages. Do your folks' job. What is priority of the Administration? Getting things
done that is not necessary or can wait? Do things that are important now for the
public, like safety issues and things like that. I can tell you a lot of other things,
but Chair told me to stick to this subject, so I am going to do that. Work together
and do your folks' job; that is all we are asking for. I am not getting paid. I do this
because I love my island. I love Kaua`i, for the betterment of everybody. You have
to do it from your heart. Money is not everything in life. Do your folks' job, work
together, and everybody will be happy. That is it. I want to thank all of you folks—
Chair, Vice Chair, Councilmembers, and staff—for listening to me. Mahalo. Have a
nice day.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, I will call the meeting
back to order. Any discussion?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me just give you a historical review of
this. I submitted my first request on January 5, 2016. On January 7th, that went to
the Department of Public Works, Department of Parks & Recreation, the Police
Department. On January 7th, I got a response from the Police Chief saying that,
that building had been sold at the auction and that the owner—within two (2) days
I received a response from KPD—that they sold the building and the owner was
awaiting permits to move. That was the only response I received. I think even
before Jerome came and started to discuss with us—June 14th I sent one again.
That is six (6) months. I sent over a second request to the Administration, to the
Department of Public Works, "Hey, it has been six (6) months. What is up with the
building?" That was on July 14th. On July 29th, I sent a follow-up because I heard
that it had been sold and so forth. That was July. On August 23rd, I sent another
follow-up to the Administration. This would be to Mr. Rezentes. On August 25th, I
am informed by Mr. Rezentes that he is waiting to hear back from the person who
bought the building and that person is working with Kikiaola Construction on
removing the building as soon as possible. That was August 25th. On
September 27th, it was the third request because I had heard nothing. On
September 29th, we got another response from Mr. Freeman, who purchased the
COUNCIL MEETING 33 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
building. He was off-island and that is what we did not hear back from him.
According to Mr. Freeman, he has crews scheduled to dismantle the ramp and deck
on Saturday, which was October 1st, and is working with the State to move the
building next week. That was September 29th. Today is November, almost heading
to the end of the year, and that building is still there. There needs to be some sort
of remedy by this County. I do not know. I am not sure if when we sell these kinds
of things if there is a time period where they have to remove that item. I do not
know if we made that part of the contract or the document when we sold it, but we
cannot have that there. I know we asked for a motion to receive, but I am
suggesting that we defer it and get them every week at every meeting up here to
give us an update. That is my recommendation. I am not going to put up with this
again. This is ridiculous. It has been almost one (1) year and that building is still
there. It is not usable for a police substation. Our police deserve a little better than
that. That is trash, and somebody bought the trash, so now they need to remove the
trash. That is where it is at. I am going to ask that you folks reconsider and
change your motion to a deferral and get this on every meeting until it is moved.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question about your point where in
the auction documents we would not...I mean it seems very logical that we should
put a deadline for removal of the property, and I would like to have a question go to
Procurement...I guess it is Procurement and/or Police, who oversee the auction
process to ask: one, if a deadline was set; and two, whether in the future a deadline
could be set as part of the documents?
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have a problem calling somebody
over. Does anybody know the answer to that question? Wally, do you know?
Councilmember Yukimura: That seems like a fundamental, procedural
thing that should be done.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you buy a car, you take it out today. If you
buy a building, you get so many days. It is unacceptable. As you can see, people
say that I am impatient, but look how long...
Councilmember Yukimura: So if you want somebody now, can we just
move the item to the end of the agenda?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, let us do that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
C 2016-244 Communication (11/04/2016) from Council Chair Rapozo,
requesting the presence of the Acting County Engineer, to provide the Council with
an update on the Notice of Violation and Order (NOVO) from the State of Hawai`i
Department of Health, Clean Water Branch for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and related violations and penalties at the
four (4) refuse transfer stations: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to receive
C 2016-244 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have a companion Executive Session,
which we will be able to discuss the specifics of the actual investigation, but this is
to have the Administration update the public on where we are at, as far as the
process and the investigation. Can you folks come up? Discussion? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just want to make sure that we have the
County Attorney watching this and stopping us if we should not be asking or
answering questions that perhaps should not be answered in open session. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The rules are suspended with no
objections. Lyle, can you give us an update that you can discuss? We will deal with
all of the other questions in Executive Session.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LYLE TABATA, Acting County Engineer: Good morning, Chair and
Members. I believe Scott is bringing out your packets of information that we just
delivered.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you just give us an overview?
Mr. Tabata: You are being handed the packets right now.
The front cover is a timeline of all of our actions. Even before the Notice of
Violation and Order (NOVO), as I had mentioned to you, we had prior
communication from the department in 2014 and we had been working on
remediation. I believe the bottom line is that our communications with the
department and understanding was not clear enough, and as I stated...
Councilmember Yukimura: With the Department of Health?
Mr. Tabata: Department of Health, I am sorry. When we
got hit with the violations, they sent a clear message of what they were looking for.
The Notice of Violation and Order was issued on May 23rd and you can see the
actions that we had taken on this front cover page that is highlighted in yellow.
COUNCIL MEETING 35 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
The first set of actions, in May through June 23rd, were immediate actions that we
took based on what we received in the Notice of Violation. The items in yellow from
the 23rd or 24th on are items that we submitted in writing and responses to the
Department of Health, along with our check of payment for the one hundred
thirty-eight thousand six hundred dollars ($138,600). Since then, we have installed
items that we determine are immediate actions that we can take. All of the backup
information for these actions is in the information we have provided you. You can
peruse that and send us back questions that you have. We are trying to be as
thorough as possible to meet the needs of any possible lack of communication. We
want to be as clear as we can be. Then the next page behind the front page in this
blue document is what we are doing, working from late-July when we started the
process of creating preliminary design that the Department of Health will deem
acceptable for us to get to final design and construction to be completed in 2018. So
these are the steps that we are traveling right now. In July, we went to O`ahu with
preliminary designs that we were working on, from the onset when we got the
violation and we started taking care of what we can take care of, right away,
midterm and long-term. So by the end of September, we had a draft conceptual
design that we sent comments back. At the end of October, we are completing the
pre-final designs, and just this week we submitted our final comments back to
AECOM, for which then they will prepare our documents to submit to the
Department of Health as of the first week of December of our preliminary design.
All along, we have been communicating our new staff engineer for the Solid Waste
Division, Don Kakuda, daily communications with the department, passing
information by them that we received from AECOM, going back and forth to hash it
out so that when we do submit, it is a thorough document that they can then
complete investigation and a thorough review to tell us, "Okay, go ahead and
proceed." Then we will come back to you to fund the final design improvements. At
this point, after we gain approval for funding, we go to that second page and it
outlines our timeline of how we are going to get to final construction and acceptance
and fully qualify under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program to meet the needs of the department so that we will be in
complete compliance with their NPDES program. That is just a thirty thousand
(30,000) feet view. I know it is a lot of information. We determined, after we
received the communication, how detailed and specific, and not hold back any
information from anybody to send forward.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Lyle. I appreciate the
thoroughness. I really do. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think pictures speak a thousand words. I
have one (1) picture that I wanted to show. Can you clarify for me what the reason
is for that filter sock around that drain that is going to be shown? Because if it is a
low area and a lot of this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stuff is because
when we have rain saturation, and then it is mixed with any type of waste and then
COUNCIL MEETING 36 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
we have these EPA violations. Why is that filter sock covering or preventing water
from going into the drain? Is that not what the drain is for?
Councilmember Yukimura: Not if it is poisoned.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. I will let Keith Suga, who has been
doing the actual work with the field, answer that for me.
KEITH SUGA, Executive Assistant: Keith Suga, Department of Public
Works. Good morning, Council. This particular picture that you have up there
reflects a Filtrexx filter sock that was recommended with discussions with our
consultant, as well as the Department of Health, to put around this particular drain
inlet so that we filter out any of the items that could contribute to the exceedance
levels for the test samples. Really, we want to filter the water that is going into this
particular drain inlet.
Councilmember Kagawa: Filter it so that it does not go in there?
Mr. Suga: No, well, filter out the particulates we do not
want to be entering into the drain inlet.
Councilmember Kagawa: So you are hoping that, that sock will be like
a filter that will keep contaminated type of materials and then only the water will
flow down? Is that the purpose?
Mr. Suga: The liquid, correct. That is the intent.
Councilmember Kagawa: I thought we were blocking the drain.
Mr. Suga: Negative. That particular material that is
made up of that filter sock does allow the liquid to pass through and it basically acts
like a filter.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. My thinking was that if you block the
drain, then you are just allowing saturation into the ground, which is the same
thing. I just wanted to know the purpose of that. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a follow-up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: As a follow-up, what are these
contaminants? Are they nitrates, sulfur, and so forth? I can see that it would keep
out solids and let liquids go through, but are they actually taking the contaminants?
COUNCIL MEETING 37 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Tabata: I believe, because I reviewed the test results
that we sent into the department, there are petroleum products, aluminum, lead,
copper, zinc, and a whole bunch the heavy metals that are preventing or being
absorbed or filtered through with the sock. These socks need to be replaced on a
routine basis. It does not sit there for months on end.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. What happens to the contaminants
that are kept out? Do they just flow somewhere else?
Mr. Suga: That is a great question and that is the
reason why we are in current discussions with the Department of Health, along
with the consultant for the future improvements that would install containment
systems that would collect all of that. Currently, this here is an intermediate step
that is being recommended that we do on an ongoing basis right now until the
future improvements put in that infrastructure that has the collection system to
contain all of that liquid that you are speaking of.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So it is an interim mitigation, but it
does not solve the problem on a long-term basis?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: On your flowchart timeline, it might be good
if we can get that up, but on the second page, you say "transfer station design."
What transfer station are you talking about? Is that all transfer stations?
Mr. Tabata: All of them: Hanalei, Kapa`a, Lihu`e, and
Hanapepe.
Councilmember Yukimura: So "transfer station designs."
Mr. Tabata: Yes, "designs."
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so all of them need substantial
improvements in order to comply?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 38 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: That is the right word. Okay. You say then
that you are going to have these plans by late March 2017. Then you have to go
through permitting and you have the final storm water pollution prevention plan
sent to the Department of Health...wait...I am sorry...I am going the wrong way.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am having them put up the thing up on the
screen so that everybody can see.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Do you want me to stop talking?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so you have a plan...I am going to
start at the beginning of the chart on the second page.
Mr. Tabata: The timeline December 16th to October 18th.
Am I correct?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Tabata: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: So by next month, you will have a plan and
with comments back from the Department of Health. So you will get the final storm
water pollution prevention plan to the Department of Health by mid-December,
next month, and then you are going to have transfer station designs, one hundred
percent (100%) complete by late...
Mr. Tabata: No, we go ten percent (10%) below, then we
revise our conceptual, which is a ten percent (10%) design...
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, and then you have one hundred
percent (100%).
Mr. Tabata: Then the one hundred percent (100%) is later
in March.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yvette, it is the next one I think.
Mr. Tabata: The next one.
Councilmember Yukimura: It would read "Timeline—December 2016 to
October 2018."
COUNCIL MEETING 39 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is actually the second flow chart on the
third page.
Councilmember Yukimura: The title is "Timeline—December 2016 to
October 2018." Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: This is the track, this way.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: Then we go back up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Tabata: So by March, we get the one hundred percent
(100%). As we are designing, we are working with the department and going back
and forth. In February, we hope we get sixty percent (60%) done, have comments
from them, and then after that, we finish all of the designs and go through the
permitting process. The consultant will then complete the final bid package that we
can send out for procurement and hopefully we can start construction September
2017.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have estimated costs of these transfer
station improvements?
Mr. Tabata: Preliminary, we do. It all depends on the
feedback from the department.
Mr. Suga: At this point, our preliminary estimate is six
million two hundred thousand dollars ($6,200,000) for all of the transfer...
Councilmember Yukimura: Six million two hundred thousand dollars
($6,200,000)—if you are going to go to bid, you need that in the budget. Do you
have the six million two hundred thousand dollars ($6,200,000) in the budget?
Mr. Suga: Currently, we are in discussions with the
Department of Health on the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding side of the house
there and we met with the representative a couple of weeks ago, so a lot of the work
that is being incorporated in this scope is eligible for SRF funding. We are in the
process of providing them more additional breakdown of the different components at
each of the transfer stations to help them identify specifically what components at
COUNCIL MEETING 40 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
each transfer station will be eligible through SRF and that will help us identify the
difference that we would need to fund through County funds.
Councilmember Yukimura: At this point, do you have an estimate of the
County funds that will be needed?
Mr. Suga: We are guesstimating. Again, we need to
finalize that process with the Department of Health, but we are guesstimating that
it might be 50/50.
Councilmember Yukimura: So about three million dollars ($3,000,000)?
Mr. Suga: Yes, roughly.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that in our budget presently?
Mr. Suga: Currently, we are working on having that
incorporated into our budget.
Councilmember Yukimura: You mean taking from other things or are
you coming up with an amendment to the budget?
Mr. Suga: This was a consideration with regards to the
next potential bond issuance proposal.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the timeline for the bond?
Mr. Suga: I think that will be better answered by our
Finance Director. I do not know.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I guess the question is are we going to
have that money in place by the time the final bid package is...
Mr. Tabata: We hope to.
Mr. Suga: That is certainly the goal.
Councilmember Yukimura: Three million dollars ($3,000,000) out of the
anticipated fiscal year budget for 2018, it will be...we already have a lot of things
that need to be covered. Do you have something to say, Managing Director?
Mr. Rezentes: Wally Rezentes, Jr., Managing Director. I
think that we kind of touched on the subject in the last meeting about the bond
issue and the projects. Again, this is one of those that is a project that is influx
COUNCIL MEETING 41 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
because obviously, we would want to maximize the use of SRF funds because the
rate is much more in our favor than our bond issue. Our hope is on the timing of it
that we will be notified on the SRF side as to how much of the project would be
deemed eligible, and then we would likely have to pick up the remainder through
bonds or reprioritization of our existing bond funds from other projects to this one.
It is going to be somewhere in that mix that we would ultimately have to come to
the Council and get the Council's approval on all of the various funding sources.
Councilmember Yukimura: So back to my question, what is the
anticipated schedule for the new bond float?
Mr. Rezentes: Right now, we are developing a laundry list
of projects and, if I could estimate, within a couple of months, we will have that
completed. We would need to engage the Council with some of our draft projects of
what made the cut and what did not make the cut, and we hope to have that within
that timeline.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you consulting with bond experts on the
timeline for floating a bond? The question is whether that is going to be able to be
incorporated into the next fiscal year 2018 budget, or whether that is going to come
later, and therefore, I do not know how we are going make a final bid package by
May of 2017.
Mr. Rezentes: You can structure bonds, timing-wise in
ways that the debt service will take effect in ensuing years. So we can package a
bond and debt service of the bond accordingly. Ideally, I hear what you are saying,
Councilmember Yukimura, and we would want to have the approvals made,
understanding of what the debt service requirements are in advance of the fiscal
year 2018 budget.
Councilmember Yukimura: You are going to have to have the bond
proceeds in order to go to bid, I think.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it is not about a debt that you have to pay
later. It is about...
