HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2017-05/12/2017 Budget Deliberation/Preliminary Decision-Making, FY 2017-18 BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
DELIBERATION AND PRELIMINARY DECISION-MAKING
FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 ANNUAL BUDGET
MAY 11, 2017
A Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making Meeting on the Fiscal
Year 2017-2018 Annual Budget of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by Arryl
Kaneshiro, Chair, Budget & Finance Committee, on Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 9:04 a.m. at
the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Room 201 Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawaii and the presence
of the following was noted:
Honorable Arthur Brun (present at 9:41 a.m.)
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
The meeting proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let the record reflect that all Members are
present. Councilmember Brun is on his way. He is running a little late and he called early
this morning to let me know he was going to be running late. Today we will be addressing
decision-making for our Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 Operating and Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) Budgets and Real Property Tax rates for the same FY. We have had nearly
three (3) weeks of budget reviews, substantial discussion with the Administration on their
proposed budget, and we also received lengthy responses from the Administration to the
numerous follow-up questions that probably were about one hundred(100). So, you folks can
thank us because I think last year there were three hundred (300) questions, so we reduced
it by two hundred (200) questions. Good job, team. I will not be requesting that the
Administration come up today, unless they definitely need to answer a question we have. We
may have questions on the supplemental budget, but I think for the most part we have heard
lengthy discussion on a lot of the budget that we saw already. We can bring them up for
clarification. I just do not want us to get into a debate here. In the end, we make a decision
and we move on.
Today will be our opportunity to offer proposals to the budget. I would like to remind
the Committee that any proposal to reduce or remove an item requires four (4) votes. Any
proposal to increase or add an item requires five (5) votes. Once we vote on that item today,
we will not revisit that item unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.
Additionally, once a proposal is introduced, I respectfully ask that Members be concise
and considerate with their time during this time. We can end up being here all day, if not.
As we have heard from the Mayor and his team, as well as through our budget
discussions, I wanted to reiterate a few of the many challenges that we are facing as our
County. Of course the biggest one which we recently found out was that the Legislature
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 2 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
recently adjourned decreasing the counties' share of Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)
which means a decrease to the County of Kaua`i of roughly $1,450,000 and we were also not
given the opportunity for a General Excise Tax (GET). To no control of our own, we are
chasing an additional $1,450,000 in this budget that we used to get in the past that we are
not getting now from the State.
This year we were also faced with additional increases as we received arbitrated or
negotiated collective bargaining agreements and we have tried to accommodate for that in
our budget, which is why our budget has increased. We are not budgeting for what we have
last year and then doing money bills throughout the year to cover any increases. We tried to
budget as best we could for these upcoming expenses. There is also, as we all know,
considerable backlog of our roads and bridges repairs and we have tried to address that in
the budget. We had $6,000,000 but we had to reduce it because of our loss of State TAT
money, so we do have $4,800,000 in the budget for roads, which we have all heard have been
a problem.
Also things that have popped up—retirement costs from anti-spiking. We saw about
$500,000 this year in the budget for spiking. We also saw increases in the Employees
Retirement System (ERS), our contribution which will continue to increase over the next few
years. We also budgeted for the increase cost due to the recycling efforts, which we had a
long discussion on it yesterday.
Lastly, I just want to remind everyone that the Council also recently voted on two (2)
resolutions relating to the use of the Reserve Fund and Fund Balance, as well as maintaining
a Structurally Balanced Budget, which places tighter restrictions on the use of unassigned
funds.
Just a refresher. The Reserve Fund policy established the amount we want to
maintain in the General Fund Reserve, how the Reserve will be funded, and conditions under
which the Reserve may be spent. Therefore, we finally have a target as far as how much we
want to keep in our savings account for any "rainy day." The goal of the Structurally
Balanced Budget policy is to have recurring revenues cover recurring expenses. In both of
these policies, it is frowned upon to use the Reserves or the Unassigned Fund Balance to
balance the budget. As we all know there was practice in the past to do that. We saw our
Reserves go from $70,000,000 down to $35,000,000 and just that is an indication that there
is an imbalance in our budget. We are spending way more than we are getting in revenues
and it is not a good thing. If nothing is done to remedy that, that trend will pretty much run
ourselves broke. We will be running on a trend of pulling from reserves to cover our expenses
every single year, which is not fiscally sound.
Let me remind everyone that it is our responsibility to make the difficult decisions to
ensure a fiscally sound budget and to keep in mind that we are not only trying to get through
this budget, but to set a path of success for the future. We cannot continue to kick the can
down the road which all have been hearing has been pretty bumpy, KOloa Road, for instance.
Not all of our decisions will be the most popular, but may be necessary to maintain the
services and standard of living on our beautiful island. Of course it is always a difficult
balance and I know we are all looking forward to today and struggling with that balance of
how do we address deteriorating roads when we do not have enough money to pay for the
roads that we need to do. We hear the public telling us that they want the roads done, we do
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 3 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
not have the money available, and so how do you balance that? How much are we willing to
raise and tax residents to get the roads that they want done? Obviously, we cannot raise
taxes $100,000,000 this year and just stick it to everybody to get our roads done and that is
the balance we are constantly dealing with. Even yesterday, we heard the balance. We heard
of people who wanted recycling at their house. They wanted us to be able to pick up the
recycling from their house. Again, I would love that, but it comes with a cost to the County
and to the taxpayers. That is the balance we constantly struggle with and also the balance
of cutting. It is not only about adding, it is about cutting, and the balance of if we cut this,
what are the ramifications to the services? Those are the decisions we weigh and that is our
reality here on what we have to do. At the end of the day, our cuts and adds—we will probably
end up with three (3) options and I want to start thinking about what they want to do now.
Of course if we cut money and we have money available, we have three (3) things we can do.
We can put the money into the Unassigned Fund Balance, keep it in the Reserve and then
pull money out of it based on the reserve policy, which says you can use it for CIP, roads, and
such. We can put that cut towards projects now in the budget or we can try to reduce the
Real Property Tax increase, which we have proposed by the Mayor. Again, I think we are
chasing $3,000,000 so if we cannot cut $3,000,000, which I think is highly unlikely, then we
will need to make a decision on the Real Property Tax increase. We have a lot to think about
as we go through this process. Please keep in mind as we go through the process any additions
that you may be proposing should have a corresponding reduction or identification of funding
or revenue source. On the screen above, we will have all our proposals in real time. Staff will
be putting any cuts, adds, whatever we do and we will get to see it in real time where we are
at. I want to remind everyone that if the Committee does not come to an agreement within
the allotted time for decision-making, the Mayor's proposed Operating and CIP budgets that
were transmitted on March 14, 2017 will go into effect. Does negate all the time we spent
going through the entire budget, so really it is up to us to make the decision on it, if not, we
wasted a lot of time going through budget items and we should have just accepted the budget
from the start.
I will be opening today's session as we have done throughout the budget session with
public testimony. Following public testimony, I will allow Mayor Carvalho and his team to
briefly address the Committee on his Supplemental Budget Communication. Following the
presentation, I will immediately go into the Council's Decision-Making. We should have had
time with Council Staff already, so I know we all have our cuts and adds prepared. The
difficult part with Sunshine Law is we have no clue what anybody is cutting or adding and
we have to make decisions on the fly, which is not comfortable, but it is our job.
As a side note, I want to respectfully ask that Councilmembers make their final
commentary on the budget during second and final reading, which we have always done in
the past, which is scheduled for May 31, 2017, rather than at the end of this Decision-Making
or in Committee, if at all possible. It will help save time on the staff because we are probably
going to be repeating ourselves three times and they are going to have to write it up three (3)
times. May 31, 2017 would be the time when we really stick it to everybody and say
everything we want to do and we have time to prepare for that. With that, I will suspend the
rules. Anyone in the audience wishing to testify on the budget?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 4 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back to order,
and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Mayor, you have the floor. Can you give us a brief
presentation on your Supplemental Budget?
BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR., Mayor: Good morning, Chair Rapozo, and
Budget & Finance Committee Chair Kaneshiro. As I always done, I am here again this
morning to just give you a recap or a synopsis of our most recent submittal, of course. I asked
all of our Administrative team to be present with me. Just a note that these men and women
have done a tremendous job in trying to follow the process so we can come out with a good,
sound budget submittal. We are working closely with you, Councilmembers, I want to make
that clear so the public knows that we tried our very best to reach out to you, so I really
appreciate the opportunity to just give you a briefing of pretty much of what you did
Committee Chair Kaneshiro.
In my State of the County Address this year, our Administration identified pressing
needs and critical projects. Chief among them was our proposal to dedicate $6,000,000 in
County funds...I want the people to understand that the $6,000,000 in County funds towards
road repair and maintenance. Further, we had planned to use a portion of that money to
leverage federal funding, that is another big part that would have helped us to move, which
would have resulted in an additional $6,000,000 for road projects.
In addition to road repairs, we allocated $600,000 to repairing our unpaved parking
lots at our beach parks, as well as investing money in replacing our aged vehicle and
equipment fleet to the tune of $1,000,000 this year to properly equip our crews to do their
jobs in an efficient manner. Since our initial FY 2018 Budget was presented to you in March,
we have been diligently following concerns there were brought forth during the Council's
Budget discussions, as well as issues discussed internally with our Department Heads, like
I stated earlier.We have also taken into account the outcomes of the 2017 Legislative Session.
Taking all the above into consideration, the Supplemental Budget recently submitted
for the County of Kaua`i for FY 2018 is roughly $203,500,000 and reflects a decrease of
$607,042 below the March submittal. The most significant impact affecting our
Supplemental Budget was the unfortunate news that the State Legislature decreased our
County's share of the TAT revenues by $1,450,000. Additionally, the Legislature did not
advance a GET measure that would have allowed us, the Counties, to receive up to
$20,000,000 a year in highway and transportation related revenues.
This additional funding would have helped to address the $126,000,000 backlog in
roadway repair and maintenance projects. We will continue to work with our partners at the
State Legislature in hopes of revisiting the possibility of receiving an increase in TAT funding
and favorable consideration for the GET allowance...allowing us to move on that.
However, absent the development of a diversified revenue stream, Real Property Tax
revenues remain the primary resource to meet the overwhelming majority of County
expenditures. No different from the other neighbor islands, due to the loss of TAT revenues,
coupled with the 21/2% to 3% collective bargaining raises that were recently awarded to
Firefighters and Hawai`i Government Employee Association(HGEA) units, which will set the
trend for all of our employees. We must maintain our request of an across the board increase
in Real Property Taxes by $0.19 per 1,000 square feet.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 5 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
In addition, we have been forced, almost, to reduce the amount allocated to our roads
repair initiative by approximately $1,200,000 in order to balance the budget. We have also
increased funds to address additional facility repairs and operational needs that were
identified through our in-depth discussions with the Council and our department heads
through the budgetary review process.
We have allocated $150,000 to the Kaua`i Veterans Center to support their efforts to
make much needed repairs to the facility's roof, as well as $22,000 to the Historic Waimea
Theatre for a new air conditioning (AC) system. Additionally, the Administration has
included $30,000 in the Operating Budget to address irrigation needs at the Historic County
Building. Other changes have been made to address new priorities, which were outlined in
my Supplemental Budget Message.
We took into account the Council's suggestion to revisit our Grant-in-Aid (GIA)
process, to ensure fairness and equity in the distribution of grand awards. The Office of the
Economic Development will now issue a joint exempt Request for Proposal (RFP) for
designated Grant-in-Aid projects, and selection committees will help to determine awardees
and amounts.
In the end, despite the disappointment of losing a large portion of our TAT funding,
we are proud to say that our budget proposal remains structurally balanced while still
maintaining a reserve of 30% of last year's revenues as established via two (2) Resolutions
which were mentioned earlier and approved by our County Council.
I want to say mahalo again to the Council, and Budget & Finance Committee Chair
Kaneshiro, for recognizing the importance of maintaining adequate reserves to allow the
County, our County, to respond to natural disasters or unforeseen economic challenges.
Mahalo for working together with our Administration not only on this Fiscal Year budget,
but having the foresight to create a long-term financial plan that seeks to build a County
government that is fiscally sustainable for years to come. I will end with that. We have a lot
more work to do, but I just want to thank you for the opportunity and know that our
administrative team sitting right behind me have done everything they can to reach out and
see how we can work together. We have submitted our Budget to you folks and we look
forward to some healthy discussions and make sure that we do the best for the people that
we serve. Mahalo and thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Mayor. Do we have any general
questions? If we have any questions relating to the budget items that he mentioned, I would
just ask that we wait until we get into the budget "adds" and "cuts" and we can go through
those changes. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning Mayor and thank you to you and
your Administration for all the work that has been done on the budget. There has been a lot
and a lot hinges on the work that we do in terms of the welfare of the people, so thank you.
The Legislative Session's actions or inactions have huge implications for us and I just
wondered whether you aware of midterm discussions that are going on and what the
likelihood is of having some decisions revisited by the Legislature before the next Legislative
session.
Mayor Carvalho: Yes. I can say that we as Mayors have met
recently to talk about that and I understand there is opportunity there that is stirring, so we
will support that effort as Mayors, as well as individuals.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 6 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: So there is a possibility that we might even get the
Excise Tax?
Mayor Carvalho: There is a possibility, as I know right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: I take it your Administration is preparing for
proposing the use of the Excise Tax should it come to us?
Mayor Carvalho: We are very hopeful that we have the opportunity
to utilize the Excise Tax, that will help us move forward in our budget process.
Councilmember Yukimura: And you are doing some preparations?
Mayor Carvalho: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I actually have one (1) more question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is really commendable that you are
revamping the GIA process and it looks like you will be a much more rational process and
should allow the best projects to rise to the top, so that is really good. And you are going to
have selection committees to make those decisions or make those recommendations, I
presume. Are you also going to have criteria by which the committees make their decisions?
Mayor Carvalho: I will just have our folks answer. They are ready
for that. Our folks went through the entire process and I know that is included in our new
way of managing our grants.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Will that come up later, Committee Chair?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It will. Will it affect your voting on a certain item
or is it something that they can respond to you in E-mail or at a later time and explain the
process they are going to go through?
Councilmember Yukimura: It will affect one (1) of my items, but I do not know
that it will be pivotal to an issue.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Maybe when that item comes up we can see if that
is the appropriate time to go over it.
Mayor Carvalho: The bottom line is we did revamp our entire
process and the programs. If you want to go into specifics, then I will have our folks come up
and explain if you need.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again...
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is a very good direction.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 7 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mayor Carvalho: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I wish the State would do the same, but thank you
very much.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: With that, thank you, Mayor. I know you folks
worked really hard through all this time.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I would like to ask for a motion or agreement from
the Committee to accept the Supplemental Budget Communication changes that were
submitted on May 5, 2017 and to use the Supplemental Budget as our starting point for
decision-making.
Councilmember Chock moved to use the Mayor's May Supplemental Budget
Communication as the starting point for Decision-Making, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was
excused).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes. We will be doing all of our work off
the Supplemental Budget Communication to keep things consistent.
Councilmember Chock moved to allow Council Services Staff to balance the budget
after entering Decision-Making proposals, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura,
and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As far as our plan goes, my plan is...and I do not
know if you folks want to write it down, but we are going through reductions to individual
departments first and we are going to follow the tabs. So, any individual reductions in the
budget, we will go through those. We will go to any individual reductions to the CIP and then
we will go to proposals affecting numerous departments, and we are just talking about only
cuts, so if you have a cut that goes through numerous departments, say you want to cut 10%
of overtime from every department or something, at that time when you will do that proposal,
and then we will have our cuts and adds. We are not going to go through each department.
By the time we get to our cuts and adds and the proposals affecting numerous departments,
I will just take it in order whoever want to propose something and then we will go through
them. Lastly, we will go through our adds. Of course, we will have our running total here the
entire time. I just ask Councilmembers to be cognizant on our cuts. As far as our Reserve
policy budget, Structured Balanced policy, if we make a cut now that we know that the
department is going to come back for a money bill during the year, I would say let us try not
to make those types of cuts because we can make the cut now, spend the money, and then
they are going to come back for the money, and it will be a double-whammy for us. I am just
putting that in everyone's ear. Again, we will go through each individual department. I will
go fast. I know you folks have your notes already on what departments you have cuts in, I
will go through them, give everybody a little bit of time to say whether they have one or not,
and we are going to just keep moving through all these departments. Of course, when it
comes up you will have time to explain what your cut is, what your add is, what your cut and
add is, and then we are going to take a vote on it—up or down. Again, four (4) votes to cut
and five (5) votes to add. On the adding and cutting at the same time, it is going
to take five (5) votes because you are adding in that proposal. Councilmember Kagawa, do
you have a question?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 8 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. My question is if I am going to make a motion
to disagree with the Mayor's $3,600,000 Real Property Tax hike, does that come during the
add portion?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: My plan is to go through all of our cuts and adds,
we are going to have a total up here of whether we have added more to the budget, decreased
the budget, or stayed the same. Once we have that number solid, then we are going to move
on to the Real Property Tax changes and that is when we will have to make a decision on
whether...which I do not want to do...pull money from the reserves to fund that amount that
we have missing or if we are going to adjust the Real Property Taxes to make up for that
amount. I think if we do all our cuts and adds and everything to know exactly where we stand
and then we make a decision on our Real Property Taxes from there, is the plan. That is my
plan.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just feel if there are solid votes to not go along
with the Real Property Tax proposal then that perhaps is a better way to go than we just
chasing $3,600,000. I understand that you have that process, but I just feel like there might
be some strong consensus that the Real Property Tax increase is just ridiculous and that we
should not even include that in the budget, from the outset.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are chasing $3,600,000, so if we do not find
$3,600,000 in cuts, then something is going to have to give. This $3,600,000 may be smaller
depending on the cuts that are made or may be bigger if people get an add that they want to
do and then that is the decision we will need to make as far as what do we want to do. If we
can cut $3,600,000 then there will be no Real Property Tax changes. Councilmember Chock
and then Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Chock: I have a process question also regarding cuts. I
have a lot of questions regarding the Supplemental Budget and I just wanted to know, do you
want to take the Supplemental Budget at the end? I know you are going through each
department individually and look at all of those or do you want me to try and bring it up
during the actual department?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If we can bring it up during the actual
department, that would probably be the best. How many do you have?
Councilmember Chock: I have the entire list right here.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you have it by department? It would be best if
we could go through it in the department so that we have the department up here, we may
have questions on the certain cuts that we are doing in that department already, we will have
them up here and we can ask them the question rather than everybody playing musical chairs
the entire time.
Councilmember Chock: Okay, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would actually be much more willing to consider
doing away with the Real Property Tax raises if somebody can show me reasonable cuts.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 9 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: In one sense a proposal to do away with Real
Property Taxes would be a combination of cut and reduce.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me put it this way, if we have $3,600,000
worth of cuts at the end of our meeting, we can do away with the Real Property Tax increase.
If we do not have $3,600,000 worth of cuts, then we have to make a tough decision. That is
why it is better we go through the cuts and adds now and then we get to see what we are
dealing with at the very end. Okay, with that, are we ready? I do not know, I am not too
ready. Just kidding.
Councilmember Kawakami: You are ready.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: In order to do my cuts, I am going to need
Councilmember Brun to be here.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you need a second, we will second it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Because I think the votes are going to be close.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is true.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is 9:30 a.m. I would like to have...
Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe we can take up Councilmember Chock's
questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, let us do that. I actually do want everyone
here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can someone call Councilmember Brun and see
where is he and how far out he is?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, and rather than taking a recess,
Councilmember Chock, let us go through your questions. I do not want Councilmember Brun
hiding from adds and cuts. It is a difficult decision for all of us, but it really does matter
when a cut takes four (4) and an add takes five (5), you really need everybody here. I
completely agree with Councilmember Kagawa. Councilmember Chock, let us go with any
questions you had with the Supplemental Budget for now and then we will see where we get
from there.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Chair. I guess my initial feeling is not
inclined to support additions within the Supplemental Budget unless it is time sensitive and
would like to be able to have that justified. I think it is really difficult because we get this
amount within a short period of time and we are not able to properly vet it as we have other
items within the budget. As I look at everything from the Veterans Center roof to Waimea
air conditioning to the County Building plants and how we maintain them, a lot of questions
come up for me. I am inclined again to actually start with cutting those if I do not have a very
good answer as to why we need it right now. That is sort of the direction I am looking at and
want to just get a sense from the body how you would like to do that.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 10 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right now as we are waiting for Councilmember
Brun, let us start going through the list of questions on those supplemental items and we will
be playing musical chairs. We will go through the list and whoever can answer it can come
up, you will say what the item is, we will have the person come up and answer it, and then
we may need to briefly repeat when Councilmember Brun is here if it does come up for a cut,
but we may as well do it now so we are not wasting any time. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I do not have my actual Supplemental Budget
with me. I gave it to Scott, but maybe we can start with what I wrote down on my list here
and the first is the Veterans Center. So, this is GIA funds and I guess it is with the Office of
the Economic Development. Can we cover the Veterans Center and the Waimea air
conditioning? Again, what I am looking for is why do we need it right now and how does it
really apply to our core functions at this point?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The Veterans Center came through the Mayor's
Budget.
Council Chair Rapozo: If I can help, Committee Chair. That was one of
the projects I had spoken to the Mayor about, that they had requested, but I am not going to
disagree with you and your question that is that something that we need to do now. It started
off as air conditioning. The Veterans Center had requested some assistance in air
conditioning and then the Veterans Council prioritized what they needed and then it became
the roof instead of the air conditioning. I do not know how you answer that question other
than, "Do we need to do it now?" A lot of things in this budget, right now, the answer would
be no. I would love to see it go through, but again for me it is not a deal breaker. I am kind
of in the same boat as you now. We really have to scrutinize the adds that is in place, but I
just wanted to say that I spoke to the Mayor about that and he put it in the budget.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., Managing Director: Along the same lines, Wally
Rezentes, Jr., Managing Director. That was a late addition. We had discussed it with the
Veterans Council in a meeting. I believe a couple of the Councilmembers were there. Initially,
I think the Veterans group were looking to the County to assist with AC for their center, but
based on the condition of their roof, which we were advised was in pretty dire straits with
significant areas of concerns; holes, et cetera. They felt that it was prudent to reprioritize.
They came to me with the Mayor a week ago, so it was pretty recent. We asked them to
provide cost estimates quickly so that we could include it in the May 8, 2017 budget. They
did get cost estimates and that is how we came to the number. Obviously, we did not have a
lot of time to vet it, but no pun intended, but that was the best information we have and the
approximate cost was what we presented.
Councilmember Chock: In terms of urgency, is the roof leaking at this
point?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes. My understanding from talking to...because
we had a later meeting with a couple members from the Veterans Council and they said there
are locations where there are significant holes and leakage.
Council Chair Rapozo: One thing too, real quick, the discussion we had
or I had with the Veterans and the first discussion I had with the Mayor is when we were
figuring out whether we were going to get $108,000,000 or $103,000,000 from the TAT. At
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 11 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
that point, we did not think we would be dropped to $93,000,000, so that changes a whole lot
of things when the Legislature dropped it to $93,000,000. Now it is a whole different
prioritization going on in my head now. Anyway, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami and then
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Kawakami: What is the funding source for the Veterans
Center? Who funds that building, generally speaking.
Mr. Rezentes: I think they self-generate some of their funds or
majority of their funds, but this is a request from them.
Councilmember Kawakami: Is it federally funded?
Mr. Rezentes: I believe some of the funding is federally funded.
Some is within the fees that they generate from parties, group meetings, and whatever.
Councilmember Kawakami: It would be good to know what their source of
funding is and then I noticed that they have significant amounts of photovoltaic panels on
their roof.
Mr. Rezentes: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Is the leaking caused by the photovoltaic (PV)
panels and if so, who was the contractor and are they liable for some of that leaking?
Mr. Rezentes: They did not indicate that that was the cause of
the leaks and basically in certain areas there are significant leakages, but they did not
indicate to us that the cause was the result of the PV panels.
Councilmember Kawakami: I do not want my comments to be misconstrued as
not supporting the Veterans Center. I think we all support the Veterans Center. We all
support our veterans, but I think during these tough times if we are asked to add, some of
these questions need to be asked because in that sense if somebody else is liable for some of
these damages, we should do some due diligence and go and research the cause. I know it is
a common problem. When you take a look at commercial properties we have had solar
contractors come in, some of them better than others, some of them put photovoltaic panels
up, void the roofing warranty, and then we end up in this problem. I just would not want
this to be an easy way out for...and if it was, if was, and if it was not, it was not, but I think
we should ask the question—what is the cause of the leaking?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good questions that are being asked and I think
this is demonstrating the need for adequate vetting of requests that come before us. Some
questions I have is what is their source of income? Can we turn it into loans? Are they
qualified for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)? Is there a way that we can
maximize, if we do decide to help and I think we all want to help; it is a quasi-public place.
On the other hand, not every member of the public can reserve it, I do not think.
(Councilmember Brun was noted as present.)
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 12 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the best way to help them is the question
and it seems like we could use more time to find the answers to those questions. Do you know
what kind of income they get?
Mr. Rezentes: I do not have the specifics on the income, but we
surely can ask what are the sources so we can understand what percentage is funded by the
feds, what percentage is funded in-house organically from their operations. We can surely
ask that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions on the Veterans Center?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Does this set bad precedent when we are starting
to fund items from the Federal government? The Federal government already collects a lot
of taxes from every working individual on the island, far greater than the State, far greater
than the County fees and taxes. You folks are asking the public to pay more property tax
and it is going to items like this that are federally responsible where they have trillions of
dollars in defense. It comes to a point where...does it set bad precedent? What are we going
to fund next? When they have schools in disrepair, are we going to fund schools too?Yes, we
see needs out there that other sectors of government are not as responsive, but where does it
stop?
Mr. Rezentes: I see part of it as collaboration, too, I think we
have collaborated with, not only the federal government, but state government at Hanapepe
Veterans Cemetery. So, it is something that the County is involved with and participates
with, but yes, I understand totally why the question is asked. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I think just based on the process that we are going
through and kind of where I am feeling, I do not if this will help to save time, but I know
today is about cuts and adds, but I am just going to propose that we put all of these in the
Supplemental Budget on the table. That way if we need to ask any questions (inaudible) I
know this can go on for a long time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Unfortunately, it came in the Supplemental
Budget, we do not have a lot of time to decide on it, but we do have to decide on it. If we
decide to leave it in, then that is $150,000 that we are leaving in, if we cut it, then they may
have to come back at a later time and give us more information. Unfortunately, that is the
decision we need to make today. I know we would love to be a little more comfortable on
getting more information, but it is what it is.
Councilmember Chock: Chair, just to let you know that the Staff is
preparing individual cuts for each of the Supplemental Budget items.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, thank you. I had a similar question. Did
they exhaust all of their resources as far as trying to get money from the federal money or
whomever helps to provide those types of infrastructure improvements for them? I do not
think we will get that answer, so we need to make a decision on it. If not, based on the
information we have, maybe we will try to start going through the departments. Council
Chair Rapozo.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 13 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: One of my cuts will be a significant cut, as I talked
about during the budget process, regarding the cutting of positions that were vacant for
extended periods of time. These cuts amount to $1,200,000, but I would ask Staff to pass out
this list to the departments and they can take some time to look at these positions and unless
there is a very convincing argument why they should remain, at that point when we get to
that point, then I am going to be proposing these cuts. I do want to give them the opportunity
to come up. Some of these positions have been vacant for an extended, extended periods of
time. Again, just out of the General Fund, it is totaling $612,000. Can we get that list out to
the department heads here and they can start figuring out how they are going to justify it
and when we get to that point, when we get to the multiple department cuts, then hopefully
we can have some discussion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Would we be looking at taking those ad seriatim
or just one (1) total vote on it?
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why I want them to get the list now and
when we get to that section, if anyone wants to come up and justify to this body why they
need to keep that position. The justification has to come with a reason why it has been vacant
for so long. Again, I do not want to hear again like we hear every year, "We are working on
filling it," because three (3) positions on that list belong to Council Services, just so that
everybody knows. It is not just"everyone else." In my proposal, it is to cut three (3) positions
from our Office as well.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am not really going to be comfortable hearing the
excuse today. If they have been vacant for a while and we are asked to raise taxes on our
residents, we are going to cut everything that we deem reasonable. The excuses today are
not going to sway my decision. I think we have a job to do. If there are evidence that it is not
needed, I think we should cut it. I do not think we should be listening to excuses.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it is important that we hear...if I recall last
budget session, we hear from the departments as well. I appreciate the Chair passing it out
ahead of time so the Administration can look at it because to the extent that it could...I am
thinking of the position in Building, which is a rotating position. We need to understand
those issues.
Mr. Rezentes: With your request to review, is it possible if the
Administration take a time-out and huddle up on that list?
Council Chair Rapozo: It will be a while before we get to that point.
Mr. Rezentes: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Because we are still going down the departments
and this is going to come after, when we are done with the individual departments. You take
as much time as you want, Mr. Rezentes. I really want to have a good discussion, you take
as much time as you want, but again, I think you understand where I am coming from
because we heard every year. Every year, we see another three hundred sixty-five (365) days
added to the vacancy time. The Committee Chair keeps saying that we need to make those
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 14 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
tough decisions, basically inferring that are going to have to tell the public, "You are going to
pay new taxes," and I am saying, "I agree with that we need to think about that,"but likewise,
we also have to make the tough decisions and tell the Administration and the Council, "We
have to do more with less." It is a two-sided deal. It is not just making tough decisions and
the public will suffer, but we have to make tough decisions to ourselves as well. That is my
whole philosophy on this entire deal.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just want to add to what you said and that is why
some of us here are cutters, like me, and some of us are adders like Councilmember
Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us not get there especially this early in the
morning. We have three days for these meetings and really hope we do not take all three (3)
days, so let us try to keep the comments directed at questions and the budget.
Councilmember Yukimura, did you had anything else to mention? Okay. With that, as far
as the Supplemental Budget items that came in new, Staff is working on putting the cuts
together and putting them in the department they are supposed to be in. We are going to
start the process that we set on. We are going to go through each Department, if we have cuts
in that Department, let me know. If not, we will move on. Jade, did you want to read through
the departments?
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Do you want to go by tab?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, when we think of the cuts, let us try to be
cognizant of is this a cut that we are going to have to get a money bill after. Councilmember
Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So for the cuts, if we are not cutting individual, for
example, I have a blanket cut for multiple departments, do we wait until the end?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. The order is going to be, we will go through
each individual department and if you have an individual cut, we will do those now, and then
we will go through reductions in CIP, if there are any reductions in CIP, individuals, and
then we will go to proposals that affect multiple departments. Then we will go through ones
that have cuts and adds at the same time because then our votes will be consistent. The first
three (3) will take four (4) votes to cut. Once we start getting to the cuts and adds, it is going
to start taking five (5) votes, so I do not want us to get confused on how many votes we need
to get something to pass.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Committee Chair Kaneshiro, the first department
is the Office of the Mayor.
Council Chair Rapozo: You want me to start?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is a really awkward add because when we
had the discussion the Men's Conference...
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 15 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Oh, we are doing adds after.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is a cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Oh.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me preface it by saying the discussion was,
"Hey, where is the money for the Women's Conference," which made a lot of sense to me. I
went home thinking, "That is so true," but anyway at this point, I am making a motion that
we remove the $10,000 from the Men's Conference.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of the Mayor in the amount
of$10,000 in Grant-In-Aid, Men's Conference, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any questions or discussion on this?
Council Chair Rapozo: The only thing is if I do not get this cut then I will
be suggesting an add for Women's Conference later. I just think that was a valid point. As
much as I do not want to add more, I would much rather just remove the funding. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any questions from the Members? I
know we had discussion on this during our meeting. It was a little unclear on what the money
was going for and I think everyone had the idea that we were likely to cut it, but again, the
cut is here. Any question or discussion before we take the vote? If not, we will take a roll
call vote on it. Councilmember Yukimura, do you have a question?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, I am okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is very uncomfortable on these, I know, because
we do not have much time make the decisions.
Council Chair Rapozo: There were a lot of time from when the
presentation was made to today.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Exactly, we heard about it. Okay. Can I get a roll
call vote, please?
The motion to cut funding in the Office of the Mayor, in the amount of $10,000 in
Grant-In-Aid, Men's Conference was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Kane shiro TOTAL— 5,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Five (5) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts for the Mayor's Office?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Yes, I have two (2) cuts. The first is the Grant-In-
Aid for the Veterans Center roof and I have a second cut for the...
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 16 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will start with the Veterans Center.
Councilmember Chock moved to remove funding of $150,000 in the Office of the
Mayor, Veterans Center—Roof, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Every cut is uncomfortable. I wish the Mayor
balanced the budget without increasing the Real Property Taxes, but if we are for not
increasing taxes, we have to cut. That is why it is uncomfortable. I wish we could just
celebrate and approve the budget. Every cut is uncomfortable. I do not enjoy doing this.
Nobody does. It is not a good feeling process for sure.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We had some discussion on this. I feel bad
Councilmember Brun is the first vote on every single vote and he was not here for some of
the discussion, but I think the general consensus was that we did not have enough
information on it. We did not know how much it was needed. We did not know what avenues
they vetted out as far as trying to get funding because ultimately this is not our building. I
know a lot of us use that building, but it is not a County building and that is what the decision
comes down to. Do we have any discussion? Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I know it is a difficult situation we are put in and
I think that is why from a process standpoint it is very important for some of these
organizations to approach us proactively versus just to give the ball to somebody and have
them carry the message. I wish there was somewhere in our process where we could loop
back because some of the questions I had are valid. I am not ready to support the cut for this
particular item right now because I do think that if it is a matter of public health and safety
with the roof, then we do have some way to go and support some of the adds. I know it is a
federal building, but I also like the fact that they generate their own revenue. I know that
the federal government is making some big cuts and this is surely an asset for our island. I
wish there was a way that we could come back to the item, but if it is not, I support the
process set forth, but I do not think I am ready to support the cut just about now. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think this could be a valid amendment to the
budget, but I do not think it is ready for a vote and therefore without the information we
need, I am not able to vote for it. I think when there is more information, the Administration
can come back, but right now we need to have a complete vetting to see what the alternatives
are. Councilmember Kawakami's point about it possibly having been a...something that
happened during the installation of the photovoltaic needs to be checked out at least. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: My sentiments are similar. I also want to
acknowledge the Office of Economic Development with this GIA, they really heard what our
concerns are and created a competitive process that is fair and equal. The fact is GIA resides
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 17 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
in a lot of different departments. I would like to see that...well at least for what we are looking
at here. I would like to see some of that equality occur so that we are very strongly connected
to what our core mission and vision is so that we know that the projects that we are looking
at have been vetted and have a strong connection to those. I am not saying that any of these
do not, I am just saying that there is a process for that to occur that I have not seen in some
of these other GIA and they exist. They exist in Parks, in the Mayor's Office, and others, and
although they are small and most of the GIA's are in OED, my request is that we look at
them all that way. That is one of the other reasons why I will not be supporting this at this
time. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess my suggestion is that as the item comes
up, we vote and if you are not ready to support it, then you do not support it. At the end of
the day when we have that magic number up there whether it is negative; red or black, I
would hope that we would be able to revisit some of these items that maybe people had
problems with. I do not suggest we pull it off to the side and do it later or wait for information
because it is just going to prolong the process. At this point, I actually share some concerns
of Councilmember Chock and at this point I will not support the cut, but that may change as
we move forward through the process because I do not know what everybody else has right
now, so I do not know what that number will be. It is very difficult to figure out what we are
going to do until we get to that number.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: For me, I always had a soft spot for them because
they are the reason we have our freedom and I never had the guts to serve in the military. I
am not going to be supporting this cut, I can tell you that.Yes, if we receive more information
and it is not valid, then yes, but for now, I will not be supporting this cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I say this for everybody, as far as a cut or an add
to keep it in, it does not mean we do not support the veterans. It is just a matter of we having
the responsibility of managing the County's money, Real Property Tax money from taxpayers,
and we really do draw a tight line as far as where do we go in the gray area as far as a building
like this. It is not really the County's responsibility. If we had a lot of money, we would love
to do things like this. Veterans are a very important part of our island, but again, this is
money we take seriously and we need to manage on our own. Unfortunately, I think there is
a lot more information to be had on this. Maybe if it came up on the original budget, we would
probably have a lot more time to vet it, but we need to take the vote now. We need to make
the decision now and sometimes when the projects come in last minute and we do not have
information, it is going to get cut and that is just the way it goes. I will be supporting the
cut. Can I get a roll call vote, please?