Mr. Rezentes: One option is to, via an ordinance, amend the
Capital Budget to include this if this needs to go earlier. Then on the back-end
when we do our bond, we replenish the moneys that were deemed for other
purposes. If I have projects "a, b, and c" listed in a bond fund—I did not spend those
moneys—I am going to use it for this project. I come up here, request to get your
approval to take the "a, b, and c" money temporary, use it for this in the next bond
COUNCIL MEETING 42 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
issue, and replenish "a, b, and c." That is a possibility. We are hoping that
everything can line up where we know what we are going to likely get on the SRF
side and we know what we are likely going to have to backfill, as far as the bond
moneys, and we do it in a time where at least by the time of decision-making on the
budget, we have a clear idea of what our debt service requirements are for fiscal
year 2018.
Councilmember Yukimura: What you are saying helps me understand
how the Administration is thinking, because that is what we are concerned about in
terms of timing. It would give me a better comfort level to see a schedule for the
bond float because there are all of these publications, deadlines, when you have to
have the Council approval, and all of that. The time seems so tight. It seems like
three (3) months, basically, until you submit the budget. Maybe if you are looking
at supplemental, that is a little later, but it feels like a kind of mad scramble. For
us, who are thinking about what actions are going to be required from the Council,
it would be helpful to have some kind of timeline.
Mr. Rezentes: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa, did you have a
question?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. I have another picture that I wanted to
put up. I have a question about it. It looks kind of alarming. It shows a
ponding...water pooled in an area near the wastewater holding tank, looking north
west, and I believe this is the Lihu`e Transfer Station. This does not show what we
have done. Is there a wastewater holding tank near that area? Is that by the green
waste? What area is that? Do you folks have any idea? Troy is back there.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have somebody that can explain that, please.
Mr. Tabata: We have a holding tank that receives the
storm water at the Lihu`e Transfer Station. Is that the one? There is one.
Councilmember Kagawa: This says "wastewater."
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it Lihu`e first of all?
Councilmember Kagawa: I am thinking it is "wastewater"...is that
from cesspool pumpers that bring water there?
Mr. Tabata: It is a leachate.
Councilmember Kagawa: Was that cesspool water there that came up?
COUNCIL MEETING 43 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Tabata: No.
Councilmember Kagawa: What is that?
Mr. Suga: Councilmember Kagawa, if helpful, we could
put up an exhibit with a map to better help identify the location of this picture.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. We do not need to see this picture
already. We know what it looks like. What area is that wastewater holding tank,
what goes into that tank, and where was that pond? What did we do to rectify the
problem?
TROY TANIGAWA, Environmental Services Management Engineer: Troy
Tanigawa, for the record. The wastewater holding tank is right here. This is
located at...
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you point out where the entrance is?
Mr. Tanigawa: At the back of the station. This is the
driveway.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is this Lihu`e?
Mr. Tanigawa: Lihu`e Transfer Station.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Tanigawa: Ahukini Road is here on the bottom and the
driveway comes up this way, and then it turns left to go into the transfer station
tipping floor area. If you continue further, we have black top all the way down to
the bottom and this is where the trailer parks, right here. The wastewater tank is
downgrade of everything. It is kind of in a low section, so whenever there are heavy
rains, it is in a natural area that kind of ponds and the water collects. We monitor
that tank. There is a riser that comes up. The tank is pumped as needed. The
water effluent is removed and taken to the Lihu`e Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Councilmember Kagawa: So that is just wastewater from the natural
slope of whatever comes down and collects in that wastewater tank?
Mr. Tanigawa: What goes in the tank is drainage that comes
from the tipping floor, the leachate. It is also receiving area for the (inaudible)
sewage from the bathroom at the site.
COUNCIL MEETING 44 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you put your picture back up?
Councilmember Kagawa: I am done with questions, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just curious as far as the reference.
Where is the trailer? Where is the drop-zone for the trash? Is it on our side? Is it
behind the guy in the yellow shirt?
Mr. Tanigawa: This is...I am just guessing now...this is
probably looking...
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not want you to guess, Troy.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you use the pointer?
Mr. Tanigawa: It is hard to say what way the picture is
oriented. It is hard to see, basically, but I can describe how the operation is run.
We have green waste at the bottom, further to the south side of the property, away
from the holding tank area. If we put up the other map, I can kind of show you
where I believe the spot is.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just trying to figure out why the water
is pooling like that and not going into the tank or drainage.
Mr. Tanigawa: We do not have a drain near that tank.
What you see where it is ponding is bare ground, so that is not drainage that goes
into the tank.
Council Chair Rapozo: I see. What is the remedy for that? What
are we doing or what have we done to stop that from happening? Apparently, it is
an issue for the Department of Health, right?
Mr. Tanigawa: It is just rainwater drainage from the
surrounding area that is kind of ponded in that low section.
Council Chair Rapozo: So that is not an issue for the State?
Mr. Tanigawa: I do not believe so.
Council Chair Rapozo: They took the pictures...
COUNCIL MEETING 45 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Tabata: If it leaves the property with contaminants,
then it is an issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: We have to assume that any ponding water
in that facility is going to have contaminants.
Mr. Tabata: Right. Part of the future design is to create
more holding areas. In fact, anything, and we are going to roof a lot of the facilities
so that as long as the direction we are getting, the water does not get contaminated,
or rainwater does not touch refuse and get contaminated then we are okay. So if we
take water and just keep it separate and it is just rainwater/storm water, then it
can flow off the property. If it touches the refuse, then we have a problem, and that
is part of the design for installing holding tanks when material does get wet. From
there, it is contained and then we remove it appropriately.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In this picture, where is this related to the
holding tank? Do you need the diagram to show us?
Mr. Tabata: Can we have the map back up?
Councilmember Yukimura: How big is the holding tank and what
happens to it? Does it evaporate?
Mr. Suga: The holding tank, as Troy mentioned earlier,
there is an inspection port that they take readings to see the levels of the tank, and
once it reaches a certain threshold, the tank is pumped.
Council Chair Rapozo: When we pump it, where does it go?
Mr. Tabata: To the Lihu`e Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Tanigawa: If we go back to this map now, I believe the
picture taken was probably from here, looking back this way, possibly. It is hard to
say. This is the tank. This is where that bunch of grass was, right here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it an underground tank?
Mr. Tanigawa: It is a ten thousand (10,000) gallon
underground tank.
COUNCIL MEETING 46 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: The picture said facing northeast. I am
assuming that north is this way and northeast would be this way. So the camera
person would have been facing back towards this corner, I am assuming.
Mr. Tanigawa: If it is northeast, then it would be kind of
oriented to this arrow and maybe the arrow would be pointed a little bit to the
four o'clock or five o'clock position. It looks like there was green waste in the
background so that is why I mentioned that direction.
Council Chair Rapozo: It looked like the green waste pile, so that
would make sense, facing northeast like the picture said.
Mr. Tanigawa: Green waste is actually stockpiled here, all
over here, and there is no green waste here in this area. Over here is the holding
tank and that is where that pile of green grass that was growing is. So my guess
is...I am not going to say that the text may have been a typo, but because I saw
green waste, I am thinking that this is where the picture was pointing to when it
was taken. The camera was pointing towards this direction.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So when water passes through green waste,
is that considered contaminated water as well?
Mr. Tanigawa: No, it is not.
Mr. Tabata: Refuse.
Mr. Tanigawa: When it passes through solid waste items
like mixed refuse, construction and demolition (C&D), and other types of materials,
it is considered leachate.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? I have a question and I
think it would be for Wally. I want to kind of follow-up on Councilmember
Yukimura's line of questioning. I, too, want to be prepared for worst-case scenario
and best-case scenario. The estimate right now is 50/50. If we can get 50/50 SRF,
our liability would be around three million dollars ($3,000,000).
Mr. Suga: Correct, roughly. Like I mentioned, Chair,
we had a recent discussion with personnel from the Department of Health and we
owe them some information to better breakdown the different components at each
transfer station and once we get their feedback from that, we will have a better
COUNCIL MEETING 47 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
understanding of what that percentage breakdown would be. But my initial guess
is 50/50.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Is that assuming that we can get
some SRF loans?
Mr. Suga: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know what the ceiling is. I am
assuming that the SRF pot is not unlimited and there is some limit to that
statewide.
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am trying to remember when we had the
discussion here...I think it was with Wastewater or whatever, that they have some
important projects and major projects that we have to look at and we were relying
on SRF. It seems like maybe three (3) or four (4) projects that we are in need of, we
were relying or hoping to get SRF funds. My concern is that...again, is that an
unlimited source? We cannot just keep on saying that we are going to get SRF, and
then we do not. Of course, we all hope that we can if it is a low-interest loan.
Mr. Tabata: Chair, let me try to explain that there are
several and wastewater has its own bucket, drinking water has its own bucket, and
this bucket we want to attempt to get a loan from is from the Clean Water Branch.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so this would not be related to...
Mr. Tabata: It is not wastewater.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, well that is good news.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. There are three (3) buckets and there
are even SRF loans for housing and so forth. As far as for the Department of
Health, the three (3) buckets are wastewater, drinking water, and clean water.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I
know Wally went back, but that is all right, Wally. If I am wrong...what I got from
Councilmember Yukimura's questioning and what I got from the responses is that,
like Councilmember Yukimura, I do not believe that we are going to be able to get
bond proceeds before we start discussing the budget for next year. I just do not
think it will happen. We just hired Bond Counsel or we just approved the funding
for Bond Counsel. So if, in fact, which I do not believe we will have proceeds before
the budget—in other words, when we discuss the budget for next year, we will not
COUNCIL MEETING 48 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
have, let us say the three million dollars ($3,000,000) for transfer stations. I
understand Wally is saying that we are going reprioritize the existing bond, right?
In other words, we are going to take money from an existing project and move it to
this one so that we can get this one done, and then when the bond proceeds are
received, we will put the money back into...basically, just moving the funds.
Mr. Rezentes: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: What project or projects would this transfer
station project, which projects would you transfer funds from or move funds from?
Mr. Rezentes: We have not yet made that determination.
Obviously, we would not pull it from any project that we are going to be bidding out
soon. It is something that maybe has a horizon outside of our anticipated bond
timeline, so we would not affect projects that are in the "hopper," so to speak, that
will delay it any further. That would be the projects that we would go after if we
need to. Again, I am talking in general terms. We are not drilling down specifically
to anything at this point, but that is a possible option to consider when more
information is known and readily available from the SRF side.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Even if we get SRF, we are still
looking at three million dollars ($3,000,000).
Mr. Rezentes: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: So are you comfortable that we have three
million dollars ($3,000,000) worth of existing bond projects that could wait?
Mr. Rezentes: I am not sure. I am saying that we have a
laundry list of bond funded projects that have not yet gone to the procurement
stage.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Rezentes: So we would have to look at...if we need to go
there and if we need to prioritize this ahead of the existing projects that has already
been approved, we would just have to go after the projects that have a timeline
outside of the...
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, out of the hopper.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 49 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess for me, do we have enough projects to
cover that expense?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe we do, but we would need to
prioritize that at that time.
Council Chair Rapozo: It would be temporary until the bond
proceeds are received.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Anymore questions for
the Department of Public Works? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In your timeline of actions and events, you
show that the County received the Notice of Violation on May 25, 2016. On
May 27, 2016, the annual discharge monitoring reports for each transfer station
was submitted to the Department of Health. I presume these reports were
required, but were not submitted and were part of the reason we got the Notice of
Violation. So my question is it appears if you were able to submit them two (2) days
later, that they were available, so why were they submitted so late?
Mr. Tabata: That is correct and that is why we got fined.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, so I am...go ahead...I am sorry.
Mr. Tabata: We did not hit the mark.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. You have done quite a thorough job of
talking about your actions after receiving the Notice of Violation, but this is crisis
management. This is a response because you got this huge fine and notice. My
question is what happened leading up to this that caused us to get this Notice of
Violation? How are you addressing those issues? I see the County Attorney
standing...
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, because I think that will be discussed in
the Executive Session.
Mr. Tabata: Exactly.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why we did the companion Executive
Session because I am sure that we all have the same concerns.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Trask: For the record, Mauna Kea Trask, County
Attorney. Just on that point, if any of these questions can be answered without
getting into the confidential personnel information, then they should attempt to.
But if they cannot, I would just say generally to refrain from doing so, as to protect
the integrity of the process.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I will hold that question for
Executive Session. I do have another question about your forward actions that are
being projected into the future. For the Hanalei Transfer Station, the topography
there is a pretty difficult topography, but you feel that there is a design that is going
to address all of these issues that can serve us into the future?
Mr. Tabata: We believe so, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you doing these improvements to
accommodate the future growth, as well as the existing volume of trash?
Mr. Suga: Correct. Just to add, our preliminary design
that we had that we share with the Department of Health, we got some feedback
from them and were able to incorporate some of that from a standpoint of looking at
the different topography and relocating some of the activities at Hanalei. So we
believe the design will be able to accommodate that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So these improvements are not just
for the existing capacity, but going to be to accommodate future projected growth?
Mr. Tabata: We have begun communication with the
landowner for possible expansion.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Good. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Just one last general
question, as far as the State and our collaboration, I guess...
Mr. Tabata: That is exactly how you can characterize it,
as "collaboration."
Council Chair Rapozo: They are being helpful and they want to see
us succeed?
COUNCIL MEETING 51 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Mr. Tabata: Exactly.
Council Chair Rapozo: So they are not trying to nail us with another
one?
Mr. Tabata: No.
Mr. Suga: Absolutely not. Matt Kurano at the
Department of Health, Clean Water Branch has been extremely helpful at setting
up meetings for us to talk to the other representatives at the Department of Health
and providing timely feedback to our comments or our plans. So yes, they have
been very helpful.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: This is multiagency in the Department of
Health. It is the Clean Water Branch, along with Solid Hazardous Waste, and so
forth.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for that. It is really good to hear
and see that there is this kind of interagency/intergovernmental work. What was
my question now? So in working with them, do you feel that if we follow this
projected plan, we will avoid any further penalties?
Mr. Suga: Correct. That is part of the dialogue that we
are currently having with the Department of Health.
Councilmember Yukimura: Great. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anymore questions? If not, thank you very
much. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Did anybody sign up to testify
on this? No? Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record, Glenn Mickens. Within the
last few weeks, I found out from a reliable source that this problem is still ongoing
and the violation is still happening. I did not hear these guys say that it is been
corrected. Maybe I missed something. I did not hear them say that. Let me briefly
read you from this June testimony of Walter Lewis, just a short paragraph: "It is
unacceptable that County employees should be permitted to knowingly act in
violation of law." Remember, this is coming from a lawyer. "Unless the Council
wishes to be collusive as to such violation, I strongly urge that the Council initiate it
and prosecute with such competent counsel, as it shall deem advisable, an
investigation pursuant to the provisions of Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.17 on
COUNCIL MEETING 52 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
all matters related to the violation of law found by the State." Also, what corrective
measures have been taken to see that money is not going to be transferred again
like it was before? Chair, you found out and you had to investigate it to find it out.
They transferred money from one account to the other account to pay for this
violation, close to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). So what corrective
action has been taken to see that they just are not going to keep doing this anymore
without coming to this Council for approval. Whether it is a bond fund or what,
something should obviously be done about it. I did not hear answers from the
Administration about these things, so maybe they have answers or maybe you do. I
appreciate it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. Bernabe. That mic is very
sensitive and there is a crackling sound. I do not know if it is the tone or frequency
of your voice.