The motion to remove funding of $150,000 in the Office of the Mayor, Veterans
Center—Roof was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL—4,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 18 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I have one (1)more...for the Waimea Theatre...oh,
this is in the Housing Agency, I am sorry. That is all I have.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts for the Office of the Mayor? If not,
we are going to move on. Jade.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Committee Chair, did you want to go through the
different parts of the Mayor's Budget?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not think anybody else has anything in the
Mayor's Office, yes? Yes, we will move on to Council.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next department, Office of the County Clerk.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will start with the Council Services Division.
Any individual cuts to the Council Services Division? Let me take a quick one (1) minute
recess because let me try and figure out how this process is going to go because I actually
have a cut and it will probably affect Council Chair's cut that he mentioned earlier.
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Is the Auditor's Office separate from the Council
Services Division, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. It will go Council Services Division, Elections
Division, and the Auditor's Office.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay, because I have some that I am planning to
introduce.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, we will take a recess for one (1) minute.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 10:04 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:06 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry for that quick break. I wanted to see how it
was going to go because I know Council Chair has a large proposal to cut many positions and
I am just going to say if we are going through and cutting some money and it affects your
County-wide one, let me know, and we will probably need to pull an individual cut and make
a decision on whether we want to go with the two (2) different proposals. One could
be a six (6) month funding and another could be eliminating the entire position and it would
make no sense to vote on the six (6) month now and then we come back and vote on the total
elimination. I do not think it is going to happen a lot, but if there are individual situations
like that, then we will try to pull it out so that we do not have to vote on the same thing twice.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just to clarify regarding the cuts that I talked
about, the position cuts that I am going to bring up later does not include the Auditor's Office.
None of the positions...and I believe a few of us probably have the Auditor's Office on their
cut sheets, but just so that we know this one, as far as my proposed cuts later, does not include
the Auditor's position or any of the Auditor's Office cuts.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 19 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If any comes up,just let us know so that we do not
vote on one now and then have to go back and vote on it again when it is already six(6) month
funded. I actually do have a cut for our own County Clerk's Office. My cut is six (6) month
fund position for the Legal Analyst and the Legislative Assistant and related benefits in the
amount of$103,979.
Councilmember Kagawa: Second.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry, which position is that?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is the Office the County Clerk...we are six (6)
month funding position E-38, Legal Analyst, and position E-76, Legislative Assistant. I came
up with this cut, I spoke with Jade regarding it on when do we think we are going to be filling
it, do we need the money because I know there are other things moving around, and this was
a cut that we can say we are looking at all of the other departments as far as cutting and we
need to look at ourselves too. I started with us and asking"What do we cut from our budget,"
and this was one of the cuts that I proposed and talked to Jade about to see if it is manageable.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I need to make the motion for you since you are
the Committee Chair.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to reduce funding (6-month funding) for positions
E-38 (Legal Analyst) and E-76 (Legislative Assistant), and related benefits from the
Office of the County Clerk, Council Services Division, seconded by Councilmember
Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion on it? Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think that the exercise we went through, I mean
these are recently vacated positions, I guess, that we do need and it is just going to take the
time, but I think that this is the exercise that all the departments have to go through. It is
very simple to have just let this funding go through and create a little slush fund in Council
Services for us for travel or whatever. Like I asked Jade, and I really appreciate Jade's total
support of this practice, is that...let us really tighten down the budget to really what the
numbers that we need. I think if we do that in every department, I think we will be surprised
at the amount of moneys that we will save. Thank you, Jade and to the staff, and Committee
Chair Kaneshiro for the suggestion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: With that, can I get a roll call vote, please, for the
cut?
The motion to reduce funding (6-month funding) for positions E-38 (Legal Analyst)
and E-76 (Legislative Assistant), and related benefits from the Office of the County
Clerk, Council Services Division was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 20 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts for the Office of the County Clerk?
I actually had one (1) more. It is something that I hear constantly from Council Chair Rapozo
and he may not vote for it though, but it was just to cut a portion of our Performance Audit
Budget line item.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut $100,000 from Other Services — Performance
Audits from the Office of the County Clerk, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This cut comes again from reflecting on our own
budget and looking at where do we have places that we do not spend all the money that we
budget for. I think currently we have $375,000 budgeted for audits and all I am saying
is...and these are audits that we would do...I agree we need this amount in because we do
not even have an Auditor's Office and this amount would be used to do Performance Audits
to do any audits we want to do. The only thing is, when looking at it I thought we did not
spend much money last year, we have $375,000 budgeted, I was thinking if we cut it by
$100,000,we would still have $275,000 for audits for one(1)year to do.Again, this only comes
from, if we are going to cut from the Administration side, we also should look at our side to
tighten up the belts. We cannot say, "We are going to cut from theirs and not look at ours."
We are doing both. We are looking at everybody and we are doing everything.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am going to support it, but I think the entire
Performance Audit amount, if you have a good Administration team working with the
Legislative team, the Council, we do not need audits because we will communicate together
and we will work efficiently. It is the "mess ups" that cause us to want to do audits. I think
going forward we really do not need that money if we work a better relationship and stop
eliminating the huge mistakes that occur. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I want to say we did use some of this money in the
past. An example of an audit that we did was the Kaua`i Humane Society Audit and you can
see the benefits that not only the Council, but the Administration got out of those types of
audits. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. You are right, I am not going to
support the cut. We have follow-up audits that we are behind in. Even after yesterday's
meeting, if you are not convinced that we have to pull some audits, I do not know what else
to say. I will do four (4) resolutions for audits in the next month if I can get the commitment
from this body that we are going to pursue. The thing is to prep an audit, our staff will sure
have a lot of work, and to come to the Council and not have the support, I think...the Humane
Society was easy because it was a non-County entity, therefore, it was like "Let us go after
the Humane Society and see what they are doing," but it is not easy to get the support. Trust
me, I am saying this through experience. I think cutting back that number is a mistake
because when you look at the magnitude, I will be honest right now, the Department of Public
Works is going to be definitely the first resolution that I come up with. It is going to be a
complex audit. Transportation is a complex audit. I do not want to be limited to only two (2)
audits because that is about what the $275,000 will cover. People say that is a lot of money,
well the Humane Society was not a Department of Public Works audit. It was complicated in
a sense that they could not provide a lot of the information, but in the audits that I would
like to see done, yes, we will be able to do a couple with $275,000, but I believe that is critical.
We do not have an Auditor and even if we get an Auditor though this process that we are
exploring, it is going to take that Auditor probably a year, if not eighteen (18) months, to get
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 21 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
that audit office and audit plan ready to start conducting audits. That does not guarantee
that our audits will be done. The Auditor does his or her own audit plan and it may not
include audits that the Council would like to see, so I would suggest that we keep that funding
in there. Let us not look at that obligation or authority that this Council has. Let us not look
at that lightly. We can scrutinize the budget, we can do investigations, and we can do audits—
that is all we can do. We have not really taken advantage of those powers and I think the
result is what we see. We see a lot of issues and problems. The audits can be a cooperative
audit with the Administration. It does not have to be a "finger pointing" audit or finding
problems. It is just working with the Administration and how we can make departments
more efficient. That is the real purpose of an audit and I would ask for your favorable axing
of this proposal. It is an oxymoron.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, and any comments. Again, it was a cut that
I looked at and it is up for discussion. Council Chair Rapozo makes a great point, but what
is our responsibility, too, moving forward. If we leave the $375,000, it is our responsibility to
go and maybe work with the Administration and ask, "What departments do you folks want
audited? What do we want audited? What do you think we can enhance our performance
in?" As we all seen, an audit is not to point fingers. An audit is to improve the operations of
any department or anything that we are doing. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I share the same sentiments in terms of the value
of the performance audit. I think it is such an important tool that we have, if used properly
in coordination with the Administration to create efficiency. However, we still have a hill to
climb in this budget. I think we could get two (2) good audits out of this with what we will
still have left in, if we cut $100,000. I think for me it is one of those things that, as Council
Chair Rapozo has said, "At the end of the day, let us take a look at..." but at this time, I am
going to support the cut. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I, too, support constructive audits and I think
there are some real possibilities for this year. I am in favor of audits that are aimed at
improvement, but I do think there is probably enough to start with. The Council had a pretty
large ending balance, so there is money if we need it. If we need more than what we would
leave, so I am in favor of the cut at this point and still look forward to some really good audits.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, as we all know, even with the Veterans
Center vote, at the end we will have our total of cuts and if you can get five (5) votes, add
more money back into the budget for certain things that we may have cut. I am just throwing
that out there as far as how our decision-making goes. Any further comments from the
Members? Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I will support the Budget & Finance Committee
Chair for this proposed $100,000 cut. We still have $275,000, but speaking from the
real-world experience I think we should really start looking at audits through a different
lens, the way that it should be looked at. When we had Big Save, we hired somebody to
analyze our ordering system and how we could improve supply chain, ordering considering it
takes three (3) weeks for our produce to get over, and how we could be more efficient. I would
like to see more self-proactive audits being driven by the Administration to take a look at
where there could be efficiencies and for them to work with us to see where we want to
improve the overall operation and so I think for the time being, we can live with $275,000.
Like we said, at the end of the day if everything is rosy and sunshiny, then we can always
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 22 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
decide what we want to add back in based on our priorities, therefore, I will support you and
your cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Further discussion? Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just to respond to that. I agree. Councilmember
Yukimura was here...and I know because she was here every time I was here, but whenever
we brought an audit up to the table in the past years, that was always the response of the
Administration, "Hey, let us do it. We will do an audit. We will make sure..." That is yet to
be done. An audit is exactly what you said, "An outside expert to come in and assess all of
the internal operations of a department with the simple desire to come up with finding the
inefficiencies and recommendations to make it better." That is what it is supposed to be, but
it is not done. Have you ever seen a line item in a department's budget for auditing? No,
because they are not going to do it. It is difficult. It is a very touchy subject, but at the end
of the day there is no other way that we one this body to let people understand what needs
to be done unless we have...I am not going to argue that $275,000 is not enough, but I will
say that these audits are not cheap. The audits that I am going to be proposing will be very
complex, very complicated audits, and I think we may get away with one (1), possibly a
complicated or complex one and a smaller one, and I just want to have that tool available. I
obviously respect the opinions and we will deal with it...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to say that I have seen some efficiency
efforts in the Administration that have been impressive and I am thinking of Purchasing and
also Human Resources (HR). There have been some major efforts to kind of self-reflect and
make improvements and we also have seen areas where it has not happened to the real
detriment of the public. We do have a lot of areas to improve.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Again, I do appreciate
that number in the budget. $275,000 I think is a lot of money to still do some audits and
there is value to it, we saw it with the Humane Society audit, and I look forward to seeing
audits that come up and I will be voting for those audits as they come up. Again, it was just
a matter of looking at our own budget and being tight on whatever we do and we all know
how tight this budget is. With that, can I get a roll call vote to cut $100,000 from the
Performance Audits line item?
The motion to cut $100,000 from Other Services—Performance Audits from the Office
of the County Clerk was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST MOTION: Rapozo TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further cuts for the County Clerk's Office? If
not, we will move on to the Elections Division. Any cuts for the Elections Division? Okay,
we will move on. Any cuts for the Auditor's Office? Councilmember Kawakami.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 23 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kawakami: Yes. It is a broad sweeping reduction to dollar
fund the entire office with the exception of the copier line item, which was a seven (7) month
funding and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The total reduction of
$504,462.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to dollar ($1) fund all positions in the Office of the
County Auditor and related benefits, and dollar ($1) fund all other accounts with the
exception of Copier (7-month funding for lease) and Consultant Services (CAFR
Contract), seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any discussion from the Members?
Councilmember Kawakami: Sure, I have some brief discussion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think this is an unintended consequence when
things get thrown on to Charter Amendments that sound like great ideas without having the
proposed costs. The fundamental question as to whether we can afford it, whether we can
maintain it, and whether we can afford to maintain it. Here is an office that sounds great.
It has not been staffed for a while. I think we have proven with the Humane Society Audit
that we can do audits and I think there are alternatives, like even having a (inaudible) made
up of community members that can identify where they think audits should be done, that
could be another option. I think in the long haul the time to make broad-based sweeps to the
departments is when there are no warm bodies because we all know that as soon as
somebody's job is on the line it makes it very difficult to cut it. I think this is a temporary
cut that hopefully leads to the broader discussion as to whether we want to repeal this entire
office because I can tell you what the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), which is
really the"white elephant in the room,"which is going to be very expensive to fund something
like this in perpetuity. Basically, dollar fund it. I know that we had the discussion of trying
another round of seeing if we can find somebody to fill it and that would just urge us not to
make rash decisions if we see somebody apply for the position without fundamentally asking
whether this is something we need or can afford to pay for the rest of our lives.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? I know I had a
proposal, but it was not as drastic. Obviously, if we dollar fund this that means a lot of things
are going to have to happen within that time. Any comments or questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think this is both premature and not abiding by
the Charter because we have decided to go through another process to fill the position. I
think we agreed that if that did not work, we might propose to the people to change the
Charter, but as long as it is in the Charter and until the people of Kaua`i say, "We do not need
an Auditor," I think it is premature to totally defund the Office. I also would really like to
have us go through this process we have determined that we want to go through because I
think otherwise without any money, we cannot really go through the process.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo, Councilmember
Kawakami, and then Councilmember Brun.
Council Chair Rapozo: I want to thank Councilmember Kawakami for
introducing this. I have a similar one and I think I need to explain the difference because it
is critical. I have the exact same proposal except mine keeps three (3) months of funding for
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 24 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
the Office because it is going to take time to move the things out of that office. We need to
maintain. It is a month to month lease, so we are bound by that, but after having discussions
with the Clerk's Office, it is going to take, what they believe, about three (3) months to be
able to coordinate the relocating of the assets in that office. There are a lot of things in that
office that need to be taken out. That is just really a cushion and it is really only $4,000, no,
I am sorry, about$9,000 that would be available to the Clerk's Office to really get those things
taken out of there. Aside from that, everything is the same. I hate to bring that up now
because if...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am glad you brought that up because if we cut
everything then that proposal is pretty much moot.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then it becomes an add later.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, it would become an add and I would rather
us consider the options now. I completely understand where Councilmember Kawakami is
going with this Auditor's Office because we have struggled with it as long as I have been on
the Council. The last three (3) years we have been funding an office with barely anybody in
there, we are not getting results from the Auditor's Office because we do not have an auditor,
we have been looking for an auditor, and have not been able to find one. We have done
exhaustive searches, so I think right now you saw what Councilmember Kawakami's proposal
is, you have heard what Council Chair's proposal is, so you can sort of get a feel.
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think just logistically hearing, I think
fundamentally we are on the same page and so I have no problem just withdrawing my
proposal and supporting the other one. If it takes three (3) months, it takes three (3) months.
I do not know what the lease agreement says, if we have to return things to the original
condition, but we had to vacate stores and if it takes three (3) months, it takes three (3)
months, but I find it hard to believe that it is going to take three (3) months, but I am not one
to judge. I can support just withdrawing the entire proposal. I do not even think I made the
motion. Oh, I did. Did I get a second?
Councilmember Kagawa: Is that a motion? Are you withdrawing?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun, did you want to say
something first?
Councilmember Brun: I just wanted to make sure and I think a
Councilmember brought it up about the legality with the Charter Amendment because I am
in full support of taking that out, but I just want to make sure that we are legit, legal.
Councilmember Kawakami: There is a dollar in it.
Council Chair Rapozo: It would be no different than our County
Engineer's Office. (Inaudible) trust me, you all know that. We are still trying and I have
been assured by the Clerk that should we find an Auditor in the next process then we would
be able to house them here in our building. Again, doing more with less. We are trying to
practice what we preach here and I feel really bad that we allowed that office to go as long as
we did, but there was always hope that someone was going to take that job. I agree three (3)
months, Jade, realistically...
Councilmember Kawakami: We can leave it at three (3) months that is fine.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 25 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: I mean I said that same thing.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock and then Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Chock: The other thing we have talked about is the
uncertainty in terms of the needs if we do hire an Auditor, how they want to form their team
and what their needs would be. I think what we had decided is that we would like to support
starting from scratch. This figure is kind of obscure for us at this point. I think at this point
it would be okay to start it, but I just also want to reference that part of the request from the
Chair was to make sure that it does not come back with additions later. Councilmember
Yukimura and I sort of have a feel for where this is going and I will make a comment right
after you, Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I cannot understand how we could complete the
process we have agreed on. Who is going to want to take a job with no office and no salary?
We said we are going to actually try an innovative process, which maybe I can mention here.
I mean it is hard to discuss it publicly because we are reversing a decision that we have made
as a personnel decision, but you cannot hire somebody and certainly you cannot recruit
somebody if there is no salary there and if there is no office and if there is no assistant
position. They do not have any assurance that they are going to have the clerical support or
anything. If that is the case then we are basically saying we abandoned our efforts and I was
willing to say that once we went through the process, but to me, we are abandoning it mid-
stream which ensures that that process is not going to work. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy to
remove all of this money.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Based on what I have heard, I think the best thing
for us to do right now would be to have Councilmember Kawakami withdraw his proposal
and then we actually get to see Council Chair Rapozo's proposal. We may actually see that
there is going to be funding in there, it is just a matter of—are we able to hire somebody within
the next nine (9) months, if not, the salary will still be there, but I really would like to see
that proposal first. Councilmember Brun, do you have one (1) more question before we do
the withdraw?
Councilmember Brun: The seven (7) month Copier is because it is on a
lease, Councilmember Kawakami?
Councilmember Kawakami: (Inaudible).
Councilmember Brun: Okay.
Councilmember Kawakami: We do not want to void any contracts that we
have.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you withdraw your motion?
Councilmember Kawakami withdrew the motion to dollar ($1) fund all positions in
the Office of the County Auditor and related benefits, and dollar ($1) fund all other
accounts with the exception of Copier (7-month funding for lease) and Consultant
Services (CAFR Contract). Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the second.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 26 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair, do you want to introduce your
proposal?
Council Chair Rapozo moved to dollar ($1) fund all positions in the Office of the
County Auditor and related benefits, and dollar ($1) fund all other accounts with the
exception of Electricity and Building Lease (3-month funding), Consultant Services
(CAFR Contract), and Copier (7-month funding for lease), seconded by
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Chock: I have a follow-up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Council Chair, my only other concern in regards
to what Councilmember Yukimura is saying is that when we had decided we would move
through the process and I want to ensure that we have the right funds available to accomplish
that.
Council Chair Rapozo: That we have. That process as far as...
Councilmember Chock: The executive search.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going out with an executive head hunter
and with the help of the Administration's Procurement Officer, we are moving on that and
that is happening. I am not sure when we will start, but the process takes a while. We did
not believe that we would have an Auditor in place because what happens is that they will
go through all of the applicants and then they come back with a list of recommendations and
at that point this body will make a selection or whomever is sitting here at that time.
Councilmember Chock: Would we be able to make an offer based on the
condition of this position?
Council Chair Rapozo: I think that is a valid point that we will probably
have to check with HR. I would assume that we would have to have...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I may have a happy medium. We had to see this.
I have a proposal too. It is up to us what we want to do. There was just a small change from
Councilmember Kawakami's proposal to this one. I had another proposal to six (6) month
fund the positions, related benefits, and six (6) month fund travel, training, electricity line
items, there were a bunch of other items being that if we do not hire, we have some transition
time. Either way, whatever the body wants.
Council Chair Rapozo: What was your amount?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It would total $177,330.
Councilmember Yukimura: That you keep in or take out?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Taking out. It would be to 50% six (6) month fund
all positions assuming that we are not going to be able to hire anyone within the first six (6)
months. If we do find an Auditor and hire them prior to that, I do not think they are going to
be able to hire their staff within that six (6) months. It is just trying to tighten the belt on it,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 27 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
but still giving us the flexibility to look for an Auditor. If we get one, we get one, if not, then
the money goes into the Reserve. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would feel much more comfortable, Committee
Chair Kaneshiro, because that would allow us to actually exhaust the process that we already
set in motion and we said if we can then find someone, we will move ahead with that, but if
we cannot then we might propose a Charter Amendment. To cut midway the process that we
agreed to really bothers me because that means we will never know that we went all the way
to try. I would rather that we have half a year of funding, we go out with this head hunter
process, and see if we can find somebody. If we cannot find somebody than it goes into the
Reserve and we propose an amendment. We have full evidence for the people of Kaua`i that
we tried—we did not leave any stone unturned, but we could not find somebody. That to me is
a better way to resolve this question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, it is difficult because of Sunshine Law. I do
not know what Councilmember Kawakami proposed, I do not know what Council Chair
Rapozo proposed, nobody knows what either one of us proposed and we just have to vet it on
the floor now, which is difficult. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does your proposal keep the Office going or is it
removing the office?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think my proposal was being conservative to
keep the office there and if we did not find anybody, I mean any money we do not spend on
that...if we finally go through the process and cannot find an Auditor and we need to cut it,
then any money left in there goes back to the Reserve or whatever we want to do. It was just
to give some flexibility.
Council Chair Rapozo: Jade, when do you anticipate the head hunting to
begin?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: If all goes well, between July and August to begin
actually start taking the applications.
Council Chair Rapozo: And that is about a six (6) month process.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) months.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then we get the list of recommendations, so
realistically, we are not going to get an Auditor in this fiscal year. I am just looking at my
proposal here, if in fact we did...and I want to make it clear, I think you asked the question,
but it sounds like Councilmember Yukimura is still not sure. We are not abandoning any
process. We are trying to get an Auditor, but let us say July we start, six (6) months later we
get the list and you saw how long it took us just get people interviewed. Let us say in three
(3) months we can hire somebody, make a job offer, and it is accepted, a money bill will be
sufficient. Rather than hold the money and then if we do not spend it put it in the Reserve.
Let us just let it in the Reserve and if we need it, let us take it out of the Reserve. Either way
it is six (6) of one or half dozen of another, but I want to make sure that we all understand
that this process is moving and it is not that we do not want to fill that position. I had been
assured by our staff that we have space and it may not be the palace that is over there, but
again, look at the Planning Department what they have to work in. We have the space here.
The Auditor is not going to come in and hire three (3) people in one day. The Auditor, he or
she, is going to have to figure out how they are going to run that office, look at the staffing,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 28 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
and it is going to take some time. Again, this is just a proposal. What I do not want is I do
not want to put money where we know we are not going to spend it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I feel uncomfortable continuing to fund rent of an
empty office and I have issues with that. I like the hybrid approach here. I like some of what
you have done because it gives it some flexibility, but I am also comfortable...as long as we
can move forward on it and we are in agreement that that is what we are going to do, if the
process is successful for us. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think you have to put yourselves in the shoes of
somebody we are trying to recruit and to have no budget there is a clear message of..."We are
not sure we even want you." If you want to take out the office space and say that we will
provide office space here that is okay, but to cut a whole budget, not have a salary for the
Auditor or for some staff and to be at the whims of a political body, who would accept a job
like that? We are looking for a high level, high performing person. That is hard to recruit,
so I mean if we do not want an Auditor, then we should fund it with no money, but we are
not really being clear of our intention. We are not being clear about our intention if we do
not put the money there that is going to support an office and we are pretty much...it is going
to be self-fulfilling, we are going to kill the possibility of an Auditor by decimating the budget.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun, Councilmember Kagawa,
and then Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Brun: I have been here for six (6) months, we have been
funding it all this time and we never had anybody jump up and say, "I want to be the Auditor."
We have been struggling for how many years. The last person we had turned it down. I do
not think it is about putting the money in because some complained that they were not
getting enough money anyway, so I think we should just dollar fund it and work on a money
bill if we needed. I do not think we are going to fill the position within the year. I do not see
that happening and if we have to put it in next fiscal year, let us do that, but we can do the
audits ourselves. That is my opinion on that. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think the three (3) months the realistic number.
Like Jade said we are not going to get the recommendation for probably six (6) months after
July. The fastest we can get that person in is probably nine (9) months from June, so I think
it does not send a message that we are not looking for an Auditor. We are always looking for
an Auditor, ever since I have been here. You could say that the previous Auditor did not even
have the Auditor experience that this job asks for right now and so the previous Auditor
would not have qualified had there not been a "political plum choice." Realistically, we do
want an Auditor, the head hunters will find us, hopefully, an Auditor, and I think
the three (3) month funding is realistic. Nobody said we do not want an Auditor, we want an
Auditor, we have always wanted an Auditor, we just need to find a qualified Auditor, which
is the problem. I think the Auditor looking at three (3) month funding would not take that
as a message that we do not want an Auditor. The Auditor will look at it as, "Wow, this
County is in financial trouble and it really made a wise financial decision after not having an
Auditor for three (3) years to eliminate a lot of funding that was just sitting in the budget
when they are asked to raise taxes by $3,600,000." I think it is a great, wonderful financial
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 29 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
decision to put only three (3) months of funding in there and it shows commitment that we
still want the Auditor.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I do not want this to be a venue to mislead the
public, so I want to be very clear. I think for me personally, we are unnecessarily growing
government. Like I have stated, I think there are other options that allow us better flexibility
to conduct Performance Audits rather than add a whole new department that is going to tie
our hands for a very long time. With that being said, I was here on the Council when we
hired our last Auditor and there was at the time, I believe, only two (2) applicants. We have
continuously tried to identify a possible applicant and it has not come to fruition. I mean
what else do we have to do? We have a $119,000 salary in the middle of paradise and we still
could not fill...the implication that we have not been trying or now that we are going back
and trying to discourage people from applying is to me misleading the public as to what the
actual reality is. The reality is that we had this in place. The reality is that we had local
applicants and outside applicants come in and the reality is that nobody wanted to take the
job for whatever reason. We continue to try, and purposefully in my opinion, grow
government larger than what it has to be. I mean the amount that it cost to fund this we
could run based on the numbers that it took us to do the Humane Society audits, ten (10)
audits a year. We could do ten (10) audits a year based on what it would cost to keep this
office open and the County Auditor does not necessarily mean that they have the expertise
to go and audit the Planning Department or to go and audit the Buildings Division or
Transportation. They probably still have to contract services out for experts that actually
have the expertise in these types of departments. I can support any type of effort to keep it
funded partially while we move their office out, but I cannot in good conscience support
something that I think is unnecessary, that just continues to grow government, and quite
frankly we have better options at our disposal. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Council Chair, a little more clarity
because I think we are all on the same page. It is just a matter of where we are cutting the
pie. I know we talked a lot about three (3) months and it is real hard because we have all the
line items separated, we cannot really tell how much is...is the three (3) month funding is to
fund...what are we funding for three (3) months? It is not to fund the entire department for
three (3) and then cut it, right? It is just...
Council Chair Rapozo: The only funding that would remain would be the
office and the expenses of the office such as the electricity...everything else would be dollar
funded. Like Councilmember Kawakami just said, we have tried for years and to think that
we are going to get it done in the next six (6) months or nine (9) months, for that matter, I
think it is just not realistic. The amount would not be substantial where we could not float
the money bill and this County Council has already made the decision that we would go
forward with the head hunter that we would seek out applicants, and try to come up with an
Auditor. Now, the head hunter is not going to not in the ad, "Here is an Auditor's position,
Kaua`i County, dollar in the budget. Please be worried, we might not hire you." They are
going to apply for the Auditor's position and it is going to be up to us to fund that position.
So to assume or insinuate that "Who is going to come if the County does not have any money
in the budget," I mean we are not posting that in the ad.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: If you remember the candidates that we had, first
of all it was very hard to find somebody who was qualified with the kind of attitude about
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 30 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
constructive audits and the depth of experience in Performance Audits and when we found
someone...and the vision of that possibility is what we are trying to get. I think we need to
ask our head hunter how her job will be affected if we were to just put in $4,000 for the office.
We need to ask the expert how the search will be affected by what...and maybe we can do
that at lunch time, have Jade call her because if we ask her and she says, "These candidates,
they research what is happening in terms of salary and so forth. They are not going to make
a big move to this position." We are trying to recruit people away from jobs and they are not
even looking for jobs. That is the whole purpose of a head hunter. To have nothing for them
to look at or start with, I think, will affect the search. If we are going to reduce the budget
that much, I mean it sounds like Councilmember Kawakami has already decided that an
Auditor is really not needed. If that is our decision then we should not even hire the head
hunter.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, and...
Councilmember Yukimura: But if we want to "leave no stone unturned," and
try to get a really qualified person, then we need to check how this proposed action is going
to affect our search or we need to just cut the head hunter out too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I want to move forward on this. We all know the
situation. I do not think anybody has said, "We are not trying to find an Auditor or we are
not trying to fund an Auditor." Even me, I have been through the process. We have tried
and tried. That is why my proposal was to just six(6) month fund it. I think within this year
we are going to know if we are going to fish or cut bait.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Now, we are just looking at the pie. Where are we
going to cut our bait at? It is not saying that we are not going to look for an Auditor. If we
are able to find one, I hear the intention is to fund an Auditor, but again, I think we are all
talking about the same thing, it is just a matter of how we are cutting the pie. As far as I am
concerned, I would like us to just move on to the vote. Any last comments? My intention was
to not have to do a money bill, that is why a six (6) month fund, if somebody wanted to just
three (3) month fund the office, I am fine with three (3)month funding it, and have something
in there just in case the possibility of us getting an Auditor in there. We will let the votes
fall where they fall. My only intention was to get some money in there so we do need to pull
the money bill if we do hire. Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Chairman, I am sorry I am dragging this out. I am
guilty of that and I will try to not do that in the future, but I just really feel obligated so that
there is no misinterpretation to my intentions. I am not against the audits. I am all for
audits. In fact, I think audits make us a better organization, but I am a proponent of also
looking at where we can outsource and this is an opportunity to really be proactive because
like I said, it is very hard to go back. Now, I am just relaying the message from the
constituents that I come into contact with. I have not heard many of them saying, "My gosh,
we are failing because we do not have an Auditor's Office." I have heard people talking about
potholes, park improvements, affordable housing, homelessness, and public safety, but I
surely would like to see some of that money that we are not utilizing, for gosh knows how
long, to go towards some of the potholes, park improvements, affordable housing, and
homelessness issues and public safety. With that being said, I really felt compelled to not be
misinterpreted and people think I am not for audits, I am all for audits, it is just that I do
not think it should be done in-house.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 31 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun, Councilmember Yukimura,
and then last comments, I think we are going to take the vote, so if you want to make a quick
comment on why you are voting the way you are, we will do it and we will move. I think we
have spent enough time on it and I think a lot of us are all in agreement on which direction
it is, it is just how we are cutting the pie and we could probably be here all day deciding how
big of a pie we are going to cut. Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: That would be my question. If we are going to vote
on Council Chair Rapozo's proposal first, if that does not pass, we have a chance to vote on
your proposal? How does that work?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, we can come up with a proposal that people
want to do...
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a procedural...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It sounds like we are converging on maybe a
three (3) month funding and if so, would you both be willing to work on it so that you can
propose something like that?
Council Chair Rapozo: Can we vote on mine and then...we are going
around the circle...listen, like I said earlier, it is going to take six (6) months to get the list
from the company, the head hunter. It is going to take us some time to hire and at the end
of the day three (3) month funding, we may not need a money bill. We may have those funds
in our own department that we can move. We do not know what to predict in the next year
and truth of the matter is that the Auditor's salary is not like anybody else where the Salary
Commission sets the cap. The Salary Commission sets the cap on the salary. For the Auditor,
it is set. You cannot alter that, so the auditor candidate is going to look online, research the
County, and see the Auditor's pay and that is what they will see. I do not know if
Councilmember Yukimura is saying that we are going to put out the thing, hire, and then at
the last minute say, "We do not like you," I do not know if that is what she is trying to allege,
but at the end of the day this body made the decision to go with the head hunter search. That
is what the decision was made and that is where we are heading. I would say to just take
the vote on mine, if it fails, then somebody can come up with something else.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, any final comments on the vote. Let us just
keep it to the vote. Any final comments? For me as far as the vote, I think I am going to vote
no because again, I do not want to have to go back to a money bill. If we had a little more
money in there, I think...again, it is just a difference on how we cut the pie, but either way
we are cutting the pie. We had a long conversation on this already. Jade, can I get a roll call
vote, please, on Council Chair Rapozo's proposal for the $490,567 cut?
The motion to dollar ($1) fund all positions in the Office of the County Auditor and
related benefits, and dollar ($1) fund all other accounts with the exception of
Electricity and Building Lease (3-month funding), Consultant Services (CAFR
Contract), and Copier (7-month funding for lease) was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 32 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us take a ten (10) minute caption break.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 10:57 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:10 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. We just finished up with the
Auditor's Office. Any further proposals for the Auditor's Office? Okay, if not, we will move
on. Jade?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: County Attorney.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any proposals for the County
Attorney's Office? Okay, if not, we will move on.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next department is the Prosecuting Attorney.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any proposals for the Prosecuting Attorney's
Office? Okay, we will move. Department of Finance, we will take it as a whole.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Department of Finance.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any proposals of cuts for the entire Department of
Finance. This will include Administration, Accounting, IT, Treasury, et cetera.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: (Inaudible).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The cut should say.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am telling it does not.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you have a question on the Debt Service? Let
us do that now because I know when we did our Budget Meetings, we took it in the Finance
section. Just make your proposal and you can make your motion.
Councilmember Yukimura: My proposal is a cut in the Debt Service Fund and
it would reduce the contribution from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund in the
amount of$62,000 for the Adolescent Treatment and Healing Center. The Mayor proposed
this in the budget we got last Friday, $1,000,000 more in the Bond Fund...sorry...
Council Chair Rapozo: Was that a motion?
Councilmember Yukimura moved to reduce Contribution from General Fund to Debt
Service Fund by ($62,000) for the Adolescent Healing & Treatment Center, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 33 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The County is planning to build, now it looks like
a $6,000,000 Adolescent Drug Treatment Center based on a service model that is not
considered best practice. We are proposing to spend $6,000,000 to build a facility and
$1,200,000 per year and it will cost us $1,200,000 per year in annual operating costs that will
treat eight (8) to ten (10) teens at a cost of$120,000 per teen per year with a relapse rate of
over 50%. The practice that is emerging as a best practice that insurance companies are
willing to cover, cost about $38,000 per year per person and has a recovery rate that is 350%
of the national average. I would like to run a four (4) minute podcast that is about this best
practice that was played on public radio last month.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I would rather not run the podcast. You did a
pretty good overview of why you feel that...
Councilmember Yukimura: It is only four (4) minutes and it is during my five
(5) minute period.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Are we timing the five (5) minutes? Okay, you
have...I mean I think you E-mailed it to us and I listened to this podcast, but...
Councilmember Yukimura: This is part of my public discussion, if you would,
and I do have five (5) minutes as a proposer.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
(Councilmember Yukimura's podcast played)
"There are two (2) big problems with the way drug addiction is typically
treated. It can be expensive and patients often relapse. New Hampshire's public radio
Jack Rodolico reports on a new treatment model. It is helping some people get better
results and for less money. Hannah Bercuates is twenty years old and when she was
a senior in high school, her life flew off the rails. She was abusing drugs, she was
suicidal, she moved into a therapeutic boarding school to get sober, and she did, but
only while she was on campus during the week. `I would come home and try to stay
sober really hard, like really, really hard, and sometimes I would make it through the
weekend and sometimes I just could not make it. It just depended. I was white
knuckling it...just holding on.' The transition back home always triggered a relapse
for Bercuates. `I thought it was just my fault and there was no hope.' No hope, but
Bercuates did have luck. She had private insurance and she lived in Connecticut,
right as a start-up began treating clients in the very environment where Hannah
struggled to stay sober, her home. Matt Eacott of Aware Recovery Care says his
company has figured out a cost effective way of treating addiction with better results
than most of their competitors. `99% of the industry really treats addiction as an acute
problem, like a rash on your arm that you rub lotion on and you are done.'Rather than
a bad rash, Aware treats addiction as a chronic illness that does not disappear just
because symptoms are under control. Aware comes into clients homes and connects
them with a nurse, a primary care doctor, a therapist, peer support, twelve step
meetings, and a case manager. Clients hooked on opiates can get medication-assisted
treatment. They can also submit to urine screening and global positioning system
(GPS) tracking. Hannah's mother, Louis Bercuates, says the program is intense at
first, but as Hannah built coping skills, the supports faded into the background. `It is
not like they are doing the work for the addict, but they are just basically taking them
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 34 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
by the hand and saying here are the places you need to go that will help you and I will
go with you to start so that it does not feel that uncomfortable and then we are going
to let you fly.' Before they fly, Aware clients have a pretty long runway. The
treatment lasts for a full year. Now, this is not cheap. It cost $38,000 and in 2015,
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to pay Aware to treat its members in
Connecticut. One of Anthem's behavioral health experts, Dr. Steven Korn, says he is
a big skeptic of big health care claims, but he says Anthem was convinced to be the
first to pay Aware because the treatment is based on hard science that is yielding solid
results for clients. By the way science and results, Korn says, those are surprisingly
rare in addiction treatment. `There are old notions that have hung pretty tough when
I was young, when I was in training, and as soon as substance abuse was mentioned,
the response of physicians was, `go to AA. That is not our problem, we do not treat
that.' For one year of treatment, Anthem says that it is paying Aware about the same
as the cost of a month or two of inpatient treatment. Anthem also says that 72% of
Aware clients are either sober at the end of one year or still in active treatment.
According to Dr. Stewart Getlow, past President of the American Society of Addiction
Medicine, that is about twice the sobriety rate of people who check into a facility for a
month and then get no follow-up care. Getlow says that treating addiction at home
makes sense because it is the exact place where people learned all their bad habits.
`It is all based on this concept that addiction is not about the substance use, but it is
about what led to the substance use in the first place. You cannot really get there
without getting to know the patient.' Anthem is now paying for the program in
Connecticut and New Hampshire and Aware says it is in negotiations with four more
major insurers. For NPR news, I am Jack Rodolico."
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The proposal on the floor is to cut $62,000 out of
our Debt Service. I think as far as our Debt Service goes, these are projects that have not
been approved yet, but the Administration is anticipating on going out for a bond for...I think
it was approximately $24,000,000 including the $1,000,000 for the Adolescent Treatment
Facility. They are saying if we go out for bond this year and get$24,000,000, this is what our
Debt Service is going to cost us and the proposal is to reduce it by $62,000 because of an
additional $1,000,000 for the Adolescent Treatment Facility, so do we have any comments or
questions? Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: The comment is about the $62,000 or on this
whole presentation that we just heard?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is not on the presentation. It is on this $62,000.
Councilmember Brun: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is basically, as we go through the Bond, they are
going to have to come to us with these projects and we are going to need to approve them
anyway. If it does not get approved then either our Debt Service will reduce or we will put in
another project for that amount, is what I am thinking will happen in the future when it
comes next fiscal period.
Councilmember Brun: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock and then Councilmember
Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 35 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Chock: I know that this was part of the Supplemental
Budget and one of the questions that I had. I just wanted to get a sense of urgency on whether
or not this is needed or necessary at this time or is this something we can come back to. As
the project progresses, one of the questions I have is whether or not we have made any
progress towards a service provider. Similar to the Kilauea Ag Park Project, it is like, if we
want them to get the water, I want to ensure that we are making progress in that. I have not
had an update on this and so I just want to ensure that as we are making these difficult
decisions in the process, will this make or break the movement on this and it sounds like it
does not, so thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Did you want to ask the Administration a
question?
Councilmember Chock: I would like to be able to give them an opportunity
to respond, if anything, on it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, this was a supplemental item that came in,
so we did not have time to vet it during the regular budget. The question is on the $1,000,000
of the Adolescent Treatment Facility. Councilmember Chock, maybe you want to restate the
question.
Councilmember Chock: In terms of urgency and need and if this is
something that we can come back to revisit along with an update on where we are in the
process of securing a provider of this facility.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Rezentes: We are a handful of months away; couple, two (2),
or three (3) months maybe, from proposing a bond issue to the Council and usually what the
Finance Department does is try to budget for the anticipated debt service for the bond issue.
Ultimately, the County Council will in a two (2) or three (3) month period be able to decide
what projects make the cut, what projects do not make the cut. This $62,000 add equates to
about $1,000,000 in project and it is based on the most recent update that we have from our
consultant to build the facility the way we want it and not eliminate facets of the programs
that will go into the center. That is their best guess or estimate on the construction cost. We
do not ultimately know, at the end of the day, $5,000,000 may be all that we need, but we do
not know what the construction marketplace will be at that time. We have to come now to
you with the best information we have. Again, ultimately the County Council in a few months
will have the say as to what projects make the cut, what projects do not make the cut on the
final bond list. I guess what I am saying is we are trying to budget with the best information
we have today and two (2) to three (3) months from now when we are ready, we may be able
to better update you on each of the projects including the Adolescent Treatment Center.
Committee Chair Chock: Questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right now the treatment center is not in the Bond
Fund list, right?
Mr. Rezentes: We are proposing...we do not have a formal list
completed yet, but we have a draft project list that we have provided you. This additional
funding, which equates to $62,000 in added Debt Service would include $1,000,000 for the
treatment center.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 36 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I thought we could not use Bond money for
something that is going to be privately operated?
Mr. Rezentes: It could be because the type of bonds that we issue
will allow for that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but the Adolescent Drug Treatment Center
is not on the Bond list...it was not on the Bond list and you are adding it now?
Mr. Rezentes: Yes, it is an informal bond list because we have
not really officially presented in a Bond ordinance form to the Council yet and we will do that
hopefully in the next two (2) or three (3) months, Mr. Shimonishi?
Councilmember Yukimura: If we took $1,200,000 which we estimate to be the
operating costs, we could put thirty (30) teens through this treatment that we are hearing
about that is what 350% times more effective rather than eight (8) to ten (10) teens per year.
Why would we spend so much money to do that; taxpayers money?
Mr. Rezentes: We have experts that would be on two sides of the
coin.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have not seen that.
Mr. Rezentes: And it is your ultimate call on the decisions for...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me preface it this way. Ultimately, we make
the decision, yes or no, do we want this money in there or not? We can debate it all day on
whether the treatment facility is the right thing, is a wrong thing, but it all comes down to is
our vote on this as far as do we want to give them the flexibility to have the $1,000,000 in
their for their future Bond Float or do we not. I think that is the decision we are going to
vote on. Any other comments on why you are going to vote for or against it and I think we
will take the vote?
Councilmember Yukimura: I just have one more question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This $1,000,000, the projected cost is $5,000,000
and we got that from the Legislature, correct?
Mr. Rezentes: We received $5,000,000 from the Legislature, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this $1,000,000 is like a 20% contingency fund.
Mr. Rezentes: Well again, I would not call it a contingency fund
because it was the $6,000,000 figure is the best estimate we have from our design consultants,
so if we look to scale back on the center, we could reduce the $6,000,000 to a certain extent.
Ultimately, though as you folks know, we are not going to know what the construction
industry will bear as far as a price.
Councilmember Yukimura: Who are your design consultants?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 37 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Rezentes: I believe it is a host of people, but it include
Ventura as our main architect, but he also has subcontractors under him, some civil subs and
some other subs as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so he is your design consultant. Can you
give us the documentation that shows that a $1,000,000 more is necessary?
Mr. Rezentes: Sure, we can do that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion on this item? If not, we are
going to take the vote. Councilmember Yukimura.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: One of the things that raises the cost of the budget
is big projects that do not achieve their goals or do not achieve their goals at a really cost
effective way. I think we see that there are a lot of...the two neighbor island Adolescent Drug
Treatment Centers that were built have failed, they closed down. They support much larger
populations than we do, they have larger populations than we do and now we are hearing
that the best practice and the consultants that did the feasibility study on the Adolescent
Drug Treatment Center, the one that the County hired, that our experts said that, "You
should not have this residential treatment until you have this continuum of care," because
when they go back home, they just relapse unless they have the type of care that has been
described in the program that we just heard about.
Council Chair Rapozo: Committee Chair Kaneshiro, I am going to raise a
point of order.
Councilmember Yukimura: ...so without...
Council Chair Rapozo: I raise a point of order. The point of order is at the
beginning today when you started, you said we are not going to get into the debates of
projects. We are going to talk about the funding, if we agree or disagree with the funding.
Unless you are going to give everybody around this table time to justify why we want the
Adolescent Treatment Center, which I happen to support 140%...I suggest we talk about the
$62,000 and not about the best practices...I mean that was your rule that you stated up front.
I hate to have to do this, but it has been going on...
Councilmember Yukimura: Committee Chair, he is...
Council Chair Rapozo: I have the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: He is arguing.
Council Chair Rapozo: So, that is my point and you need to rule on
whether or not this is in compliance with the rule you set when we started this hearing.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am talking about the $62,000.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 38 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do want us to tighten it up. We watched a
four (4) minute video on this item, we had the questions, I kind of get a feeling just looking
around the room, I know where the votes are going to go. Again, we have a lot to do today, if
you can tighten up your conversation on...we all know where you stand on it. You do not
want it. I know that is clear and we are going to vote on it right now.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not trying to say where I stand on it. I am
trying to explain why I think the $62,000 should not be in the budget.
Council Chair Rapozo: Committee Chair Kaneshiro, if you are going to
allow me to explain why in the next half hour, I will gladly take that opportunity.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, I do not want to do that. Councilmember
Brun.
Councilmember Brun: That was the question I asked—if we are talking
about the budget because I can tell you right now we should not even let recreational
marijuana out there and that is the debate I did not want to get in and now we are in this.
That is why I asked if this was just about the budget. We going fund the Adolescent
Treatment Center that is what we are after now...I mean I have great ideas on how to stop
our drug problem, but I do not think this is the time and place right now and that is why I
asked you in the beginning.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, I would like to move on. We know where
you stand.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can you...
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we have a responsibility to use public
taxpayer money as cost effectively as possible. If effective drug treatment is our goal, and I
believe that is everybody's goal, we have to find the best way to do it and I do not think the
residential drug treatment center is the best way to do it. Therefore, we should not continue
to add cost to the budget because it is not going to achieve our goal and it is not going to be
good use of taxpayer money.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? If not, roll call vote,
please.
The motion to reduce Contribution from General Fund to Debt Service Fund by sixty-
two thousand dollars ($62,000) for the Adolescent Healing & Treatment Center was
then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts for Finance? If not, we will move
on.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 39 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next department is Human Resources (HR).
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any cuts for the HR Department? Okay. Any cuts
for Planning? No. Any cuts for Economic Development? I think we may have...did money
go in for one of the supplemental? Any cuts for Economic Development? Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a few. I will start with the first one which
is the Airport Greetings.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in
the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in Other Services for Tourism-
Airport Greetings, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: We talked about this earlier about the Veterans
Center and how much of the State's function are we going to take on. As I watched the
Legislature go through their hearings and speaking with many of the Legislators throughout
this last session, and I am not talking about our Kaua`i Delegation, they actually supported
us or tried to support us. It was kind of the general theme that we were going to get reduced
and we cannot continue to fund these tourism activities that some may argue that they have
a direct benefit on our island and I disagree. I think the amount of moneys that the State is
withholding from the Counties and the TAT, that they should be able to find $25,000 to fund
these things. That is plain and simple. Take it out of what you took from us, that is my point.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments or discussion on this.
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I appreciate those comments and I do think we
should look for alternative sources of funding through HTA or through current TAT money,
but I am not ready to support the cut. We just attended a NACo conference and they had a
whole breakout session on how arts and culture are vehicles of economic development and I
think especially for our case where we are a tourism-driven economy and knowing that first
and last impressions really benefit whether tourists will return or not, I think that I would
be willing to support this $25,000, but I think moving forward, we should be looking to
working with HTA which does have and is more appropriate as a funding source. I am just
not ready to make the cuts today for this line item, but I do appreciate the comment and I do
agree that there are other sources that we should be looking at, it is just that I am not ready
to make the cut today.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Anyone else? If not, we will take a roll call
vote.
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in Other Services for Tourism-Airport
Greetings was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
AGAINST MOTION: Kawakami, Yukimura TOTAL— 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes 5:2.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 40 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts for Economic Development?
Council Chair Rapozo: Am I the only one?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else with any cuts?
Council Chair Rapozo: Every year I am the bad guy. Nobody else got?
Okay. These are tough, but when we start looking at (inaudible) budget and what is needed
now and can wait, and I know this is some tough calls, but I am prepared to at least introduce
them and let us have the discussion. At the end of the day, I may not support my own cut,
but I need to have that discussion on the floor. The next one is the cut funding for the Other
Cultural Projects (Holo Hobo) and I really want to hear what the Council feels.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in
the amount of forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($42,500) in Grant-In-Aid for
Tourism-Other Cultural Projects (Holo Holo), seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a comment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I appreciate the work you have done in this area.
I am going to be the bad guy at some point, probably the worst guy, but I appreciate any type
of reasonable cuts that I think the public would appreciate because I surely know there is a
strong sentiment by the public that they do not appreciate the proposed $3,600,000 tax
increase to Real Property taxes. It is not because of the County. It is because they feel
overtaxed by the federal government, overtaxed by the State government, and they feel like
they have no more change to give to government in all sectors. They are struggling out there.
People are working three (3)jobs just to make a living and struggling. I think we have to look
at those people, the middle class and the poor. They are having a real tough time right now
and though cuts may be tough, we may be cutting things that may hurt and makes us look
like the bad guy. I appreciate the cuts that everybody is proposing including Councilmember
Yukimura's cut because we are all trying to avoid increasing taxes. We share the same
sentiments because I know whoever I listen to also talked to you as well. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am trying to support as many cuts as possible as
well. On this item, I would like to get clarification on what exactly those projects are for the
$42,500.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
GEORGE COSTA, Director of Economic Development: Aloha Budget & Finance
Committee Chair Kaneshiro and Honorable Councilmembers, for the record, George Costa.
For this line item, this is where we put it into a pot. There is $30,000 for cultural projects
that are not specific, but there are two (2) projects that are very important, $7,000 for the
Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa to finish up the signage that you see going around the island and then
the other one is really important is the start of the...it is $5,000 for the Ni`ihau language.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 41 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
$7,500 for Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa and $5,000 for the Ni`ihau language commission. The other
$30,000 has not been designated yet, but those two are very important—the $12,500.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock, do you have more
questions?
Councilmember Chock: No more questions, but just the consideration of
the two projects that have been looked at to continue to fund and take away the rest.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Ditto. $30,000...I would like to withdraw my
second if Council Chair Rapozo would like to withdraw his motion and we can amend.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can you explain to me the importance and why
does it have to be done in this fiscal year?
Mr. Costa: Well Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa...this is the last phase.
We did it in three phases and this is the last phase of the Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa project.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you can help me because I am not familiar...
Mr. Costa: That is the project that we are going around the
sign and doing the signage with the moku and ahupua a. In this last phase...
Council Chair Rapozo: How much have we spent already on that project?
Mr. Costa: I believe we spent about at least $80,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: What have we got from that besides the signs?
Mr. Costa: The signage.
Council Chair Rapozo: I saw the signs. The tourists are asking me and
they do not have no clue what those signs are.
Mr. Costa: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: What else have we done?
Mr. Costa: Well there is a Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa website that
is the educational piece that is going to be part of all of the schools systems. Like I said this
last $7,500 is to finalize that website piece and the last remaining signs, interpretive signs
that are going up around the island.
Council Chair Rapozo: And then the Ni`ihau language.
Mr. Costa: The Ni`ihau language is separate from the
Hawaiian Native language that we are familiar with today, and so we want to start this
commission working with the Robinson family and the families on Ni`ihau to start this
language commission to preserve that language that is very important. I just want to say
that going back to the Kaua`i Nui Kuapapa, we are working with the Department of
Education (DOE) on that website piece to educate.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 42 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: Who is going to maintain that website?
Mr. Costa: That is part of the organization that spearheads
Kaua`i Nui Kaupapa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that a continual funding? Are we going to
continue to fund this every year?
Mr. Costa: No, no. Like I said, this is the last year of the
three (3) year project.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I feel like if we spent $80,000 and we have $7,500
left to go, it feels like putting up a gym and not putting up the basketball nets and baskets. I
feel like we are almost there. It is $7,500, but we have committed 90% already to it, so let us
just finish it and put the nets up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I move to amend the proposal?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any more questions for George on
this? Okay. I will bring the meeting back to order.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We could just vote on it and then we can do a new
proposal for $30,000 without the money in, it might be faster.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just amend it...I mean whatever. You folks are
cutting things that are much more serious than this and then this one, but whatever, I am
not going to get in the way of that. Let us just finish the signs. I still do not know what that
does for Economic Development and I am just being honest. I work with tourists at the hotel
and nothing, they do not even know about the website and they do not know about anything.
$80,000...I am just trying to...it is just like what you said about the gym, would we spend
$10,000,000 for a gym, that is just my point. It is frustrating, but if you want to cut $30,000,
let us do the $30,000. I will take a friendly amendment, that is not a problem.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Like what Councilmember Kagawa said, I think if
we were going to stop the signage, we should have stopped it two (2) years ago before we even
started it, but for now to stop it when we only have $7,500 left out of$80,000, let us just go
ahead and finish it. It is almost like the rail, to go that far and not finish it.
Councilmember Yukimura: So that is $29,500?
Councilmember Brun: No, $30,000.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 43 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo moved to amend the motion to cut funding in the Office of
Economic Development in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in Grant-
In-Aid for Tourism—Other Cultural Projects (Holo Hobo), seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa, and unanimously carried.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Further discussion on it? Okay. The proposal is
to cut $30,000 from other cultural projects, Holo Holo. Can we have a roll call vote?
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of
forty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($42,500) in Grant-In-Aid for Tourism —
Other Cultural Projects (Holo Holo) as amended to cut funding in the amount of
$30,000 in Grant-In-Aid for Tourism — Other Cultural Projects (Holo Holo) was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 7:0.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is the Visitor Industry Plan
Monitoring, again, my argument will be the same for all of these visitor industry projects.
They take $1,400,000 from us and yet they expect us to maintain a system of visitor industry,
which I believe is the State's function. It is a small amount of$12,500.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the amount of twelve thousand five
hundred dollars ($12,500) in Grant-In-Aid for the Tourism-Visitor Industry Plan
Monitoring (Match) in the Office of Economic Development, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? I have a question. If
anyone can answer because I vaguely remember if this is part of a three year process and
this was the third year. I know there was some Grant-In-Aid in visitor industry that has been
on the chopping block the last few years and I cannot remember if this is part of it or not.
George, what is this for and how much longer will we need to pay into it?
Mr. Costa: For the record, this is the third year and this is a
match with HLTA funds. This is the County match. At the request of the Council, we have
gone after other sources of funding, so Hawai`i Lodging and Tourism Association (HLTA) has
stepped forward and this is our County match to provide the funding necessary to carry on
this monitoring.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Is this the final year of this project?
Mr. Costa: Yes, this is the third year.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: So, if we cut the match then we are not going to
get their match?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 44 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Costa: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is it for? What is the plan?
Mr. Costa: We put together the strategic plan and we have
engaged in the visitor industry to help us with our infrastructure problems, traffic, and things
that the visitor industry has an impact on our island. We bring together all the visitor
industry stakeholders to help us try and solve some of our problems within the visitor
industry and how they can assist us. We have somebody that facilitates these meetings and
brings us all together to help find solutions for that.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will take a page out of Councilmember
Yukimura's book and ask, aside from paying the facilitator and the breakfasts or lunches,
what have we received in return from the County? What benefit, what receivable, what
product, or service have we received that is helping us move forward in economic
development? Aside from the meetings and the discussions...have we received any kind of
tangible report?
Mr. Costa: One of the examples is one of the committees is on
agriculture, so we bring the Kaua`i Grown, Kaua`i Made people together, Melissa Sugai who
is Kaua`i Made and Amy Chun with the Farm Bureau that spearheads the Kaua`i Grown
program. We work with the visitor industry to help promote those projects in their resorts
in various areas and that is just one of the examples on helping economic development
through the visitor industry to promote our products and help support through either their
chef or restaurants.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members?
Comments? No further questions. Okay. So, this is the final year, after this, you folks plan
to come back for more money on a new study or are we done with this?
Mr. Costa: No, it is the Tourism Strategic Plan and this is
part of the implementation of that plan.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: How long does the strategic plan go? Is it going to
be redone or updated or is your monitoring and implementation going to continue?
Mr. Costa: This was part of the update, the Tourism Strategic
Plan, which was updated couple of years ago and so this is the third phase of the
implementation process of what we have come up with.
Councilmember Yukimura: Will this be the last year? I am not clear what
your answer is.
Mr. Costa: With bringing the partners together, but within
the industry, they will continue to work on finding solutions on how they can help our island.
Councilmember Yukimura: But you are saying that this will not be in the next
year's budget.
Mr. Costa: As far as I know.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 45 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, any discussion on
this? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I guess I will not be supporting the cut only
because it is in its third year and it is a match and a lot has been invested in at this point
and let us see it through. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else?
Council Chair Rapozo: Just a comment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: That is why the Charter requires the Council to
have to approve multi-year funding, so it does not get into this trap where "We are on the
last year and we need the last of the funding." That is why for multi-year projects, they have
to come here first, so we do not run into this issue. That is two in a row where we heard, "It
is the last year," so regardless of what our financial situation is, because it is in the last
phase...you know HLTA is a rich organization. I appreciate what you said about the Kaua`i
Made products, but I have been involved with so many nonprofit organizations that get
together and facilitate their own and work to resolve their issues alone without any funding.
Everybody look at this, I know people are thinking, "You damn little nitpicker," but $12,500,
$10,000, $7,500—if you add them all up, we end up with...so anyway, I am going to support
the cut. If there is a three (3) year program, a three (3) year project, a five (5) year project,
come to us in the beginning and get the commitment from the Council and the commitment
to fund, and we move forward. But you cannot keep coming back and say, "This is our last
year and we need it." Mr. Costa, this is not against you personally. I understand you are the
placeholder, your department, but I am just saying that right now we are talking about
cutting three point something million. People may think this is chump-change, but add them
all up, so I will be supporting the cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I agree. I am assuming that since this is a
multi-year plan than this item has come up in past budgets and for us to be able to operate
more efficiently and knowing that some of these things are multi-year projects that are not
being disclosed up, that it is going to be on our duties and list of duties to ask upfront, "How
many years is this project and what is the timeline?" Yes, it is disheartening to hear that
this is the final year of a project and I just hope that...and I am just assuming since this is
the final year, this is where they come up with recommendations, so I just hope that there is
anybody listening that the recommendations are not just, "The County needs to fix the
bathrooms in the parks," or "The County needs to hire more police officers," or "The County
has to go in and address homelessness." This had better be a true experiment in
public/private partnerships where the visitor industry is actually going to be saying, "These
are where we can assist and making Kaua`i a better destination for our visitors and our
residents. This is how we can hold hands and address some of the traffic issues by supplying
the North Shore shuttle and funding it from our hotels." So, I am just hoping that this is
going to be a study telling us how to spend our money with no vested interest also coming in
from the visitor industry. I am just hoping this final funding is their recommendation stage
and they take it to heart that we are looking for some type of partnership and not just telling
us where we need to spend our limited resources. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura and then
Councilmember Brun.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 46 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Actually if I recall correctly at least two (2) years
ago it was a $25,000 line item, which was proposed to be cut and I think you or Nalani went
and worked to get a match so that the County would not be carrying the entire burden. I also
want to say that one of the County's biggest problems is doing plans that they do not
implement, the General Plan is a very good example of that, and so this process is supposed
to be a discipline that helps the industry implement the plan. I want to say that for me the
most significant part of this plan and I point many people to it who say, "The tourist industry
is just wanting to expand exponentially," this plan says, "The tourist industry says, `in great
consideration of the community, we cannot take more than 25,000 tourists a day and when
we get to that level things do not work well."' So the plan says, "We should not expand until
we expand our infrastructure" and it is very significant to me that the visitor industry has
become so conscious of their impacts on the community and want to address it. To me that
is very commendable. The plan has a lot more depth than other plans have and it reflects a
real consideration and concern for the community impacts which I think is really good.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Can I ask them a question?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sure, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Brun: With this plan they are looking at just how we can
better with the visitor industry...are they looking at roads and...
Mr. Costa: It is a multi-phased approach and it is exactly
what Councilmember Yukimura just pointed out where there are several committees and I
mentioned agriculture, as one, it is looking at infrastructure, it is looking at various
components. It is looking at visitor inventory, which you have timeshares, condominiums,
you have hotels, and most of them are represented on this committee because obviously you
look at the arrival numbers and we are backed up to where we were in 2006 and so the
industry is very concerned. It is also looking at the vacation rental side of things and how
vacation rentals have an impact and so the industry as a whole is trying to help with that
situation. I do want to point out that when we came before this body two (2) years ago, the
first phase was funded, last year it was not funded, so we went out and we got funding from
HLTA and I believe HTA and so because of the match component, we are back here on the
third phase to ask for funding to finish this and that we do have a HLTA match.
Councilmember Brun: I just hope that, like what Councilmember
Kawakami said, we are getting good productive information out of this. As far as traffic it is
hard to ask them to help us with our traffic problem when all our money go to O`ahu and they
get the worst traffic there, so if they cannot fix it here, how are they going to help us here?
They should concentrate on things that we can fix with the visitor industry because it is not
going to help us with traffic.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to say that actually we have in our
Multimodal Land Transportation Plan we have a different approach from O`ahu, but with
respect to this strategic tourism plan, one of the disappointments is that the General Plan
update...hello, Planners, the General Plan update has not incorporated this strategic tourism
plan and some of it is discussion and facts so that is a disappointment.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 47 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, and with that, I will say my piece. This has
been on the chopping block a few years now and again, the final year of it, I know where
Council Chair Rapozo is going and you know I commend him for the cuts he is proposing
because again, Grant-In-Aid is the free money that we give away and I have the same feelings
as Council Chair Rapozo and Councilmembers Kawakami and Brun. What are we getting
from these plans and I think the last thing we want to hear is next year, "Oh, we need money
to update the plan that we just finished," or something like that. I am willing to support it
now and again, I think you have seen it in the last few years that we have been looking at
the moneys in the GIA and these types of plans and we have been cutting a lot of them. If we
are not getting a desirable outcome from funding these plans, then they have been cut. I am
sure we will be going through more of these in this budget. With that, the vote is to cut the
$12,500 matching for the Visitor Industry Plan Monitoring. Can I get a roll call vote, please?
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of
twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500) in Grant-In-Aid for the Tourism-
Visitor Industry Plan Monitoring (Match) was then put, and failed by the following
vote:
FOR MOTION: Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kawakami, Yukimura,
Kane shiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion fails. Next one.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is...I do not even know if I should
introduce the rest...$30,000 for the Climate Action Plan.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in
the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in Grant-In-Aid for the
Energy/Sustainability-Climate Action Plan (Match), seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Very simply, this is one that I do not believe that
is necessary for this year.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I know we had discussion on it too as far as in our
Budget Reviews Meetings. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I hate to say it, but it says, "Match" as well, so I
just want to make sure that we get an understanding of where we are on that match and the
progress of this in terms of the urgency and need.
Mr. Costa: I am going to call up Ben Sullivan to speak to this.
BEN SULLIVAN, Specialist IV-Energy/Sustainability: Ben Sullivan, Office of
Economic Development, for the record. Just speaking specifically to the match, we currently
have commitments for 250% match for the $30,000 if it is passed by the Council, so we would
get an additional $75,000. We also have a grant lined up that we intend to apply for in July
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 48 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
that would actually make it a fivefold match, so we would end up with $150,000 additional
dollars if we were awarded on that grant. We certainly cannot offer any promises on that,
but that is our intent. We heard you last year when you said you did not want to pay for this
and we saw additional funds and we feel like we are in a good position and it is an important
plan. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I voted to cut this line item last year because I did
not think we had done enough work to establish partners, get matches, it did not really have
a well thought out plan, and I was very pleased this year because they came back with
something very substantive. I think climate change is a very significant thing that we need
to address and be aware of in terms of County operations and the larger County system. This
is a small amount. It is a well-honed amount because they worked hard over this past year
to make it better so that it could be a better proposal. I think we need to acknowledge and
affirm good work.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Sullivan, you said we cut the funding and you
went out and got funding?
Mr. Sullivan: No, last year you gave us a clear message that you
did not want to see the Council fund the entire plan. We had put in for $90,000, you cut back
$90,000, so when we came in with our proposal this year at $30,000, we talked to people and
we certainly do not have money in hand. We had initial conversations, "Would you be willing
to help us if we can pass this amount of money?" We still need to come to you and apply for
a grant and we intend to do that, but we have preliminary conversations that have been,
"Yes, we can do that."
Council Chair Rapozo: But there is no commitment?
Mr. Sullivan: There is no commitment.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: We are not allowed to make the commitment, as
you know, until we come to this body and make...
Council Chair Rapozo: No, I mean commitment from the people or the
funders that supposedly are going to give 250%.
Mr. Sullivan: We have a relationship with the funder and the
funder has given us a very clear indication that if Council passes this then we will get the
money, but as a matter of protocol, we have to formally apply and that first requires we come
to you and we have not done that yet.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Okay, if not, I will bring
the meeting back.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 49 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any final discussion on this?
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, for me it is just not something I believe is
of importance that we need to do it this year as we look towards closing the gap on the loss
of revenue.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? I voted against it and I
will likely vote against it this year just as far as focusing on what is the plan for, what are
we getting out of it, and how is it going to improve the County. When we look at climate
change action plan, it sounds like a great thing, but again, if everybody named stuff greatly
and we give them a lot of money for it, we may still not get results and I think Ben does work
good he should probably work with the Planning Department as far as how climate change
affects our General Plan. We had a discussion on it on what the funding was for and it was
still very unclear to me on how it would affect the County. That is why I am not voting for
it. Any further discussion on your vote? If not, we will take a roll call vote. So, a "No" vote...
Council Chair Rapozo: An "Aye" vote supports the cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, an "Aye" vote supports the cut and a "No"
vote is to keep it in.
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in Grant-In-Aid for the Energy/Sustainability-
Climate Action Plan (Match) was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Kawakami, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes 4:3.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any more items for the Office of Economic
Development?
Council Chair Rapozo: $10,000 for the Green Growth Metrics Project for
the same reasons I stated for the last one.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in
the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in Grant-In-Aid for the Sustainability-
Hawai`i Green Growth Metrics Project, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions for the Administration on the
Hawai`i Green Growth Metrics Project? I need a refresher. What is the Hawai`i Green
Growth Metrics Project?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Sullivan: Is there a specific question?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 50 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, what is the Hawai`i Green Growth Metrics
Project?
Mr. Sullivan: This is the Aloha Plus Challenge Dashboard,
which is a collaboration between the four (4) Mayors and the Governor, as well as all the
County and State entities that are affiliated with those leaders around creating standard
metrics for sustainability around the State so that we can measure our progress in areas such
as local food, green jobs, clean energy, waste, and in other areas. I have been working on this
for several years. They have developed metrics for solid waste for energy, several other areas,
and they are actually going to be here in a couple weeks to work on what the cost (inaudible)
sustainable communities. Again, this is about establishing a green metrics to measure our
progress, which we feel is important so we are trying to support that effort.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because the General Plan update should be
having some metrics too, are you working in conjunction with the Planning Department on
that?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, we are. Obviously, we are not intimately
involved with the General Plan process in Economic Development, we work with them to
whatever extent they need to consult with us on resources, but they are very much aware of
the metrics and they are very excited about the potential to use them going forward.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are the metrics going to be included in the
General Plan metrics?
Mr. Sullivan: That is not something I can respond to.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Ben, you implemented the motor pool and I do not
hear much good stuff about how that is going on. The energy efficient lights, I have difficulty
turning on my light a lot of times in my office and sometimes when I come to work late, the
light is on, so I do not know how it is energy efficient when you do not know if it is going on
or off. Now, like this Green Growth, why can you not as the energy person just support this
thing with your own labor? What is the $10,000 going to? Is it going to a consultant? What
is it paying for? Food? Lunch?
Mr. Sullivan: Hawaii Green Growth is the entity that I
described and it is certainly paying for some consulting, but it is also paying for the people
that work for the organization. I think they have about a three (3) person staff to work on
these projects and they do it Statewide, the other Counties are contributing as well, but
certainly it is your purview not to fund it. I am not sure what your other comments were
about.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am saying can you just work with Green Growth
without us contributing money? If we cut the $10,000, are you going to stop working with
them?
Mr. Sullivan: The funding is...