Mr. Bernabe: I have been accused of being loud. I will try
to tone it down.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe, for the record. I campaigned
on solid waste and I sit up here and hear all of these people, and I hear correctly
from you folks that this is "crisis management." They testified on a few things that
just kind of got my ear, and one is, "We got our fine and we moved on it." The thing
about it is that I know for a fact, as well as all of you know that we had good
employees and this is what they cannot talk about? I am shocked because I thought
this employee won his case on one of the transfer stations. That should be public
knowledge. We had an employee point out several of these problems that we were
fined for and the real issue here is when are we going to get a qualified Department
of Human Resources and a qualified department head for the Solid Waste Division?
This should be a job for a sanitation degree and an ecology degree, not an electrical
engineering degree. That is right off the bat. For me, I saw pictures myself of a
timeline that was too long of solvents coming out of the transfer station out in
Princeville through rust holes. Then it eroded the asphalt that led to the drain that
went to those in-ground tanks we are speaking of today that have pictures of water
overflowing. They only capped it after-the-fact. The fact is that employee, not only
did he do the right thing by following the chain of command, but then he got
harassed to the point where he won a lawsuit and we pay him to stay home. That is
a sanitation employee that followed the chain of command, not just on these water
quality issues, but on the overloading of the weight of the vehicle driving to the
Kekaha Landfill, which by the way, is a Roads issue, because if you are
overweighting the vehicle, you are damaging the road. Also in the Princeville
Transfer Station, there was a hole in the gate and were making our employees
jump through that hole, onto the other roof, and maintain that equipment, which
COUNCIL MEETING 53 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
they are not qualified, which we do not have maintenance records, and so on. This
problem is enormous. This is an enormous problem. These guys should be
terminated and we should be looking for a new person. Are you kidding me? I am
done.
ANNE PUNOHU: Aloha. My name is Anne Punohu. I am
wondering, am I allowed to ask a question instead of just make a comment?
Council Chair Rapozo: You can ask a question and we can try to
answer it once you are done with your testimony.
Ms. Punohu: Okay. My question is I know that this is an
intergovernmental funding thing and I know that some of the money is supposed to
come from the State, but I am also wondering if there are any Federal funds coming
through the EPA to fund this. If they are State funds, are those State funds
dependent on EPA funds? The reason why I am bringing this up...you are probably
not going to like me right now, but I really do not care—after January 20th, we
changed the administration in this country and we have a new head of the EPA,
and it is no secret for anybody that the prospect that the EPA may be seriously
dismantled or changed dramatically, especially on what it will fund and not fund, I
want to know what kind of contingency, "plan b's," does the County have to protect
Kaua`i's citizens, should the national EPA change its direction, scope, and intensity
on especially things like clean water and exactly what we are talking about at this
table today. I think it is something that you need to assure the people on that
should the EPA be dismantled or degraded in any way, that even though you may
not have funds coming from the Federal side, and even through the State, from the
Federal, that the County is going to be able to maintain our water supply and the
safety of the people of Kaua`i. Mahalo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Seeing none, I will call the meeting back to order. Just real quick to answer Anne's
question, I think the "plan b" is what Wally talked about, reprioritization of the
existing bond projects in anticipation of a new bond float. I think the contingency
plan is in place. It is not a good one, but that is all we have right now. We will wait
and see what the State and Feds do. Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to add that SRF is a State fund and I
am not sure...I do not believe it is EPA moneys, but...okay...it is EPA moneys...I
see Lyle. Okay. It is a brilliant funding mechanism, actually, which really helps
local government. So it is clear that we are going to be accessing that to the max. I
appreciate all of the Administration's efforts to that.
COUNCIL MEETING 54 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are we in discussion?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have been pretty frustrated over the past
four (4) years with the Solid Waste Division. When it comes to handling these types
of problems, the worst thing you can do is react after something bad happens, and
this is what happened in this case. It is obvious for years and years we knew of
some of the problems and when it rains heavier, the problem is even worse. You
have to be proactive. If that is your job and your duty to handle waste, then of
course you have to deal with times when there is rainwater. It is simple. Everybody
has their job. The Solid Waste Division has their job and they have to manage their
job. When it comes to asking to extend the landfill vertically and horizontally, they
come and ask and we give them what they need. When it comes to increasing the
tipping fees, they came up twice in four (4) years. When you are asking the
taxpayers to pay more and do more, you also have to do more. You have to improve
yourself. I am not seeing that and I hope that in the coming years we will see some
improvement in solid waste, in not doing crisis management, but proactive
management; proactive actions that our taxpayers can swallow and say, "Hey, they
are doing the best job they can." I think right now, when the public looks at a lot of
these things, they see the same thing as I, that we should do a lot better in solid
waste. It costs the taxpayers every year huge amounts of money. It is a huge
government function, County government function, that takes up a lot of money and
we need to do better. I think even something like "Pay As You Throw." When "you
pay as you throw," if you wanted to keep your ninety-six (96) gallon can, they
doubled your price, but it is more efficient because we are not getting workers'
injuries by not having to carry it; we are doing it manually. I think it got better, but
again, when we are asking the taxpayers to pay more and more, our County Solid
Waste Division has to perform and I think it can do better. I am hopeful that going
forward in the future we will do better. We have to get better in that department.
Everybody needs to improve, but certainly, something like this, where clearly the
evidence was there, and even from the employees that there were problems and
contamination, and they were warned. After the thing happens, you can see all of
the pictures that we have shown, right? To rectify the problem, we could do it.
When we had to do it, we could do it. So why can we not do it before we get fined?
It is simple. If you can do the job, you do the job. You do not do the job after you get
fined. That is the wrong time to do the job. Again, I am frustrated, but we need to
move forward, work with the Department of Public Works and the Solid Waste
Division; going forward, we all need to do better, myself included. Let us stop this
nonsense type of fines. We are just throwing away money and we are not in
COUNCIL MEETING 55 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
position to throw away money. If we are going to throw away money, we should all
resign, right now. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? No one else? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Actually, I think Vice Chair Kagawa said a
lot of it. We appreciate the response that has happened since the fines. I think
there has been a lot of really good effort, but the question is how did we get here?
That is an administrative kuleana and I am hoping that the Mayor and the
Managing Director and the Department of Public Works will really look at this,
because we cannot continue this way. It is not right for the taxpayers. It is not
right for our workers. We can do better and we must do better. I am hopeful that
out of this, we can actually use a major problem and get better from it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? It has already been stated and
I think the frustration is pretty high. This has been a problem. This County, and
not just in the Solid Waste Division, but in many departments, we do not really
have a good preventive maintenance program or a good training program. We do
not have a program where employees can make suggestions for change. If they do,
they are not listening to the suggestions. There are a lot of things that we can learn
out of this situation. This one was graphic because we got hit with a large fine. The
fact that we are not fined in the other departments does not mean that they are all
running smooth and I think that is where we have to pay attention to this. I do
appreciate the response to the fine, but a lot of it was because it was brought here
on the public floor in front of the camera. It is unfortunate that we have to come
down this road. I have spoken of audits and investigations, and I know
Mr. Mickens talked about Walter Lewis' recommendation, but we are going to try
and find out what we can today in Executive Session. I think it is pretty clear—if
you read the report, you read the investigation, and you spoke to the employees, it
is very clear that we just chose not to follow the recommendations of the consultant,
which we hired. The recommendations were there, we just did not implement them.
We were warned with field violations and field notices and we still did not comply.
Then we finally get hit with the big one. Like Councilmember Kagawa said, it is
interesting how when I talk about energies and resources in non-priority issues,
there is no shortage of that. If it is something that is a nice thing to have and we
want to implement it then we go all the way, all resources and all energies are
directed to that. When it comes to something like this where the people's health,
employee health and safety are at risk, I do not think we put enough emphasis on it.
This is the proof right here, we did not. Now we pay the fine. The fine is the least
of my worries because we have some employees that were exposed to this toxic crap.
If you saw what was in the discharge, there was some dangerous stuff in there that
went into the water. I do not know...maybe it is just me, but I think this is pretty
serious. It does not seem like the Administration has...aside from doing what we
COUNCIL MEETING 56 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
have to do, and I appreciate them working with the Department of Health and all of
that, but this is one of the most serious things I have seen, aside from employees
getting killed or injured. On a normal day to day function of our departments, this
is probably one of the worst things I have even seen. The fact that we have these
discussions and we appreciate the crisis management, I think Councilmember
Yukimura hit it right on the head, "crisis management." That does not stop our
obligation to move forward and explore. I can tell you that whether it is 3.17
Investigation or a performance audit, something will come out of this; a request by
me will come out. We will have that discussion in Executive Session, but at least
one of the two (2), because we cannot continue to do "crisis management" and be
okay with it. I think we need to determine the root of the problem. Councilmember
Kagawa kind of talked about the increases in the tipping fees—all of the things we
have done, as far as recycling efforts, the automated refuse pickup, and all of these
elaborate programs that we have spent millions of dollars on. But the core function
of the Solid Waste Division, which is our transfer stations and our landfill, got
neglected because we put all of our energies into recycling. It is not that it is not
important, but when you come over here and ask for a tipping fee increase because
we want to do a change in the barrels or whatever the case is—no, if you are going
to come here, you take care of the problems that we have to fix first. Without these
transfer stations operating safely and in a healthy manner for our employees and
our public...the recycling effort is not as important. We have to take care of the core
functions before we can start expanding all of the other programs. Expect a
resolution to come forward very shortly, whether it is a 3.17 or a performance audit.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I hope we are not saying that one aspect of
our solid waste management is more important than the other, because the
recycling is diversion and it is going extend the life of our landfill. But I do agree,
and I want to point out, that we have had several other red flags about the
management. We are paying two million dollars ($2,000,000) because of the lack of
oversight and proper management at our metals recycling place and that was part
of our solid waste program. We have to address this problem and it is the
Administration's kuleana to do that, and we, the Council, are expecting to see that
addressed.
Council Chair Rapozo: Obviously, I am not saying that recycling is
not important, but if you had a life-threatening wound in your artery, you take care
of the artery before you take care of the broken ankle. That is all I am saying. You
have certain resources. Fix the core functions first because the diversion going to a
noncompliant transfer station is not good. We just have to make sure that all the
facets of this system work. Councilmember Yukimura is correct. With that, the
motion is to receive. We are going to have the Executive Session to go into the
details. Is there a motion? Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 57 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
The motion to receive C 2016-244 for the record was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next items are the Claims.
CLAIMS:
C 2016-245 Communication (10/26/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by GEICO Insurance
Company as subrogee of Bruce Finnila, for damage to his vehicle, pursuant to
Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i: Councilmember Kuali`i moved to
refer C 2016-245 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition and/or report back
to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion or public testimony?
Mr. Bernabe. I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Bernabe: Matt Bernabe. This is the one that I was
waiting for all day. I am not going to go and talk against the TIGER grant because
it is way down the line, but while I was talking about the TIGER grant, I pointed
out how we left out so many other roads and I recently...
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on.
Mr. Bernabe: This is car damage, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: This is claims.
Mr. Bernabe: For car damage, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: It does not say what the claim is for.
Mr. Bernabe: Mine said "for damage to his vehicle."
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Okay.
Mr. Bernabe: This is germane because I recently broke my
upper ball joints on a stretch of road that I had been using constantly as something
that I think is higher priority than Rice Street, and that road is Kawaihau. About
three (3) weeks ago, I hit a bump coming around the turn, right in front Mahelona,
and I have said it one hundred (100) times, jokingly, that we have to lock our hubs,
and then boom—I had to replace my upper ball joints. That is directly correlated to
COUNCIL MEETING 58 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
those speed bumps. I have a line...I took a video from where I hit the speedbumps
all the way and the funny thing is, is that there is a sloth of speed holes in the road.
There is not only one (1), the whole stretch from around the turn by Kapa'a
Elementary School to the bottom is an off-road road. That is our County road. So
when I see these claims, which I am not going to make one because I fix my own
vehicle and the parts are cheap...I got it all done...I have the Toyota folks...but this
is something that I have been talking about prioritizing our core services. I see
time and time again. I, myself, have asked, "What are these claims for?" Nobody
really says and it just goes through the process. But now that I see two (2) on the
docket and I just recently had one, I would like...as a public member, I want to
know how much money have we spent on vehicle damage correlated to our roads. I
hope we can get that on the agenda one day.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to testify? If not, I will
call the meeting back to order. Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: On the average, this is a national statistic on
O`ahu, that a car driver pays seven hundred dollars ($700) a year for car repairs due
to bad roads. So that is an answer to Matt's question and I could not quite
understand whether the issue was bad roads or speed humps, but it is bad roads,
right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I guess it is every quarter that we get a
report from the County Attorney of settled claims, which is public record. You can
take a look at that and it shows all of the settled claims.
Councilmember Yukimura: This could also be golf balls, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, it could be a County car hitting
someone, which is quite common nowadays. It could be a tree branch that fell on
the windshield. I believe one of these actually was a pothole. I read both of them
and I cannot remember which one is which, but I believe one of them was a pothole.
I wish I had known you a couple of years ago when I broke my ball joints because I
took it to...and they hammered me solid. Anyway, Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I say one more thing? Mr. Bernabe's
testimony is support for fixing our roads and we have a one hundred million dollar
($100,000,000) backlog in fixing our roads, which is growing by the day, because we
do not do preventive maintenance. That is one unfinished agenda of this Council.
We have to find out how we are going to do that; otherwise, it is a bomb ready to
explode. If you look at just my road, there is grass starting to grow in the road and
COUNCIL MEETING 59 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
I was in Molokoa and there are roads like that, too, everywhere on this island. If we
do not solve that problem, we are in super, big trouble and we are not doing our
taxpayers justice. I just want to headline that, that is going to be one of the issues
in this upcoming term.
The motion to refer C 2016-245 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition
and/or report back to the Council was then put, and unanimously carried.
C 2016-246 Communication (11/02/2016) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Michelle Melendez, for
damage to her vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i:
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to refer C 2016-246 to the County Attorney's Office
for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by Councilmember
Yukimura, unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did we get in touch with someone regarding
the Kapa'a Police Substation? Is there someone here that can answer that
question? Was there a requirement to move that thing as a term? If not, we only
have one (1) more Resolution left and I want to try and get through it before our
caption break. It is probably going to take longer than that anyway.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Rezentes: Just on that, I did get the permission from
the awardee, the bidder to contact his contractor. I was outside talking to his
contractor on the phone and they are trying to schedule it for next week Wednesday.
That is their intent, so hopefully I am not going to be invited the next time to the
Council on this issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: Wally, I appreciate that.
Mr. Rezentes: I am trying.
Council Chair Rapozo: I can tell you what he said a while ago. I am
not worried about that. My question and the reason we brought it back was do we
have a clause in the purchasing or auction agreement that required him to move the
item? That was the question.
Mr. Rezentes: We do not, but we will include it on future
auctions because it is relevant.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING 60 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you also put in a contract or in the
auction/procurement documents, a daily penalty that will be imposed if the timeline
is not met?
Mr. Rezentes: I think if that is allowed, and we can check
with our attorneys if that is something that we can include, but yes, I do not see a
problem. We definitely should look at that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: If it is not removed, that the County has the
right to dispose of the matter, they forfeit their payment, and we charge them for
the disposal, period. I do not know what they think we are. Anyway, we will deal
with it.
Mr. Rezentes: To be honest, in fairness, I think there was
some confusion about what types of permits the person needed initially, whether it
was planning or building. When I got involved, when I came back, it was later
determined that because of the use, his future use of the building, it would not
require certain permits, so that took a little bit of time. Still, there are no excuses.