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 51 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: I thought they wanted to help the entire State. I
thought their intention is to help the entire State get"Green." If they want to help the entire
State, they are going to work with you, right?
Mr. Sullivan: I think certainly that if we are going to work with
them, we want to be able to say that we support what they are doing and they need funding
to do that so this is an opportunity for us to work with the other Counties and contribute to
that process. Again, this is your decision.
Councilmember Kagawa: So, it is going to their salaries, the $10,000?
Mr. Sullivan: You know, I do not have the data right in front of
me. I was not informed that this was going to be a detailed discussion on this item today, so
I apologize.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay, thank you.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments or discussion?
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess for the rest of the folks awaiting their time,
this is the opportunity for the Council to ask the last final questions, so please come prepared
if you want the money because it is going to be difficult. If this money is going to salaries to
a nonprofit, then forget it, for sure. If it is for a project...and I keep asking what is the
tangible that we get back? Is it a report? I think that is critical for this body to make the
determination of whether or not we going to use taxpayer dollars.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? If not...
Mr. Costa: Can I just make one clarification?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Costa: I have attended those meetings on O`ahu and as
Mr. Sullivan mentioned it is convening all the Counties, State entities to create these metrics,
so the funding which Kaua`i's portion is matching the other Counties.
Mr. Sullivan: The other Counties are contributing more in some
cases, but (inaudible).
Mr. Costa: Yes, so the Kaua`i County has a reduced amount.
I believe the other Counties are double what we contribute, but it all goes to the people that
are convening and the expenses that they have to bring everybody together to put all of these
metrics together. I do not know if that helps clarify the situation, but like I have said, I have
attended those meetings.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think he clarifies what I just...about twenty (20)
minutes ago, I leaned across to Councilmember Kawakami and said we are funding to pay
facilitators for meetings and that is not what I think taxpayer moneys should go to. If we are
working towards a product, a report, that is one thing, but to facilitate, get together for people
to share ideas...I am not so sure that that is the best way to spend our money.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 52 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami and then
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think in this sense too I think we are looking for
apparent redundancies and services and so we do have State agencies like Department of
Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT), State Planning Office that should be
helping to provide some of these metrics and I think I would rather see money being spent
on tangible ways that we can increase our sustainability effort rather it is putting more
charging stations in our parking lots, something tangible versus just plans and then
providing funding for facilitators. I agree with some of those statements and I think we
should be looking for redundancies and where other agencies to provide this information.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In listening to everyone, I think it would be
helpful if the result of this project would be some very clear metrics that can be incorporated
into the General Plan because we are going to be monitoring. I mean there is a whole piece
in the General Plan about sustainability, in fact, that is one of the overarching goals of the
General Plan. We need to be measuring whether we are making any move toward or away
from those goals and is there any effort in this line item that is going to result in that, Ben?
Mr. Sullivan: Again, I do not want to speak for the Planning
Department and how they choose to work with the community and integrate those goals and
how the community voices their opinion about whether or not those goals should be
integrated. I think the goals are very valuable, but that is a separate process.
Councilmember Yukimura: But you are talking metrics here.
Mr. Sullivan: So establishing the metrics would certainly be the
first step, right? The intent of this project is to establish metrics that we can all hold
ourselves to so that we can measure how we are doing on all these various areas. As an
example, without a metric in local agriculture production, how do we know what to tell this
body about our progress? These are certainly valuable metrics, but you folks are in a tough
spot and everyone respects that, so we understand that you have to make the difficult
decisions about these resources and that is how this works. I am not sure what else I can
offer at this moment.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, if there are no further question, any last
discussion, if not, we will take the roll call vote. Jade, roll call vote.
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000) in Grant-In-Aid for the Sustainability-Hawai`i Green
Growth Metrics Project, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Rapozo, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7*,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 53 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of County of Kaua`i, Councilmember
Chock was noted as silent (not present) and Councilmember Yukimura was noted as silent,
but shall be recorded as an affirmative for the motion.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are still on Economic Development.
Council Chair Rapozo: The last one is the $30,000 for Community
Support (RFP).
Council Chair Rapozo moved to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in
the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in Grant-In-Aid for Community-
Community Support (RFP), seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Council Chair Rapozo: And maybe it is because I forget what it was
about.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, refresh our memory.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know on the budget sheet I wrote cut. I am sorry,
this was a request from the Administration, so this one was easy. I should have let them
justify...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Justify the cut that you want us to cut.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a head nod? Okay. This one should have
no discussion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This one is a good one.
Council Chair Rapozo: I call for the question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us take a roll call vote to cut the $30,000 that
the Mayor's Administration has proposed.
The motion to cut funding in the Office of Economic Development in the amount of
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in Grant-In-Aid for Community-Community
Support (RFP) was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Rapozo, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 7:0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anything else for Economic Development? If not,
we will move on to the Police Department. Any individual cuts to the Police?
Councilmember Kagawa: I have one.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 54 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut funding in the Kaua`i Police Department,
Chiefs Office, in the amount of one million four hundred twenty-four thousand three
hundred eighty-four dollars ($1,424,384) from Premium Pay-Standard of Conduct
Differential (SOCD), seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: A reason for that cut is because State of Hawai`i
Organization of Police Officer (SHOPO) has not brought forth their arbitrated amounts to
the County yet and this is an assumption in this budget that it will be in again. It was in four
(4) years ago and we all kind of raised our eyebrows. It is very difficult for a County to oppose
what is happening and being approved by the rest of the islands and I just think if there was
ever a time that we need to try and control the budgets or Police and Fire, it is here. As you
all know the Legislature has not been a great help. Instead of adding what we wanted in
TAT, they reduced it by $1,400,000. It is kind of funny because the State are the ones with
most of the votes to give the generous pay increases to SHOPO and Fire and while they give
measly pay raises to their own deputies that run the Sherriffs and prisons. It is like because
they do not have to pay it, they play Santa Claus and for me it is very ingenuous in that
instead of trying to help support the importance of Police and Fire, they instead cut the
contribution to the Counties. For all you police and firemen that are supporting your
Senators as they run for reelection and representatives, I think you need to think twice
because they are supporting you in a vote for your pay raise, but they are not supporting you
financially. It is this body that is supporting you financially. If we can look at couple of the
slides that I have in my five (5) minutes. I just wanted to show the sheet that Janine had
presented to us yesterday and it will show that over the past twenty (20)...let us look at ten
(10) year increase for the Police Department, it went from $18,000,000...oh okay, we are
going to the one...which ever one you want...right there. Okay. If you look at the last column,
SHOPO went up over the last twenty (20) years almost 70% and I believe that does not
include the Standard of Conduct, which is an additional 1% or 2%, depending on what the
rank of officers. If you look at HGEA, they are about 40%. I checked with HSTA over the
past twenty (20) years, HSTA is roughly 40% over the past twenty (20) years, so they are
about 30% more than the teachers over the past twenty (20) years. It is significantly more
than any other union. One could say they are significantly more important than any other
union that we get highly qualified individuals, but at some point when the piggybank is
broke, we have to put on the brakes. I think at least for this year if they had...the assumption
is that Police and Fire are going to get 13.5 at least over the next four (4)years, but to include
this one, the SOCD and the rank-for-rank, will just continue to let them run away from all
the rest of the unions and I find that to be rankly unfair and overly generous. At some point,
you have to decide and Council Chair Rapozo said it best, "Nice to have versus need to have."
I think there is a higher demand for Police to get the increases because they are having
trouble recruiting. They said they only got six out of fifteen and to my dismay only one (1) of
that fifteen is from Kaua`i, which is disappointing. They are having trouble, but we still have
to put the brakes on at some point and I think Kaua`i County by adopting this cut, we will
send the clear message to the rest of the islands that while you may afford to pay it, we
certainly are not because our taxpayers have had enough of fee increases and tax increases,
at least for this year. My cut does not affect the regular pay increases, the 13.5 that is going
in. It is just to cut the premium pay and I believe yesterday Janine did a great job explaining
to us what it meant. It is about $700 per month. If you times that by twelve (12), it is about
$8,400 for a higher officer and then for the lower ranked officers, it is $650 per month. Council
Chair Rapozo and Councilmember Yukimura explained it that police is a little different
because when they are off duty, they are subject to discipline even if they get in trouble. I
understand that, but on the same token, when we are faced with tax increases for all the
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 55 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
public and this is not only for people who own homes now. People that rent—it is going to get
passed on. People who rent houses out, they are not going to rent to break even. They are
going to make a profit. The people who are going to pay are the tenants, so this Real Property
Tax increases, you can spin it whatever you want, but everybody pays—low income and high
income. We have to be cognizant of the fact that what are you folks going to do and this is a
big move. I know it is difficult, it is uncomfortable for me, I received many calls and
please...but at the end of the day we took the oath to stand up for the people and I believe
that this kind of cut here is in the best interest of the public as a whole.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Kagawa: Did I have a second? Thank you.
Councilmember Chock: We talk about the millions and millions of people
who are watching and I hope they are now. I appreciate all the cuts that we had up to now
and you can tell the difference in a cut such as this as opposed to all the other cuts that we
have tried to squeeze out of this budget. While this might be totally a practice in futility, I
think it is important for us to actually put on the table the root causes of the financial woes
that we are suffering from at this County. This is an example of how it works out for us. We
talk about the $3,000,000 deficit, with one cut in a specific area that is not even focused on
the increases that we are talking about for these agencies, you can see that that it does make
a difference. If there is a question on legality on whether or not we can actually do this and
how, but I appreciate the introduction of it for the sake of the discussion.
Councilmember Kagawa: Chair, do I have minutes left or did I run out? I
had just one more slide I wanted to point out and that was a slide showing the budgets and
this is so that everyone can see that the budget has grown and we have gone through years...if
you look at the budget, it started out in 2008. This is a ten (10) year analysis, it started at
$18,400,000 and today, it is at $33,950,000, $16,000,000 more than it was ten (10) years ago.
If you look we went through some times when we really budgeted tight in 2010 and 2011, we
only went up $300,000. If you look at 2013, we went down a little bit. In 2016 and 2017, we
went up just a little bit of$900,000 and then if you look at this fiscal year, the proposal is to
go up $2,600,000. Nobody is going to die, nobody is going to get...if this is taken away a
bonus, as I would call it, that it would be nice for officers to have, but the public cannot afford
it. The taxes that they are already paying all over in federal, state, and county is just overly
matched by their finances. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura and then Council
Chair Rapozo.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know that we can remove the SOCD. I
believe it is a collective bargaining item, however, I think your amendment has highlighted
the issue that is of concern to a lot of people and it is having huge impact on the budget which
is the police compensation in its totality. I think we may need some advice about how to
really address effectively this concern, but if you put it in terms of a beginning officer's total
yearly compensation, it is about $80,000 a year. It is like maybe $67,000 for salaries and
then $8,000 for Standard of Conduct, and then overtime, which is in relationship to all the
other County employees a very large sum. If you add to that the benefits and the pension,
then it is a huge, huge chunk of our budget leaving very little, I think the Police themselves
have said "very little" for materials, training, equipment, supplies, consultants, and just all
the other needs that are essential to the proper functioning of both the Police Department
and the County as a whole. I think it is an important discussion to have. I am just not sure
which is the exact way, if we want to address it...I mean is it at the point of collective
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 56 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
bargaining agreements or is it part of just denying the salary increase. I am not sure and we
need some guidance.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have checked with Mauna Kea and he said it is
the Council's prerogative to address rank for rank and Standard of Conduct in this budget.
By denying it in our budget, we would be sending a message to the unions that Kaua`i is not
in agreement with the proposed arbitrated amounts. He is not here. I have a plan "B" that
reduces items that are not related to this and so we are not just taking one swing at the fence,
we are taking two.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are at 12:30 p.m. lunch. Council Chair, did
you want to make a last comment? Mauna Kea will be here, he just had to leave.
Council Chair Rapozo: He had a family matter that he had to attend to,
so he had asked me if it was okay to leave and I told him, "Yes." I did not expect this one to
come up.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: He will be back after lunch.
Council Chair Rapozo: My comment was if we could hold off until after
lunch because I do want Mauna Kea here, but I do want to address...because I can appreciate
what Councilmember Kagawa is saying. Throughout the County, we have to grab a handle
on our cost and expenses. I do not know if the Standard of Conduct is the right place. I am
dying to hear his plan"B" because I think we have to take a look at it. I also want to address
the comment made by Councilmember Yukimura as far as the compensation package because
if you compare the compensation package of the police officer entry level versus any other
county job, and maybe I have a bias, but I am going to be real. No other job in this County is
like a police job. They have a choice. If you want to apply for Parks, Public Works, you have
a choice to apply at the Police Department, but the reason they do not apply for the Police
Department is because nobody wants to do that job. It bothers me when they say, "Oh, they
get paid so much," because they do a lot. Maybe people disagree. Maybe people think that
the police just hang out, but you tell that to the cop that had to go and see people killed in an
accident or the murders. It just bothers me when we talk about their pay. I will agree with
Councilmember Kagawa that it is running away and we have to somehow hang on and slow
down the train. I guess it is offensive to me when someone says they get paid too much as a
salary because that is a job that not everybody is lining up to take. I just wanted to make
that comment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is not about fair pay, fair increases...the last
agreement was approximately 17% without the Standard of Conduct. Now, you add that for
four (4) years, you are talking about 24%-25% over four (4) years. Other unions are getting
8%-12%, so I mean yes, it was 16% to 17% just like that and it was more than the other
unions. So, it is not saying it is valued less, it is already more, so it has to be what...15%
more? What is enough? That is what we have to decide because I can tell you, we cannot
just keep taxing. I do not know what else to do.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: With that, we will take an hour lunch and we will
be back on this same issue.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:33 p.m.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 57 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
The meeting was called back to order at 1:32 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just to get everybody caught up, we are still on
the Police Department, and currently Councilmember Kagawa has provided a cut for
Standard of Conduct Differential of$1,400,000, roughly, and we have some questions for the
County Attorney.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Chock: It was on the legality of the measure, Mauna Kea,
if you could respond to that in terms of our oversight and process for collective bargaining.
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: For the record, Mauna Kea Trask, County
Attorney. Just for the record, can you state again what that specific measure is?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This proposal is to cut the SOCD budget.
Mr. Trask: For the record the question being is that legal?
Okay. What I would say is that under the Kaua`i County Charter, this is Section 3.01. "The
legislative power of the County shall be vested in and exercised by the County Council except
as otherwise provided by this Charter." In every single case and legal treatise I have read on
this matter, the legislative power assumes the power to control the budget. It is in fact one of
your most fundamental, this body's most fundamental rights—you pass laws and you control
the budget. You know where the purse strings, this body controls the purse strings. Under
Section 3.10 "the Council shall enact an annual budget ordinance which shall include both
the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same.
The Council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget." So again, via
your power to legislate and control the purse strings, you have the authority to assure a
balanced budget. If any cut, regardless of this specific cut or line item, would otherwise lead
to an unbalanced budget, it would not be proper and you would have to balance it, and what
that means is up to this body via the appropriate vote. Finally, in Section 19.07 "the Council
may reduce any item or items in the Mayor's proposed budget by majority vote, and may
increase any item or items therein or add new items thereto by an affirmative vote of two-
thirds of the entire membership. That is all it says. So, obviously, basically that is pretty
easy, it makes sense. You pass the budget, you ensure that it is balanced, and you may cut
any item. Now the effect of that, though, can be difficult and there is none in this case I
believe it is the SHOPO contract—there is no case in Hawai`i whereby cost items are subject
to ratification every time there is a contract and there is no case in Hawai`i where that has
happened before, so it is an novel area of the law. Basically, the County Attorney Office's
opinion is the Council body has that authority and that is when the municipal body's
legislative branch's power comes up against the contract and to analogize it, although it may
not be totally similar, all the contracts of this County are subject to appropriation by the
Council. It is a legislative duty. Courts generally consider those political questions and will
not overturn it. It may lead to arbitration, it may lead to a lot of problems and interest in
legal questions, but it remains unanswered—I would say today you have that authority to cut
any item. That is not passing the policy call (inaudible) or the wisdom thereof.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: However in the interaction of law, if the union
claims or an individual member claims the Standard of Conduct based on the collective
bargaining agreement, would the County be obligated to pay it?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 58 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Trask: They may be, but it is (inaudible) subjects to the
annual budget and that is what I was talking about, about the novel aspect of it has been
unaddressed. Again, I am not touching on the wisdom of the call, but it is the policy thereof.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not talking about the wisdom either. I am
asking about whether the County will be legally obligated to pay and if so, presumably HR
Department or whatever can take that from the Police budget and pay it, but to the detriment
of other items in the Police budget.
Mr. Trask: I would not know and I do not know if it would be
HR or...I think it is in the Police Department.
Councilmember Yukimura: It would be the Police Department probably?
Mr. Trask: Yes, but again, what you are talking about
is...this County has the right to structure...under the Constitution Article 8 Section 2, the
County of Kaua`i has the right to draft its own Charter. The Charter provisions regarding
the organization of government preempts State provisions related thereto and so I am ready
to defend this body's decision in court, as appropriate as it may whatever may be in that
regard.
Councilmember Yukimura: The question is, how will the Court rule?
Mr. Trask: I have absolutely no idea.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well it is the County Attorney's job to give us an
opinion about whether our position would prevail in law or not.
Mr. Trask: Like I said before, as Courts find that to be
political questions and I have not seen in my research in the related area regarding this
where the Court would overturn a political body's decision. However, you asked me whether
or not what the Court will rule and I do not know.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, but is there not a contract law that says the
police officer has a contract with the County and therefore under contract law, the County
has to pay?
Mr. Trask: I am not sure that is a similar analysis and I am
not able to render something like that at this time, but if you look at how the ratification of
cost items of collective bargaining agreements, they are subject to ratification not only by the
State, but all Counties in the State of Hawaii. There are provisions regarding if they are not
ratified and so I think this would lead to some type of arbitration and that may be binding.
Councilmember Yukimura: And that may be what?
Mr. Trask: Binding.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you make that analysis? I think we need to
know what the consequences of our decisions are likely to be and if it does go to arbitration,
there has to be a law that says it goes to arbitration and that arbitration is the route by which
these matters are settled. I think we need to get clarity about the law with respect to that.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 59 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Trask: That choice is this body's to make and/or the body
could choose to vote on this item and it may not even be relevant beyond the time it takes to
vote thereon. It is subject to your discretion.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So what I am hearing is that we have the ability
to cut this item. Again, there are consequences to it. If we end up needing to pay for that
item, then it is going to have to come in a money bill where we are going to have to decide if
we are going to reject it again and possibly go to court, but that is our decision to make. Just
knowing that we have the ability to do this cut, there could be consequences and that is the
decision we need to make.
Councilmember Yukimura: And I am trying to determine what those
consequences would be so that I can make my decision and I am also trying to know what the
alternatives are to exerting some control on compensation that might be done in a legal
manner. If the overall concern is the total compensation then the other option is to, I
presume, and you can confirm or disconfirm, reject the collective bargaining raises that are
proposed and what would the consequences of that be, is the question.
Mr. Trask: I can tell you right now the rejection of any cost
item, which is anything pertaining to money, in the upcoming collective bargaining process,
for any union is if you reject it, you can, and then it goes to arbitration. If you do not reject it,
but if another County or the State does, it goes back to arbitration and that has never been
done before and so I will not be able to tell you. It is difficult because thereafter I would have
to look at other States and some States have union systems that are almost as strong as
Hawai`i and other have...
Councilmember Yukimura: Well I am not asking you to predict a political
outcome.
Mr. Trask: I am not. I am trying to predict a legal one.
Councilmember Yukimura: But if it goes back to arbitration, then it is subject
to the arbitration panel's decision, I would guess, right?
Mr. Trask: Possibly.
Councilmember Yukimura: What other option would there be?
Mr. Trask: Well, they would render your decision, but again,
you are coming against fundamental...you have dual constitutional rights here and that is
what it comes down to. There is a constitutional right for public officers and employees to
collectively bargain, they have a constitutional right to do that and the County of Kauai via
the constitution, the Kaua`i County Council and the Kaua`i County Charter has an equal
constitutional right to control their budget and so when you have dual constitutional rights
and that question has never been answered in Hawai`i.
Councilmember Yukimura: But in the collective bargaining law itself it says
that the different County legislative bodies have to approve the cost item, right? It actually
acknowledges the Charter provision that says that the County Council's has the right to
control budget.
Mr. Trask: That is correct and we can talk about 89, 46, and
Circuit Court jurisdiction and everything, but fundamentally...
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 60 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know what you are referring to.
Mr. Trask: I understand, but fundamentally what you have is
the Hawai`i State Supreme Court interprets the Hawai`i State Constitution and the Hawai`i
State Constitution trumps all Hawai`i State statutes. All I am saying is that I understand
what you are doing here, but I would advise you...one, the question was may the Council
reduce this item? The Council may reduce any item. What that means has potential drastic
affect, but if that motion for example is not passed today, then we can move on to the next
issue. If this does not, then we are going to have to address it. I think if you are in doubt, I
would definitely advise you to vote against it because I would not advise you to vote for
something you did not know, necessarily the result of, but again that is your decision.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, I will come up forward, this is my decision,
this is the way I am going to vote, and you can agree or disagree and that is the way we are
going to vote. I will not be voting for this cut because again, it is a calculated risk. Is this
amount going to come up in the future that we are going to need to pay, how are we going to
pay it, are we going to continue to fight it? For me, I would rather take the risk of we fund it
as collective bargaining comes up whether we want to reject it or not, that is a future
collective bargaining and we move from there. That is simply the decision we make right
now whether you want to support or not support it. I do not think we are going to get a legal
reading that tells us what we can or cannot do. Mauna Kea said very specifically we can cut
it and that is the decision we have to make—do you want to cut it or not.
Councilmember Yukimura: So I just want to play out the final arbitration
scenario. It goes to arbitration under the collective bargaining law if a local government
legislative body rejects via collective bargaining agreement, correct?
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: And then it goes to the arbitrator and starts the
arbitration process all over again, but we have never done it before, so what happens after
that? We do not know, presumably they come back with another arbitrated agreement.
Mr. Trask: Yes, correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for Mauna Kea?
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any discussion on this item? I will just say that I
know how hopeless we feel with collective bargaining and salary increases, but for me it is a
calculated risk and I would much rather deal with the future collective bargaining coming up
rather than under-funding this and having to take a money bill during the year and pay for
it during the year. Who knows we may cut it, put that money someplace else, and then still
have to pay an amount and then we are adding$1,400,000 to the budget. For me, I mentioned
it upfront. I would rather take the hit now and not have to come with a money bill later and
it is a calculated risk on our part on what we want to do and that is the decision at-hand. For
me, I am not going to go with the cut. I would rather have it in there and we deal with the
future collective bargaining. Councilmember Brun.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 61 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Brun: This is my first budget, but the thing that I
struggle with is all this bargaining agreements where we are basically putting money in,
anticipating raises, anticipating this passing in the negotiations, and in listening to a lot of
you in prior years, if we had the confidence that...say we had $1,400,000 and their amount
come up to $1,200,000, that they would do the right thing and not take the $200,000 and give
it back. Apparently, at the end of the year with all the open budget and extra money, they
find a way to spend it. That is why I am looking at this one like I would rather get all of
these contracts out of the way first before we do our budget so we could know what we are
budgeting for. Right now, if this does not even pass in the SHOPO agreement, we just put
$1,400,000 for them to do whatever with, right, if we do not make this cut and it does not
even show up on their contract because they are still negotiating their contract if this does
not show up. That is what I am struggling with. I am not going to be supporting this cut
because I do not think we should come back for it, but that is the part that I struggle with
now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock and then Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Chock: I totally understand the Budget & Finance
Committee Chair's decision in terms of not wanting to come back to this. I think what is
missing from the conversation though is that if we do not look at some of these specific kinds
of cuts than the reality is the alternative is that we need to raise taxes and that is just plain
and simple. It is going to be one or the other. The question is when is it going to happen and
who is going to do it and it has not been tried, so where do we start?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa and then
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Kagawa: I can answer Councilmember Brun's question. It
will be in. The Standard of Conduct, rank for rank, because they had it four (4) years ago, got
it approved, it is a given that it is going to be in the next contract. There is no reason to take
it out. There are reasons why they have it in and legitimate reasons, however, we are at the
point where the budgets for Police and Fire are really straining our ability to succeed without
raising taxes. Even though we raised, through property tax increases in the market values,
we raised$6,000,000 to$7,000,000 more a year. We still have to raise $3,600,000 more again.
So is raising taxes by $9,000,000 and $10,000,000 necessary every year or are we going to
control some of the cost that seemed to be running away from us? One could say that the
14% that they are probably going to get, which is what HSTA got, which is what HGEA got,
that is probably going to be in the SHOPO and the Firefighters Agreement. Is it necessary
to give them an additional 6% to 8% increase with this Standard of Conduct? Any judge
looking at it knowing the Charter, knowing the Council's responsibility on that financial and
to approve budgets that are reasonable for each County, I would think that the judge would
rule in favor the County, but I am not a judge. It is all about separation of powers and this
our power to try and balance our budget without raising taxes. This is a very tough cut and
I think Councilmembers all have different points of view and are great, but I think this is a
tough one, we are going to struggle with, and it is going to be a close vote. We should just
move forward. Take the vote and move on. I have another cut that is not controversial in any
manner, it might just reduce some services as far as overtime services. We will have another
cut before us that does not test law, does not go through further arbitration, but I struggled
with presenting that cut prior to this cut. I thought this cut made a lot more sense. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 62 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe the raises are already in the budget and
the thing about waiting until collective bargaining is we have to raise the taxes now to cover
it in collective bargaining. I think the Standard of Conduct is...I do not feel comfortable voting
for it, to cut that out. I think the real place we need to consider this issue of overall
compensation and what it is doing to our taxes are in the issue of whether the raises should
be granted this year, especially because when there was...I mean the other portion to this is
when there was furloughs for all the other unions, Police and Fire were getting 6% raises
compounded. That is when they grew this huge discrepancy between some County workers
and another. I am in favor of acknowledging the extra risk that is taken to be a police officer,
but the question is how much differential and what about all the rest of County operations
and the taxpayers. We have to find a way that works for everybody. You cannot just keep
increasing the differential and percentages are on a base that are already big from the time
of the furloughs. Whereas, the HGEA and UPW—their basis did not shrink, but it stayed very
status quo while the basis for the Fire and Police salaries were great and that contributed to
the huge disparity that now gets exaggerated whenever you have percentage increases. It is
about the good of the whole and how we are going to do that. I think there is awareness
because beginning officers' total compensation is about $80,000 a year. I think there are
more logical places to address it at the point of the raises, which is within our jurisdiction
and the question is how do we do that because we have to decide on the tax rates.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: During the collective bargaining process, we reject
the contract.
Councilmember Yukimura: So we raise the rates then?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No, the rates...we are here to do a structured
balanced budget. We cannot do a budget and say...
Councilmember Yukimura: So, you leave the pay raises in now and address it
at that time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: And if collective bargaining is rejected, which
would make history then we can take the money back and put it in the Reserve and we can
do other things with it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Council
Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: The entry level, again, I wish we would not bring
that up because we are not talking about entry level. We are talking about a Standard of
Conduct allowance that I am uncomfortable with because of what Mauna Kea said. The
problem with this is that it has never been done before and I do not want to be the first one
to the go to Court and have to fight with some expensive litigation to figure out who is right.
I can see something like this having obviously Statewide, but more so nationwide impact
when it comes to collective bargaining. I would guess that if it gets challenged, it would be a
long costly legal battle. I understand...we are in a tough predicament right now because we
have to chance millions of dollars and I am not sure what Councilmember Kagawa's option
"B" is, but I can kind of figure it out that it is possibly or probably related to overtime. I think
that would be a safer place to look at and whether you agree or disagree, these cuts are going
to have to come from some place and it is tough to be in this position. The 30% Reserve, when
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 63 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
the arbitrators look at the ability to pay, that does not help the County with turning down
raises when you have 30% of your Operating Budget in a Reserve account. That is how these
arbitrators are and they look at your ability to pay. When you are telling them, "We cannot
afford," but you can afford to put that much...now, do not take this in the wrong way, I am
not saying I do not support the Reserve. I am just saying that every four (4) years when you
go up for negotiations and you are in binding arbitration and the County saying, "We cannot
afford," but you can afford to put 30% of your prior year's Operating Budget in a Reserve.
That tells the arbitrator that you do in fact have the ability to pay. You have just chosen to
move it somewhere else. That is the dilemma we are in here. Do we take money out of the
Reserve and fund these things or do we tighten up the ship across the County, which is I
think we are trying to do and it is difficult. It is difficult to sit here and look at all of you and
say, "We have to cut your budget." Either that or we face that way to the cameras and say,
"Public, we are going to raise your taxes. We are going to continue to spend, but we are going
to raise your taxes." We are trying to reach this balance and it is hard. What Councilmember
Kagawa just did is a very unpopular, difficult thing to do, but the Council's back is against
the wall and where are you going to find the money? Because of the delicateness of a contract,
I am not comfortable with touching the collective bargaining issues, but I am interested in
listening to option "B."
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comment? If not, we will take a roll
call vote on cutting $1,424,384 to Standard of Conduct pay.
The motion to cut funding in the Kauai Police Department, Chiefs Office, in the
amount of one million four hundred twenty-four thousand three hundred eighty-four
dollars ($1,424,384) from Premium Pay-Standard of Conduct Differential (SOCD)was
then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Kagawa TOTAL—2,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Kawakami, Rapozo, Yukimura,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa, do you want to do your
next proposal?
Councilmember Kagawa: Anybody else, they can go first.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other Police proposals? No. I think everybody
is biting at the bit to hear your next one.
Coounci:ImemberKagaw'a'' m"ovedn:=to cut
Cliefs�Officein�the amount fundmg5 m ep Kaua Poice Deartmnt,
of nines sdollars ($900000
from
. �'.: °", § ,, ai - x ♦ rfi y: # k'x Y s. e".-'a a r e fie, tr,. Y,�A '3:
Regzular Overtime and $200,,000 from Regular•Overtime Holiday, seconded- by
C:ouncilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a slide to show that I believe KPD can
survive with this cut. Can you put up the fiscal year budget again for KPD, ten-year analysis?
That is the ten-year analysis and you will see that we survived in 2012 to 2013. We even
dropped the budget by $1,000,000. 2013 to 2014, we survived by going up $1,100,000 and
this year we go up by $2,600,000, so if we reduce that number by $1,100,000, it still goes up
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 64 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
by $1,500,000. I believe the budgets are still growing. I believe that it is still fatter than it
needs to be, but it is doable. This will hold up in Court. It is our prerogative to cut overtime
whenever necessary. Can you go to the second slide? We just picked out a couple of positions
and I want to thank the staff for all of the work they have done with me. I really appreciate
the hard work that the staff has done—Yvette, Scott, Jenelle, thank you very much. This is
just a few we picked. Position No. 441, Police Officer I made $21,000 in 2016 in overtime.
Position No. 503, Police Officer I made $55,000 in overtime in 2016. Position No. 354, Public
Safety Worker I made $30,000 in overtime in 2016 and Position No. 392, Police Officer I made
$40,000 in overtime in 2016 and I just think with a little better management, we can perhaps
get more done during the regular working hours. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I guess the same question applies as to the last cut
when it comes to collective bargaining we know that some of these premiums are negotiated
and arbitrated so I am not sure if we are coming into the same legality question and decision.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This may be a question for Police. I think it is
based on discretionary versus non-discretionary.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a fiscal question and it pertains to both of
these items. The holiday pay is a contract item, but for me the question is, was there a lapse?
I would like to see what the lapses in these line items were over the last few years like in
regular overtime was there a lapse. In other words, at the end of the year, was there any
leftover money in overtime or holiday pay? I am not sure if you can even answer that right
now, but somebody should be able to get relatively quickly. That is the question. Unlike the
Standard of Conduct, this is reducing the holiday pay, obviously, if there was a $200,000
lapse then I can support this. If there was a $900,000 lapse in regular overtime at the end of
the last fiscal year, then it is a lot easier, but without knowing those numbers, it is hard for
me to determine if it is even practical or not.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ROY A. ASHER, Assistant Chief: Roy Asher, for the record, Assistant Chief for the
Patrol Services Bureau. The Patrol Services Bureau, we are the bulk of the overtime as far
as we are "manning" the streets, if you will. All of our overtime is based on the needs. We do
not put people out there just to collect overtime. It is to fill in the gaps of shortages whether
it be people on leave, hurt, vacation, and so forth. As far as the holidays, if it is a holiday, it
is overtime and that is by the collective bargaining agreement. We do have built into the
collective bargaining agreement that we can force holidays off, meaning that they are off,
they do not come to work. We man our ten (10)beats with three (3) supervisors, on occasions
because of the schedule, we will have an extra man and on a normal day he is working an
additional beat, but if it is a holiday that extra man is forced off and he does not get the
holiday pay. We do take steps to curtail our overtime.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, so what I am hearing is that the holiday
overtime is a contracted amount.
Mr. Asher: Correct.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: But the regular overtime is...
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 65 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Asher: Is on a need basis.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Council Chair Rapozo, do you have any
more questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: No. Scott just showed me the lapse from the
Department last fiscal year was $463,000, but that is everything. I am assuming the
Department had to make transfers throughout the year from unexpended salaries. I am not
sure if went to overtime. I know one thing, you folks did not come to the Council for more
money for overtime, so I am assuming that money came from somewhere else.
Mr. Asher: I believe a lot of it comes from unexpended
salaries because of our staff shortages.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you know what the actual overtime number
was last year?
Mr. Asher: Not off hand.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not talking about holiday. Holiday, you can
kind of figure that one out because we only have so many holidays a year, but on the regular
discretionary overtime.
MICHAEL M. CONTRADES, Deputy Chief of Police: For the record, Michael
Contrades. Assistant Chief Asher is correct, we have not returned overtime money. The
moneys returned is probably a combination of unexpended salaries as well as other areas
that were not expended. As an example, autopsies, we return money probably every year for
that and that is a good thing. That means we did not have that bad of a year for autopsies,
but that is one example of an area that we return money in. As far as I am aware, we have
expended all of our overtime moneys and we utilize unexpended salaries to cover whatever
needs to be made up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do you have the number of what the overtime
expenditures were fiscal year 2016-2017? Anybody have an idea?
Mr. Contrades: Off hand, I do not want to say, but I believe we
presented that in our last presentation of the expenditures of overtime over the past three
(3) or four (4) years, I believe.
Council Chair Rapozo: So the overtime line item that you had was not
sufficient, you had to transfer?
Mr. Contrades: Right. If we are fully staffed, then perhaps some
of that overtime would go down because we would not have to backfill, but one of things to
understand is that we cannot control workers' compensation, we cannot control an officer
being injured in the line of duty and being out for months, and we cannot control sick leave.
We try to with fitness and wellness programs, but people get ill and somebody has to cover
especially in patrol and cover their beat, so that is part of the problem. In terms of holidays
and I think it was mentioned earlier, we run with minimal staff. We force people off, but by
contract, you cannot do that two times in a row. Also, by contract on your first day back, it
is considered your holiday and so we have even taken a look at that and making sure that we
are running minimum on those days too to try and avoid paying holiday overtime as much as
we can. The big chunk of overtime is holiday pay.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 66 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: What you just said is the first day back after a
holiday or a vacation is considered overtime?
Mr. Asher: Our officers have a rotating day off, they work five
(5) days and three (3) days off, nine (9) hour shifts. When the holiday falls on their normal
day off, the first day back is a paid overtime because by collective bargaining, they are not
penalized because the holiday fell on their day off.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa and then
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am looking at 2010 and 2011, if you were here
during that time, but the budget basically stayed the same in 2010 and 2011. It went up only
by $300,000 and if I look at the pay scale on that year, 2010 and 2011, there were 6% raises
by the officers. How was the budget maintained to stay even with the prior years' even
though our officers received 6% raises during that year? What was cut that year?
Mr. Contrades: I was not here at that time as far as
administrative-level to know the overall budget. I do know that with the raises every year,
that is compounding, right, and the raises keep going up. When you have overtime and you
have a certain amount, that has to increase as well because you are paying at a higher rate.
We have controlled it as best as we can. We have done a lot of innovative things that we have
explained previously and we are doing the best to minimize overtime.
Councilmember Kagawa: This year's budget, the current year that we are
living in went up $1,100,000 and this year...well actually it was 5.8% for last year's pay raise
and with the Standard of Conduct and everything. I do not know if this year's one is going to
be three and a half or whatever, plus the Standard of Conduct, why in last year's one it only
went up $1,100,000 and this year will be $2,600,000. It is $1,500,000 more than the prior
year.
Mr. Contrades: I could not answer that because that is not what
our numbers say. I need to go and see what you are talking about and figure that out. My
understanding is that we are on a decline as far as the amount of overtime that we have been
expending.
Councilmember Kagawa: The 2017 budget was $31,300,000, the 2018
proposed budget is $33,900,000 and that is how I got $2,600,000. I just subtracted.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For the entire budget?
BRYSON M. PONCE, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigative Services Bureau: I can
answer that question. If you look at the years that were put on the board about the steadiness
of the contract, SHOPO negotiated their first big contract with 4% across the board, which
was pretty steady. Then, they had a four (4) year contract with 6% across the board, which
was pretty steady as far as that big number ticket item for salaries. In this past contract,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 67 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
the negotiated a staggered contract for four (4) years, which every six (6) months they got
incremental raises with the big end of the tail raises coming in, in the last two (2) years of
the contract.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As far as looking at the regular overtime, which
includes overtime and holiday from last year's budget to this year, has not changed. Any
further questions for Police while they are up here on this item? No. Any discussion or
comments on this cut. Councilmember Yukimura.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the Police Department has really tried to
control their overtime and that is commendable. I think also though that cutting overtime is
a good way to be able to drop the tax...to not include the tax rate in this budget and then if
we decide not to go for the pay raises, they will have money in their budget to cover overtime.
One needs to see that the pay raises affect other items in your budget, in the Police budget,
as well as items in the County's overall budget. I think this is a more flexible way to address
our concerns about overall compensation and coordinate it with our decision making on the
pay increases and make the decision we have to make in this budget session on the tax rate.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? We can decrease it, but if they come
back for a money bill later...
Councilmember Yukimura: They will not have to.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, I cannot predict that. It is a risk we take
sitting here to know whether or not if we cut their budget by $1,100,000 that they are not
going to come back for more money. It just comes to a comfortable level. I have seen police
try to manage their overtime and of course, there are times they just cannot help it—an
employee calls in sick, someone needs to fill that position, they cannot short the position, and
that is overtime for that police officer. We did ask questions about salaries. They had, I think,
twelve (12) to fifteen (15) vacancies and they provided information on how they want to fill it
and hopefully that will reduce some of the overtime that we see. Again, my intention again,
not to have to take from the Reserve Fund because if we are taking from the Reserve, then
we are basically saying we did not cover our expenses in our budget. I just want to nail that
point in. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the decision on the pay increases will come
in the early part of the fiscal year and the overtime budget will still be...I mean the overall
Police budget will have a lot of flexibility in terms of meeting overtime needs. I think this is
a more flexible way and you would not have to take from the Reserve if you decide not to give
the pay raises. But if you do decide to do the pay raises, then you are going to have to take
from the Reserve, which really shows how things are interconnected.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I would like to amend my motion, actually, to take
out the holiday cut of$200,000.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend the preceding motion to cut the Kaua`i
Police Department Chief's Office funding in the amount of nine hundred thousand
dollars ($900,000) from Regular Overtime — Overtime only, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 68 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The total for the cut is $900,000. Again, I think if
you look at the audit, Police lapsed $400,000 last year, actual to budget. I know we did
transfer some money from salaries and we saw the transfers come through on that transfer
sheet. Just something to consider. They have some vacant salaries this year, but they are
using that to...again, they said they are planning to fill it so they will not have that flexibility
this year. Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: As far as the vacant salaries, how much vacancies
do you have?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Contrades: Total or just police sworn?
Councilmember Brun: Police sworn.
Mr. Contrades: I believe it is fifteen(15), but we are in the process
right now we have seven (7) people going through that if they pass everything, they will be
hired.
Councilmember Brun: So, we have seven (7) and we are having
trouble...basically you folks can play with that eight openings that you folks are going to get
later on and move that salary around, right?
Mr. Contrades: We are actually in the process of doing another
exam right now and so knock on wood, we are hoping to fill the vacancies. That is what we
have been trying to do all this time.
Councilmember Brun: And that is all entry-level?
Mr. Contrades: Yes.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have retirements anticipated?
Mr. Contrades: Chief keeps a list of eligible retirements and I
could not tell you right now, but we do have a decent size list of people who could go at any
time.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the average retirement number, usually?
On the average, how many per year do you have?
Mr. Contrades: How many leave or actually retire?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Contrades: A couple. Usually a few a year.
Councilmember Yukimura: About two (2) or three (3).
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 69 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Contrades: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: For retirement purposes, does the overtime add on
to the high three (3)?
Mr. Contrades: It depends how many years in the department you
have. There are certain...the newer officers being hired, it does not. The law changed for
them.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: I think we have to acknowledge that...I know we
are talking about the upcoming collective bargaining raises and so forth and I know it is a
Statewide issue. I can tell you at Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC), this maybe
the year that the Counties reject, and not just SHOPO, but the State has put the Counties in
a very tough position, so I do not know if this will be that year. I have to reiterate that when
the Counties, if the arbitrator feels that account is having the ability to pay, they are going
to rule in favor of the unions. Let us not pretend that these union raises are going to go away
— that the seven (7) of us can stop that. We can say, "No," and it goes back to the table. At
some point some arbitrator is going to tell us what we have to do and that is what we are
going to have to do. I just want to make sure we understand that. The other thing too is
knowing that if we cut...based on the budget numbers that we have, the overtime for fiscal
year 2017 was $1,740,000 and if you look at the budget numbers year to date, $1,840,000, so
they are going to go over on the overtime. They are going to go over. Just understand that
this cut may prevent us from raising taxes and I think somebody mentioned that earlier, but
at the end of the day more than likely, they will be back to seek moneys for overtime. I am
not sure and I do not think we have the time today to interrogate the Police Department of
how they plan to reduce their overtime expense by $900,000. I would assume that it is going
to come with a reduction in services in some areas, I do not know where that would be but I
think that would be...if you have an idea of where it would come from, I think that would be
helpful. That is the reality of this thing. If it is going to force the department and I am
assuming the same is going to happen with the Fire Department, I would guess, I do not
know, Councilmember Kagawa? Is it going to force our departments to take a closer look at
the use of overtime, I think that is what the Councilmembers are looking at. Councilmember
Yukimura just shook her head"no," so maybe not her, but I would assume that is what...the
only reason you would reduce overtime is to force better management of the program. Why
else? Is it just because you can? I do not know what Councilmember Yukimura wants,
but...that is the way I look at this. If this was to be reduced, where do you folks see the first
services that would be cut?
Mr. Ponce: Just to give you an example. Overtime is so big in
the Police Department in the Operational side. Last year, we had a murder, and a
murder/suicide that happened in a two-week pay period. Just those two (2) cases alone cost
$52,000 for our Investigative Services personnel. The reason it is such a hard thing to grasp
and get a number on is because you will never know when bank robberies, when homicides,
when these big cases happen. With a smaller amount of overtime in the budget, which is all
paid for because of the contract given when we force our employees to work more than x
amount of hours. The operational side and the challenges to solve these cases will really be
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 70 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
affected because a lot of times I will work the guys until they solve it or finish. Homicides on
Kaua`i, we solved every on for the past seven (7) years. We solved every single bank robbery
we had that happened within the past nine (9) years. Our sex assault case closure has gone
up to about 60%, along with the past three (3) years of our narcotics seizures, this is in the
investigation side, between $4,500,000 to $5,200,000. We just worry about the operational
effect. To be able to do all of these things and still keep our island safe with that big of a cut
of$900,000.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is a very commendable track record and it is
wonderful. In voting to cut overtime, I would not be voting to reduce services because I think
if we do not approve the pay raises, you will have money to cover overtime. If we do approve
the pay raises, it will increase your overtime budget for homicides, your needs for homicides.
Those are the tradeoffs and then if we increased...if we vote to not increase the pay, give the
pay raises and to not raise taxes, you will still have that amount for your overtime to conduct
services as usual. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: How many people will be quitting because that is
extra salaries that will already be in the budget—that you know you folks can play with any
way. Does anybody in here know how much is quitting, moving, retiring, so that we know
and we can vote on this? That is extra money that is in the budget. If it is $800,000, probably
all of them are making $100,000 and that would justify the $900,000 cut because you will
have it in salaries anyway.
Mr. Contrades: As of right now, we are not aware of anybody that
is leaving. You hear things through the grapevine about this person deciding to go here or
there, but all those types of resignations or notifications comes through the Chiefs Office and
at this time, we do not have any and so I am not aware of anybody that is going to be leaving.
Nobody has submitted their intent to retire and so right now, we do not have any.
Councilmember Brun: Nothing?
Mr. Contrades: Not right now.
Councilmember Brun: Nothing on the desk right now?
Mr. Contrades: Not to my knowledge, no.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: You never really know until the end of the year
how many retirements you have or departures as your PowerPoint shows too. Some people
just leave.
Mr. Contrades: We have had people just up and leave and just
decided that they are done and so that is not something we can anticipate.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, that is true. I think the best thing you can go
on is an average per year and without knowing for sure what will actually happen.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 71 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion on this? I just want to
bring one more thing up. I know Council Chair Rapozo mentioned about our Reserve and the
union seeing that amount, we did pass a resolution and if we did want to solid it up, we could
pass an ordinance and not allow the money to be raided by the unions. Again, you look at it,
that is our savings. That is the money we had built up for emergencies and for anything else.
If we do not pass a budget that covers our expenses, we will continue to raid that until it goes
to zero and then when it goes to zero and when that goes to zero, we are absolutely completely
broke. We have no backup money, we have no money, and we will have to face the
inevitability of increases taxes. When you look at this, we are looking at...what puts us, the
County, in the best financial position, the most fiscally responsible position? For me as we
are going through the budget is, we have an appropriate fund Reserve Fund,we pass a budget
that is balanced, and we continue to move forward and we hold tight on not letting people
raid the Reserve budget. It is just like somebody in the public working—they know their
expenses; rent, mortgage, and they cannot cover it. Their savings are going to zero (0) and
that is what we do if we continue to raid our Reserves. That is all I am going to say about
that. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. We had extensive sessions on the
importance of long-range planning and fiscal integrity. If the arbitrators are going to force
the County to violate best budgeting practices, that is something that is going to have to be
an issue in arbitration. Look at the State and where it is in, in its budget and it is that bad
fiscal position that is affecting all of us in so many different ways. If the unions want us to
engage in bad budgeting practices, so be it, but that does make it difficult for us to have our
finances in good shape to pay future raises or even to pay for positions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? We will take a roll call
vote on the cut of$900,000 to regular overtime. Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would just like to ask Councilmember Kagawa if
he would consider lowering that amount. I am just looking at the number from last year and
it is $463,000 and...
Councilmember Kagawa: What number will it take to get your vote, Council
Chair?
Councilmember Brun: I was going to introduce something if this one does
not pass.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, I want to be realistic and I want to be able
to not be back here in six (6) months or ten (10) months. It is so different. I cannot help but
to think about the old days when the overtime ran out, the overtime ran out for the Police
Department—it was over. I know Roy, you remember this, and maybe Mike. It was done, you
comp time for the rest of your fiscal year, there was no opportunity to come back for extra
money. It is just a different time today. Now, today is different. I do not know what that real
number is. You just said Bryson and it was very compelling and it made me think about some
things.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Contrades: Chair, as far as forcing comp, we are no longer
allowed to do that because of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit that occurred
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 72 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
several years ago. If an employee chooses pay, then we have to pay. As far as the lapse, I
was told earlier that KPD lapsed $1,300 in overtime last year?
Council Chair Rapozo: $1,300?
Mr. Contrades: $1,300.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: But you had a lot of transfers though? I guess
what I am looking at is the Department lapse was $463,000 and I know at the end of last
year there was a transfer...I think the money for the cars was transferred. There was a lot
of late year transfers, I think we see that a lot from the Departments and I am not saying
that is not...I mean if you can get something brought this year instead of next year, great. I
guess my point is that you have the funds somewhere in the Department that can be
transferred over to your overtime account, then I think that is...and of course the option to
come back here is always yours.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to reiterate that we have options to
cover overtime, but we do have tough choices to make.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know what other options we have.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Are we voting on this and then we can take
another proposal right after?
Council Chair Rapozo: We can take the vote and then maybe
Councilmember Brun could come up with an amended version, I am not sure.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Roll call vote.
The motion to amend the preceding motion to cut funding in the Kaua`i Police
Department, Chiefs Office, in the amount of nine hundred thousand dollars
($900,000) from Regular Overtime — Overtime only was then put, and carried
unanimously.
The motion to cut funding in the Kauai Police Department, Chiefs Office, in the
amount of nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) from Regular Overtime —
Overtime only was then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Yukimura TOTAL— 3,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Kawakami, Rapozo, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails, 3:4.
Councilmember Brun: I was going to do it across the board and I had a
proposal separate for Police. Hearing the things I am hearing now, it was only for 15%, which
was $115,000. Seeing that we were within the Police Department, they were over by
$460,000, I am going to amend this to show that we reduced it by $400,000. It is on the
regular overtime, which they could always transfer moneys anyway to make up for it, so since
we had that much of a lapse last year, I am going to amend to reduce it by $400,000.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 73 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Brun moved to cut funding in the Kaua`i Police Department, Chief's
Office, in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) from Regular
Overtime —Overtime, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments on this $400,000?
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I am just very hesitant to...I commend these
decisions, they are very commendable because they are not popular, but I am very hesitant
to make these types of cuts to public safety just because of the unknown, unintended
consequences that may come. It is not like cutting overtime in Parks & Recreation where we
may have a park that the grass grows a little too long. I mean there are some serious
unintended consequences that have come to other cities and municipalities that have played
around with overtime budgeting. I am just very hesitant to make any of these cuts unless
there is some sort of assurances that this is not going to impact the public safety and
wellbeing of our community. I commend the actions, but I just like to be forthright and say,
"I am not going to be supporting this initiative as well." Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Taking this $400,000 out of your budget, will it
affect the safety and welfare of the residents of the island of Kaua`i?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Contrades: We are going to have to take a look to see whether
or not services need to be reduced or not. We do not pad our budget, right, what we submit is
what we need and my understanding is that overtime was calculated to show what we would
need within the coming year, estimated of course. A $400,000 hit would be difficult. We do
not know...like I mentioned earlier, you have line items like...and I will use the same
example of autopsy. You do not know how many autopsies you will use throughout the year,
so if everything goes well and we have that extra money sitting there and we are allowed to
move it from operations to salaries, we would probably be alright, but you just do not know
and that is the problem.Again, we tried very hard to control our overtime and to keep it down
and we will continue to do that this next coming year, but I would have to go back, sit down,
crunch the numbers with our staff and what kind of impact it would have on our operations.
Councilmember Brun: We look at the overtime budget and it is
$2,000,000 by itself, so it is the place to go instead of taking $10,000 from here, $15,000 from
here, until you get to your number. You folks can always move money; you folks have done
it every year. You folks returned $460,000 last year, so I do not think it is a big hit as it is.
Like what was said, you folks can come back if we do need to, but I just think $400,000 is a
reasonable number because that is what we got back last year from our budget and then we
added $2,000,000 more to this budget, which is an extra $2,500,000. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: You just have to look at the numbers and come to
a judgement. Every cut up there was not supported by the Administration. This cut is no
different. Last year the budget increased by $1,100,000 over the prior year. This year the
proposal is to raise it by $2,600,000 over the prior year, so you could say that they still...if
this cut goes through, it is $2,200,000 more than last year, that is $1,100,000 more than last
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 74 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
year. The growth grew by $1,100,000 even if this cut goes through. What does it take every
year to keep the public safe? Is it a growing budget that is not smaller than the prior years
and this is a growing budget? We are still growing by$2,100,000 even if this cut goes through.
I think at some point, if you want to reach that point where we do not want to raise taxes, we
have to make tough decisions. It was easy for the Mayor to submit a budget that increased
property taxes, but the problem is, does the public have the ability to survive these increases?
We talk about how our Reserve is great and it is 30% of our budget just in case we have a
rainy day. We are talking about taxing people that do not have any in their Reserve, so I
think we need to put ourselves in their shoes as we consider whether the Mayor's $3,600,000
real property taxes is worthy or not.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Just let me just put this
into perspective. A $400,000 lapse in the Police budget of$31,000,000 is like a 1% lapse in
their budget, which is not a big amount of lapse money. That is how tight of a budget we are
talking about. Is $400,000 going to make or break, which is pretty close. They are almost
budgeting on actual, so for me, I am not going to be supporting the cut. I think it is really
close. Of course they are doing everything in their power to try and reduce their cost and
when we are talking about a 1% lapse, that is not very much leeway. Councilmember
Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: It could just be that I am suffering through post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) being at the legislature through the great recession, where
we ended up making cuts with the hatchet by the end and we were faced with all these
unintended consequences where we cut DLNR so some officers could not get overtime.
Venders were not even getting paid for those wildfires in Koke`e, so it could just be a symptom
that I am going through. I have witnessed good intentions, but unfortunately unintended
consequences. There is no way to forecast if we get hit with a natural disaster. There is no
way to forecast and that is why I am hesitant with public safety and I am not saying that just
because we are not supporting these cuts, that we are supporting a property tax increase,
that could be farther from the truth. I just said that this is an exercise and as we go along,
by the time we are at the end of this book with this exercise, then we are going to figure out
what we need to do. Before we start jumping to property tax increases, we should just go
through the exercise—we are going to have three days and we can stay here until midnight,
by the third day if need be, no big deal—we have done it before. I just say that when you take
a look at the meat and potatoes of County business, infrastructure, public safety, those are
paramount, I am just saying that I am very hesitant to make cuts to any kind of meat and
potatoes of County business before we look at the other departments. Maybe in this booklet,
we should have put them in the end, but here we are.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, these are difficult decisions that we have
to deal with. To one thing though, I was going to hold it until later, but when we look at
cutting$3,000,000, I do not think we cut $3,000,000 in the past two(2)years that I have been
here. I started looking at what were our options as far as real property tax increases and we
do offer a lot of tax breaks to people who cannot afford their real property taxes. We offer low
income tax breaks,we offer exemptions, and we offer age exemptions. I am just throwing that
out there for later, but again, we can vote it up or down and then we see what our end number
is, and we move from there. I hope to not be here for three (3) days straight, but it is our job
and this is probably one of the most important things we do all year. The vote on the floor is
to reduce regular overtime by $400,000. Can I get a roll call vote, please?
The motion to cut funding in the Kaua`i Police Department, Chiefs Office, in the
amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) from Regular Overtime —
Overtime was then put, and carried by the following vote:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 75 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL— 5,
AGAINST MOTION: Kawakami, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion passes 5:2.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes. Any further cuts to Police? Okay.
We will move on to the Fire Department. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: My first cut is to cut Position No. 630, Assistant
Chief, and related benefits for a total of$159,734.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut Position No. 630, Assistant Chief, and related
benefits in the Kaua`i Fire Department — Administration, in the amount of one
hundred fifty-nine thousand seven hundred thirty-four dollars ($159,734), seconded
by Councilmember Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments on this position? I
know we had a lot of discussion on it during our budget. It is a new position.
Councilmember Kawakami: It is a vacant new position.
Council Chair Rapozo: Who seconded?
Councilmember Yukimura: I did.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments on this cut? Any
discussion? If not, we will take a roll call. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I would ask the Chief to come up.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ROBERT WESTERMAN, Fire Chief: For the record, Robert Westerman, Fire
Chief.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just as I had asked the rest of the Department
Heads with my position cuts if he had an opportunity to justify the position.
Mr. Westerman: I was not on that original list, so I guess I am a
little shocked, but I guess I am not shocked. Did you receive my justification that I had
responded across, after the first budget?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Westerman: I really do not have much more to add to that. The
position as far as I am concerned is very, very important to the Fire Department. We have
discussed several times about how to reduce some costs and as if you remember in that report
that I sent you, a huge part of the overtime cost for the Administration is because we do not
have this position. Those functions still have to happen. If I do not have the Assistant Chief
(AC) then the Battalion Chiefs (BCs) and the Deputy, who of course does not get overtime,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 76 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
and then other Captains doing other work have to pick up the slack. I cannot give you a
dollar amount, but it will reduce some of the overtime cost that we currently have for that
and hopefully it will help improve the safety of the Firefighters because we have a senior
department member in operations that will be monitoring that closely every day because that
is not something I can do besides doing my regular job. For the most part, it is to help reduce
overtime and get projects done and push through on a daily basis because the AC will not
work shifts, the AC will be on a forty (40) hour workweek and it goes to the safety of the
department and making sure that one of our most dangerous areas of the department is
monitored closely every single day. This is not a new position. This is a reallocation of an
existing position. You will be eliminating a position that I already currently have in the
department for that.
Council Chair Rapozo: I apologize because I do not remember, but the
position that is being reallocated, what is the net increase?
Mr. Westerman: It is about $54,000 to $55,000, if I remember, and
maybe even as high as $70,000 with the benefit differences.
Council Chair Rapozo: So that net savings you are saying?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I better not say net savings because this position
is higher.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess the net...
Mr. Westerman: The net increased cost.
Council Chair Rapozo: Would be $55,000?
Mr. Westerman: $75,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Chief, I thought you said you could not, but would
you be able to give us some cost savings on the overtime that you are talking about?
Mr. Westerman: I thought I had brought it with me. Do you have
the answer that came across?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We probably have it downstairs. If we kept all the
hundred answers we had from everybody, you probably would not be able to see our face. Can
someone print that form out, for the Chief too, so that he has it as a reference?
Councilmember Kagawa: I wanted to go over my analysis too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Is it along these same lines, Councilmember
Kagawa?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 77 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: No. When I proposed my cut, I just wanted to
show that we got some overview as to what the Fire Department budget looks like over the
past ten years. Some of the overtime we pulled, since the staff did the research.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, and they are printing out the answers that
you sent to us.
Councilmember Kagawa: This is a ten-year analysis from 2008 to 2018, I
will call it the Carvalho Administration. Budgets went up from $13,800,000 to this year's
budget of$31,600,000, an increase of about $18,000,000. The second slide, these are some of
the overtime hours that I pulled and you can see that the BC—in addition to the big salary
already, almost $40,000, Position No. 610. Position No. 753, Fire Fighter III at $21,000. Fire
Captain Position No. 722 at $35,000. Position No. 681, Fire Captain at $40,000. It is
becoming a position for the rich. I think we just have to look at sustainability. That is what
I am looking for. Cutting a position that was not there the prior year are reasonable cuts and
that is all this is. It is reducing a position. It is a "nice to have" but right now with the budget
the way it is, to me, is not a "need to have." Every cut that we make is going to be disputed
and it is understandable. If we were on the other side, we would feel the same way. Are we
going to address it and try and control the spending or not and I am willing to try. The 2017-
2018 budget is proposed to go up by $2,000,000. Any cuts that we make, remember that
number, that it is still going up over the prior year if you just subtract $2,000,000 from
whatever we cut or do not cut. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Chief, did you get the form that you submitted?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are on the position of the Assistant Fire Chief.
Any further questions from the members regarding this position? Councilmember
Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Did I hear correctly that some of the purpose of
the AC Fire Chief is to eliminate some of the overtime that was just presented to us?
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Can you give us a tangible number that we can
work confidently from is how much that will eliminate from the overtime that was just
presented to us?
Mr. Westerman: No. My estimates are around $10,000 to $15,000
for each of the top three (3) positions and the reason I say that is if you look at page 5, you
will see all the additional duties that the BCs have. Their primary responsibilities respond
to fires, emergencies, and support the Firefighters every day. As you can see there is a list of
about twenty-eight (28) additional duties that they have that are significant. Besides
managing the bureaus, which, okay, that is acceptable to a point because the bureaus can
operate on their own and the main bureau themselves, the Operations Bureau than gets
shortchanged because he is not out there operating with the Operations Bureau—he is inside
doing something else doing other projects. I can only estimate at this time at about what
that is and that is only because it really takes away...we talked about overtime. If you look
at all the overtime and going back to Councilmember Kagawa's slide, that highest individual,
part of that is the equivalent of rank-for-rank and then beyond that probably half of that is
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 78 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
all additional duty work that the individual is doing. His increase in overtime is not that
number, but it is a little less. Does that make sense?
Councilmember Kawakami: Yes.
Mr. Westerman: We did an evaluation of all of our positions for
overtime. All of our overtime is only about $205,000 in the department. I know people keep
saying it is $2,000,000 to $3,000,000, well it is only about $205,000...we had the discussion
about what is or what is not controllable. We cannot control premiums. Holiday overtime is
there and they are entitled to the holiday overtime and they are entitled to the rank-for-rank
and you take all of those things away and regular overtime for the Firefighters is very
minimal. Some Firefighters in some cases are five hours through the entire year they had
an overtime where they had to stay over for a day. Some of them might stay longer, again,
because of additional duties that Firefighters are assigned, they might have to do an overtime
on a day after their shift. Going back to the AC, the AC will help one by taking some of that
overtime away from the BCs and then hopefully it probably even could filter in to some of the
other positions, an example, our Communications Captain has to travel fairly frequently to
go to O`ahu as part of the (inaudible), so if we can turn that over to the AC, one, we are taking
that overtime away from that individual. The program is monitored by the AC, giving him
the additional duty, the Captain can still function here as the head of our communications
committee, but then the AC will take over some of those positions. The same thing for all of
their BC positions. That is the reduction of overtime. Do I have a number for that right now?
No. Do I have some estimates? Yes, maybe $40,000 to $50,000.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Just because of what the story you told us to
retain this position and look at the reduction of overtime or cut the overtime, and I just
wanted to confirm with you if you had a choice what your preference would be?
Mr. Westerman: Reduce the overtime.
Councilmember Chock: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I was talking to a Councilmember from Maui and
he did an inquiry to Personnel in Maui County and they discovered that the highest abusers
of sick and vacation were for the Maui Fire Department. Do we have that problem here where
they are taking it for advantage of collecting overtime with replacements? Is that happening
here and are we addressing it?
Mr. Westerman: I do not see that our sick leave is being abused.
They take sick leave or vacation, we replace them with a rank-for-rank person.
Councilmember Kagawa: But when it happens, I guess with Maui what they
discovered was that it was happening overly frequently when compared to any other
department, including the police, so I was just wondering is that something that we looked
at here?When you see six and replacement and then on the day he is working, he is replacing
somebody else who is sick, I think that is what was happening in Maui's discovery. I am just
wondering is that same thing happening?
Mr. Westerman: I do not think it is.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 79 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. That is what I wanted to hear.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for Fire? Thank you, Fire
Chief.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion prior to us taking the vote?
If not, roll call vote on...I guess I have one question to the introducer, would we want to adjust
the number to account for the difference between the regular position?
Council Chair Rapozo: That cut would be done on a separate sheet, so
there would be a difference, but I think it plays out. Now, if the other one is cut...I am not
sure which position this one is replacing. This is not the true number. The number would be
less. Whatever the difference is...if it is a reallocation. So, we would have to figure that out.
The actual add on this one or the cut is now $118,000.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am sorry, Councilmember Kagawa was the
introducer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, you were looking at me. $118,000 minus of
existing position is what the net cut would be.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not sure what that number would be.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa, do you want to continue
on with the proposal to just cut the total $118,000 or did you want to do the difference?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is going to have to be adjusted because that is...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Because we cannot cut that position.
Councilmember Kagawa: I mean if it does not have the votes...
Council Chair Rapozo: Basically, what your motion is, is to cut that
Position No. 630 and whatever the number comes out to. Position No. 630 is currently in the
budget, right? Yes, with a different name. So, you are cutting that entire position? Right.
So that Firefighter position disappears.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay, are we clear on this cut? So, if we vote for
this cut, we are getting rid of this entire position, Position No. 630.
Council Chair Rapozo: Which is a Firefighter position right now.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to withdraw the motion to cut Position No. 630,
Assistant Chief, and related benefits in the Kaua`i Fire Department—Administration,
in the amount of one hundred fifty-nine thousand seven hundred thirty-four dollars
($159,734) Councilmember Yukimura withdrew the second.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 80 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will see what other cuts we have and then we
can come back to this one or something similar. Any other cuts for the Fire Department?
Councilmember Kagawa: I am just going to go with the regular overtime
cuts that I had made. This comes under the plan "B." I am going to pull it off from the bullets
because we want to stay off the ones that are in the contract. I have a $20,000 cut from
regular overtime in Administration. I have a $30,000 cut from Operations for regular
overtime totaling $50,000 of regular overtime.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut funding in the Kaua`i Fire Department in the
amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from Regular Overtime (multiple divisions
line items), seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us take our ten-minute caption break.
There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:01 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:14 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: The justification is that we believe by what was
said that we could possibly save those amounts in overtime from allowing the AC to move up
from the Firefighter position than I am good with that for now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Chief is here, should we ask him?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: You can ask him questions if you want.
Councilmember Yukimura: How will you be impacted?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Westerman: As I explained, the position of the AC should be
able to take on a lot of the additional duties of the Assistant Chief and the BC and some of
the operations, so taking him out of the Administration and Operations, make sense because
that is where the AC would have the most impact.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: But we did not vote on the Assistant Chief.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It got withdrawn, so we are on this...
Councilmember Yukimura: So we are allowing the position to remain in the
budget, instead of removing the overtime?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Unless you want to cut the Assistant Chief
position at a later time, too, that is up to you. That is what we have on the floor, $50,000 cut.
Any further discussion or questions? We will take a roll call vote.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 81 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
The motion to cut funding in the Kaua`i Fire Department in the amount of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000) from Regular Overtime (multiple divisions line items) was
then put and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Rapozo, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7*,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of County of Kauai, Councilmember
Yukimura was noted as silent, but shall be recorded as an affirmative for the motion.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes. A silent vote is a yes vote for
anybody's information. Any further cuts for Fire and we are going with any division within
the Fire Department. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I wanted for the record to note that we had
already shown that this Council does not believe in cutting the premium pay item before the
contract is ratified before us, so I am not going to be introducing my cut for rank-for-rank,
which I wanted to cut for $1,000,000 and some change. Being that does not have the votes, I
will not be proposing any more cuts to Fire. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else with cuts to Fire? If not,
we will move on. Emergency Management, previously called Civil Defense. Any cuts for
Emergency Management? If not, we will move on. Public Works. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am trying to achieve the amounts needed so that
we do not have to raise the property taxes and we will see if this helps to achieve it, but it is
only going to be an $800,000 cut to the General Fund, but it is cutting out $1,800,000 from
Islandwide Road Resurfacing. It will still leave $3,000,000 in the account. We have not paved
the road for two years and I believe that if Public Works Roads Division comes up with a plan
for additional funding, we will look at it during the regular year if they have good justification
and we can see if we can find the funds at that time. The total cut I have is $1,800,000 and
this is the motion for Islandwide Road Resurfacing, $800,000 from the General Fund to the
Highway Fund and returning $1,000,000 into the Highway Fund balance.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut funding in the Department of Public Works,
Roads Administration in the amount of one million eight hundred thousand dollars
($1,800,000) for Islandwide Resurfacing, contribute $1,000,000 to Highway Fund
Balance, and reduce the Contribution from the General Fund to the Highway Fund
by eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions? I have a question on the
$1,000,000 for the Fund Balance, we are just moving it from being spent and back into the
Fund Balance?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, you are correct. I wanted to make sure that
going forward that there was communication between Public Works and the Council as far
what we are paving, when we are paving, and what kind of job we are doing. I have heard
some disturbing testimony during the presentation by Mr. Renaud that we are going to patch
potholes and I do not know if that changed, but I do not think we should be spending millions
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 82 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
paving potholes. I think if roads are in terrible conditions, we need to repave it because
pothole repairs is exacting as it sounds. It does not last.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just want to clarify, according to the budget
message, we will still have the $1,000,000 increasing with the match to address the main
roads that have been identified such as Olohena, Koloa Road, and so forth. The $3,800,000
that was in addition to that for the island resurfacing, this is what this would be affecting.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So there is not really a cut in the budget?
Councilmember Kagawa: $800,000 from the General Fund.
Councilmember Yukimura: Contribution to the General Fund...you are
cutting it from the General Fund and putting in the Highway Fund?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We had $800,000 from the General Fund going
into the Highway Fund and Councilmember Kagawa is proposing to put that money for roads
and then put it back in the General Fund. That is the $800,000. The $1,000,000 is coming
from the Highway Fund already, so it is money that has lapse in the Highway Fund. It is in
the Highway Fund and they decided to spend it this year.
Councilmember Yukimura: And that is not going to be...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Instead of being put on a project, it is going to be
put back into the Highway Fund and not spent.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so why do we not want our roads to be fixed?