We could have still done this thing a few months back.
Council Chair Rapozo: Wally, if you go to Home Depot and you buy
a big shed, you better know that you have to get a permit for that shed. If you do
not, you do not leave it at Home Depot and say, "Hey, leave it out here. I did not
realize that I had to get a permit." His excuse...I do not really care...it is not the
County taxpayers' problem if he went ahead and purchased that. How much did we
sell that thing for?
Mr. Rezentes: I think it was one thousand one hundred
fifty dollars ($1,150).
Council Chair Rapozo: One thousand one hundred fifty dollars
($1,150). Then he needs to pay another one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500)
or two thousand dollars ($2,000) to get it out of there. To move the thing, I do not
understand why he would need a use permit to move it...maybe to use it, yes. He
does not need a use permit to move it. All he needs is the permitting to get...
Mr. Rezentes: The place involved in...
Council Chair Rapozo: Exactly. He does not need any use permit,
building permit, or planning permit. He just has to get it on the trailer, get it out of
there, and when he wants to use it for whatever he wants, and then he gets the
permit. Just to say that we are waiting for a permit—for what? You get a police
COUNCIL MEETING 61 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
permit, get a police car, escorts, and gone, out of there. I will ask for a deferral for
this. Wally, if it is moved, we will just receive it at the next Council Meeting.
Mr. Rezentes: I will definitely let you know. I will text you
when it is done.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know. Wally has been working extremely
hard. I know that, Wally. You have been in contact with me, but at some point we
have to put our foot down and say, "Sorry. He has to get that thing out of there."
Can I get a motion to defer?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to defer C 2016-243 to the December 14, 2016
Council Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Chock, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, let us take our caption break. We
will come back and wrap up the Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Resolution before lunch.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11:40 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. Can we
have the next item, please?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Chair, we are on page number 4,
Resolution No. 2016-79.
RESOLUTION:
Resolution No. 2016-79 — RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSALS FOR
INCLUSION IN THE 2017 HAWAII STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
Council Chair Rapozo: I would ask that we take each item
individually, if there are no objections.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to vote all items of the 2017 HSAC
Legislative Package in seriatim, seconded by Councilmember Chock, and
unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING 62 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us start with item number 1, "A Bill For
An Act Relating To Tory Liability."
1. A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability (County of Kaua`i)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort
Liability (County of Kaua`i), seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: This one is the lifeguards' protection. This
removes the sunset provision. This is one that we have attempted every year and
the legislature has conveniently put it off and this is the last year. The sunset is in
2017, so we need this to pass. Unless there is any further discussion, the motion is
to approve.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability (County of
Kaua`i) was then put, and unanimously carried.
2. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic Fines (County of Kaua`i)
Council Chair Rapozo: This is another one that we have...all of
these bills are in your packet.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve Bill For An Act Relating To
Unadjudicated Traffic Fines (County of Kaua`i), seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: This one simply asks the State...it basically
says, "Judiciary shall identify those fines paid for uncontested traffic infractions as
dived in 291C-A. The disposition of these fines is forfeitures paid to the Director of
Finance shall be subject to Section 291C-B." Basically, all unadjudicated
uncontested traffic fines would be sent to the individual counties. There is no
percentage. Right now, this is just where we can have a starting point to have the
discussion with the legislature. We have been unsuccessful every year, but
hopefully we can get some headway this year. Any discussion or public testimony?
The motion to approve Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic
Fines (County of Kauai) was then put, and unanimously carried.
3. A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation for Emergency Medical Services
(County of Kaua`i)
COUNCIL MEETING 63 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve A Bill For An Act Making An
Appropriation for Emergency Medical Services (County of Kaua`i), seconded
by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: This one here was a joint effort by the
counties, state, as well as the American Medical Response (AMR), the providers of
the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) throughout the State. They decided to
unite, unify, and go as one voice to the legislature. I think it is a good thing and
hopefully we can get some movement on this as well. Are there any questions?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does anybody know the cost of emergency
medical service per capita if this thing passes?
Council Chair Rapozo: The cost? All I know is that to put a new
ambulance in the County for Kauai is one million two hundred thousand dollars
($1,200,000). I would not know per capita.
Councilmember Yukimura: How many ambulances do we have right
now?
Council Chair Rapozo: Five (5).
Councilmember Yukimura: We have five (5) now, so that is five (5) times
one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000), so that is six million dollars
($6,000,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: That is because it is private. We do not fund
the benefits. We contract that out, as opposed to some of the other counties who
actually have it as county employees, which they are subject to collective
bargaining. So it is a lot higher in Oahu than it is here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Per capita?
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know about per capita. Are you
talking about per person, per capita?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, I know that the unit is a lot higher to the
cost to fund an ambulance unit with staff...in the City & County of Honolulu, it is
higher than it is here on Kaua`i.
COUNCIL MEETING 64 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I am going to vote for this, but I think
that the present system...with the present system and an additional service, there
is going to be considerable overlap and I think there needs to be some innovation
and creative collaboration applied to this problem of emergency medical service
delivery. I think there are possibilities that we need to explore between the Fire
Department and emergency medical because both of us do emergency medical
response, of different levels admittedly, but I think it is time to be more creative.
We have a responsibility to make sure that we are providing the most cost-effective
service as possible. I am not sure that we are doing that. I raised it before and I
have challenged both the Fire Department and the EMS service contractor to see if
there are ways we could work together to reduce the per capita cost. I would like to
ask staff to ask for information on that and find out what the per capita costs are
comparatively across the State. We talked earlier about having a really tight
budget and having a really tight budget means it is more important than ever to
make sure that we have the most efficient and effective service.
Council Chair Rapozo: This would be State funds, not County funds.
So the State funds, as far as our County budget, we are not impacted by the AMR or
the contract for ambulance services here. What this is saying is that the State
legislation look at prioritizing the next ambulances to Hawai`i island and Kaua`i,
versus all four (4) counties going to the legislature saying, "Hey, we need a new
ambulance." They got together and they prioritized it. Hawai`i island and Kaua`i
need it the most; obviously Kaua`i, because we only have five (5). When you look at
the coverage, when one (1) ambulance is out, that leaves a huge area that has got to
be covered by the remaining four (4) stations.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, it is still the taxpayer that is paying
all of this money, whether it is State money or County money, so if there are ways
we can find more cost-effective services...that is why I am looking at the total
budget. I would like to see that happen. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other discussion?
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation for
Emergency Medical Services (County of Kaua`i) was then put, and
unanimously carried.
4. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (City & County of
Honolulu)
Council Chair Rapozo: Next up is A Bill For An Act Relating To
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which are the drones. This came out of the City &
County of Honolulu. Basically, they are adding in a section that prohibits drones.
You almost wonder if we even need a law, but I guess we do. "It shall be unlawful
COUNCIL MEETING 65 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly use an unmanned aerial
vehicle to record or photograph a person in a private place without the consent of
the person for the purposes of spying on the person and invading the privacy of
another person with an unlawful purpose, under circumstances which a reasonable
person in a private place would not expect to be observed."
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (City & County of Honolulu), seconded by Councilmember
Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had worked on a
bill or a solution to this exact problem with Peter Nakamura...I mean Peter
Morimoto, I am sorry—anyway, Peter left and the reason why we kind of stopped
was that we reached a major roadblock that he ran into while trying to research
what we could do, which the Federal government solely controls anything regarding
airspace. I had the same concerns brought to me by a number of constituents,
where while they see the value in technology and children having hobbies besides
just playing videogames—certainly, when into the hands of a sexual predator or
some other person of that nature, it could be very harmful if used in the wrong way,
like to spy on some of our residents. Because you cannot just regulate it to certain
individuals, I had sought to look at banning it in residential neighborhoods because
I felt that the protection to the residents and the general public was more important
than recreation in the neighborhood areas where children are playing. So we were
looking at ways where it would be legal to fly it in the park or some open space area
away from residential neighborhoods. Even from time to time, I see a drone flying
around in my neighborhood and they like to fly it at night, so you can see the lights.
I think the lights are green and red. Anyway, they are flying relatively low and
there are video cameras on that thing. It is very dangerous. It is something that
we should be aware of and I am very curious to see if the legislature will approve of
this and how it will play out, should it hit the court system. Like I said, this is an
area where the Federal government solely controls anything regarding laws in the
air. This something that I strongly support. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do we have any background information that
shows that the legal issue has been addressed?
Council Chair Rapozo: It went through the City & County of
Honolulu. It passed through their Department of the Corporation Counsel. There
is an existing statute regarding unmanned aerial vehicles. This one really just
specifies the privacy component, but the State law right now talks about where it
COUNCIL MEETING 66 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
can be used to monitor traffic, but it was very broad as far as spying, so this one just
specifies the restrictions.
Councilmember Yukimura: Apparently, it is a combination of a totally
new chapter, and then also a revision to what must be a section on personal privacy
and videoing people on ground, as well as in the air.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think there is a great need to regulate this
new technology, so I do not have any problems with it, but I would like to ask if
perhaps we can explore with HSAC, a process where at least we have an
informational sheet with every proposal that can tell us the purpose, the
background, and if there are legal issues or the fact that there is now an opinion
that addresses that legal issue.
Council Chair Rapozo: We actually have the justification sheet. I
am not sure if we have it available.
Councilmember Yukimura: I remember those. They were pretty skimpy.
They kind of just tell you the purpose.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: So maybe in the future if we could have
informational sheets that are a little more substantive, it will help us.
Council Chair Rapozo: It would not hurt to have a portion of the
form which will show that it went through legal review, just in case. Legal opinions
differ from county to county. It is all interpretation. I was just shocked that we
needed a law to stop a drone from looking into my bathroom while I was using the
bathroom. That is what this kind of addresses. It is just really bizarre.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (City & County of Honolulu)was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is "A Bill For An Act Relating
To Community Meetings." This is proposed by Maui County, basically, a Sunshine
Law exemption that would allow Councilmembers to attend community meetings
that are open to the public without having to...
Councilmember Hooser: You are skipping the noise control item.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry.
COUNCIL MEETING 67 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: We are on number 5, Chair.
Councilmember Yukimura: Actually, it is not on our...
Council Chair Rapozo: I am following C 2016-240.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: On page 2.
Councilmember Hooser: Number 5 was noise control?
Councilmember Yukimura: Do we have a copy of the Bill?
Councilmember Kuali`i: Number 5, community meetings on
September 29th.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on. I am looking for the Resolution. I
was looking at the letter. Number 5 is the...
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not in the first Consent Calendar
attachments.
Councilmember Hooser: It is not on the Resolution either.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Bill is not.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us take a five (5) minute recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:54 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11:57 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The meeting is called back to order. I
apologize, I was going off of a communication instead of the Resolution. With that,
we will use the Resolution number 5, which is "A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise
Control." May I get a motion?
5. A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise Control (City & County of Honolulu)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Noise Control (City & County of Honolulu), seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Councilmember Hooser.
COUNCIL MEETING 68 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: This appears to transfer legal authority for
noise ordinances to the State. I do not know if this would supercede County
authority or not, but that is certainly what it looks like to me and I will not be able
to support that.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: My understanding was that the City &
County of Honolulu has a pretty robust noise control ordinance.
Council Chair Rapozo: Excuse me real quick, can you tell those
people outside to be quiet? I am sorry, Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: My understanding is that the City & County
has a pretty robust noise ordinance. For the rest of the counties, the Department of
Health has regulations regarding noise that they are supposed to enforce. I think in
our experience here on Kaua`i, that enforcement has not been that satisfactory. So
to give that power to the State Department of Health just does not make sense to
me. Is this just for the City & County of Honolulu or is it for all counties?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, for all counties. This was introduced by
the City & County, I believe. Apparently, they are running into the same problems
that we do. The people call the State and they say, "Hey, we cannot do anything.
Tell your county to propose a noise ordinance." This basically requires the State to
investigate and control noise pollution.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, you said you were going to introduce a
noise bill because I think we have not had satisfactory enforcement by the
Department of Health and I am pretty sure that Joan Hayes, back in the `70s, got a
noise ordinance through the City & County, so this seems like they want to give
that responsibility back to the Department of Health. It does not make sense.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not believe this would prohibit the
counties from having a noise ordinance. This now just makes it mandatory that
they do investigate because they have been passing it off on the counties, which the
Department of Health should be investigating complaints. I do not care if it is the
chicken or the radio, but they do not. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I think this is giving the State more power
over the County and I do not think it is a good idea. We are a rural county and we
might like our chickens and noise of the country and those in the State may not. I
think we need to be very careful about giving the State people in Honolulu the right
or additional power and direction and telling them to control noise in the county.
COUNCIL MEETING 69 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other concerns? I did not think
about it that way and I am not prepared to answer that question of whether or not
it takes away the County's authority? I am okay with whatever you folks want to
do. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It says "in addition to other powers," so it
may be dual powers where the County has some power and the State has some
power, but even that situation is not good, unless we are coordinated because that
can make agencies "pass the buck." So I think unless we are sure this is a good
thing, we should vote against it. I am going to be voting against it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Anyone else? I will suspend the rules
with no objections.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Ms. Punohu: Aloha, Anne Punohu. I had been a decades
long proponent of home rule for Kaua`i. In some cases, I am a proponent of Federal
protection for United States citizens. In some cases, I am a proponent of the State
protecting us, but in light of current national events—Kaua`i, it is imperative that
we hold on to as much home rule as we can, in case the proverbial "ahem" hits the
fan. We must be able to protect Kaua`i's citizens at all costs in the future.
Therefore, anything that gives up any more power to a government that may come
in and tell us to do things that could be detrimental to the health, welfare, and
safety of Kaua`i residents should not be considered at this time until our national
platform is stabilized and we are sure that there will be no destabilization of this
State or this island. Mahalo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing
to testify? If not, I will call the meeting back to order. Any further discussion? Go
ahead.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kuali`i: I think to a certain degree, if it is part of the
Department of Health's responsibility, and this is just clarifying it and making
them more accountable, I do not see why...obviously, if the City & County of
Honolulu is the only county that have good ordinances, as Councilmember
Yukimura says, in place and they are the ones putting this forward, they must be
saying that the State needs to be held more accountable to the people for addressing
noise. I do not know if we do not do this, if we disapprove this, that we are not just
saying the State is off the hook and that we will be responsible for it, and then we
COUNCIL MEETING 70 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
will come to the position where, "Well, who actually in the county? Do we have to
fund additional positions for enforcement?" There will still always be noise
complaints and the KPD will still do what they do, but what does it hurt to have the
State Department of Health playing a role as Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS)
states they should?
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am going to be supporting this, and this is
why—for me, if I do not foresee the legislature passing an unreasonable noise law
that they cannot enforce or if it is unreasonable, if they do even pass something like
this. I think a lot of times we have residents just asking for reasonable noise
control and I think reasonable noise control should be applied statewide. There
should be levels and I trust that the legislature will have the judgment to determine
what is reasonable and unreasonable. If they venture upon something new, I would
think that they would be willing to work out the details and improve the bill, should
it have any problems. I think if we can get the State to handle something like this
where I think residents deserve a reasonable noise law that will make for more
peaceful communities, especially residential areas, then I am all for it. Just to
remind us, the State has taken away yet another thirteen million dollars
($13,000,000) and now it is up to sixty-fix million dollars ($65,000,000) of our
Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) because they have imposed a cap on our TAT;
why would we want to take more responsibility when they are taking away more
money from us? If they are going to take more money then let them handle and try
to improve the quality of life for our residents using their money, since they are
actually taking our money. So I am for it. I am hoping, again, that the State will
have their elected officials, as well, and that they will be able to try to pass
something that is reasonable, that our residents deserve, and hopefully they can do
a better job of controlling unreasonable noise in our communities. Thank you,
Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember
Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I think we are voting on something that we
do not have all of the answers to. Number one, we do not really know what this is
going to do or how much power it is going to take away from the counties, and what
is reasonable to someone living in Waikiki is totally different to what is reasonable
to somebody who is living in Hanalei or Kekaha. We have four (4) representatives
in the state legislature out of seventy (70) plus. We have very little representation,
so it just does not make sense to me to support something and we do not really
know what it will do and how much power it takes away, and yet give additional
authority to people living in Honolulu and other places to govern and pass laws that
COUNCIL MEETING 71 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
are going to impact the residents in our rural community. I am going continue to
vote "no."
Council Chair Rapozo: Aida, we are going skip this one for now.
Can we get the justification sheet for that? I am not sure if it is skimpy, but maybe
we can get more information. We are going to go to the next item.
6. A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings (County of Maui)
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Community Meetings (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, the Sunshine Law—to make it legal
for more than two (2) members of any County Council to attend a community
meeting that is open to the public. Right now, we are prohibited and it is one of the
most ridiculous laws that I think I have ever seen, but that is what this is. Any
discussion? Questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have so many separate cover letters, but
there is one relating to government records and that is not what we are talking
about, right? We are talking about community meetings.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I would like to say that I am in
complete support of this Bill. It makes some really good amendments because it
specifies that any meeting where this would apply has to be open to the public, so it
cuts out special interest meetings that want all of the Council to be present. Right
now, the prohibition against us being more than two (2) in number at a community
meeting on a subject that might come before us is really restrictive. It is
anti-learning and anti-community because it gets us out in the community with the
community and it is often about things that are informational that we need to learn
and this law says that we cannot be there if we are more than two (2). To me, it
contradicts the very purpose of the Sunshine Law for robust debate and good
information. I am in complete support of it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I had a question. On the last page, it says
"Notwithstanding Sections 92-3.1(b)" and I cannot find that anywhere.
Council Chair Rapozo: 92-3.1(b)?
COUNCIL MEETING 72 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Yes. It does not seem to be, unless I am
missing it.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is not printed in this Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we get 92-3.1(b)?
Councilmember Hooser: Also, I have some concerns about this. The
Sunshine Law is a fundamental law and I know it has many, many flaws to it and
inhibits discussion in many ways. This does not seem also to define what a public
meeting is in terms of notice. So any big developer or other special interests could
have a meeting and could say it is public, but not notify the public or not give notice
twenty-four (24) hours, four (4) days, or whatever. So it leaves the door wide open,
if you would. If there is a public meeting and nobody knows about it, then it is not
really a public meeting, but they could say it is a public meeting. There are no
definitions in this.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am going to have Mauna Kea come up to
explain Section 92-3.1(b). Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Before he answers that, I just want to
comment that I totally agree with Councilmember Hooser on this one. There are
times when I think the Sunshine Law is helpful and serves a purpose to notify the
public of when we are going to be discussing something and making our points of
view. The other more confusing part is why this applies to councilmembers and
does not apply to the state representatives? It is almost ridiculous where you have
elected officials in one (1) branch who have to comply with this and elected officials
under the State that have no law to follow under the Sunshine Law and they can do
whatever they want, whenever they want. It is just difficult for me to even decide
which way we should go because it is just so contradictory that one (1) branch
follows it and the other branch disregards it. It does not make any sense at all.
Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will suspend the rules with no
objections. Mr. Trask.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Trask: Aloha. For the record, Mauna Kea Trask,
County Attorney. For the record, the proposed bills before you are specific and the
rest of the chapter still remains. So this is to be read in the context of the entire
Chapter 92, the Sunshine Law. So 92-3.1 defines and pertains to limited meetings
and 92-3.1(b) provides that, "1) a county council may hold a limited meeting that is
open to the public as guest of a board or community group holding its own meeting
COUNCIL MEETING 73 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
and the council shall not be required to have a quorum of members in attendance or
accept oral testimony provided that notice of the limited meeting shall be provided
in accordance with 92-7, shall indicate the board or community group whose
meeting the council is attending and shall not be required to include an agenda; 2) if
the board or community group whose meeting the council is attending is subject to
Part 1, Chapter 92, then the board or community group shall comply with the
notice, agenda, testimony, minutes, and other requirements...." Then it goes a little
further, I do not want to have to read the whole thing, but that would reference the
limited meetings provided by in 92-3.1.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any questions for Mr. Trask?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: What a convoluted way to write a law. If
councilmembers are just attending a meeting, it is obviously not their meeting. So
to read requirements of a limited meeting makes no sense at all.
Mr. Trask: The limited meeting is that the county
council may hold a limited meeting. So in the proposal, you are attending someone
else's meeting.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Trask: The limited meeting is what this body may
hold...like host a meeting for another board or community group. Therefore, you do
not need quorum, subject to certain conditions. The limited meeting's approach
seems to be the other way, but I agree with you, even as a practicing attorney, "the
notwithstanding" language, those are always the kind of difficult provisions to deal
with. It is the way the law is written a lot of the time. So if you would like further
information, it is good to read these in the context of the entire chapter.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: So notwithstanding this section about
limited meetings, for meetings described in subsection (e), which is described here
in this Bill, "the limitation on number of attendees shall not apply to members of a
county council." So the meetings where that shall not apply are "two (2) or more
members of the Council, but less than the number of members which would
constitute a quorum for the board." So in the Kaua`i County Council's case, that
means up to three (3), but less than the number of members which would constitute
a quorum. A quorum is four (4) for the Council. So it is basically saying that at
COUNCIL MEETING 74 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
least three (3) can attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters
relating to official council business, including a meeting of another entity, a
legislative hearing, a convention seminar, or community meeting open to the public,
provided that the meeting or presentation is not specifically or exclusively organized
for or directed towards members of the board. Members in attendance may
participate in discussions. I do not know why it says "including discussions among
themselves," but, "provided that the discussions occur during and as part of the
informational meeting or presentation, and that further no commitment relating to
a vote on the matter is made or sought." That is reasonable. It is too bad that more
than three (3) cannot attend.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, it is actually two (2) for Kaua`i because
OIP has ruled that because our committees are made up of five (5) members, they
look at that as a "board," so a quorum is three (3). That is just how restrictive they
are. So it is two (2).
Councilmember Yukimura: But it is three (3) if you belong to the
committee of the subject matter.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. We are still ex-officio members.
Again, at one of our HSAC meetings, we had that discussion because we questioned
whether or not it was off the committee or the council and they made the ruling that
it would be off of the committee. They are very tough. Basically, this for a meeting
open to the public, more than two (2) of us could attend.
Councilmember Yukimura: But less than three (3) or two (2), depending
on whether...
Council Chair Rapozo: If this passes, seven (7) of us could go. It
says "this shall not apply to members of a county council." So we would be able to
attend the community hearings and the community meetings. It just makes sense.
I am hoping that we can get the legislature to move on this. Every legislator that I
have spoken to agrees with this, so we will see how they vote, if we even get a
hearing date.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any more questions for Mauna Kea? If not, I
will call the meeting back to order. Any further discussion? Councilmember
Hooser.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
COUNCIL MEETING 75 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Just real brief, this is a big, important issue
and I would like to see a more comprehensive look at it, rather than just piecemeal.
I think it was last year at the legislature where they had a public meeting with
fifteen (15) minutes' notice. So when is a public meeting not a public meeting just
because you call it a public meeting? Hopefully when this goes through the
legislature, that will happen where they put some kind of public notice
requirements on there so that people do not have public meetings when the public is
not aware of it and use that as a way to circumvent what is intended to be an
improvement of the law. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not,
roll call.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings
(County of Maui) was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
7. A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For Persons With Disabilities
(County of Maui)
Councilmember Chock moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Identification Cards For Persons With Disabilities (County of Maui),
seconded by Councilmember Kuali`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Public testimony?
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For
Persons With Disabilities (County of Maui) was then put, and unanimously
carried.
8. A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient Accommodations Tax (County of Maui)
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Transient Accommodations Tax (County of Maui), seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Before the State changed the rules and
changed the percentages, this basically pays out all of the special funds in the
remaining balancing, which now for us is capped, will provide us with a forty-five
COUNCIL MEETING 76 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
percent (45%) share. So the State would still retain the fifty-five percent (55%).
The counties would share the forty-five percent (45%); in the same proportions,
Kaua`i would still get fourteen point five percent (14.5%). So the individual
percentages would not change; just the counties' share. That is the proposal and we
hope to get some traction this year. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the monetary amount that the
County would get under this proposal?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is forty-five percent (45%) of the remainder
of total moneys generated.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right, assuming that it is the amount we
have been getting in the last two (2) or three (3) years?
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not sure what the exact number is.
Councilmember Kagawa: I believe if the percentages are the same as it
was before the cap was in place, the latest calculation they said was thirteen million
two hundred thousand dollars ($13,200,000) or something, in addition.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what we get now. I do not want to
speculate, but it is significantly higher.
Councilmember Yukimura: Surely, we should know that though.
Councilmember Kagawa: Do we know? I thought it was thirteen
million two hundred thousand dollars ($13,200,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: No, we are getting the thirteen million
dollars ($13,000,000) now.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it might be another ten million
dollars ($10,000,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: We are capped, so it does not change. With
this one, the cap is removed and we get the forty-five percent (45%). The number is
the number, whatever it is. I think the concept of this proposal is to bring back
fairness to the distribution of the funds, that, in fact, the County should get more
than a capped amount and forty-five percent (45%) is the task force
recommendation; the task force that the legislature put together two (2) years ago
came out with a recommendation and this is what it was. This was their
recommendation to the State, which the State politely picked it up and threw it
away in the trash can and said, "No, that is not what we want," after we spent all of
COUNCIL MEETING 77 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
that time and money. So this basically implements the recommendation that was
put forth by the TAT Task Force. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have no problem with asking for a better
percentage and removing the cap, but I do have problems with some of these
expenditures that are part of this bill, like one million dollars ($1,000,000) for, and
this is every year, the operation of a Hawaiian Center and Museum of Hawaiian
Music and Dance at the Convention Center? One, it makes more sense to do a
one-time exhibit and have it at the Bishop Museum.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is not a change though, Councilmember
Yukimura. That is currently...
Councilmember Yukimura: It is a change in the bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, it is not. All the takeaways are the
same. They just rewrote it, so the numbers may change.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, I would really rather see that one
million dollars ($1,000,000) spread to neighbor islands to promote Hawaiian music
and dance.
Council Chair Rapozo: Trust me, HSAC is not happy with that
either; the outer islands are not happy that we are taking moneys generated
statewide and sending it to the Convention Center, which does not benefit Kaua`i.
The one million dollars ($1,000,000) that you talked about to Turtle Bay, that does
not impact...HSAC's proposal was, "Hey, you take all of that stuff out of O`ahu's
portion because they are the beneficiary of that." Of course, the task force came out.
This is simply because HSAC felt that rather than just going there and grabbing a
number out of the sky and not being able to justify it at the capitol—trust me, it is
not fun going over there and trying to justify getting more money from them. It is
like squeezing blood out of a turnip. We felt the best chance that we had was going
with the task force recommendation, because that was their commission task force.
I do not agree with the one million dollars ($1,000,000)...I do not agree with giving
Turtle Bay any money either. The Convention Center benefits Honolulu. Yes, we
get some benefit. Some of those tourists come to the outer islands, but for the most
part, they fly in, hit the convention, and they go back. We get no benefit. This is
really trying to implement the task force recommendations because that is the only
justification that we, as HSAC, can go up and really say, "Hey, we just want you to
implement the task force recommendation."
Councilmember Yukimura: Especially since the legislature itself does
not like the task force recommendation, I would rather we just stay focused on what
COUNCIL MEETING 78 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
we want for ourselves and not go around endorsing all of these other expenditures,
which we seem to be doing by endorsing this bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: The County of Kaua`i may not be happy with
what is before us right now with all of it, but I think one can agree that HSAC
having a unified front, saying that we want the cap lifted and getting us what we
had six (6) years ago, our fair share of the TAT, is really the primary goal.
Although there are some bits and pieces that we would like changed, I think
changing those may not get us in agreement with the other counties, so we can get a
unified front from HSAC saying that we want the cap lifted. That is the main
thing. Like you said, we are following the working group's proposal, which gives us
the best chance of getting the State to budge. It is highly unlikely, but I think
staying unified gives us a better chance, rather than going individually with our
request. Thank you, Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just from my personal experience as far as
the other funds that these moneys go to, those will not change. Our only hope is to
get a better percentage off the revenue. The task force did all of the work. They did
all of the calculations and looked at the percentages of revenues versus
expenditures for each county and they came up with this number, and I think that
we should probably accept it. To go on it separately as the Kaua`i County versus
the rest...it is just not going to happen. Again, our legislators play a key role this
year, and to the members of the public watching, you need to contact your Kaua`i
Delegation and make sure that they go up and speak for us. This is going to be a
critical year for all counties. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree that we should unify around that
position of how much the County should get. I do not agree with this vehicle, which
indicates that we support a lot more. I do want to say that we got the excise tax
power from the legislature when HSAC was not willing to support it. So it is
possible to get it without a unified front. My feeling is that Kaua`i County should go
with what is the most strategic and best way to get what we want. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I do think the most important part about this
is the language that says "there should be no fixed dollar amount caps, floors, or
similar restrictions on allocations to the state and counties," and that...this
fifty-five percent (55%) and forty-five percent (45%) split, should there be any
increases or decreases with the TAT revenues, then that would still play out 55/45.
So it is most important, I think, that we remove the caps. The other thing is that of
COUNCIL MEETING 79 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
the forty-five percent (45%) that does go to the counties, that Kaua`i is maintaining
its fourteen point five percent (14.5%).
Councilmember Yukimura: What is that amount we were going find out
if we assumed the total amount in TAT? Did we get that?
Council Chair Rapozo: Scott, did you figure it out? It fluctuates and
I am not sure if you are talking about last year's allocation.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Do we know?
Council Chair Rapozo: We could find out.
Councilmember Kuali`i: We probably know what we lost as a result of
the cap, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: I want to say it would be...
Councilmember Kuali`i: TAT revenues went up, but we did not get
that increase because the cap held us.
Council Chair Rapozo: If we can pull up Mike White's presentation,
it is in there. It is something significantly higher. I do not know if you want to
move on or take the vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: Alright, go ahead. Let us vote, but we really
should know this.
Council Chair Rapozo: To me, it is not the number. It is the
fairness of it; it is the percentage. Regardless of what the number is, to me, it is
just a matter of bringing back fairness. Before the State went ahead and increased
the TAT from seven percent (7%) plus to nine percent (9%), the extra two percent
(2%) and put the cap, they told the counties and the public that once the economy
got better and the tourism got better, they would reduce the TAT back to the seven
percent (7%) plus and they would remove the cap. They never did that. This is just
one opportunity for us to bring more fairness and equity into this disbursement. So
whatever the number is—I understand it is important, but that was not the concept
of this proposal. It is the percentage and the fairness and to get our fair share. It
was not tied to a number. I am perfectly fine with waiting.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, the way I see it is we are entitled to
the TAT money to the extent that it offsets the cost of tourism to county operations,
whether it is tourist promotion or whatever. I think when we did our calculations,
it was about ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000)
COUNCIL MEETING 80 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
of our budget, or even twenty-three million dollars ($23,000,000) at the most. To
me, amount makes a difference, in terms of fairness.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we will have stronger arguments
before the legislature if we put it that way.