I do not get it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Because in the testimony, number one, they were
not really prepared and we asked what specific roads. We received a listing though now, but
I think going forward it would be better if we had a detailed description of what was going to
happen prior and I think that can occur during the regular Council process in the coming
year. We have moneys to proceed on the major ones. It is sufficient in there and I am just
saying...at one point we had $2,600,000 sitting in the road resurfacing account and we did
not pave anything. We let it build up...$2,400,000, excuse me. We just let it sit in there and
we did not do anything and I think if they come up and they are ready and they present to
us what they need, I think, that would be the appropriate time. I just do not want to give
them a blank check to go and create more bikeways, walkways, and walking paths, when our
roads are in terrible condition. I think we should focus on roads and when and if we do, I
would love to see the bike lanes expanded, walkways expanded, et cetera. I think we need to
focus on roads. It is when we leave moneys in there is when those unexpected things happen
and we find out later that we are getting results that we are not really approving of.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 83 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: But it is earmarked for Islandwide Resurfacing, so
you cannot use it on sidewalks or other things like that. It is for fixing roads. We did not
want them to do the political thing about "this Councilmember says fix that road and that
Councilmember says fix that road," and then the really bad roads where nobody is speaking
for them do not get paved. They have gone through a system of prioritizing based on condition
of road and if the bad roads do not get paved in the proper order, they are going to get worse
and need reconstruction, so we are looking at a bigger bill. It seems to me that this proposal
would interrupt that process. I think the $2,400,000 was agreed upon the accumulation every
two (2) years of the highway moneys so that we could optimize the use of it with economies
of scale and everything. I am really hesitant with...we need $10,000,000 a year to actually
get to a preventive maintenance level of repaving and the further we delay it, the bigger the
cost and the more the complaints. I cannot support this right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: I understand.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: When we talk to our constituents, one of the
biggest things is road resurfacing. I know the frustration because even at the State level
there was extreme frustration with what we call"the backlog" of highway improvements, but
when we did the digging as to what the delays were, a lot of it was a delay of federal matching
funds. A lot of the delay was caused to bid protest between contractors. We had procurement
issues, so even though we were frustrated with Department of Transportation (DOT) as far
as the backlog in highway improvements, a lot of it was just the process and procedure and
the parameters that were set up by policymakers. I just want to make sure that...I know we
get frustrated and our constituents get frustrated because they see the need to resurface the
roads and it does not happen in a timely fashion, but I would like to make sure that it is
caused by other unforeseen circumstances like bid protests or procurement issues, or
environmental assessments or even running into burials at certain junctures and it is not
just what we think is deficiency in the department when it might not be a deficiency in the
department. Maybe we can get the Administration to come up to tell us what the cause of
this backlog is in the road repair before we make a broad sweeping cut.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LYLE TABATA, Acting County Engineer: Good morning.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Good morning, Lyle.
Mr. Tabata: Good afternoon. See what happens when you do
not workout. I felt that I would be fresh for you folks, so I did not workout this morning.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For the viewers, it is not morning. It is very late
in the evening.
Mr. Tabata: I hear Councilmember Kagawa loud and clear. In
my effort to try and improve our communication, I have recently been informed that we have
taken our present Islandwide Resurfacing to contract, that is planned, and I hope to start in
the next month and a half. I apologize, I have so many things going on today. We are
planning to resurface and reconstruct a combination of about four point three miles of
roadway. To answer Councilmember Kawakami's comment about what is taking us so long,
so there is the federal highway projects, which are collector roads and then our local road
process. Roads Division takes care of strictly the local road resurfacing and reconditioning.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 84 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Engineering runs the collector road process which is our 20% local to 80% federal aid match.
With the federal aid process, as Councilmember Kawakami spoke to, it comes with a lot of
attachments and requirements and it is a long drawn out process and we hope to take
$1,000,000 of the available funds to then be our 20% match to receive another $4,000,000
now for a total of$5,000,000 to address our collector roads. I recently just sent information
and updates of our collector roads that we are looking at are Koloa Road, Maluhia Road,
Olohena Road, and Kukui Street. We have estimates there and if you add up the estimates,
they are way more than what money we are going to have available, however, in the
process...so this is what the Roads Division also does is we select the roads based on a
sampling of the amount of money, we start with the money. We have a set amount of money
that we get approved and then we change the roads based on the highest priority as
Councilmember Yukimura mentioned. We are trying to stay and do a minimal amount of
mobilization and demobilization because that is added cost and we feel that if we can move
from major sectors of the island and accomplish our needs and have the most efficient use of
the money that we have available, then we will move towards recovery of our road resurfacing
backlog. Right now, if I can circulate my present list, you will notice that we have parts of
central Kaua`i and majority on east Kauai. The list that you were shared is mostly on the
westside and central Kauai. However, the collectors themselves are the roads that have been
most problematic and information that have been shared by Council receiving complaints,
Mayor's Office, and even directly to Public Works. Those are the ones that we hare prioritized
and I believe that we all have agreed on these four collector roads that was mentioned. We
can still accomplish our goals by going after the roads that we have planned in the
Attachment 1, that was recently shared with you, and when I am ready, as Councilmember
Kagawa pointed out, we will come to him and ask for the extra money that we need. If
available, it is up to your body to supply to us, but in the meantime, we need to build some
confidence and I understand that. I am willing to work closely with Councilmember Kagawa
in accomplishing the needs for the community in that manner.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami and then
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Kawakami: I have to tell you that I share some of the similar
concerns and I have to preface this by saying that I have been a proponent of bike paths,
sidewalks, and complete streets, but I want to be assured that this money that is
appropriated for Islandwide Resurfacing does not necessarily leave any room for it to be
reallocated to some of these other projects?
Mr. Tabata: No, these will be directly to reconstruct or
resurface, what we call overlay, of the present road resurfaces. Some instances, we want to
install shoulders so that we have a broader surface toward water off because water has been
found to be the worst enemy to our roads. We would be doing some shoulder work so that we
provide the proper drainage so that we do not have ponding on our road edges and in some
cases we want to install some drainage ditches, made out of concrete, to tighten up the
roadway surface because some of our collector roads do not even have shoulders. We would
like to make some engineering changes and improvements to some of the roadways.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock and then Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Chock: Did I hear correctly that you said that the
$5,000,000, you do not think you can actually accomplish those collector roads and you would
have to take some of...
w .
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 85 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Tabata: No, we will take $1,000,000 as a County match to
get $4,000,000 of collector roads. We are in the process right now, we have a consultant
procurement out that we need to get to help us develop these roads because these roads are
a lot more detailed, as was mentioned by Councilmember Kawakami, as to the process to get
the 80% match.
Councilmember Chock: Are we confident that the $5,000,000 will cover
the proposed roads that you have identified?
Mr. Tabata: We will do as much as we can on those roads, yes.
I am not going to give a 100%coverage from end to end, but we are selecting the worst sections
and we are going to resurface those, and I believe you can call it phase one.
Councilmember Chock: In addition to the cut that is being proposed here,
you are in agreement that what would can happen is that you could come back for those funds
when you are more ready for the Islandwide Resurfacing?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: First I would like to thank Lyle for his response
and yes, what we are going to do is if they are ready with a good project, no time would be
waste. We will work together and make sure we get whatever plans they have "pronto," but
the other thing is I am willing to amend it to just include $800,000 taking from the General
Fund to the Highway Fund and we could leave the other $1,000,000 in. My main purpose is
to try and get the $800,000 from the Highway Fund so that we can reduce the amount of real
property tax increases that will be needed to balance the budget. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Then we are coming back with a bill, we are going
to need a bill in this fiscal year 2018, so if we do not raise taxes, we will not have that money.
You cannot come back to get it.
Mr. Rezentes: If you reduce the revenue to fund the $1,800,000,
if you reduce the revenue source that will fund the $1,800,000, yes, you are not going to have
$1,800,000 of that.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is what I mean and we are making this list
to see if we can get to three point six to lower taxes, but then you cannot count of having the
revenue in the fiscal year to go back to and say, "We need it."
Mr. Rezentes: I believe what Councilmember Kagawa
mentioned was $800,000 is the General Fund portion of the $1,800,000, so the remainder,
$1,000,000, is from the Highway Fund.
Councilmember Yukimura: And that would stay there.
Mr. Rezentes: That will sit there, correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 86 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Rezentes: The $800,000 portion is the one that would relate
to whatever income stream you place towards it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because the real property taxes make up our
General Fund, along with TAT.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the Administration on
the roads? They did give us a list of the roads that they wanted to take care of based on the
amount that they have available. Councilmember Kagawa.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, I want to amend my cut to just cut the
$800,000 from the General Fund.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to amend the preceding motion to instead cut funding
by eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) for Islandwide Resurfacing in the
Highway Fund and reduce the contribution from the General Fund to the Highway
Fund by eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000), seconded by Councilmember
Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So the proposal is to cut the $800,000 that was
going to roads from the General Fund.
Councilmember Kagawa: And they will have a remaining balance of
$4,000,000. $1,000,000 which is going to the match and $3,000,000 for the rest, which is a
lot....we have not paved $3,000,000 in roads in a while and that would be nice.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? Councilmember
Brun and then Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Brun: I just hope that we have a plan going forward
because I sent out a memorandum about a small patch in Waimea, which we could do it
because it was a safety issue, which the baseyard could have done it themselves, so I am
struggling with this right now. Are we going to wait until that one cost us $400,000 and then
we are going to fix it? I just hope we have a plan and we are going to use this money wisely
and get it done.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe we have a plan that is a ten-year or a
fifteen-year plan and that was a requirement, so that we could find out how much we need. I
think we need a minimum of $10,000,000 a year. As you know the Highway Fund is the
logical way to fund it, it is a user fund so the more that people use, the more they would pay
because they are the ones who damage it the most. I was willing to consider part of the GET
to go for roads as well as for the bus and that might come up, but I think ultimately because
GET is an excise tax, we need to go back to the users to at least have them to a share of the
funding. Those big trucks are commercial trucks that cause the most damage to the road.
They get to deduct it as a business expense or pass it on to the people who are needing the
roads and so it seems really wrong in the long run to fix the roads with money from a
regressive source that really burdens our poor families the most.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The proposal has nothing about GET or taxes. It
is just $800,000.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 87 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: But if we use it to not pass Real Property Taxes, if
the GET becomes available, then that will become a source of money.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any further comments? I think as far as I
am concerned, I really want to see the money spent. One of the main concerns that we have
been getting during our campaigning, and just even when we are in Council is roads. We all
know we have a big road problem. Here we are putting some money into it and even the
$800,000 in General Fund, I want to get roads done. I think the community demands it. It is
not the amount that we would like to get done. Ideally, we would like to get more roads done,
but of course we are hindered by the amount of money we have and for me, I want to see the
Administration get all of these roads done, the total $4,800,000. If we had TAT, I would have
loved to see the Administration do the $6,000,000, but that is not an option right now. For
me, I am going to vote no on the cut because I want to see roads get done and I want to see
the Administration get it done. This will build into a conversation on GET. If GET ever
becomes available again, how well the Administration can get these roads done in a timely
manner, will determine whether a GET has any chance or not because I can tell you if this
four point eight is passed or not passed, even if it is just $4,000,000 and those roads do not
get done than I cannot see GET getting done at all. I guess putting their feet to the fire on
this. I am sure they would want us to cut it, than it is less roads they have to do, but I say I
want to see the roads...but again, it is up to the votes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think the Administration wants to say
something.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Rezentes: Since you folks were discussing GET, relative to
our road repaving and maintenance program, I just want to say that if nothing comes about
in a special session or whatever...we are talking probably 2020 the closer we get to get at
GET. Right now, the way the bills were presented and the way that the Department of
Taxation would implement it, if something was passed out of the legislature this cycle and
the County approves through legislation or GET, it would not take effect until January 1,
2019. If nothing happens in any special session or whatever and it is revisited next year, we
are likely talking January 1, 2020 before we are able to receive any sort of boost in revenue
to handle our roads on Kaua`i.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to add that we do have a list of the
roads and the money that is expected to be done so if constituents want to ask, we can tell
them these are the roads that are on the list. Any further discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I was thinking out loud and I appreciate this
discussion and Chair, you convinced me, I am going to vote for paving for as much money as
we can to repave our roads because the longer we wait, the more expensive it is going to be.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Even moving forward when we talk about fair
share of who is paying for our roads, I mean we cut the fuel tax, but how are we ensuring
that the electric vehicles are paying also their fair share the usage of our roads and highways.
These are all things that we are contemplating as technology moves us forward. It is almost,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 88 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
as we move forward and we are using less fuel, how do we make up for that loss of revenue
while still moving forward.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think Lyle said it best, he is going to use this
opportunity less the $800,000 to build confidence because exactly what you said, GET is a lot
of money, but if we cannot manage $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, what are we going to do with
$25,000,000? This is a great opportunity and a great test for the Roads Division to show that
it can be done. Convince me that I am wrong. I do not think we can spend $25,000,000 or
$10,000,000 for that matter, so please convince me that I am wrong, use the opportunity, and
build that confidence. That is really where we have to hit. I will be supporting the cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? If not, we will take a roll
call vote. Again, for me, the extra$800,000 from the General Fund...GET is a long way away.
It takes a vote to pass and it is a long way away, so we are using a lot of money from our
Highway Fund that is left over and we are not going to have this type of money in the future
to spend. Probably next year, we will only be able to do a million or two million or whatever
we are budgeted for. For me, I just want roads to get done. Roll call vote.
The motion to amend the preceding motion to cut funding by eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000) for Islandwide Resurfacing and reduce the contribution from the
General Fund to the Highway Fund was then put, and carried unanimously.
The motion to cut funding in the Department of Public Works, Roads Administration
in the amount of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) for Islandwide
Resurfacing and reduce the contribution from the General Fund to the Highway Fund
by eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Kawakami, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further cuts for Public Works?
Councilmember Chock: Just for the record, I did have a cut, but I am not
going to be introducing it. It was part of the Supplemental Budget. I did get an explanation
about the $100,000 for the striping machine. Apparently, our striping machine is obsolete
and broken and unfixable and in order to accomplish any of the roads that we are proposing,
my understanding is that we do need this, therefore I will not be introducing it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: When we do stripe, can we try our best? When the
stripes are just all crooked, it is really embarrassing and I think we should take pride in our
work. I see some of the State highway and how they do it and you can tell when you do not
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 89 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
take pride. I think for the kids, it is a really bad lesson, so when we stripe, let us try our best
and do a good job in trying to make it straight. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Note taken. I believe we have all seen those
stripes before. Any further cuts for the Department of Public Works? If not, we will move
on. Parks & Recreation. Any cuts for the Department of Parks & Recreation?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: This is a Supplemental Budget item, this is to
remove $30,000 for the Historic County Building. This might have come from us, but I am
assuming it is for the lawn outside, but I wanted to get an explanation on this item before
voting on it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is that a motion?
Councilmember Chock moved to cut funding in the Department of Parks & Recreation
— Administration, in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for R&M
Building - Historic County Building Irrigation, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions on this $30,000 for Historic County
Building Irrigation? Councilmember Chock.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LEONARD A. RAPOZO, Director of Parks & Recreation: For the record,
Director for the Department of Parks & Recreation Lenny Rapozo. There is some dialogue
and a request came from this body regarding some of the landscaping here on this side of the
Historic County Building. Parks has not improved any landscaping. We take our charges to
being maintaining whatever is here. In that communication, irrigation was mentioned. In
that communication, $168,000 was listed as irrigation. What I am proposing to do is what we
have done in other parts of this island, like Peter Rayno Park and currently we are working
with the community at Kekaha Fire Park, where we provide the moneys and insolation and
working with the community, the community will be installing the irrigation. I believe the
$30,000 would be more than sufficient to irrigate the lawn of the Historic County Building. I
have reached out to an organization to see if we can partnership. When the process of
scheduling the meeting, they have their event this weekend here at that lawn and that is the
Visitor's Industry Walk. I think the Visitor Industry has a lot of talent and expertise in
probably laying and installing the irrigation, so I am reaching out to them to see if we can
partner together to do this project, so that the reason for the late add.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I support irrigation for the surrounding areas of
this Historic County Building, but you are saying that it is only going to be an irrigation
system for the lawn.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: The front lawn and not along the sides of the
building?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 90 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Rapozo: I put enough money there that if we can irrigate
the entire property, that is what we will do, but we will focus on the lawn first because that
is where most of the use has been with the different, various community events that we had.
Councilmember Yukimura: Lyle talked about (inaudible)—it seems to me that
it might be cheaper to do the entire thing rather than come back and do an increment
afterwards.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, the money that we are requesting is enough
to do the entire lawn if the group can, but my priority would be the front lawn.
Councilmember Yukimura: And you are saying that the group actually
participating in installing the irrigation?
Mr. Rapozo: I have reached out to the Visitor Charity Walk
Committee because that involves a lot of hotels. Year in and year out, the County helps to
co-sponsor their event and I thought this would be a good opportunity to see if they would be
able to reciprocate with their talent to install the irrigation and we provide the money for the
equipment. As we have done at other parks, Peter Rayno, the seniors had done it. They
convinced me that they had the talent to do it. We are currently working with the Rough
Riders Baseball Team out in Kekaha Fire Park to irrigate that park there. That one there, I
believe they have a grant of$19,000, which will irrigate all of the playing fields of the baseball
and football, when we do have it out there for that park. $30,000 should be more than
sufficient for materials for this property.
Councilmember Yukimura: And the design...whether it is pop-up or the long-
term maintenance issues and things like that.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, and normally what the groups would do is
they go to Kaua`i Irrigation and Kauai Irrigation will come to the facility, they will look at
it, and they will do a design for free as long as they buy the supplies from them.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see. After that once it is installed, Parks will
take care of it.
Mr. Rapozo: We maintain it, yes, as we have done at Peter
Rayno Park and other parks of the island.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am a proponent of the beautification, especially
when the cost of one-fifth of what we are proposing and I will open it up to Members, but I
am open to pull the cut if other Members are in agreement.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for Lenny? Any discussion
from the Members?
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Chock: I will remove the cut.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 91 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I mean I was willing to vote on it.
Councilmember Chock: That is what I wanted to hear.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: When I look at needs versus wants, that to me...it
would definitely be a nice to have, but I do not think it is something that we need. I would
more likely love to have the Reserve Fund funded and if we have extra money then that would
be a capital improvement project that we could pull the money out of once we met our Reserve
Fund goals. That would just be me, but it is up to the body what we want to do. Council
Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is another one that I had asked the
Administration to consider. Again, this all happened when we thought we were getting a
little more TAT. Unfortunately, with the chickens out here, I do not think irrigation alone is
going to...I mean it is going to make it green, but the hose is going to stay there. Until we can
effectively redo the landscaping and do the ground preparation and plant something that is
going to prevent the holes from the chickens, I do not know if irrigating alone is going to solve
the problem. Although I appreciate the offer and I would agree...in fact, I am ashamed to
even say I have an add in here, which I am going to take out right now because that was to
add $240,000 to do the entire deal, but obviously that is not going to happen today.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have $2,000,000...
Council Chair Rapozo: No.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just joking.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, a lot of these things were done when we
thought we were going to get $103,000,000 and that we would have some opportunities, but
at this point, I would support the cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Councilmember
Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Who knows, they are still speaking about special
session and when you see the other Counties and their property tax proposals, I have to
assume that there is some glooming pressure for at least some kind of strong lobbying effort
to at least return us to the $103,000,000 instead of the $93,000,000, which may have just
been an unintended consequence that the waiting hours of this past legislation session. We
talk about landscaping, we have to take into account that, yes, there is a chicken problem
and there is an obvious homelessness problem that we need to address in this area. We do.
If we are talking about the beautification efforts, there is a homelessness issue that has...I
do not want to say blossomed, but it has bloomed in this vicinity and so we have homeless
people feeding chickens that are digging up the landscaping. I think the underlying issue is,
how do we address homelessness? I support the cut.
Councilmember Chock: I will keep my motion instead.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I am convinced that we should save it for
another day when there is more money and we can do it more comprehensively. There is a
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 92 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
safety issues with the digging of the holes with the chickens, but as Councilmember
Kawakami has pointed out, it is connected to a lot of other issues including the homeless
problem, which we do need to address, which is more of a need than landscaping.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: I heard the scenario, but if we do remove this, we
can do a grant later on if we decide to do this project for $30,000. Is that what I heard?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Are there grants available? I was thinking if we
have our Reserve number met and we have extra money, this could be a capital expenditure
project that we could pull the money out of and use to improve our property. It is a need
versus want.
Councilmember Brun: It is just to create an idea, like you talked about
Kekaha, the County helped them with that and we just finished the Kekaha Neighborhood
Center painting today. That was in a partnership also.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We do give out a lot of grants to improve parks, so
I do not know if our front yard would be considered a park for a grant. No.
Councilmember Brun: Maybe what can help with the homeless is putting
the sprinklers on during the day.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, the homeless might help.
Councilmember Brun: Put them to work.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion on this? This is to cut
$30,000 for the Historic County Building irrigation. Can I get a roll call vote, please?
The motion to cut funding in the Department of Parks & Recreation—Administration,
in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000)for R&M Building-Historic County
Building Irrigation was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL—6,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion passes.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further cuts to Parks & Recreation? If not,
we will move on. Elderly Affairs. Any cuts to Elderly Affairs? No. Housing—General Fund.
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: This is in the Supplemental Budget, this is coming
up in R&M building for$90,000 which was an addition for the air conditioning at the Waimea
Theatre. This just showed up this last week.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 93 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Chock moved to cut funding in the Housing Agency, in the amount of
ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) for R&M Building - Waimea Theatre—Contingency,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do you have a question for the Administration on
this?
Councilmember Chock: I think an explanation is warranted and at least
people can make a decision on whether they want to act on it now. For me, the question is on
the urgency and if we need to move on this right away or not. My understanding is that the
air conditioning still works, however, it is an aging air conditioner.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: The air conditioner (AC) does not work really that
good. For us, on the westside, this is our biggest property we have and it is hot on the
westside, let me tell you. I think this is a great idea and I support it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Good afternoon, Kanani.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
KANANI FU, Housing Director: Good afternoon, Kanani Fu, Housing Director.
The addition in the Supplemental Budget, I do not know if I can say"in a good timing or bad
timing," in the sense that the Waimea Theatre is currently used and we have a contract with
a nonprofit who operates it. With regards to the air conditioner, there is quarterly
maintenance that is done. The contract is for preventative maintenance, so we contract a
professional AC company who goes in quarterly to check the AC unit and fix as needed to
keep the AC working. It has been recommended by the company that the AC unit should be
replaced. It is nearly twenty (20) years old and it is time for us to start planning for the
replacement of this asset. If we do not and we had issues where the AC had completely shut
down, it can often take two (2) to three (3) days to get the repair crews out there, which just
affects the mold environment of the theatre...if there is an event happening. We are trying
to prepare for this and again, it came at poor timing with regards to the budget, but better to
catch it now than coming back for a money bill later on.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is our building?
Ms. Fu: Yes, it is our building, our responsibility.
Council Chair Rapozo: Who maintains it?
Ms. Fu: We have a contract with the West Kaua`i Business
Professional Association.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is that contract?
Ms. Fu: They can utilize the building for events and they
control and they do maintenance, but the Housing Agency or the County own and manages
it. We sublease or subcontract it for them to use for community events.
Council Chair Rapozo: But we do not take care of the maintenance?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 94 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Fu: We do.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is County workers that go in there and clean it?
Ms. Fu: No, so the Waimea Theatre...
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just trying to figure out what the difference
is between this and the Veterans Center.
Ms. Fu: Through the revenue that is made, that is earned,
at the theatre, the group, West Kaua`i Business Professional Association, is responsible for
the general maintenance as well as setting aside, every year they have to set aside some
reserve. Instances where there is large capital improvements and those types of things the
County has been the agency or group to facilitate these improvements to facilitate large
repairs, large maintenance items. Generally, we plan it out the year before and then we
propose it in our budget. The County Housing Agency is the one that is responsible for
procuring these services. The ongoing maintenance like the AC and those types of things. It
does not go through the West Kaua`i Business Professional Association.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just for clarification again, this is our building,
right, the County's building?
Ms. Fu: Yes, it is our building.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Compared to the Veterans Center, which is not
ours. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you, Kanani. Councilmember Yukimura.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate Councilmember Chock bringing it up
so that we can learn. As you pointed out, Committee Chair, it is a County property and it is
a really important community resource. The equipment is old and so it is not an
extraordinary request. It is something that needs to be done, so I am going to be voting
against the cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments or discussion? If not, we
will take a roll call vote on the $90,000 cut for the Waimea Theatre Contingency.
The motion to cut funding in the Housing Agency, in the amount of ninety thousand
dollars ($90,000)for R&M Building-Waimea Theatre—Contingency was then put, and
failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Motion fails. Any other cuts for Housing?
Anything else for Housing? No. We will move on. Transportation? My plan, if we can, is we
will go to 4:30 p.m., we will try to get through all the individual cuts for departments and
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 95 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
then we will go to CIP, and we will stop there. We will come back tomorrow, I think Council
Chair Rapozo has provided a lot of the departments with the cuts that affect multiple
divisions and they should be ready to come up and testify on that. The plan is to get to the
end of the CIP individual cuts. That is the plan—to 4:30 p.m. Any cuts to Transportation?
No. Roads and Highway Fund. Any cuts to Roads and Highway Fund? No. Auto
Maintenance? I should have said that earlier then we would not have any cuts. Liquor. Any
cuts to Liquor? Solid Waste. Any cuts for Solid Waste? No. Wastewater. Any cuts to
Wastewater? Wailua Golf Course, which is our final Operating Budget item. Any cuts to
Wailua Golf Course? No.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do, but it is a combination.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The combinations will wait until later.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any individual cuts for Wailua Golf Course?
No. Okay, now we will go through our CIP.
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think I was asleep at the wheel. Oh, it is a
combination cut/add, sorry, I can wait.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, the combination cut/adds will wait until
tomorrow.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any cuts to the CIP Budget? You folks just want
to finish. So that is where I wanted to get to today. I think as far as the proposals affecting
all departments, I do not think we have all departments here to answer questions. I know
tomorrow morning, we will have them here, so I think it is a good stopping point. I think
everybody is probably very tired and we have another long day tomorrow. We will take a
recess, tomorrow we will come back and we will do any cuts that affect a variety of
departments, we will do any cuts and adds together, and then we will do any adds. Whatever
number we are at, we have to make a decision on what we are going to do with that. That is
the plan. We will take a recess.
Councilmember Kagawa: Process.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: My process question is if we have a cut back to the
expenses, can we go back tomorrow?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We were not going to go back.
Councilmember Kagawa: We are not going back.
Councilmember Yukimura: Unless it is part of a combination.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 96 MAY 11, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: I can do a combination of cuts.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: With that, we will take a recess until tomorrow.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 4:08 p.m.
I
The Deliberation and Preliminary Decision-Making reconvened on Friday, May 12, 2017 at
9:35 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Honorable Arthur Brun
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Ross Kagawa (present at 9:50 a.m.)
Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Good morning everyone. I would like to call back
to order the Budget & Finance Committee and the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget
Decision-Making session. Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum; Councilmember
Kagawa is running a little bit late. As we do each morning, we will take public testimony.
Jade, do we have anyone signed up?
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: We have one (1) registered
speaker, Ana Mohamad DesMarais.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Basically, you can talk about the budget. You
have three (3) minutes and an additional three (3) minutes, if you need.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
ANA MOHAMAD DESMARAIS: For the record, my name is Ana Mohamad
DesMarais. I love to see all of you laughing together; it is really sweet. What I do not
appreciate is that your backs are against the wall, and we all feel it also. The two (2)
decisions that you have of either slashing the budget or raising the taxes, I feel, is unfair
and unjust. I feel there should be a third option to those that are responsible to be held
accountable, and for the opportunity for the parties involved to step forward and offer help
out of their own free will and goodness of their heart. It is also good Public Relations (PR).
I also feel that when walking in the door, the egos of, "I am right" and "I am the only one
that is right," should be checked at the door, and when sitting here, become part of the
one (1) body that represents Kaua`i. Everyone, especially while in accordance of protocol
and allowance of time spent, to be able to share whatever discussion necessary in order to
bring alternative solutions to deep issues. This is the time to do it. If not now, then when?
If not, it is just a waste of time and you are toying with our lives. The time should be spent
well and in conversations of anything that feels should be said. I agree with the "Monday
until midnight" aspect. I really do appreciate all of you coming forward and having your
different opinions. I feel that disagreements and debate are wonderful, but it should be
done with respect, kindness, and consideration of each other. Cooperation is the most
important part. That is how we move forward in solving these problems. The way they
have been solved in the past is not the way it is going to happen in the future, because it
just has not worked and we do not have the luxury to do that, to use things that have not
worked in the past. As Kaua`i, we are so lucky to see where options have failed in the past
so that we can move forward and with innovation, which is bringing alternative, more
efficient and effective solutions to issues that we have. I just really do appreciate this work.
So be present in it and appreciate where the disagreements are so that we can move
forward with creativity and inspiration. Thank you.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 2 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. That was your first three (3)
minutes. Do we have anyone else registered?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: There are no further registered speakers.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else from the public wishing to testify on
the budget? If not, Ana, did you want another three (3) minutes?
Ms. DesMarais: I will not need the three (3) minutes, but I feel
that the bold actions taken by the Vice Chair in cutting the budget is a beautiful way of
showing efficiency of what needs to happen. There should not be any intimidation in going
into arbitration. I feel that the heroes of our island should not be the ones taking the
punches in the face, to be frank. I understand everything that needs to happen and
sustainability is extremely important for our future. We have to consider what is truly
important for our future. In the Legislature, it was spoken on how mistakes were made
and we do need to take that into consideration, because the comments on natural disasters
and things that we have heroes on our island for...it is probable. Any conversation on
climate change, sustainability, and the humanity of our island, things that have I spoken
about previously, are of high importance. I do not feel that the County needs to make
sacrifices when there is money being made on this island. Furthermore, I do not
understand why the $3,000,000 needs to be paid. Is it going to O`ahu? I am unclear and I
do not know if this is an appropriate time to ask questions, but maybe during the day it can
be answered of why there is a $3,000,000 deficit that we need to make these sacrifices for. I
really, truly do want the body to consider the fact that the County that earns money here by
taxes, ticketing, and whatever it is needs to stay here. There should not be these
conversations and sacrifices that are made. Sustainability is a big problem that we are
facing and all of these issues will only grow. Here and now is the time to have the
conversations to solve them in a creative manner with cooperation, respect, and kindness
with each other. Thank you for the time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Seeing none, I will call this meeting back to order. I believe we are nearing the end of our
individual cuts. I know that Council Chair had some cuts and I know that the
Administration has had some time to look at them, so I will probably want to start with
those cuts. Then we will move on to cuts that affect all divisions. Is yours broken up or is it
one big cut?
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: No, Scott actually took it apart
position-by-position, so we can go through that. I would ask though if we can wait for
Councilmember Kagawa to get here as well, because as we did yesterday, he requested to
wait for Councilmember Brun because of the votes. I would ask for that same courtesy.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We can take a quick recess.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does anybody know what time Councilmember
Kagawa is supposed to arrive? If he is going to be a while, then obviously I would like for
us to take a recess.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. Let us take a quick recess.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 3 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 9:43 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:50 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Let us get started where we left
off. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. This whole thing about positions has
been an issue for a long, long time. The Council over the years, different Councils, different
people, different times, have tried to get a handle on all of these vacant positions, because it
amounts to a significant amount of money. I do not know if the lady who testified left
already, but she asked about the $3,000,000 and where that came from, but the reality is
that a lot of the expenses are in positions that have been funded, but never been filled. We
have tried with provisos, "Hey, you can only use that position for that position. You cannot
transfer the money." The attorneys tell us that you cannot do that; that is a violation of the
separation of powers. Asking for Council approval, if they are going to reallocate, "No, you
cannot do that. That is not your business." Really, the only way this Council or this
County can get a handle on these positions...I am going through each one and I think the
public will be pretty surprised to find out how long these positions have been vacant and
the costs associated with those positions, that the only way we can start anew is cutting the
positions; cutting the positions, letting the Administration reassess what they need, and
then come back to us with justification so we can decide if, in fact, we do need those
positions. We keep paying for positions that we do not hire. With that, I will start. We are
starting with ourselves, Council Services: the first one is Position No. E-66, Council
Services Review Officer. This was only a dollar-funded position, but nonetheless, it is a
position that is carried on the books. This position has been vacant for seven hundred
twenty-six (726) days.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. E-66, Council Services
Review Officer in the Office of the County Clerk, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion on this dollar-funded
position? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is this position supposed to do?
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a review officer. If we do not know what
they supposed to do, then we should vote to cut it. This was the position that apparently
was being held for an appointed person that took an appointed job and now he is no longer
here. This was the "holding position" from what I understand. Again, if you do not know
what it is, then we should cut it.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think I just wanted to ask what it is because if
it has specific functions then maybe it is being covered by somebody else. If it has a
function that was not useful, then that is fine.
Council Chair Rapozo: Seven hundred twenty-six (726) days.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 4 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: You are welcome.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Questions? Comments?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Let us get from Jade what the Council
Services Review Officer is supposed to do.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Or we could just ask if we need this
dollar-funded position.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. That is fine.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Our office will have no problem with having this
position removed.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, we are on cuts and it only takes four (4) to
cut. Roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. E-66, Council Services Review Officer in the
Office of the County Clerk was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Next one. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Council Services Assistant I, nine
hundred seventeen (917) days vacant. When I took over as the Chair and we had these
vacant positions, I had a long chat with, at the time, Ricky Watanabe, and then subsequent
to that, Jade, and the message was real clear that we need to set the example by doing
more with less. We are doing really well without these excess positions. Again, nine
hundred seventeen (917) days vacant, $1 in the budget, does not really do much for the
budget, but again, we are starting fresh. If the Clerk wants that new position, she can
come like everybody else and solicit for that and get the justification.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. E-2701, Council Services
Assistant I in the Office of the County Clerk, seconded by Councilmember Brun.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 5 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It has been moved and seconded. Any questions
or comments on this? If not, roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. E-2701, Council Services Assistant I in the
Office of the County Clerk, was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. My next one is Position No. E-2714,
Secretarial Assistant. Again, I do not think the public understands that we share staff and
that we do not have personal staff, like all of the other counties. This one has been vacant
for one thousand two hundred seventeen (1,217) days, dollar-funded.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. E-2714, Secretarial Assistant
in the Office of the County Clerk, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions or comments on this
position? Roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. E-2714, Secretarial Assistant in the Office of
the County Clerk, was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next, is the Office of Elderly Affairs,
Position No. 135, Program Specialist II. It is dollar-funded as well. This one has been
vacant for eight hundred fifty-two (852) days.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 135, Program Specialist II in
the Agency on Elderly Affairs, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments on this dollar-funded
position?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 6 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Since we are now going into administrative
positions, I would just like to get the feedback from the Administration.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The rules are suspended.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Committee Chair, can I just make a quick
comment?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is for the general public, really, because we
all know this, but one of the concerns I have is when we have a position number like this
that is vacant, the Administration has the ability, and the Council as well, to take that
position number and create a contract position and reallocate the position, and the public
and the Council never knows until the next budget. I am just saying that if we have to
tighten up the belts, let us do it that way. If you need a position, I will be more than happy
to support it, but if you need a position number to act as a floater, I really cannot support
that. That is just my personal opinion. I just want the public to understand how important
or valuable that position number is, even if it is dollar-funded, because the funds in the
department can be used to pay for that contract position.
JANINE M.Z. RAPOZO, Director of Human Resources: Good morning. Janine
Rapozo, Director of Human Resources. I apologize, Kealoha Takahashi is unavailable
today. The Program Specialist II position was dollar-funded a couple of budgets ago, or
maybe more than that, to assist with financial times at that point. So to try to address the
needs of what this position was doing, right now Elderly Affairs is temporarily assigning a
different position to assist with the role that this particular position was doing. If the
position is eliminated, the ability to Temporary Assignment (TA) to this position is no
longer there because that position is gone.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the position purpose was to assist with the
financial what?