Council Chair Rapozo: Like I said, the strongest argument we have
is we go in with the task force recommendation. The work has been done by their
commission and we are supporting their recommendations, so it is not an
independent council or county's interpretation. This is what they recommended and
this is what we want; this is what we should get. Please dig it out of the trash so
that we can look at real numbers. We will see how it goes. I am not optimistic at
all, but we have to keep applying the pressure. With that, motion is to approve.
Roll call.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient
Accommodations Tax (County of Maui) was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chock, Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Yukimura TOTAL — 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: If everyone can take a look, we have 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
Councilmember Kuali`i: We also have a public hearing at 1:30 p.m.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, I know. We are not going to finish in
time. BC, I am sorry, but you have to come back at 1:30 p.m. anyway. We will
complete this right after the public hearing. We will recess for lunch now and be
back at 1:35 p.m.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:34 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:19 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Chock was noted as excused.)
COUNCIL MEETING 81 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: The Council Meeting will now come back to
order. Let the record reflect that Councilmember Chock did leave for the day and
he is excused for the rest of the day. We will now move onto number 9 on the
Resolution.
9. A Bill For An Act Relating To The Conveyance Tax (County of Maui)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To The
Conveyance Tax (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any questions or discussions?
Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: This is a bill to increase the conveyance tax,
which is a tax on real estate when it is sold and a tax that is sold by the seller. It
purports to increase the tax on properties that are priced at over one million dollars
($1,000,000). From my read, it potentially increases the tax by four hundred
percent (400%). I think that is quite a bit to put on, even people with a one million
dollar ($1,000,000) property. A lot of those million dollar properties are friends and
neighbors and moms and dads who maybe have owned the property their entire life
and they are going to sell it, and now this tax basically, again, goes from thirty
cents ($0.30) per one hundred (100) to one dollar and thirty cents ($1.30) per one
hundred (100), if I am reading it correctly, which I think I am. Even though it goes
to a good cause like affordable housing, I think there are probably other ways to do
it, which might be more appropriate or certainly it could be done incrementally
without such a huge tax increase. Therefore, I am having a very difficult time
supporting this measure.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: You always have to worry about the
unintended consequences. So on the front, it looks good, but when you raise a tax
like this in such a large amount, what you do is raise the market value and raise
the price and it just affects every other property next to it or comparable. Again,
this kind of large increase scares me because of the unintended consequences that
always seem to hit us on the back-end when we do not do enough due diligence. I
am not going to support this. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the concept of taxing conveyance of
highly-priced property, which causes the housing problem on Kaua`i, the problem of
not having enough affordable housing, is a good one. I am not familiar with the
COUNCIL MEETING 82 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
basic rationale for this Bill in terms of the exact level of taxing. That is why it would
really help to have more background information, but I would prefer that we take it
under advisement and really understand what we are doing here, and perhaps
propose it at another time when we are sure about what we are going to be passing,
approving, or advocating.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? The agenda was
posted six (6) days ago and this material was all in there six (6) days ago. I am
hoping that we have read it and if we had any questions, we could submit the
questions prior to today's meeting, because the HSAC Package is very
time-sensitive and this needs to go back to Honolulu before the next HSAC meeting,
which is on November 28th. We do not have another meeting before then, so this
has to be either "pass" or "fail" today. I apologize for the time-sensitivity, but that is
just how this system works. We have a week to study this and come to your
opinion, and if you are not sure or not aware...I am concerned as well, with the one
million dollar ($1,000,000) number, because as Councilmember Hooser said, today a
one million dollar ($1,000,000) home is not the one million dollar ($1,000,000) home
that was there ten (10) years ago, where only millionaires own million dollar homes.
Affordable housing today is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)—six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000) is so-called "affordable." We went through this with
property taxes on the properties on the north shore, the Hanalei properties that
have been in the family for generations, but because of their location, they are
appraised at a very high rate and this will affect these families. I am concerned
about the number as well, the threshold. I think Julia Powers...or what is her
name? Julia Roberts or whatever who just sold her house for twenty million dollars
($20,000,000), thirty million dollars ($30,000,000), or forty million dollars
($40,000,000). Yes, for those tax them, but the one million dollar ($1,000,000)
home, I think, is a problem. I guess my point is that not all million dollar homes
are owned by millionaires.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is true.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: As conveyance, this would only happen at
sale, correct?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: If you look at what they are attempting here,
it is a wide range that starts at ten cents ($0.10) per one hundred dollars ($100) and
goes all the way up to one dollar ($1) per one hundred dollars ($100). The one dollar
($1) per one hundred dollars ($100) is for properties with a value of ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) or greater, and then the ten cents ($0.10) is for properties with
COUNCIL MEETING 83 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
a value of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) or less than six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000). So the one million dollar ($1,000,000) value...one
million dollars ($1,000,000) or greater, up to two million dollars ($2,000,000) is
thirty cents ($0.30), so upon sale, that conveyance would be three thousand dollars
($3,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: I think the amendment though, if you look
on item 3, it is in addition to the rate established by paragraph 1.
Councilmember Kuali`i: And 2.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. This will increase with the value of
more than...it will add another one dollar ($1) per one hundred dollars ($100). In
addition to all of the ones that you just referenced, this is additional one dollar ($1)
per one hundred dollars ($100), so on every property, condominium or residence,
valued at one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So what was three thousand dollars ($3,000)
would add ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and it would become thirteen thousand
dollars ($13,000).
Council Chair Rapozo: On a one million dollar ($1,000,000) home,
correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Yes, that is a huge jump.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We always come to this position every time
we have to approve the HSAC Package and I think it would be maybe better if we
could, at our mid-year meeting, which is in June or something, where we could
actually at our conference and workshops on various proposed legislative
packages...so even before it goes through the Council process and gets to the HSAC
Executive Committee, we would have some familiarity and input so that we can be
more strategic and more credible in the bills that we propose for the legislature, and
more ready to support really good ideas. I think I am going to vote against it at this
point, but I am really willing to work on it. I also hear that I think part of the
conveyance tax goes into the general fund of the State. It might be only for the part
of the conveyance tax that goes for natural areas habitat/acquisition, but some of
this might be going into the general fund, so we should know that, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a lot of questions. Sorry.
COUNCIL MEETING 84 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Even for me, I am just concerned about the
basis for the number. It is a big jump, so I am not comfortable voting on this one.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The only other point I would make is the way
the original stuff is setup is graduated with a lower rate for the lower-valued
properties all the way up to the ten million dollar ($10,000,000) property that would
pay one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). What they are doing is adding a flat
rate of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to either the lowest value or the highest
value. So it is like defeating the purpose of graduated increases for the higher
valued properties if now you are going to add a flat fee to everyone at one million
dollars ($1,000,000) or higher. So whether you have a one million dollar
($1,000,000) property paying three thousand dollars ($3,000) or a ten million dollar
($10,000,000) property paying one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), you would
pay three thousand dollars ($3,000) plus ten thousand dollars ($10,000), so thirteen
thousand dollars ($13,000); or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) plus ten
thousand dollars ($10,000), one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000). It does
not seem right. It is not fair to the people at the bottom, at least.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? Public testimony?
The rules are suspended. Thank you.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
CHAD DEAL: Chad Deal, Interim Government Affairs
Director for the Kaua`i Board of Realtors (KBR). Generally speaking, the realtors
oppose tax increases on property and I tend to agree with Councilmember Kagawa
that any increase on the sale of a property on any burden, I should say, placed on a
sale of a property will increase the value of that property because the seller is not
going to keep the price lower if he or she has to pay more taxes on it. So I think in
general, a conveyance tax does increase property values, which we are trying to stay
away from here on the island. As we all know, we have a shortage of property, and
supply and demand is the general rule. If we had more housing in general, period,
it would help out. It would be great if this tax was going specifically to affordable
housing, but I do not see where it would add that much to affordable housing as far
as trying to alleviate that problem for us in general on Kauai. Therefore, I like the
idea that most of you are against this and would like to consider more investigation
of it in what exactly it is going for and what it is doing to property values on Kaua`i.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
COUNCIL MEETING 85 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Seeing none, the meeting is called back to order. Further discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: Do we know how much money will be
generated by this proposal and how it is going to be allocated to the counties?
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: So does each county get money from the
property sold on their island? Is that clear?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, it is not.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, well, I think we need that information.
Like I said, I think the concept is a good one, but we cannot tell whether how
helpful it is going to be and what the unintended consequences are going to be. I do
not think we are ready to approve it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: Actually, the bill does say one hundred
percent (100%) of the revenue in each county accruing from the rate shall be
allocated to the counties' affordable housing. So it looks like it is intended to say
what we sell here, we keep. Regardless of that, I think it is poorly thought out. It is
way too big a jump, again, from thirty cents ($0.30) to one dollar and thirty cents
($1.30). Though generally, I support that those who have more should pay a larger
burden, I think this is poorly thought out and way too big a jump all at once. So I
will be voting "no."
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not,
roll call.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To The Conveyance Tax
(County of Maui) was then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
COUNCIL MEETING 86 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
10. A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records (County of Maui)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Government Records (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? This is the one regarding
the records. This is the one that basically the serial communication where members
could communicate with each other, as long as no commitment on a vote is made or
solicitation of support. Right now as you all know, I can E-mail or talk to one (1)
other Councilmember per agenda item or one (1) item, any issue that is on the
agenda. So we are not allowed to send out a blanket E-mail. It is perfectly fine for
the public to send all of us E-mails, but we cannot reply to all. We can respond, but
not share our discussions with anybody else. That is the gist of this proposal. Any
discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is further restricted to a statement
describing the government record and the issue related to the government record
shall be included in...so it says "no additional discussion, other than a statement
describing the governmental record, and the issue related to the government record
shall be included in the transmittal."
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: What does that mean?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is an official document that is on your
agenda, any official proceeding. Again, the Sunshine Law only applies to matters
that are before the body. So if something is not before the body and there is no
matter that is before this body, then it is not subject to the Sunshine Law. If we are
not discussing an item that is currently board business, then there is no Sunshine
Law compliance requirement, but anything that is, or is anticipated to be, then we
need to comply with the Sunshine Law. In this case, take for example the Hoban
property wanted to disseminate an appraisal, for example, or anything to that
affect, we would be able to disseminate to all members, which right now we are
prohibited.
COUNCIL MEETING 87 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I was advised that I could not do a
transmittal letter to the Council transmitting amendments to our Council Rules
and explain the rationale therefore.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: If this allows that then I am for it because I
thought it was ridiculous that I could not layout the rationale, not only to the
Councilmembers, but to the public because it would be on the agenda as a
transmittal letter. I found that extremely anti-democratic and limiting of really
pertinent discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: As far as going out to the public, this does
not address that. This just addresses the communication between Councilmembers.
Councilmember Yukimura: But a communication that goes on the
agenda that is a communication to the Council will be allowed, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: If this passes, you would be able to circulate
that.
Councilmember Yukimura: And I would be able to put it on the agenda
as well?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I was informed. Is Mauna Kea
here? Where is he? I am not sure if is he here, but that is the understanding that
we were provided at HSAC. Councilmember Kagawa, do you have a question?
Councilmember Kagawa: Overall, is this not to kind of take away some
of all the barriers of communicating and working on an item? I worked here as a
staff member for six (6) years and it was kind of frustrating that sometimes the
Councilmembers could not just work it out among themselves and discuss things
because they always had to worry about barriers and now that I am on, it is the
same thing. As long as there is no corruption going on, the communications and the
sharing of where one is at, at the present time—to me, I think it is pretty silly that
we have those in place and we have never changed it. I am all for opening up the
door a little bit more, so we do not need to worry about barriers or decision-makers
can talk freely, and always at the end, always have the right to change their minds.
It does not mean that you are for something now and then you hear something
later. I have done that before, to the surprise of other members, but it happens. I
COUNCIL MEETING 88 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
do not think we should stick with barriers that prevent us from having healthy
discussions that really show our opinion.
Council Chair Rapozo: For whatever reason, whether they agree or
disagree or believe or do not believe, the public looks at these meetings on
Wednesdays and they see the Councilmembers getting into some healthy debate,
and the reality is, because the members of the public are seeing the amendments or
propose amendments at that point for the first time. It would be much easier if
Councilmember Yukimura could send out an E-mail to all members of the Council
and say, "These are the amendments that I intend to introduce on Wednesday.
Please review." It would not be soliciting support, but just sending out the
information so that everybody knows that when we come here on Wednesday, we
have already seen it. The first person to get to Councilmember Yukimura and say,
"Hey, I have a little question," and that person could talk to Councilmember
Yukimura and everybody else would have to not talk to Councilmember Yukimura.
I think this is a good thing. Mauna Kea, unless there is something that we are
missing, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Trask: For the record, Mauna Kea Trask, County
Attorney. When I saw this, it looks like...like you said, technology and E-mail
makes communication a lot easier and just kind of facilitating that. Like
Councilmember Kagawa said, you are not seeking to keep the public out or be
secretive or anything like that. I think we can all agree that the intent of the
Sunshine Law is good to keep people informed and be fair and all of that. In doing
that, you create your own problems and make it difficult to communicate, slow
government down, and response time follows. I have no problem personally.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Mauna Kea, the way I read it, it will enable
me to do a transmittal letter explaining the rationale for anything I am proposing in
a fairly detailed way. Right now, I am told that the law prohibits that.
Mr. Trask: Yes. That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it will remove that prohibition, but it will
not allow us to make commitments of our votes one way or the other? Even if we
can change them, it will not allow us to make commitments.
Mr. Trask: Correct. Clearly, (h)(1), "No commitment
relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought by the board member in the
means of transmittal." That would be correct.
COUNCIL MEETING 89 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Trask: Again, I always like to remind people when I
can that the State Legislature, in their wisdom, has decided that this law does not
apply to them.
Council Chair Rapozo: They make a good argument why, too, which
is hogwash, but it is what it is. Thank you. Anne Punohu, do you have testimony?
Please come up.
Ms. Punohu: Anne Punohu. Yes, I am in support of this.
This is awesome. Anything that gets you guys together and gets you guys
communicating better with each other is great. Councilmember Yukimura is very
detailed in what she does and sometimes it can be overwhelming if you are hearing
it for the first time, and from somebody who observes this a lot, I think that it would
release a lot of tension that in is the room a lot of times when you ask, "What is
this?" I think it would solve a lot of problems and help things run smoothly. I am a
huge supporter of the Sunshine Law, but I feel that this has been a hindrance and I
think it would be a great idea and I would love to see it implemented. Aloha.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. With that, I will call the meeting
back to order. Again, all of these package items are for the State to amend State
law. So if you like what you see, contact your Kaua`i Delegation and let them know
how you feel because they are our advocates at the Capitol. Any further discussion?