Ms. Rapozo: At the time, it was dollar-funded to assist with
the financial budget constraints at the time and that is why it has been vacant for so long
because it was never funded.
Councilmember Yukimura: But it is, in fact, being filled because you are
temporarily assigning somebody into that.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct. The duties are being accomplished
through someone else doing temporary assignment to accomplish what that position was
doing.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we were to remove the position, then you
would not be able to TA that person?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 7 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why was the person who was in the TA position
not just recruited for the permanent position?
Ms. Rapozo: That is something that Kealoha would have to
answer as to why she did not make those changes. I am not sure if the role of the TA
person was already critical that she wanted to keep that person in that role.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the TA person is doing two (2) functions or
two (2) roles?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you still need two (2) positions for one (1)
body?
Ms. Rapozo: I cannot answer that. I think Kealoha would
have to answer that. They have been doing that for the years that it has been
dollar-funded. So whether they have been stretched to the limit to do that to try to wait
until financial times were better or whether or not it has gotten to the point where maybe
they have been able to do it by looking at various duties being not done or reassigned. I am
sorry, but that would be something that she would have to answer.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think what you are telling us is there is
essentially a warm body involved.
Ms. Rapozo: Not in Position No. 135. There is in that, that
person is temporarily assigned to that number at times to accomplish the duties of what
that position was doing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So what if the other position that the
person was in could just be reallocated with those additional duties? Is that a possibility?
Ms. Rapozo: That is something that the department could
look at.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know how much time we have, but is
there a way to contact Kealoha and get her answers about that?
Ms. Rapozo: I think that is what Wally is trying to do.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Committee Chair, can we just...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us see if there are more questions on it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 8 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: I just have one question—how long has that
person been temporarily assigned?
Ms. Rapozo: I cannot remember how long this position was
dollar-funded, but since that position was dollar-funded.
Council Chair Rapozo: So probably eight hundred fifty-two (852) days.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is over two (2) years. Anyway, thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: For me, it is kind of shady when we say, "Well,
we are holding a position because somebody is temporarily assigned under that." Every one
of Council Chair Rapozo's position numbers on the list have been on the list because it has
been vacant for so long. What is the definition of "temporary assignment"? What is the
definition of that? It is "temporary," right? It is a "short assignment." But when you are
talking about two and a half(2.5) to three (3) years being held temporary, it is longer than
temporary. Again, for transparency to the public, I think it just looks kind of shady on our
end and I think we just need to clean all of that up. I do not think government is meant to
be a private business where you can hold a position because you really like this person and
you want to make sure this person gets it. I think government should be transparent and
we open it up so that everybody on Kaua`i can all apply for this job that is funded by
taxpayers. It just appears that way. I am ready to vote on this.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So as far as this person getting temporarily
assigned to this, they are getting the regular pay of what this position would be, right?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Brun: So we would not be able to just take that position
and promote them to this and eliminate...right now, we have two (2) positions for one (1)
person and I think the consensus here is that we do not want that position to be given to
somebody else just as a "friend," and then we are taking money from somewhere else to
fund it. Can we just promote this person and give them that pay at the Program
Specialist II and get rid of that position?
Ms. Rapozo: I think that is the option that Councilmember
Yukimura was looking at into reallocating that person into the higher level.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. I am ready to vote.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, just to remind, especially the newer
Councilmembers, that this is not something that is new. This is brought up during every
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 9 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
budget since I have been here. KipuKai Kuali`i kind of took the lead over the last few
years, but this dates way back. So "temporary" is "temporary." Two (2) positions for one (1)
body—we do not lose a body in this position. I do not think it takes eight hundred fifty-two
(852) days to reallocate a position. I think most of the positions are like this and I guess for
the department heads when you come up, all I really want to know is what the justification
is for the vacancy. It is going to be the same, "We are temporarily assigning." Just come up
and justify why you need a position that has been vacant for six (600) hundred days, seven
hundred (700) days, eight hundred (800) days, or twelve hundred (1,200) days, whatever it
is. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Janine, I have a
question just to get a better understanding of this "temporary assignment"—so the reason
we have a TA is because we have a person doing the job, and it is because the unions only
allow them to do certain duties and then Kealoha has the need for them to do additional
duties and they need to be considered a TA to do those functions?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct. If they are functioning at the higher
level, they would have to get temporarily assigned to those duties and pay them at that
appropriate rate.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one more.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: This will be pretty much...if it is the same
scenario then I will ask the same question for all the department heads. Is the person in
that position now, the TA to Program Specialist II...from whatever position that person is
at right now, is that person qualified to be hired as a Program Specialist II?
Ms. Rapozo: I am not sure.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the concern. We take the unqualified
person, give them the TA, pay them the high rate, but they cannot qualify, but we are
tying-up two (2) positions to make that happen. I think that is another problem that we
have to resolve and this actually does that. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we remove the position in this budget, it would
be effective July 1st, right?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the remedy for getting the job done that this
vacant position was assigned to do or created to do would be to reallocate the other position
to include the duties.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 10 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct, but Chair Rapozo does bring up a
good point if that incumbent in the position that is being temporarily assigned into these
positions does not qualify, then we cannot do the reallocation with that incumbent.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so then what would the remedy be?
Assuming those things that are being done under this vacant position need to be done, then
what would Kealoha have to do? Would she have to come back and ask for a position?
Ms. Rapozo: I think one of the things we have asked all
departments, as the Vacancy Review Committee, is to look at creative ways to get those
duties done and look at your other positions that may qualify or are at this level already to
spread out the duties. We have been doing that with a lot of departments. At this point, if
she has no other option, she is going to have to look at other ways to accomplish those
duties.
Councilmember Yukimura: This vacant position may have other jobs besides
the jobs that are being done by the person in the other position, right? Essentially, this has
allowed the agency to do more with less. With one really paid position, they are getting
more things done, and if you have to have a second position and fully fill it, but you do not
need that full position, then you are going to be paying more for the same amount of work.
Ms. Rapozo: I am not sure if the temporary assignment...they
have to do a major portion of the job, but may not necessarily be all, so I am not sure if that
person is doing the whole one hundred percent (100%).
Councilmember Yukimura: I see. If we act right now without any additional
input from Kealoha, then if she needs those duties done, she has to either reallocate before
July 1st, if that is actually possible, given the scales of the person who is in the position.
Ms. Rapozo: She could do it after July 1st.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. If she cannot do that, then her option is to
come back here and get another position?
Ms. Rapozo: That would be one option. Another option would
be to look at the rest of her staff to see how she can reorganize.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I wish she was here to answer the question,
because my question would be, "If we get rid of this dollar-funded position, what would it
cost us in the next fiscal budget? Is it going to cost us more than the $6,300 we have
budgeted for temporary assignment?" I do not know if you can answer that.
Councilmember Yukimura: How much was budgeted?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: $6,300 for temporary assignment.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 11 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: I am not sure if that temporary assignment is
completely for that person or if it is spread out among all other positions. Without the
position there, if it is eliminated, she cannot do temporary assignment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If we cut it now and she comes back in July and
says, "I want to dollar-fund this position again," and she is going to do a temporary
assignment and do what she is doing and justifies it to us, how long do you think that
process would take?
Ms. Rapozo: It will take as long as however it takes the
Council to get that position back in, which I think we were estimating at least two (2)
months.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any further questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It just seems that it might be worthwhile to defer
this until before noon or whatever you say to try to get that information.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We are in the budget meeting and if there are
other department heads that are not available, then we are going to be deferring stuff until
Monday when our budget meetings are Thursday, Friday, and Monday. I would rather we
make the decisions now and we move forward. It is a very important day for all of us.
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: To try to help us get forward, if something is
sitting on the books for eight hundred sixty (860) days, then obviously it is not that urgent.
There are other ways of fixing the problem. So just delaying and delaying when we know
we are going to hear excuses from the other side—it happened yesterday. It is going to
happen today. Every time you ask them, "Why is this," you are going to hear a story that I
can predict right here for you. Ask the question, I will predict the answer. We either see
the facts, we see what is happening, and let us move it. Let us vote up or down and take
the next item.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have a question. I just have a comment.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, do you have a
question? If not, I will bring it back.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you, Janine. I will call the meeting back
to order. Any final discussion from the members? Council Chair Rapozo.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We have a Vacancy Review Committee that I
think in some points, in some situations, do very well. I am going to read this because I
think this is what we should be concerned about as leaders, both sides of the aisle. This is
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 12 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
straight out of the State Constitution that "mandates," not "suggests," says, "The State
Constitution mandates that the employment of persons in the civil service, as defined by
law, be governed by the merit principle. The legislature declares that the public policy of
the State is that all positions in the civil service systems of the respective jurisdictions,"
which is the County of Kaua`i, "...shall be filled through civil service recruitment
procedures based on merit and that the civil service system of the respective jurisdictions,"
which includes the County of Kaua`i, "...shall comprise all positions, whether permanent or
temporary, in the jurisdiction now existing or hereafter established." In other words, you
have a position and by the constitution civil service, you recruit. You do not just take
somebody from an unqualified position and stick them in that position and tie up two (2)
positions with one (1) person. I am concerned that we are violating the law. In fact, I think
the last audit that we had on the employment hiring practices, which we will be following
up on real soon, will show. That is the law. That is the constitution. So if we have a
position, hire them or lose them. That is how simple this thing works. You cannot play
with this, this is civil service. We have unemployed people out there looking for work.
Councilmember Kagawa hit it right on the head—we are going to dollar-fund this, and then
TA somebody? This is not anything personal; I do not even know who is in this position,
and I love Kealoha to death, but yesterday morning I passed out the list and I said,
"Department heads, you come prepared and explain why we need the position." If they are
not here, I agree with Councilmember Kagawa that we are moving. To have the HR person
come up and say, "I cannot answer that question," I do not think she should answer that
question, but if the department head is not here...do you all agree that we are following the
constitution with this example right here? We are going to see many more of these. Does it
follow the constitution of civil service? The mandate? No, it does not. If there is somebody
out there watching television right now that may have applied for a position and got denied
will say, "Hey, wait, timeout. Maybe I will see a lawyer." We do not learn. I do not know if
I need to say any more, but that is going to be my argument for every single position. We
have a civil service law that governs what we should be doing, and when we manipulate
this process, I think we violate the law. Mauna Kea or Matt will be jumping up and saying,
"Council Chair Rapozo, shut your mouth." It is the truth and the transparency is the
biggest problem I have. We have a position and we have people willing and able out there,
hire them based on merit. Do not go and move people around, "Oh, they do not qualify for
the position, but we just dollar-fund it and we just put them in there anyway." I am sorry,
but this should stop in this Council session this year. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I agree with the Chair if it is true that the person
is not qualified for the position into which they are being temporarily assigned and I do not
know what the circumstances are. It involves $1, so I am going to be voting to keep it in
until it can be sorted. I do agree that the Chair was courteous enough to give out the
positions yesterday and the department heads should be here to answer the questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Committee Chair, just one quick thing.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: If the person is qualified, promote them. That
scenario makes absolutely no sense. If the person is qualified, promote them. The only
reason I can think that they would not move that person up is because something is
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 13 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
missing. Again, we are not going to speculate. I am just saying that it is very evident to me
that we do not need this position.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? If not, roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. 135, Program Specialist II in the Agency on
Elderly Affairs, was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST MOTION: Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1, motion passes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Position No. 562, Vehicle Registration &
Licensing Manager, five hundred thirty-three (533) days vacant. This line item is $97,702.
Ma'am in the back, how are we going to cut these funds? That is how you cut these funds.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 562, Vehicle Registration &
Licensing Manager and related benefits in the Department of Finance, Driver
License, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I made the second, but on this one, I might not
support it. Our population is growing so there must be a lot of increases in the need for
vehicle registering and licensing.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
SALLY MOTTA, Deputy Finance Director: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am thinking that it could be dangerous if we
remove this and our existing staff might be overburdened.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Please state your name for the record, Sally.
Ms. Motta: My name is Sally Motta, Deputy Director of
Finance. I also work very closely with our Motor Vehicle Division. The reason that this has
been so difficult for us to fill is because of the requirements that are put on the position to
have experience that none of our own staff had. We tried twice to hire from within and we
could not get any of our candidates on staff that could qualify for it, so we went out and we
still could not get anybody on-island that qualified. So we went together with the other
counties to come up with a better definition that we hoped would still satisfy what needed
to be done and have some candidates for it. We currently have five (5) candidates that are
being interviewed, starting May 25th and 26th.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 14 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: What is the major hang up? In most of the
positions, like this kind of specialized position, getting people's proper documents and what
have you in order to give them a driver's license...so if guys are doing it for five (5) years as
the clerk, why can they not move up to the manager, knowing what everybody's role is?
Ms. Motta: Because the position did not allow for it and
when the candidates send their applications and everything into HR, HR has to go through
and verify whether or not they have the experience. We were hoping that one of our
current employees was going to end up having enough time in at his current position and
when he was temporarily assigned in the position, but unfortunately his TA time would not
count. That is what forced us to go out for this last period in order to find somebody who
did already have that time.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is there a sticking point in that job description
that everybody in your current staff does not have?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: What is that? A certain degree?
Ms. Motta: Time of experience.
Councilmember Kagawa: Time of experience managing?
Ms. Motta: Yes, of the management portion of it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Somebody is obviously running your driver's
licensing now and there are probably a couple of managers, right?
Ms. Motta: We have a separate manager for each of the
division portions of it, and then our Treasurer currently sees over that. As you know, our
Treasurer has or may have plans on changing, so we needed to have a position created in
order to take that away from what the Treasurer was doing.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. So you have five (5) applicants that are
going through the process.
Ms. Motta: We have five (5) qualified applicants that have
already agreed to be interviewed, starting on the 25th.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are any from Kaua`i?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Terrific. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is someone in this TA position now?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 15 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Motta: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: When did you folks go out for the external
solicitation?
Ms. Motta: I do not have the dates in front of me.
Council Chair Rapozo: HR?
Ms. Rapozo: I think before Finance went out for that position,
they reclassified it, basically because the Treasurer was overseeing this area. We upgraded
it to be its own manager of that section. They went out and could not find anybody, so we
tried to downgrade it back to see if we could get any applicants and we could not get any
applicants, so I believe it got upgraded again. At this point, they looked with the other
counties to try to see how they could reclassify/re-describe the position in order to try to get
applicants. Sorry, I know I am not answering your question as to when we went out, but I
was just trying to say that there was some history as to why this has been taking a while.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think she made that very clear: internal,
internal, then external. I just want to know when. Was it after I told the Administration
that we are going to cut all of these positions?
Ms. Rapozo: I do not think so.
Council Chair Rapozo: When do you anticipate hiring this person?
Ms. Motta: I am sorry?
Council Chair Rapozo: When do you anticipate hiring one of these
applicants?
Ms. Motta: As soon as we interview, then the decision will be
made by the panel that does the interviewing and it will be sent on to HR for the final
processing. We plan to have somebody before the beginning of the next fiscal year.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So the department is running right now without
this position?
Ms. Motta: It currently is, yes, because we still have our
Treasurer.
Councilmember Brun: Are we failing in that department without this
position?
Ms. Motta: Are we what?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 16 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Brun: Are we failing?
Ms. Motta: We are not failing, but we are anticipating what
is going to be a possibility of that happening.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. My other question was, as Council Chair
asked, did we just really pursue this because we knew this was coming up or was this in the
works and we really need this position?
Ms. Motta: It has been in the works continuously. It is a
brand-new position for our County. We have a smaller population, so it is more difficult for
us to get people more qualified for that here.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Did I hear correctly that "time of experience" was
the biggest contributor to not being able to promote someone from within the department?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: What kind of...I am sorry...
Ms. Motta: Supervision.
Councilmember Kawakami: Supervision time of experience?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: What is that time of experience that you folks
have set?
Ms. Motta: I do not know off the top of my head.
Councilmember Kawakami: Do you know, Janine?
Ms. Rapozo: I do not know off the top of my head, but some of
the qualifications in these different departments require time in, like motor vehicle and
driver's licensing. That is very difficult to get because government is pretty much the only
place you can get that experience.
Councilmember Kawakami: We could not find anybody from within with
that?
Ms. Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Kawakami: But we were able to find somebody on Kaua`i
with that time of experience?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 17 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think we have identified a big issue, because in
my experience, "time of experience" has very little bearing on good leadership. I think it
has a lot to do with attitude and drive, but that is just my personal experience. I think it
has identified a general frustration within our rank and file when people come up to us and
say, "I have been a loyal, good worker and I cannot even get promoted" because there is this
glass ceiling with time of experience that they are hitting. If that is an issue and you need
some kind of legislative change, then we should start talking, but if that is something that
you can work within, maybe we have look at other municipalities to see if there is any
innovative ways that we can promote from within. I think that is what kills a lot of the
morale and people get frustrated, and they come to us, because the worst case scenario is if
we cannot find somebody qualified on Kaua`i. Then we bring in somebody and recruit from
the outside, like what we are doing for the Office of the County Auditor, to come in, expect
to adapt to our culture and expect to know how things operate, and then they become a
complete failure. If it is time of experience, I kind of want to know what that time of
experience is, eventually. It does not have to be today. For me, it does not sit well that that
would be a sole prohibiting factor as to why we could not promote somebody from within,
especially if there was a desire from within. If there is no desire then that is a different
story.
Ms. Rapozo: If I can just add a little bit to that, when they
temporarily assign to a position that is doing those types of duties, it will count towards
meeting that requirement. That is why we look at temporary assignment as a way to try to
promote within and try to do succession planning. The other thing that we have as a tool is
what we call "training agreements," where if they do not qualify we can do a training
agreement with them in order to get the qualifications. Until they meet those
qualifications, they stay at the position, but they are getting the time in there and then
they will get promoted.
Councilmember Kawakami: Did I hear that...sorry that I interrupted
you...did you have something else that you wanted to say?
Ms. Rapozo: No.
Councilmember Kawakami: In this case, did the temporary assignment time
not count towards your time of experience?
Ms. Rapozo: I believe it counted...
Ms. Motta: But there was not enough.
Ms. Rapozo: He did not have enough because I think there
was no degree, so you are going to have to now use some of that experience to meet your
degree requirement, as well as now have the experience.
Councilmember Kawakami: What kind of degree? A college degree?
Ms. Rapozo: A college degree. It is a managerial-level
position.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 18 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kawakami: I have my own feelings about college degrees as
well, if that is the sole factor. I have seen great leadership from people with no college
degrees. I think Bill Gates is one of them. We have to take a look at our job descriptions, in
my opinion, and revamp. I can understand the value of a college degree to anybody
listening in high school. To the parents, please do not be upset at me. A college degree is
very valuable, but it has, to me, very little bearing on good leadership skills. Thank you,
Committee Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Actually, this sounds like really good
succession planning.
Ms. Motta: That is correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know that the Treasurer, when he came and
talked, said that Kaua`i County is the only place where the Treasurer also does this
management of the different divisions, and now that he is leaving soon—I think he said
maybe the end of this year—there is real concern about whether there is going to be
sufficient oversight or management and it sounds like you have been doing your work to
reconfigure the position so that there is good division supervision. Is that correct?
Ms. Motta: Exactly.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is definitely independent of any Council
initiative. You have just been trying to make succession work. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So the person that is temporarily assigned to his
position right now, how long has he been doing it?
Ms. Motta: He is not temporarily assigned into that exact
position; he is temporarily assigned to...how would you say that he is doing bond...
Councilmember Brun: He is temporarily assigning as a supervisor,
right?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Brun: For how long?
Ms. Motta: He is in the same position that he was and that
he is temporarily assigning for experience as the supervisor for that area.
Councilmember Brun: How long was he doing that?
Ms. Rapozo: I think initially he was temporarily assigning,
but I believe...this has been a while, but I think he got reallocated up to that position, so he
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 19 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
is not doing the temporary assigning right now. He is already in that, but it is not the
position that is listed here.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. For this position, do you need four (4)
years of supervisory? Two (2) years?
Ms. Rapozo: It is an Excluded Managerial (EM) position right
now, so it will need at least...I am just guessing, but I think it is a college degree, as well as
four (4) years of experience in that particular area and maybe two (2) of which is
managerial or something like that.
Councilmember Brun: Okay, so how much does he have right now total?
How much was he short by to not qualify for this position?
Ms. Rapozo: Maybe a year and a half (1.5) or two (2), I think,
because he needed to use some of the experience for the college degree because he does not
have one.
Councilmember Brun: Okay, so he is short about a year and a half(1.5)
or two (2) years?
Ms. Rapozo: I believe so.
Councilmember Brun: So that is seven hundred (700) days. I can see
that if we are looking at somebody like that, from within and trying to give them the
experience, I would support temporarily assigning this person for those two (2) years to get
the experience so that he can be in this position, instead of bringing somebody fresh from
the outside. It is happening in all of the baseyards. I have heard it over and over. We are
bringing these folks in you are just bursting this person's bubble because he does not
qualify. How about giving him a chance to qualify and start from the bottom? A college
degree—I have none. In my own company, I was picking up rocks when I started. Now, I
am a supervisor. Give them a chance to start from the bottom. We are bursting these
people's bubbles and you see it all over the County right now, because we are bringing
people out because they can pass the test. Please, if we can temporarily assign this person
and get him in there and he wants the position, let us support him and let us get him there.
For bringing somebody else in, you are just going to kick morale in that department. I
promise you that that is going to happen. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am just trying to follow-up. Are you folks
temporarily assigning somebody or is Mr. Spanski doing this job right now?
Ms. Motta: Mr. Spanski is in charge of this right now.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Is it kind of like renaming the Treasurer a
little bit? Is that what it is doing?
Ms. Motta: We are dividing the Treasurer up...we are taking
away from the Treasurer position, the overall management of the Department of Motor
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 20 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Vehicles & Driver's Licensing, and that is the position that we are creating here. Each of
those departments have a separate manager that they have and that is the person that
they would be reporting to—this new position.
Councilmember Kagawa: My question is, the motor vehicle registrations, is
it not closer to the Real Property Tax Collections, and then the licensing seems like a
separate entity on its own? When you pay, the Real Property Tax line and all the payment
lines are all with the vehicles on one side.
Ms. Motta: Vehicle registration is the long lines you see.
Councilmember Kagawa: Right, that and Real Property Tax, right?
Ms. Motta: No.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just vehicle registrations?
Ms. Motta: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Ms. Motta: Sometimes for driver's licensing in the back of
the building the line will get long there.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. So this person will run the driver's
licensing and the vehicle registrations?
Ms. Motta: Right and it will be a working supervisor.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. I got it. Thank you. I like the sound of
"working supervisor." When a lot of people are up, you would be able to cover whatever is
missing. Thank you.
Ms. Motta: Exactly.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a follow-up that I think is very important
because I am actually really confused. Earlier, I thought I heard that there was no TA, and
then I heard you say that you folks reallocated someone to this position.
Ms. Motta: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I thought I heard. Is that not what
they just told you?
Councilmember Kagawa: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is this a new position? It cannot be because it
has been vacant for five hundred (500) day.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 21 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: That position that has been vacant used to
oversee the driver's licensing side. There was another supervisor below that position at the
time. When that position vacated, this position, the other supervisor in the department,
was temporarily assigned to that particular position. In the process, they looked at having
the vacated position now also oversee Treasury, taking that away from the Treasurer, so
upgrading that position since it was vacant.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Ms. Rapozo: In the process, the incumbent in the supervisor
position was then doing the TA, but then at some point when we could not get recruitment,
he could not qualify. We upgraded that position to then oversee driver's licensing for now
until we can find that other managerial level to do driver's licensing and treasury.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think what you just said answered the
question I was going to ask. It appears that some of these vacant positions are needed to do
the kind of movements that you need, reallocations, and redefining positions in order to
achieve a succession plan.
Ms. Rapozo: I think given that we knew that the Treasurer
was going to be vacating soon and that he was tasked with something that his counterparts
were not tasked with, we were looking at once that particular position vacated what kind of
creative things we can do to reorganize and I think that is what Finance did.
Unfortunately for them, nobody initially qualified for that higher-level position, so they had
to do some other things to try to see how they could get a list and they have now; it has just
taken a while.
Councilmember Yukimura: Even in the Elderly case, a vacant position can
be used to TA a person and gain them the experience to qualify ultimately for that. We are
talking about hiring and promoting internally, so some of these positions can be used for
that purpose to actually give experience to somebody in order to gain what they need to
qualify.
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one last question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know that Councilmember Yukimura said that
this is great succession planning, but would you consider this great succession planning?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 22 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: Well, we are looking at our internal people first
to see whether or not...if that is their desire to move up...
Council Chair Rapozo: But a succession plan covers all bases. A
succession plan, the ones that I know of anyway, all scenarios are covered. I guess my
question really is "yes" or "no." Do you consider this, as the Director of Human Resources, a
good example of succession planning? Five hundred thirty-three (533) days?
Ms. Rapozo: Unfortunately with government, succession
planning is difficult to do, and yes, five hundred (500) odd days is a lot. It is not the
ultimate on doing succession planning, but government is stifled a little bit in how we can
do that unfortunately.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I disagree, but I accept that answer.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will bring the
meeting back to order. Any final discussion on this before we take the vote? Council Chair
Rapozo.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: We talk about this every year, that we have to
cut spending and reduce the size of government, and talk about all of these other things.
We are at the time where this body can either fish or cut bait. Five hundred thirty-three
(533) days, to me, is that you do not need the position. I understand what they want to do.
We had three (3) positions that we cut from the Council and we could have put people in all
three (3) and say, "We are going to take some duties away from Jade, Scott, or Yvette for
whatever reason." No, we are trying to set an example for this County and say, "Hey, you
know what, we can, and we did it for five hundred thirty-three (533) days." To sit here
today and think that, "You know what, let us keep it going." $97,702—really? I know it is
difficult for Councilmembers because we all know everybody across the street, but really,
take the personalities out of this thing and just look at it objectively. That is our job. Our
job is not to worry about who is in that position. No, it is not our job. Our job is to look at
this objectively and say, "Is this position needed? Five hundred thirty-three (533) days?" If
you can sit here and say, "Yes, I think so," then I do not know what to say. I respect
everybody's vote and position, but again, fish or cut bait. This is the time. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I respect that philosophy, but I think, in this
case, they have been trying to actively recruit from within is what I have been hearing and
time of experience has been prohibitive, the necessity to have a college degree. I completely
agree with us being more efficient, but as we go through this exercise and call people to the
stand to justify the position, I think they made a case. I call this a "pothole issue," because
some of the things that our constituents have been complaining about, like the wait times
at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMW). I am not sure if this is going to help with the
efficiency. I know that there are quite a bit of requirements going into the DMW side that
would cause a lengthy wait time. This is, to me, like a pothole issue. This is one of the
departments where people have asked if we could become better operators of it. I do not
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 23 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
know—maybe this position will help with the efficiency, but in this position, I heard that
they have been trying to recruit from within. Unfortunately, because of the job description,
they were not able to.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is this position needed? I would say "yes"
because the Treasurer is going to retire soon. We need to have a manager over this very
important service to the public. Yes, we need it. I commend the Administration for doing
all they can first to hire internally and also to give our people time to qualify, and also
doing all that needs to be done in this fairly complex civil service system to have some
succession going on.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: This is a big struggle for me. We are using the
argument that the Treasurer is going to retire, but for this person to catch-on this position
is not going to help us anyway. It is going to be another six (6) months, eight (8) months, to
a year before this person even knows what is going on. I like the idea of TA and moving
that person up, but that is something that I think we really should do. I am struggling with
this one, so I am not sure yet.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: First, I would like to say that I appreciate the
workers there. I think they are the reason why we are successful, is because of the workers
in the front, the DMW team. I think they do an outstanding job. Some days you go, the
line is just packed. When I talk to the workers, they say that their day just flies by because
they are always busy. That is one job where if you take a job there, there are no "cruise"
days, because every day the demand is there. They are serving a lot of people and they do a
great job. They are the reason for the success. This vote here is to make sure that they
have an opportunity to move up possibly or have a manager to help them, so I am going to
support them because I know that their workload never goes away. Some of the other
County functions that we have go through peaks and valleys where we have busy times and
slower times, but for the DMV, they are always busy. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I think we are going to have to go through each
one of these, one-by-one, because I, for one, need to hear the story behind the cut. When we
have the nod and it is like, "Yes, we are going to go for it, let us go for it," then I am all for
it. It is apparent that I am not going to step in, in the middle of something that is just
about to fall. If we are going to hire somebody in June, it just makes no rhyme or reason for
us to look in a different direction at this point. With that being said, this is all a result of
budget cuts over the past few years and us needing to try to adapt to them, and you folks
trying to scramble around and make ends meet. Nothing is moving in that direction—in
fact, it is moving in the opposite direction in many ways and I think we need to be
transparent in the sense that, let us call a "spade a spade." If we cannot do the work that
we need to do with the cuts that have already been made, then that is it. Let us not try and
create multiple jobs out of one position, because I think this does a disservice for
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 24 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
management. I am not one to micromanage. This is something that I cannot, from this
seat, start to tell you folks what it is that you need to be successful. As these do come up,
one-by-one, at the very least...that is why for the last one, I had to vote for it because you
have to show up for this. There were some transparency issues that really became
apparent without being answered. I will not be supporting this cut. I will be looking at
each one with discernment. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is really in response to Councilmember
Kagawa's comment that he was so right about, about the lines. This manager is not going
to help the line. I would rather see two (2) more clerks or more people on the line that can
help that line. I have been in that line; the County Council does not have a special line.
You wait in line like everybody else. Try to go at the end of the month to get your
registration. This is not going to help that line. Let me just try this analogy so that it can
maybe bring some perspective back home for us on the Council—if the Auditor was not a
charter position, if it was a regular General Fund position, how many of you would say the
same thing for the Auditor position? "No, it has been five hundred (500), seven
hundred (700), eight hundred (800) days, but we tried, and tried, and are trying again. Let
us keep the funding in there." How many of you would support that? That is something to
think about. I am not going to ask you to answer on the floor because I know what the
answer is; that Auditor position would be gone, and no matter if Jade or anybody came up
here to beg for that position, saying that they need that position; at the end of the day, five
hundred thirty-three (533) days, to me, it was never a priority and I will disagree with the
succession. The Treasurer's position should have had a succession plan. It starts there.
Now, "Oops, the Treasurer is going to retire, now what? Oh my God." That is not
succession planning. We do not start succession planning from the bottom. You start
succession planning from the top. That was not done. I think there are going to be a lot of
votes that are 6:1, but I think it is important that the public knows...five hundred
thirty-three (533) days. Whatever the excuse, reason, rationale, I would do the same for my
department and I respect that. I think it is our job, the check and balance, on this body, to
make sure that we serve the people right. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: For me, I will not be supporting this cut. We are
all looking and trying to make the most difficult decisions we can. We are trying to
rationalize if this position is needed or not. I know for a fact that we have always been
worried about the Treasurer position, knowing that they are going to leave eventually. We
have always asked for a succession plan. I know how long it takes to get anything moving
in the County. I do see where we are going with this. I support it. I think we have people
actively applying for the position or possibly interviewing soon. I will not be voting for the
cut. I do like to see the succession planning. I like to see that we have employees that have
something to look forward to, have something to strive to. Again, we have heard some
things that we have to try and work around, like the experience type of things and college
degrees. I can tell you that college degrees do not get you jobs either. I remember applying
for the County three (3) years out of college with a Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
Degree and Degree in Accounting and I got rejected for a County job because I did not have
four (4) years of work experience. It goes both ways and those types of things happen. I
ended up staying in Oregon. It is a true story. I was rejected for not having four (4) years
of work experience, but I was a CPA. Again, we take these cuts and adds as we do. We all
have our own justifications and let us keep moving forward. With that, roll call vote.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 25 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
The motion to eliminate Position No. 562, Vehicle Registration & Licensing Manager
and related benefits in the Department of Finance, Driver License, was then put,
and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Rapozo TOTAL— 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5, motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair, how many proposals do you have?
Council Chair Rapozo: A bunch. Just to save the pain, I will just go
down...if you folks all know how you are going to vote, let us just call for the vote. We do
not need to go through this exercise with everyone.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: My comment was that I think a lot of people need
to get comfortable on how they are going to vote, but I am going to ask you to please direct
your questions to only questions that are going to make you decide whether you are...we
want to get a point of you knowing whether you are going to vote "yes" or "no." As far as
what are your succession plans, you let them answer the question and you get comfortable
at how you are voting. Sometimes, granted, we are not going to get the answers that we
need and we need to come to a vote, but I am just going to ask the Members if we can try to
direct our questions to questions that get us to point of, "Am I voting `yes' or `no"' and we
take the vote to kind of speed it up. I do not want to just go through and try to make the
decisions without the proper information. Just know that we have a lot of proposals and
just ask the question that gets your comfortable to vote "yes" or "no" and we will keep
moving. We will see how that goes. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: My next one is Position No. 233, Account Clerk,
Department of Finance, Real Property Collections, one hundred eighty-one (181) days,
six (6) months.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 233, Account Clerk and
related benefits in the Department of Finance, Real Property Collections, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is the status on that one?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Motta: This position was an SR-15 and the employee left
the County in October 2016. Part of the responsibilities for the Tax Collector's Assistant as
SR-15 included doing foreclosures on the properties that had non-payment of taxes. We
went out immediately to try to fill that position and nobody qualified intra, inter, or
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 26 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
anywhere, so we ended up downgrading it to SR-11 so that we could get somebody that we
would be able to get qualified. When the first list went out, the existing employees did not
qualify because of time in the department. So that was where the main issue was and we
do have a list that has gone out and there are candidates on it that are being vetted right
now by HR and we should have the list by the first week of June so that we can fill that
position by the beginning of the next fiscal year. Again, we run into the issue of having
enough time in that particular area in order to qualify.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions?
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 233, Account
Clerk and related benefits in the Department of Finance, Real Property Collections,
Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is from the Housing Agency, six
hundred seventy (670) days, dollar-funded. I did speak with the Housing Director and it
did not really matter one way or the other, according to her yesterday. Anyway, I will make
that motion.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 9534, Housing Technician in
the Housing Agency, seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions for the Housing Director?
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Do you need this position?
KANANI FU, Housing Director: Good morning. Kanani Fu, for the record. It
would be in the best interest of the Housing Agency to keep these positions and I can just
kind of take a few moments to...
Council Chair Rapozo: Before you go there, because you just made me
look like a real big liar, that is not what you said yesterday. You told me yesterday that
either way...
Ms. Fu: We can go either way, because we can always,
again, as you folks have said over and over, we can always go to the Vacancy Review
Committee to ask for another position. If we remove positions, we still have the
opportunity to go and ask for positions back.
Council Chair Rapozo: When do you need this position by?
Ms. Fu: That is why we do not have a definite clear date.