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
There being no further public testimony, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kaneshiro: For me, I definitely see the value and
efficiency of having something like this. We are not going to be E-mailing each
other on where we stand on the position or anything, but a lot of times we get an
amendment here and that is the first time we see the amendment and we are trying
to figure out, "Okay, what does this amendment mean? Do I like it?" We have to
make the judgment on the spot right now. There is definitely value to, say if
Councilmember Yukimura has an amendment, and sends it out to everybody and
we are able to read through it. We are the decision-makers and we have to decide if
we agree with this or do I not agree? We can come to the meeting and be prepared
to say why we are in support of it or why we are not, rather than getting the
amendment on the floor and just being on the fly—do we like it or do we not like it?
We are not hiding anything from anybody. We are not making a decision or a
commitment. We are just getting information in order for us to have time to make a
good decision on it. For me, I think there is a lot of value and efficiency to it.
COUNCIL MEETING 90 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Whatever amendments we see, the public will also see, but we would have had a
little more time to be able to figure out if we are for or against it and our reasons. I
am for it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. For the community's comfort, it
is limited to just explanation of what that government record or amendment is all
about. No other discussion is allowed. So it is not where we can have a full-on
communication between seven (7) Councilmembers via E-mail, "No, it is a one-way
thing. This is the deal. This is my explanation of what I am going do," period, and
it is over.
Councilmember Yukimura: You mean that somebody cannot see the
amendment, call me up, and say, "What are you trying to do or I do not understand
it?"
Council Chair Rapozo: One (1) person.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this amendment will not allow more
conversation about it? Just a one-way conversation?
Council Chair Rapozo: It will allow you to at least explain your
amendment or whatever your proposal is to the other members because item 2 says
"no additional discussion, other than the statement described in government record
and the issue related to the government record shall be included in the transmittal."
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for clarifying that. That is better
than nothing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Exactly, it is a small step. We are trying to
get the door a little bit, because I do not know why, but the State does not want to
touch this Sunshine Law.
Councilmember Yukimura: Or apply it to themselves.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records
(County of Maui) was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember
Chock was noted as excused).
11. A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural Lands (County of Maui)
COUNCIL MEETING 91 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Important Agricultural Lands (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. May I?
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is for an appropriation of sixty-two
thousand five hundred dollars ($62,500) to each county for identification and
mapping.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have done a lot of that already.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, we have.
Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe we need to broaden it so we could use
it for...although, we have not seen any of the results of what our County has done
with that money. I just want to make sure that it will not restrict us from using the
money.
Council Chair Rapozo: Act 183 was a mandate from the State to the
counties saying you will identify and map and it came with no funding...I cannot
remember who introduced this one...it was probably an outer island.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Maui.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, because it is basically saying, "You folks
mandate us to do these things, send us some money." They are looking at two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), which to be split among the four (4)
counties. That is all this is. It is basically a money bill.
Councilmember Yukimura: Related to that, can I ask that we get a
briefing on where we are with our mapping for Important Agriculture Lands (IAL)?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is noted. Jade, can we get that on?
Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 92 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion or public testimony?
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural
Lands (County of Maui) was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
12. A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use (County of Maui)
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Land Use (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: Can someone explain exactly what this Bill
is going to do if it passes?
Council Chair Rapozo: All this does is adds in, if you look at
Section 2(b), "The counties may submit their General Plans to the commission for
review and request land use boundary amendments for those lands designated for
Urban, Rural, Agricultural, and Conservation uses in conformance with those
plans."
Councilmember Yukimura: We cannot do that now?
Council Chair Rapozo: Apparently not. I thought we were able to.
At the HSAC meeting, I guess we were not able to do that. I am not sure if anyone
is here that can answer that question.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is my understanding that the County can
initiate any boundary amendments they want to.
Council Chair Rapozo: But this is your General Plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mauna Kea, you are probably the wrong
person to ask. Maybe we can just have someone call the Planning Department real
quick.
Councilmember Kagawa: If there is no harm, then...if we have no
problem with that...it may pertain to something like the agriculture, which the
State solely dictates now, that our General Plan would lead the direction of
agriculture. I cannot see anything bad with this though. It is good that the
COUNCIL MEETING 93 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
counties are using home rule and submitting our General Plans for the Land Use
Commission (LUC) to review and try and conform with.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is just that if we already can do it, we look
fairly uninformed when we go before the legislator.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I think it would be useful for me to talk to
the Planning Department, because it might be that the landowner is the one that
requests boundary adjustments and not the County.
Councilmember Yukimura: It could be.
Councilmember Hooser: I am not comfortable voting on it with the
information that I have right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am reading page 4. It says, "The Office of
Planning shall undertake a review of the classification and districting of all lands in
the State within five (5) years from December 31St, and every fifth year thereafter
and the office in its five-year boundary review shall focus on efforts between the
Hawai`i State Plan, county General Plans..." It seems like it is every five (5) years
and this will allow the counties to send it whenever. I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Trask: For the record, Mauna Kea Trask, County
Attorney. As Council Chair said, this pertains to the General Plans. So under the
current practice, district boundary amendments are done almost exclusively on a
case-by-case basis, driven by landowners and developers. That does include the
County. So like the LUC for Lima Ola District Boundary Amendment that
appeared before you a couple of weeks ago—we are doing that, the County is doing
that. However, although the Office of Planning may initiate comprehensive state
land use boundary amendments currently, after completion of its five-year
boundary review plans, it seldom does it. So this is a missed opportunity, as viewed
by this Bill, to ensure that State land use districts conform to county plans. It
allows a comprehensive general plan review, versus a spot-spot sort of one.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ka`aina Hull from the Planning Department
is on his way.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have seen that happen, where we made...in
fact, Nukoli`i, was a General Plan amendment made through the community plan
process. It was actually made. It was not just a recommendation. It did not get the
COUNCIL MEETING 94 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
kind of case-by-case review that is normally given to land use amendments, so I
would have...because then a citizen would have to be prepared to address many
Land Use Commission changes at once.
Mr. Trask: I do not want to argue the point of it, but just
if you look...the amendment is, "The counties may submit their General Plans to
the commission for review and request land use boundary amendments for those
lands designated for Urban, Rural, Agriculture, and Conservation uses in
conformance with the plans." That is only after the entire community participates
in the General Plan process. You go to the public comment period, you do an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and all of those things. Therefore, after it
is adopted by this body, which again, the public can participate in, the County can
then submit that plan to the LUC and go via that way, so they match up. I think
this assumes that, as you would have to, go through all of that review process,
community involvement, et cetera.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: It looks like reading the purpose clause that
at the present time, at the bottom of page 3, it says, "The district boundaries would
determine on a project by project basis," which I think as Councilmember Yukimura
says, in my opinion, allows for more scrutiny, more public participation, and
overtime, things change. If the entire plan was reviewed at once today and not
implemented for ten (10) years or five (5) years is projects and things change. I
would think that case-by-case is better.
Mr. Trask: Just on that point, I do not think this would
get rid of that at all. You can still do the case-by-case, and not to argue again, but
conversely, the same could be said that you lose general context when you go
case-by-case. If you are just doing this one fifteen (15) or sixteen (16) acre parcel,
over fifteen (15) acres you have to go the LUC—you could miss the forest for the
trees by focusing just there on and forget what is going on right next door or
maukalmakai sort of thing. It really depends how you approach it.
Councilmember Hooser: I think this is a policy decision.
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is exactly what it is. I think the concern,
and I am kind of sharing that, is you have a General Plan that may have four (4) or
maybe five (5) land use zoning changes, and one might be a very controversial big
one and that is going to get all of the attention. In the process, some of the others
will just slip through, only to find out three (3) years from now...anyway, let us wait
for the Planning Department to come. I am curious to hear what their point is.
COUNCIL MEETING 95 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: I wonder if they even knew about this Bill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, if they do not...I am not inclined to
support it if they are not ready to give an opinion.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Can I just add something real quick?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Near the bottom of page number 2, it says,
"Although the Office of Planning may initiate comprehensive state land use
boundary amendments after completion of its five-year boundary review plan, it is
seldom done so."
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So this is a missed opportunity to ensure
that State land use districts confirm to county plans. So I see it as the County
giving the information to the State so that they can update their records so they can
follow our General Plan, as well, and there could be uniformity between what our
General Plan and our citizens have said for us.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is basically a multi-project petition for
zoning changes, so it is pretty serious stuff. I apologize, Ka`aina. I am not sure if
you are even aware of this, and if you are not, I do not want you to speculate or
guess, but if you are not prepared, that is fine.
Councilmember Kuali`i: I want to say one more thing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Kuali`i: It also says "allowing the counties to submit
their General Plans to the commission for review, and to request land use district
boundary amendments where appropriate would accomplish the intent of Act 187 to
further efficient land use patterns, aid the counties in implementing their General
Plans, and reduce the cost of permitting that is passed along to consumers."
Council Chair Rapozo: Ka`aina, we have one more item left. I am
going to call the meeting back to order and you can take some time to look at this
and maybe talk with Mauna Kea, and then we will go on to the collective bargaining
item and bring the Planning Department back up. Is that okay?
13. A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining (County of Maui)
COUNCIL MEETING 96 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Just real brief, I want to remind everyone
that the writers of these bills, the advocates of the bills write the statements,
including supportive statements for their position. They do not talk about the lack
of the community input or possible environmental kind of stuff. So I just want to
remind everybody that the positive statements are put there by advocates.
Council Chair Rapozo: By the person that wants it to pass, yes. So
let us go to the last one. I think the last one is related to collective bargaining. This
one is going shock a lot of people, because right now, as you know, for certain
bargaining units, the Governor has four (4) votes and the counties each have
one (1). I am not sure where the rest of this is...does somebody have...you all have
the packet. It shows the dissemination of the votes and basically gives the county
councils more input and more authority in the collective bargaining process.
Councilmember Kagawa: Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes?
Councilmember Kagawa: The non-voting though.
Council Chair Rapozo: What?
Councilmember Kagawa: It is a non-voting member.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: At least it gives us input there to try to
convince the State who controls the county pay increases to maybe at least listen to
our concerns from a budgetary standpoint. I am in support.
Council Chair Rapozo: But if you look at paragraph number 2, this
is the big one, Units 11 and 12 and that is Police and Fire, "The governor shall have,
instead of four (4) votes..." that will be reduced to one (1) vote, "...and the mayors
shall each have one (1) vote and one (1) representative from each county council will
be allowed to attend as non-voting." As you can see, the Governor will only have
one (1) vote, as opposed to four (4). Right now, he gets one (1) county and mayor, it
is a done deal. We will see how this goes through the legislature, but this is what
people have been yelping at for a long time and HSAC is finally saying "enough is
enough," because every county is suffering the same thing, especially from Police
and Fire. They are the huge increases and the counties really have no say. One (1)
mayor and it is done. So this is out to change it, where the Governor only has
one (1). That is really the gist of this one here.
COUNCIL MEETING 97 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Kagawa: Can I comment?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Kagawa: So you said the mayor has the vote?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is how it is right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: So the Council will be on as a non-voting
member?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: But if the mayors agree with the unions like
the State of Hawai`i Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) and the Hawai`i Fire
Fighters Association (HFFA), then we still we be stuck with massive pay increases.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. The difference though is that the
four (4) mayors will be able to listen to the representatives from each council. The
biggest difference though is the Governor now would only get one (1) vote, so he or
she will have to secure the votes from three (3) other councils, as opposed to one (1).
I think the representation from each county council, whether it is the finance chair
or public safety chair, whatever the case may be, I would assume it will be probably
finance or...I am hoping that the package that we present at these discussions, even
though we are not voting, might enlighten some of the other counties and some of
the other mayors. We just do not know. Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: So this measure passed into law would take
away power from the governor and give it to the counties with regards to
negotiating with Police and Fire.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Are Police and Fire aware that this is on our
agenda today?
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not sure.
Councilmember Hooser: It seems like it would make sense to let them
know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. Again, this is an HSAC initiative
that...
COUNCIL MEETING 98 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Hooser: Do you know if they support or oppose this
measure?
Council Chair Rapozo: I would guess that they would probably
oppose.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. I am just saying whether we are
talking about homeowners or any group that we are going to take action that has
significant effect on their kuleana or their area, then it makes sense to get their
input on it.
Council Chair Rapozo: For me, I do not envision this as trying to
take away from Police and Fire. I just want to make sure that the counties have a
much more impact, a bigger impact, in the discussion. The councils do not vote. At
the end of the day, the mayors will...I really do not expect much to change, but at
least, again, we are trying to take smaller steps going forward to try to be more
inclusive in this collective bargaining process. I did not make SHOPO or the Fire
union aware.
Councilmember Hooser: So the three (3) counties could then control
the outcome?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, the Governor...
Councilmember Hooser: No, three (3) because there are five (5) votes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right. If three (3) mayors say "no," then...
Councilmember Hooser: So the three (3) smallest counties can control
the "fate," if you would, of the collective bargaining for these two (2) units? The way
it is written now, Maui, Hawai`i island, and Kaua`i, which compose only about
one-third of the population...I am just...
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay, just so I understand it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to shed to light that should
Police and Fire union strongly oppose this change, you can bet your life that they
will be massively up at the legislature opposing any change to that Bill. They have
huge moneys going into their unions out of their large salaries and they will put on
a very powerful lobbying effort against this Bill. I can guarantee you that. I do not
COUNCIL MEETING 99 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
think SHOPO or Fire needs to be here. We need to lookout after our taxpayers
right now. That is what I believe. Calling them here today to oppose it, for me, is
not looking after the taxpayers. We are trying to solve a problem and I think we
have to take steps to try and solve the problem.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The problem is not that we cannot call in
SHOPO and Firefighters now; the problem is this whole process with HSAC bills
that people get six (6) days' notice and we cannot defer or continue the discussion
because the time is of an essence in our timetable for HSAC. That is why I hope
maybe we can use our mid-year conference and do some of this really good
discussion and have enough time for all of the stakeholders, whatever the bill, to
participate in it. The rationale for the counties having more power versus the
governor is clear. The personnel are in the counties. The bulk of the firefighters
are in the counties and the bulk of police are in the counties. So it makes sense that
the counties would have more equalized power with the Governor. Also, it is
important that the smaller counties, which have much lower tax base and much
harder budgets, would also have a way for their voices to be heard. I also want to
say that one of the key things for me is whether the non-voting councilmember will
be able to communicate to the other councilmembers to keep us abreast of the
negotiations, even though that might have to be in Executive Session, so that
one (1) councilmember can get input from the body as this process goes on and we
can be informed, too. To me, that would give better quality input from the counties.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you look at number 5, it mandates that the
mayor or the mayor's representative will provide timely updates relating to the
negotiations to the county council in Executive Session. That is another addition
that the other counties are struggling with because these guys go up there, they
negotiate, they do their thing, and we do not know what is going on, and we come
back with the bill. This will require the mayors to come to us. We define "timely."
To me, "timely" is once a month during negotiations. To me, that is timely because
a lot happens in one (1) month in these negotiations. This mandates that will
happen.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: The other thing, just in defense of HSAC, is
we have to understand that, that is a separate entity and we got to kind of look...we
have the agendas and we have the minutes. We have the opportunity to show up at
those meetings as well. I like the suggestion of the mid-year meeting, but the
mid-year meeting is kind of too soon. We do not actually start taking the proposals
until somewhere around September or so. I take that recommendation, and in
June, we do have our HSAC Conference here on Kaua`i. We will set up a time
COUNCIL MEETING 100 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
where we can have that open discussion statewide for issues that may affect each
county. I do appreciate that suggestion. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: For me, it comes down to fairness. I think to
set the record straight, the Governor right now has four (4) votes and they do not
have any police officers or firemen under them; they have sheriffs and airport. So
they have the majority of the votes, yet we have a majority of the employees and
they are able to control that. I think it just comes down to fairness.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Councilmember Kuali`i: The other thing I think is with the Governor
having four (4) and the mayors four (4), because four (4) counties, out of eight (8);
currently any of the unions or whoever is trying to get a decision in their favor, only
needs the Governor plus one (1) mayor, so that is five (5) out of eight (8). In the new
system, with the governor having one (1) and the mayors each having one (1),
four (4), that is five (5) votes. They would still just need the Governor, but instead
of one (1) county, they would need two (2) counties. So all we are talking about is
the difference of is one (1) more county to make a decision and that one (1) more
county could be us or it could be Maui. It is democracy in action in a way, giving us
more of a say. I do not know that it is that different, so I do not know that the
unions would necessarily be vehemently against it, but I do not know.
Council Chair Rapozo: They would need five (5).
Councilmember Kuali`i: Three (3) out of five (5) or five (5) out of
eight (8).
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: Currently, they need five (5) out of eight (8);
Governor plus one (1).
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Councilmember Kuali`i: But for the three (3) out of five (5), it would
be Governor plus two (2).
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Kuali`i: So they could still have two (2) counties
against it and get...whatever the issue is.
COUNCIL MEETING 101 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I think the bigger part of this is not so much
the votes, because I think that will happen anyway, but I think it is the
participation and mandatory updates by the mayor. I think that really makes it
easy and makes the councils part of the process. Any further discussion?
Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I support having the counties involved to a
greater degree and support the reports, but I think since we acknowledge that the
people being affected by this measure would not support the measure, I would like
to hear from them and to see why. We talk about fairness and I do not think it
would be fair to vote on something without hearing their side of the coin. Whether
it is Fire, Police, UPW, HGEA, or any public worker union or any other major
constituent group, before I vote on something that I know they are going to be
opposed to, I would rather at least have a conversation with them so I understand
their position. So I am not going to be supporting this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? I
need a motion to approve.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To
Collective Bargaining (County of Maui), seconded by Councilmember
Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Roll call.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining
(County of Maui) was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i, Yukimura,
Rapozo TOTAL — 5,
AGAINST APPROVAL: Hooser TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, let us go back to item number 12,
A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use. Ka`aina is here. I will suspend the rules
with no objections. Any questions for Ka`aina?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KAAINA HULL, Deputy Planning Director: Good afternoon, Chair
and Members of the Council. Ka`aina Hull on behalf of the Planning Department.
COUNCIL MEETING 102 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess the question is, are you in a position
today to offer support or non-support or did you need more time?
Mr. Hull: To officially weigh-in on whether or not the
department is supportive of this proposal, we would need one (1) week or two (2) to
digest it. This is the first time I am seeing it. It raises an issue that has been a
point of concern of land use for some time, concerning the fact that often times the
General Plan in the County process is disjointed or fragmented from the land use
process. There is a point where the issue has come up and it looks like this is trying
to address that. Like I said, because I am just seeing it now, I cannot officially
weigh-in on our position of it yet.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: To say that we could go before the Land Use
Commission with all our changes from a General Plan, and they are recommended
changes...they are not actual zoning or General Plan amendments, right? To say
that would mean that you folks would be okay with passing zoning and General
Plan land use amendments in a General Plan update process.
Mr. Hull: That is why with something like this, we
need time to take back and look at it because you have had different General Plans
take on General Plan designations from a different viewpoint. In at least one
circumstance, the General Plan prior to the 2000 plan, recognized an area for its
type of land uses, despite the fact that it did not have the underlying zoning per se.
The case I am thinking of is if you look at Homesteads, which are agricultural
lands. A previous iteration of the General Plan recognized that and called it
somewhat "Rural/Residential," recognizing the fact that there is more of a
Rural/Residential component to the Homesteads, despite the fact that it is actually
Agricultural zoning. But there was no intent to say it should be, therefore taken to
the Land Use Commission and turned into rural. In the 2000 General Plan, in
order to ensure that was not misinterpreted, that it wanted to go into rural LUC,
the 2000 General Plan said, "No, that is agricultural actually," despite the fact that
there is a recommendation that much of it is much more in residential use. As I
was saying, I would want to take this back and digest it a little bit because of the
fact that for some General Plan designations, it may not be officially recommending
that an LUC change be made.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is it recommending then?
Mr. Hull: No, I am saying that in some situations they
are and in some situations it is not.
COUNCIL MEETING 103 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: What determines when they are and when
they are not?
Mr. Hull: The policy itself as set in the General Plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: So when you say that it is not really our
recommendation, but we are putting something in that says it is Rural/Residential
then it is meaningless. Why would you do that?
Mr. Hull: I did not do that. I am just recognizing
decades past, that is the way General Plans have functioned. But there was a very
concerted effort in that plan to recognize the fact that it was not saying it should be
put in Rural. That is all I am saying is that there are some nuances to it, so I would
want to look back at some previous past land use actions to see how this might be
interpreted and eventually utilized, should it be passed.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hopefully, we have clear designations and
we know what they mean when we put them in, and when we do not mean them, we
do not put them in, like (inaudible) designation.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: What I think I heard you say was sometimes
the plan will attempt to designate certain areas, but not want a boundary
adjustment.
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember looser: But will acknowledge that this is the use
maybe, but we are not asking the State to change.
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Thank you. I will call
the meeting back to order. Further discussion? Councilmember Hooser.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Hooser: If the Planning Department is not prepared
to support this, I am certainly not.
COUNCIL MEETING 104 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Even for me, I am a little uncomfortable. A
General Plan is a plan and I am sure that we have not followed all of our General
Plans that we have always done and if we completed a General Plan, we took the
whole thing to LUC, changed the boundaries, and I am sure within twenty (20)
years, that plan may not have turned out the way it was meant to be and there may
be more changes and I do not think there is a way to go back. Right now, I guess I
am not too comfortable with it, so I am not going to be voting for it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? For me, it is the same.
This action to the Land Use Commission is a petition for multiple amendments to
the State land use map. So with Ka`aina's testimony here today, I am not prepared
to move forward either.
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use (County of
Maui) was then put, and failed by a vote of 0:6:1 (Councilmember Chock was
excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: We have to go back to number 5 real quick,
relating to Noise Control. Staff has passed out the City & County of Honolulu
Resolution, and actually it is the Resolution that they passed for the HSAC
proposal. In essence, what they are saying is that, "The Department of Health has
not regulated residential and commercial noise in the State except for noise from
stationary sources and equipment and the council is often asked to address noise
complaints in the community through legislation at the county-level, but none of the
county agencies or departments are sufficiently equipped or appropriately trained
to respond to community noise control complaints on a local level, whereas the
Department of Health has the authority, skill, and equipment to prevent, control,
and albeit noise complaints in the state, and whereas..." It goes into the process for
HSAC. That is the justification. Again, I do not know and I am not prepared to tell
one way or the other if this would preempt the counties from passing a noise
ordinance. As I read the language, it may appear that it would preempt, that this
would give the State the authority, and I am not even going to ask Mauna Kea to
come up because it is not fair for him to do an on the fly opinion, but I think I have
some concerns because of that and I will not be supporting this. Again, keep in
mind that just because it is in the HSAC Package, it is not because I support it. It
is because I wanted the Council to have the discussion. The fact that it is on this
agenda does not mean that I am supporting it and it is ultimately the Council's
choice. Because of that possible preemption, I am just not comfortable enough. Any
further discussion? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree with you, Chair, that it could raise
the preemption question. I think noise is a can of worms that both the State and
COUNCIL MEETING 105 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
the County would prefer not to address. As we learned from the Barking Dogs Bill,
noise is an issue that affects people's lives on this island and I actually think that
the County is the better level at which to address the problem, and it will take a lot
of effort to both write a bill and to develop the enforcement capacity. I think that is
probably the better route than to let the State do it. If this has the potential to
preempt local control and local self-government then I am not in favor of it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser.
Councilmember Hooser: I feel the same way. It looks to me very
strongly that this would preempt the counties. I do not think it is fair to our
residents. It just gives all the councilmembers an excuse to say, "It is not me, it is
the State. There is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing I can do about your
dog, about the radio, about the boom box, about the factory next door, and about the
parties. There is nothing I can do. It all says it right here that it is the State's
responsibility." So that is not fair to our residents and I do not think we should be
passing this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any further discussion? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am not going to support it, but I do not
know what we are preempting. We suck at handling noise issues. We are 0-7 in
dog barking cases in court. It is as if we are saying we are good at enforcing noise
ordinances when we are not. I do not think it is a big deal about preempting us
because we suck at enforcing noise ordinances. We do not have the expertise or the
jurisdiction. We have the jurisdiction if we pass a bill, but it is like, we are not good
at it and we have no place to expand our government to handle noise ordinances
and noise bills. I think the State is better equipped. They have the Department of
Health, doctors, and medical experts. They have a lot more than we do. It seems
like the vote is there to kill it and I do not think this is something that we should
pass with a weak vote. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? For me, the State has
the ability right now to enforce the noise issue. The way the law is written today,
they can, if they wanted to. The fact that we would rewrite the statute to say,
"Okay, now you will..."—to me, it is not going to get any more support from the
State. It is just not going to happen. Councilmember Kagawa brings up a really
valid point and I admit that the noise ordinance that I talked about has been
worked on and it is kind of out there and hopefully we can get back to that
discussion shortly, but we will meet the same fate as the State. We will have the
law, but who is going to enforce it? Who is going buy the sound meters? It is a
tough nut to crack, but like Councilmember Kagawa said, but the State is in that
position to do so and they should be the ones doing that. But the preemption issue
COUNCIL MEETING 106 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
is one of concern because I do intend to put forth some sort of noise ordinance and
with this State law or with this proposal anyway, it could prevent that. I am not
going to support it and we will revisit the noise ordinance issue in the near future.
Any further discussion?
The motion to approve A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise Control (City &
County of Honolulu) was then put, and failed by a vote of 0:6:1
(Councilmember Chock was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion fails. We need an amendment
now to clean up what we just did.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend Resolution No. 2016-79 as
circulated, and as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto
as Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to note the absence of our Bill,
which we proposed to exempt a county manager from the civil service if a county
chooses a council-manager form of government. Apparently, it did not make it
through the Executive Committee, but it will be part of our legislative package and
it is a neutral bill in the sense that it does not mandate the counties to adopt the
council-manager form of government, but it does allow for the option to be a viable
option.
Council Chair Rapozo: It basically was an attempt to do what the
Attorney General recommended in his ruling or opinion. I will say for the record
that in HSAC you need all four (4) counties to approve and that proposal from
Kaua`i...Maui and Hawai`i island voted against it; Kaua`i and O`ahu did support the
proposal. With that, any further discussion on the amendment?
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2016-79 as circulated, and as shown in
the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, was then
put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Chock was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: We are back to the main motion. Any
further discussion? If not, roll call.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2016-79, as amended to
Resolution No. 2016-79, Draft 1, was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 107 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
FOR ADOPTION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I do a personal privilege?
Council Chair Rapozo: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Clerk's Office, and in particular, the Elections Division, and all of
the staff people who worked so hard to make Elections happen on Kaua`i, because
that was a huge job. They did well and the right to vote and having fair elections is
such an important part of our democratic process. Just kudos and thanks. I know
Lyndon is not here, but I hope he gets the message, and to all of you who I know
were involved in all the work that it took. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Can someone read us into
Executive Session, please?
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-865 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4,
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), on behalf of the Council, the
Office of the County Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to
provide the Council with a briefing regarding the claim filed against the County of
Kaua`i by Randal Miyashiro of Kalani Construction, Inc. This briefing and
consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges,
immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this
agenda item.
ES-883 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4,
92-5(a)(2), 92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the
County Attorney, on behalf of the Kaua`i County Council, requests an Executive
Session to brief the Council on matters regarding the Notice of Violation and Order
(NOVO) from the State of Hawai`i Department of Health, Clean Water Branch for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit related
violations and penalties at four (4) refuse transfer stations, and related matters.
This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties,
privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they
relate to this agenda item.
COUNCIL MEETING 108 NOVEMBER 16, 2016
ES-884 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney, requests an Executive Session with the Council, to provide the Council
with a briefing and request for authority to settle the case of Carl A. Ragasa vs.
County of Kaua`i, et al., Civil No. CV14 00309 DKW BMK (United States District
Court for the District of Hawai`i) and related matters. This briefing and
consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities,
and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
Councilmember Kuali`i moved to convene in Executive Session, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Hooser, Kagawa, Kaneshiro, Kuali`i,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Chock TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. That will end the formal
proceeding. BC, you can leave. With no objections, the meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 3:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA
County Clerk
:cy
ATTAaJMENT 1
(November 16, 2016)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Resolution No. 2016-79, Resolution Approving Proposals For Inclusion In The 2017
Hawai`i State Association of Counties Legislative Package
Introduced by: ROSS KAGAWA
Amend Resolution No. 2016-79 in its entirety to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, legislative proposals have been submitted by member counties
of the Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC) for consideration by the county
councils for inclusion in the 2017 HSAC Legislative Package; and
WHEREAS, at its meetings of August 23, 2016, September 26, 2016, and
October 24, 2016, the HSAC Executive Committee approved for inclusion in the
2017 HSAC Legislative Package the following:
1. A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability (County of Kauai)
2. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic Fines (County
of Kauai)
3. A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation For Emergency Medical
Services (County of Kauai)
4. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (City & County
of Honolulu)
5. A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise Control (City & County of Honolulu)
6. A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings (County of Maui)
7. A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For Persons With
Disabilities (County of Maui)
8. A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient Accommodations Tax (County
of Maui)
9. A Bill For An Act Relating To The Conveyance Tax (County of Maui)
10. A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records (County of Maui)
11. A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural Lands (County of
Maui)
12. A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use (County of Maui)
13. A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining (County of Maui)
1
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, HSAC Bylaws require that all four counties approve each
proposal for inclusion in the HSAC Legislative Package; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, that it hereby approves the following proposals attached
hereto for inclusion in the 2017 HSAC Legislative Package:
[1. A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability
2. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic Fines
3. A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation For Emergency Medical
Services
4. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
5. A Bill For An Act Relating To Noise Control
6. A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings
7. A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For Persons With
Disabilities
8. A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient Accommodations Tax
9. A Bill For An Act Relating To The Conveyance Tax
10. A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records
11. A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural Lands
12. A Bill For An Act Relating To Land Use
13. A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining]
1. A Bill For An Act Relating To Tort Liability
2. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unadjudicated Traffic Fines
3. A Bill For An Act Making An Appropriation For Emergency Medical
Services
4. A Bill For An Act Relating To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
5. A Bill For An Act Relating To Community Meetings
6. A Bill For An Act Relating To Identification Cards For Persons With
Disabilities
7. A Bill For An Act Relating To Transient Accommodations Tax
8. A Bill For An Act Relating To Government Records
9. A Bill For An Act Relating To Important Agricultural Lands
10. A Bill For An Act Relating To Collective Bargaining
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution be
transmitted to the HSAC Executive Committee."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored.)
2