Historically, these positions were funded under (inaudible) funds, 211, the HCDRF funds,
and as those funds depleted and these people retired, in the best interest of being a team
player, we opted not to hire because of the General Fund...we were going through some
difficult times and these positions would have to have been picked up by the General Fund.
So we left these positions vacant in anticipation of other projects that would come onboard
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 27 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
and we would get outside State and Federal resources to fund these positions. Since the
departure of Position No. 9537 in Fiscal Year 2014, and then Position No. 9534 in Fiscal
Year 2015, prior to there was the Special Assistant to the Housing Director that took on a
lot of those duties. Then we reallocated some positions and even did a Salary Rate (SR)
increase for current people who were employed by the Housing Agency. What we are seeing
is that we now will have shortly about six (6) Housing projects and the timing of these
projects is contingent upon the timing of some entitlements and funding. I cannot give you
a definite date of when these positions will be needed. They will be needed when we secure
the funding for these projects.
Council Chair Rapozo: How much time do you have before you know
when this funding will become available?
Ms. Fu: How much time do I have?
Council Chair Rapozo: In other words, will you have enough time to
come back to get a position in six (6) weeks?
Ms. Fu: Yes, we get awarded the funding, and then we
would then adapt and move towards...we cannot make any decisions on any projects
without the money. So we wait for the money to get allocated, and then we could come back
and request these positions.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess the question is if the position is removed
and they have to go back through HR and come to the Council, will it impact the start date
of the project?
Ms. Fu: It will not.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Fu: Just to clarify, the Housing Agency is
contracted...we are on a contract year-to-year and we are not civil service.
Ms. Rapozo: Correct, they have an exemption.
Ms. Fu: So we have an exemption.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: But if you had this position, which is just costing
us $1 right now, instead of spending time coming before us to get the position created, you
could just fill it in with whatever project needs you have in starting the project.
Ms. Fu: Yes. That has been our response in the last
fiscal years as to why we wanted to keep this available. Again, we recognize impending
three (3) projects that we have on the books: Koa`e, Lima Ola, and we are siting a parcel for
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 28 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
the Lihu`e development. Just to give you a snapshot, the development team has six (6) staff
members. Four (4) of those staff members are specifically allocated to other Federal
programs, not necessarily development. So that leaves two (2) staff members, a Housing
Director, a Special Assistant to the Housing Director, and administration to work on
three (3) huge development projects and all of the other partnership projects that we have,
which are scattered lots, Kaua`i Habitat for Humanity. This is one of the scenarios that
since the Housing Agency and the County is about to take on one of the largest
development projects to-date, I think it would be in the best interest to have the staffing
capacity to do this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Have you used these position numbers for any
other contract positions or anything like that?
Ms. Fu: We have not. Since the positions have been
vacated through retirement, we have not reallocated these positions, reassigned them, or
anything like that.
Council Chair Rapozo: So the position number has just remained vacant
and no one has ever touched those positions?
Ms. Fu: No. It is the intent for us to not utilize General
Funds; it is just to utilize outside funding sources that we receive, whether through bond
financing, State financing, or Federal financing.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to withdraw the motion to eliminate Position No. 9534,
Housing Technician in the Housing Agency, Councilmember Brun withdrew the
second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We will move on.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Position No. 1287, Janitor II, one
thousand five hundred eighty-four (1,584) days. This is a $55,513 position.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1827, Janitor II in the
Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance and related benefits,
seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions from the Members?
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Do you need this position?
LEONARD A. RAPOZO, JR., Director of Parks & Recreation: For the record,
Director of Parks & Recreation, Lenny Rapozo. Yes, I do need the position and maybe I can
help save some time. I did some homework yesterday after getting the positions here.
What I did is I went back to the minutes of our budget review and I think the Chair was
very commendable that we stuck to the script. We talked about positions, effects, and
pluses and minuses. What I did is all of the positions that are here, with the exception to
two (2), we had discussed already and I am ready to present to you what the minutes were
and it has been highlighted so that it is easy to follow and you folks can look at it and make
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 29 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
your decision. I agree that going over position by position is time consuming, but I think all
of the questions that have come up have been answered and this is not one of those TA
types of things that I heard earlier. I take credit for most of the vacancies that were
effective July 1, 2016, because a lot of these vacancies came over from the Department of
Public Works. We have moved to get all of these vacancies filled, but as I said, two (2) of
the vacancies that were listed here was not included in our budget, because at the time, we
were going through a grievance process for termination and that is why it was vacant, they
were contesting the termination, and one of them is the Janitor position, and the other one
is the Plumber, because the Plumber has recently been given a promotion and we are in the
process of filling the Plumber's position. The highlighted areas were done in an effort so
you can readily get to the different positions that are listed here on this chart.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, the public will not have the opportunity to
see these minutes. We are looking at the Janitor II position. What is the story on that one?
Mr. Rapozo: The Janitor II was terminated. This one here is
the Groundskeeper that initially was going to be...we dollar-funded the Groundskeeper
position when we had to make cuts and we just dollar-funded it and kept it there. When
Hardy Street came onboard, we needed to get something...it was funded in the last budget
for half of a year. We never moved on it, upon assuming facility maintenance and in
looking at the operations and in trying to be creative and not adding new positions. Again,
this is not a new position, but one that is being reused. We looked at trying to be creative to
see how we can fulfill our goals internally by providing service for customers within the
County. This is the position that we are asking where, if you read the narrative, we went
where we proposed to increase our overtime to take care of Hardy Street, because the total
overtime that we are going to use for Hardy Street is going to be less than paying for one (1)
position with benefits. On the other side, we are looking to take that Beautification
position and convert it to a Janitor position. Again, it is in minutes there where we had
discussed about the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) having four (4) wings and one of the
wings is not being fully serviced by a person or a body is the Kaua`i Emergency
Management Agency (KEMA) and dispatch. So you have a 24/7 operation that does not
have a dedicated person to serve. Likewise with the bus, you have a twenty-hour operation
organization where it is only being serviced from four o'clock to eight o'clock, only four (4)
hours, and that is what was explained in our presentation. With that position there, we
asked to combine to make four (4) hours so that they can do four (4) hours in the morning to
take care of dispatch and KEMA. With the other four (4) hours in the afternoon, they can
take care of Transportation, so Transportation will be touched twice in that 24-hour
operation.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not understand, but maybe somebody else
did. Is the plan to still use overtime for Hardy Street?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, because it was cheaper. In the minutes
there, Hardy...when I asked...again, trying to look at ways to maintain, I asked for once a
month overtime for one (1) Beautification crew, which was about $12,000, as opposed to
paying for $30,000 with benefits for two (2) full-time employees. Since that, we have done
Hardy Street twice, once a month, and we found that having two (2) crews, which still
comes out to $24,000, which is still cheaper than paying $30,000 plus benefits, and hitting
it the first Saturday of the month. We were looking at the first Wednesday, but still with
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 30 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
traffic and school getting out early, it was still problematic, so we have done it the past
two (2) Saturdays, first in the month. That seems to work out really well.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am done. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions? As far as this Janitor II position,
this position is for what again?
Mr. Rapozo: For Police and Transportation.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: You do not have somebody dedicated, especially
for the dispatch.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any further questions from the members?
Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am just curious if anyone understood that. You
did? Okay. I am ready to vote.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can I clarify?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Lenny, what I heard is that you took the position
that was for Hardy Street as a Groundskeeper and you turned it into a janitorial position
because you are going cover Hardy Street with overtime, and then you are going to have the
Janitor do the Transportation and the dispatch rooms, where Transportation is a 24-hour
service and therefore needs a little more janitorial than usual for an 8-hour place?
Mr. Rapozo: Correct. On page 22 of the minutes, on through
page 23, it explains Hardy Street.
Ms. Rapozo: Just for clarification, this position was
reallocated to the Janitor from the Groundskeeper, and prior to that, it was a dollar-funded
Heavy Truck Driver. That is why it has been vacant for so long. I think in the Mayor's
Budget Message, this was one of his priorities as far as getting janitorial services at both
KPD and Transportation.
Mr. Rapozo: Page 22-24 explains what I just really quickly
went through.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Where are we in the hiring process and when do
we anticipate hiring for this position?
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as not present.)
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 31 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Rapozo: We are looking to hire on July 1st. For every one
of our positions, we are trying to get it ready. So with funding upon this body, we can make
that selection.
Ms. Rapozo: One more clarification on the janitors is that we
have some janitors that are part-time, so the process does take a little longer because they
are afforded the full-time positions first, and then we have to then go one more time for the
part-time. There is a little bit of an extra step with these types of positions, because there
is one (1) more Janitor that is on this list, so I just wanted to make that clear.
Council Chair Rapozo: Do we have a list for this one already?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes. It is from the labor list.
Council Chair Rapozo: How long? I know you say July 1St, but what is
the process from here?
Ms. Rapozo: We have the list now already, so as soon as we
refer it, they can select.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will call the
meeting back to order. Any final comments? Roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1827, Janitor II and related benefits in the
Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance was then put, and failed
by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 2*,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Yukimura,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Kawakami was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative vote for the motion.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Position No. 1649, Permits Clerk,
eight hundred fifty-two (852) days vacant, $44,883.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1649, Permits Clerk and
related benefits in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 32 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions from the Members? I have a
question. Where are we in the hiring of this position?
Mr. Rapozo: Pending funding. We are in the process and we
have a list being generated. It went out for recruitment. This is one of those positions
where I want to be very clear—with the Vacancy Review Committee, just because you have
family ties does not mean that you get what you want. When the incumbent, and this is
depicted on page 1 at the bottom of your minutes...they dollar-funded it for us, even though
we wanted the position. To prove its worth, and I think Councilmember Yukimura
recognized it in our briefing, we had to show that within a certain timeframe, the number of
generated business that was occurring in Pi`ikoi. But how do you do that without the
funding and what we had done? We proved it and it is in the minutes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: So this was a position, just to refresh my memory
real quick, it was dollar-funded in the past, it was a Permits Clerk here, and then we
started getting complaints that people did not know where to get their permits after that,
so we saw where we cut a position and we saw an impact in services, and then we received
a bunch of complaints on it.
Mr. Rapozo: It was not so much of where, but also at the
neighborhood centers, because they are dealing with senior programs and everything that
is outlined on page 2 and page 9, that it is talked about—so the first three (3) pages of your
handout—they were constrained to certain time periods at the neighborhood centers
because the neighborhood centers are busy doing other things. With this one, we have a
dedicated eight o'clock to four o'clock window that people could come and get their permits.
That is the length of time.
Council Chair Rapozo: So this person will be here at Pi`ikoi?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that going to be full-time?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: We used to have that.
Mr. Rapozo: We used to.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I will withdraw.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 1649, Permits
Clerk and related benefits in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities
Maintenance, Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the second.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Position No. 1653, Recreation
Worker I, nine hundred eighty-nine (989) days, $44,883.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 33 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1653, Recreation Worker I
and related benefits in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Recreation, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Mr. Rapozo: The Hanalei Courthouse and Neighborhood
Center Project is a project that has been ongoing before this Administration. We knew that
the conversion was taking place and it was going to be turned into a recreation center.
When the Recreation Manager at Lihu`e Neighborhood Center resigned or left, we looked at
operations and we looked at the impacts or what is going on with activities, and this is
where we combined the...Waimea Neighborhood Center is now taking care of Waimea
half-time and Kaumakani. With Kaumakami, that community with the decrease in sugar
is not as active. The center is still being used for meetings, but senior center programs and
those kinds of community programs have been reduced because of the dying of sugar. So
that person now has to do two (2) centers. We moved that Kaumakani center manager to
Koloa, and the Koloa manager we moved to Puhi. As the Director, I have that purview to
run the department as efficiently as I feel. With this position, we put it on the side as a
dollar-funded position because we knew that the Hanalei community or the neighborhood
center was going to be a reality someday, and it is now coming to that reality,
hopefully...the projected completion will be August 1st, so this position would go to that
neighborhood center. We talk about succession planning—we held it on knowing that
eventually someday they would have a Hanalei Neighborhood Center that would need to be
staffed.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So that is a full-time position?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: They are going to do Hanalei Courthouse and
that is it?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes. That would be on page 2 as a Recreation
Worker, Hanalei. It is listed.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: When do you expect to hire that one?
Mr. Rapozo: Sometime in July, but not to start until August.
Councilmember Yukimura: Lenny, do you...I am sorry...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair has the floor.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: She can go. It is not the first time.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 34 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I apologize. Do you need a full-time
person for the Hanalei Courthouse?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, we had this discussion.
Councilmember Yukimura: We did?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Are you saying "yes"?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes. You and I went back and forth.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not the only one who is wondering how that
is...you cannot do with a half-time position?
Mr. Rapozo: I do not believe so.
Councilmember Yukimura: How many square feet is it?
Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry?
Councilmember Yukimura: How many square feet?
Mr. Rapozo: It does not matter the square feet...that sounds
like a janitor kind of question...but the activities...we still want to reach out to Hanalei
children.
Councilmember Yukimura: Sorry, that is a Recreation Worker.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. That makes sense.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will call this
meeting back to order. Any final discussion? Roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1653, Recreation Worker I and related benefits
in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Recreation, was then put, and failed by
the following vote:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 35 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
FOR MOTION: Rapozo TOTAL— 1,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL—6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 1:6, motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As far as timing goes, we are going to take lunch
at 12:00 p.m., rather than 12:30 p.m. today. We will be back at 1:00 p.m. and my intent is
to hopefully finish today. We will see where we get to. If we are close and we are near
4:30 p.m., we are going to just try and get through it. I hope to not be going anywhere near
4:30 p.m., but the intent is to finish this today. We have a caption break in about
twenty (20) minutes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have three (3) more.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, we will stay on the Department of Parks &
Recreation, and then take our caption break.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. The next one is Position No. 1541,
Electrician Helper, five hundred forty-six (546), $61,016.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1541, Electrician Helper and
related benefits in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Mr. Rapozo: This is on page 36 through page 40. Since the
green box or facilities maintenance has come over to the Department of Parks & Recreation,
we looked at trying to help and fill these two (2) positions. Right now, we have only two (2)
licensed electricians within facility maintenance. This is where sometimes, as
Councilmember Kawakami had alluded to, where experience within government, as well as
you need to be creative...now, the electrical industry is such that it is a better-paying
industry outside of government, even though the benefits of government are better. In
order to attract electricians, it has been very difficult, as it shows by the amount and the
days that it has been vacant. You have to be creative and sometimes for government, you
have to go out and go get it. One young man, who is trying to improve himself, went on his
own and got the education that he needed to be an electrician; however, he still retains his
Maintenance Worker status within the County. Again, as HR had talked about earlier, we
have a training agreement in place and I just need to work with the union. Hopefully that
will happen next week Thursday at our next meeting, where they will agree to the training
agreement and this person will have enough hours working under the licensed electrician of
the County that he will be able to take the test somewhere in August and he will become
the electrician. Meanwhile, HR will re-describe one of these electrician positions to a
Maintenance Worker position. Right now, maintenance is impacted because this young
man is in a Maintenance Worker position, trying to fulfill hours as an electrician. That
way, Maintenance will be able to continue their work that they need with the warm body.
When he passes and gets his license, we will re-describe the Maintenance Worker position
into an Electrician's position.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 36 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Lenny, we have been down this before with the
Buildings Division, that part of the problem is that it is difficult to get people from the
private sector for plumbing and electricians because the County pay is significantly less. I
thought that the last time we were talking with Doug, I believe, that he was going to try to
work with the United Public Workers (UPW) union to structure it a little better so we have
a little better chance. We have good benefits at the County, like the twenty-one (21) days
sick-leave and twenty-one (21) days of vacation, but if the salary is three (3) times less, then
we almost have no chance to grab them. These innovative ways that you are trying to get
people that have been performing a job, even though they are not, is the reason why you
need this position.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Mr. Rapozo: I think we made considerable progress
considering we have had them since July. It is not just me; we have to beat the bush. It is
our Division Chief who is also out there trying, because it only helps him in completing the
work that we have to complete.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: For my question, which I think you touched on it,
but you need this Maintenance Worker position as well?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Brun: So you need that, too?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. That is what I was going to ask.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will bring the
meeting back to order. Any final discussion? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is a general discussion. We have heard so
many different discussions with reclassifying this and reclassifying that, and reallocating
this and reallocating that. I guess I am just uncomfortable with that and I would rather
they come here when they want to do positions. Honestly, I am not the brightest star in the
sky, but I am not the dumbest one either, but I am having a hard time grasping what is
being done. That is just me. I feel uncomfortable. Five hundred (500) days, six hundred
(600) days, or eight hundred (800) days—all of a sudden, there are all of these plans. I
would much rather have the departments come here when they are ready. Again, it does
not take five hundred (500) days to create a position. Let us put it that way. I would much
rather see the departments come to us when they are ready, not when they are speculating
if the person is going to pass the test. In the meantime, $61,000 is hiding someplace in
some account, and then we are talking about raising somebody's taxes. I am going to
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 37 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
support the cuts. I understand and appreciate what the Administration is trying to do, but
I do not have a good handle on these. When they come to us with a budget with "x" amount
of positions and position titles, that is what we are telling the public we are going pay for
this year. When you look at the budget next year, it is completely different with different
positions, different classes, different rankings, and different salaries. I would feel
comfortable if we just bring it home and have them come here when they are ready. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think to add on to that, I completely agree.
This is not directed to you, Lenny, but to the Administration and how we operate in
general. I think what the Council is asking for is some sort of business partnership to
operate like a team, because I think what is happening is there is some uneasiness when
we see reallocations without the common courtesy of the communication that is involved in
keeping us in the loop. Let us face it—ninety-nine percent (99%) of the conflicts are all just
miscommunication; just the heads up that, "Hey, this is a dollar-funded position and we are
moving somebody here." Just the courtesy to come to the body or the Chairman to just let
him know that these movements are being had, so when budget time comes, we do not get
surprised by all of the add-ons that maybe did not get communicated to us. I think it is an
exercise in reaching out to let us know about these reallocations. I can see the point where
you want to keep the positions because we are in a low-unemployment rate time, so when
we do find a recruit, the Administration wants the flexibility to be able to go and hire.
Somebody is not going to wait for six (6) weeks with the uncertainty of the Council creating
the position or approving the funding. It works both ways. I know you folks want the
flexibility, but I think what we are asking for is the communication as to where the money
is being moved around. With this kind of justification that is happening, it makes our
decision-making easier.
Mr. Rapozo: If I can just mention, Councilmember Kawakami,
Section 19 of the budget does require HR to provide that information to you. There are
three (3) reports that come through to the Council regarding reallocations throughout the
year.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: It just shows the moves. There is no explanation,
justification, or clarification. It says reallocation, this position to that position and that is
it. There is no real...we can put it on the agenda and have that discussion, but I really do
not want to do that; that is just a waste of time. I think what Councilmember Kawakami is
saying is that in some of these that actually change the whole complexion of the
department, maybe more narrative might be important. I think that is what I am hearing.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Maybe we look at those a little closer and if we
have questions, we will put them in the Budget & Finance Committee or something like
that. That is on the sheet that has new hires, promotions; it is a whole big sheet with
reallocations on it also. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to say that in times of high
employment, it is really hard to get people in the trades to hire them in the County and I
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 38 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
think this is a really creative way. It is allowing a person with great initiative to move up
and fill a need. To me, it is a very commendable approach that you are taking.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any final discussion? Councilmember Brun.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Brun: For me, I like the explanation and I like what we
are trying to do. I understand the Chair's point also, but like I said, I have only been here
for six (6) months and I am going to hold this to you, Lenny. If we come back next year and
we have two (2) Assistants to the Director of Parks & Recreation at $95,000, then we have
an issue. I like what you are trying to do and I like trying to move people within. That is
why I am not going to support this cut. Like I said, I am new, so if I am being lied to here,
we are going to figure it out next year in budget. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any final discussion? Roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1541, Electrician Helper and related benefits
in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance was then put, and
failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Rapozo TOTAL— 1,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 1:6, motion fails.
Council Chair Rapozo: If this is going to be an exercise in futility, maybe
we should just end it, because it does not seem like...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It all depends.
Council Chair Rapozo: It is what it is, and I know it is a difficult
decision, but I thought we agreed that we were going to make the difficult decisions. The
next one is Elect-Electronic Equip Repairer, one thousand three hundred eighty-five (1,385)
days, dollar-funded position.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1856, Elec-Electronic Equip
Repairer in the Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Mr. Rapozo: My explanation was included in...again, the
Maintenance Worker is going to do it. For the Helper, we have someone in mind that wants
to come home and he is taking the test in May and will probably pass it. The one that
wants to come home is a Kaua`i boy. We have done our outreach and tried to get what we
explained.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 39 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: One thousand three hundred eighty-five (1,385)
days.
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is this position needed?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes. We cannot fulfill the County's electrical
needs as it is. I know it is a big number and I only can attest to what we have done since
July 1, 2016, and understanding the needs of what we are responsible for in the
Department of Parks & Recreation, translating to try and be creative to attract the talent
to come and work for the County.
Councilmember Yukimura: So July 1, 2016 is when it was...
Mr. Rapozo: That is when Facility Maintenance came under
the Department of Parks & Recreation.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see.
Mr. Rapozo: Seeing how the electricians are struggling,
meaning that we do not have enough electricians to service the entire County's needs.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Rapozo: We have to do something, right? We have to try
to be creative.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Rapozo: Just for clarification, we currently have two (2)
Electricians. The position we discussed before, plus this one, are both in the electrical field
as well. What they are doing is one is the Maintenance Worker becoming an Electrician,
and the other one is being converted down to an Electrician Helper so that we can bring
somebody onboard at a lower level and train them.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, so you are still only going to have two (2)
Electricians?
Ms. Rapozo: No, plus these two (2). Two (2) are already
working and these two (2) would be four (4).
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, you have two (2) Electricians...
Mr. Rapozo: Licensed. One is working to get his license in
August and downgrading one to get one onboard so that he can also get his license.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 40 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but then you have two (2) others that are
already filled...you have two (2) that are filled and working and they are licensed
electricians?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Then you have two (2) positions that are in
transition.
Ms. Rapozo: These two (2) right here, Position No. 1541 and
Position No. 1856.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, so this is a downgrade?
Ms. Rapozo: The first one, the Electrician Equipment Helper.
Councilmember Yukimura: Position No. 1856?
Ms. Rapozo: Position No. 1541 is showing as an Electrician
Helper.
Mr. Rapozo: That one is a downgrade.
Ms. Rapozo: That is the downgrade to try to recruit at an
entry-level.
Councilmember Yukimura: The one we just dealt with?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is the downgrade to a Helper?
Ms. Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: For this one, you are going to get a licensed
Electrician?
Ms. Rapozo: I believe this is the one you are doing the switch,
right?
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Ms. Rapozo: The prior explanation was actually for this
position.
Councilmember Yukimura: But is this is a licensed position or not?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 41 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: It is. So they are going to switch with the
Maintenance Worker, the explanation right before, so it will become licensed.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. The end result is that you are going to
have one (1) licensed and one (1) helper?
Ms. Rapozo: Until the Helper gets to the point of getting
licensed, correct, with these two (2) vacancies.
Councilmember Yukimura: There will be two (2) licensed Electricians
ultimately to add to the other two (2) that you have.
Mr. Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. All of this is open recruitment and
testing?
Ms. Rapozo: For the Helper. The Helper is entry-level. I am
not sure if there is a testing or if it is just experience.
Councilmember Yukimura: But this one, which has been open one thousand
(1,000) days, that is right now before us to make decisions on...I know...
Mr. Rapozo: That one has been ongoing...there is an ongoing
recruitment for that one.
Councilmember Yukimura: It just has not been...I know you said that
somebody is coming home, which is good, but we just want to make sure that it is not a
position made for one (1) person.
Mr. Rapozo: No, it has been an ongoing recruitment position
that has never been filled.
Councilmember Yukimura: Very good. Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: So for Position No. 1856, we do not have any
applications right now?
Ms. Rapozo: No, it has been continuous recruitment and no
one has applied.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does "continuous recruitment" mean only on the
website? Do we put anything in the paper or anything like that?
Ms. Rapozo: It does go out in the paper periodically.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 42 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I have one more question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So for the size of the County that we are and the
number of facilities that we have and everything, four (4) Electricians is reasonable or it fits
the standard of other counties?
Mr. Rapozo: I am going to say "yes." I have not been
fully-staffed and I am hoping that answer will be "yes."
Councilmember Yukimura: What we should all be doing is defining what
"fully-staffed" means, which means we ask, "Are these positions needed?" There is enough
electrical work to be done by four (4) people, four (4) Electricians?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So say they do one (1) repair and then
they are called back because they overlook something, do we have a system where it is
usually completed on the first repair?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions regarding this
dollar-funded position? If not, I will bring it back to discussion. From my standpoint, I
remember us having a lot of discussion on this during the budget. I think it was real clear
to me that we always had a difficult time getting electricians and that was the need for
some of these types of movements. I am comfortable with what they have done. Again,
with the Sunshine Law, we do not know what is being cut. I am not going to bring my
notes from our meetings either because our desks would be crowded. When we ask
questions, let us try to get them to a point. I think right after this we will take our
ten-minute caption break. Any further discussion on this position? If not, roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1856, Elec-Electronic Equip Repairer in the
Department of Parks & Recreation-Facilities Maintenance was then put, and failed
by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 3*,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kaua`i,
Councilmember Kagawa and Councilmember Kawakami were noted as silent (not present),
but shall be recorded as an affirmative vote for the motion.)
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 43 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4, motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Just to confirm, Council Chair, do you have any
more for the Department of Parks & Recreation?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, there is no sense.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will take a ten-minute caption and come
back.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:29 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11:43 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as present.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. We are still on our cuts. Council
Chair Rapozo, do you have more cuts?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. From the Planning Department,
Position No. 2027, four hundred seventy-one (471) days, $70,395.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 2027, Planner IV and related
benefits in the Planning Department, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion questions?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you need this position?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, Planning Director: For the record, Mike Dahilig. Yes,
we do need the position. Let me give a little bit of background on what the position entails.
In December of 2015, as well as in 2014, we have been coupled with judicial mandates
concerning historic preservation compliance with quasi-judicial permits. Namely, these are
the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) ruling that came down in 2015, as well as the Kaua`i
Springs ruling that came down in 2014. It has placed a higher burden of proof on our
department to show compliance with sixty (60) requirements, as well as historic
preservation and cultural Hawaiian compliance with our determinations in-house. We had
asked for an additional position in fiscal year 2017, this current budget. When we went
through internal budget reviews with the Mayor's staff, they had indicated to us a desire to
actually have the responsibilities of that position coupled with a vacancy that was created
by a promotion in January of 2016. We went through the Historic Preservation
Commission to create what was called the "selective certification." So on top of a
Planner IV, which we downgraded from a V, it went to a IV, we created a selective
certification to attempt to obtain somebody that was qualified in the area of historic
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 44 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
preservation and 6D compliance. We went out for recruitment in March of 2016, and in
April of 2016, we had no eligible recruits available. Through that budget process that was
going at the same time, we ended up getting nine-month funded for the position. So we
delayed recruitment on the position until July of 2016 and kept that as a continuous
recruitment. By the time December rolled around, we did not have a list that met the
amount of eligibles necessary to actually start recruitment at that point. We returned back
to the Historic Preservation Commission to say, "Look, we cannot hire at that pay and at
that qualification. Can we instead remove the selective certification and instead recruit for
a broader range of planners?" So we put out recruitments for Planner II, III, and IV
without the selective certification, upon which time we were notified that we had enough
eligibles in the Planner II to move forward. We had requested to the Human Resources to
downgrade the position from a IV to a II, and we are in the process right now of obtaining a
list. Our strategy to meet this need is to essentially take care of it by training up a
lower-level Planner in-house to try to meet our requirements. As such, because the
reallocation has gone through, we believe it is appropriate to Position No. 2027 downgraded
from an SR-22 to SR-18, reflecting a salary of $43,428 and we believe that is appropriate
given the personnel moves we just made recently.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are saying that you would downgrade to
what?
Mr. Dahilig: Planner II.
Councilmember Yukimura: Does the Planner II position require planning
experience?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes it does.
Councilmember Yukimura: Planning background or college degree?
Mr. Dahilig: It requires a Bachelor's Degree in a
Planning-related field, along with one (1) year of work experience.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Are you saying that if it is kept then we
can actually make it for less money or is this $70,000 what a Planner II would get?
Mr. Dahilig: The $50,772 was what the Planner IV was
getting and that is what we recruited at, but because we have not been able to obtain
somebody that was qualified with the selective certification or qualified just without the
selective certification, we tried to go for somebody that was less qualified and trying a
strategy to train that person up versus hiring at the qualification we need.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just trying to understand the budgetary
parameters if it is at Planner II.
Mr. Dahilig: So it would be a reduction of $7,344 in our
overall budget.
Councilmember Yukimura: $7,344?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 45 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Dahilig: Just for salaries without the fringe cost.
Councilmember Yukimura: So instead of$50,772, it would be minus $7,344?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, to reflect $43,428 and that is just on the
salary line.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Dahilig: We would understand a corresponding Rate
Adjustment Procedures (PRORET) adjustment on the benefits line as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are getting a list right now and would
train in-house. What is your projected time on getting somebody onboard?
Mr. Dahilig: We have the list pending this reallocation down
to the lower level.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, you mean there is an existing list?
Mr. Dahilig: We need it to go through that reallocation to
obtain the list.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So there is an existing list that you will be
working from once the reallocation is finalized?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mike, when did all of that happen? When was
the decision to downgrade that position made?
Mr. Dahilig: We made that decision to downgrade, I would
say, during the last couple of months. We went out for recruitment again in December of
2016 without the selective certification and the bandwidth of planners because we have had
a difficulty trying to attract qualified planners at the higher levels.
Council Chair Rapozo: That seems to be the theme today. I am glad
that the police do not follow that recommendation where you cannot get them here, we just
go down until we can find somebody to hire. The Supplemental Budget does not reflect
that.
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: Any reason why?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 46 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Dahilig: Because the downgrade was finally approved last
week. We submitted it ahead of time, but we had to go through the approvals.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess this one is for HR, but is there any way of
knowing how many positions came across or on this existing budget that there are plans to
downgrade positions? Is there any way of figuring that out?
Ms. Rapozo: No, actually what we did from March 15 to the
May 8 submittal is that every change that was made or was upcoming that we were aware
of, we made the changes in the budget.
Council Chair Rapozo: But you were not aware of this one?
Ms. Rapozo: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members? If not,
I will call the meeting back to order. Any discussion? Council Chair Rapozo.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess for me, my position will remain. I think
there are just a lot of plans to restructure our departments. I do not expect them to tell me
what the recruiting efforts were over the last four hundred seventy-one (471) days...I do not
know how much effort was really put into trying to recruit a Planner IV. Again, I am just
not comfortable with all of these movements and it is showing up in the Supplemental
Budget Decision-Making. It is just very uncomfortable for me. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any final discussion from the Members?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am thinking that Planning does need another
Planner; that is pretty clear to me. I am hoping that there will be a lot more attention to
implementation of plans, but that is a lot of work to do, both planning and implementation.
To me, the position is needed and that is where I stand.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any further questions? I do not know
how the votes are going to go, but we did hear that they plan to have this amount reduced.
I do not know...depending on how this goes if somebody wants to do a proposal to reduce it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Somebody can make that amendment right
there. I do not have the numbers. I can amend it. What is the number?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We can take a vote on this or withdraw.
Councilmember Yukimura: You can withdraw it, Chair.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 47 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: If I withdraw it, then the position stays. You
want to change it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, you are right, the position stays.
Council Chair Rapozo: I know. However you want to do it...I will just
withdraw this.
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 2027,
Planner IV and related benefits in the Planning Department, Councilmember
Kagawa withdrew the second.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to reallocate Position No. 2027, Planner IV and
related benefits to Planner II (SR-18) in the Planning Department, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussions? Roll call vote.
The motion to reallocate Position No. 2027, Planner IV and related benefits to
Planner II (SR-18) in the Planning Department was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Rapozo, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Building Permit Clerk,
Position No. 1439, seven hundred seventy-nine (779) days vacant.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1439, Building Permit Clerk
in the Department of Public Works, Building Division, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
LYLE TABATA, Acting County Engineer: Lyle Tabata, Acting County
Engineer. Good morning. As I stated in our budget presentation, this position is a fallback
for us in the efforts for the Buildings Division of the Department of Public Works to save on
General Fund. We have been using the Revolving Fund that is drawn from building
permits, the Building Permit Revolving Fund. In that manner, we are able to fund the
positions using that fund versus the General Fund. Then we dollar-funded this position so
that we have a placeholder in case the Revolving Fund should it run out and we have to
then fund it through the General Fund. It is just a placeholder position. Hearing the
discussion on the floor, we track our fund monthly, so we know exactly where we stand,
plus or minus.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 48 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have a warm body in there right now?
Mr. Tabata: No, but we have people...yes, we have a body
meaning it is being funded through the Building Revolving Fund.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you do have a warm body?
Mr. Tabata: Not in this dollar-funded position. It is in a
Building Revolving Fund temporary position, doing that function.
Council Chair Rapozo: But you are using this number?
Mr. Tabata: No, this is just a placeholder for fallback in case
the Revolving Fund should fall.
Council Chair Rapozo: But you would know ahead of time, right?
Mr. Tabata: We would have to then look for funds anyway to
recover it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Tabata: So we would still have to come through the same
action.
Councilmember Yukimura: So do you need this dollar-funded position?
Mr. Tabata: It is a "safety blanket" thing for us that if we
need it, then we would come back to the body to fund it with the General Fund. So we
would have to then come back to fund a whole position.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Revolving Fund is to help where the demand
for permits or the permit applications get, in time of high construction, big projects, like a
hotel or something...you need the building processing and inspection, right? When you
need that, then you have this dollar-funded position and you can just put somebody in there
using your Revolving Fund moneys?
Mr. Tabata: No. This is the permanent position. Right now,
we are use the Revolving Fund and temporary positions to meet our needs.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So it will take the same amount of time to come
back for money to create another position, right?
Mr. Tabata: I believe so, correct.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 49 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I go either way on this, but for me, it is one of the
major functions. He is trying to process these permits on time. We get complaints
sometimes. Sometimes I ask people who just pulled and it is okay, it was not too long, but I
think just a safety net for management and I think this is a function that I have raised a lot
of questions on. If having this position open allows Lyle folks to sometimes meet the
problem areas that are described then I would be okay with just leaving this in. I will vote
against it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will just withdraw. I am going through my list
right now. I am just going to save everybody a lot of time.
Councilmember Yukimura: We might have the vote.
Council Chair Rapozo: And we may not. I do not want to waste
anybody's time.
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 1439, Building
Permit Clerk in the Department of Public Works, Building Division, Councilmember
Kagawa withdrew the second.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think asking them, "Do you need this position"
is one of the most foolish questions, and then it goes into this whole story. I am just going
to take out a couple of these, and for the rest, we will just move on. I know everybody is
tired. Let us go to Auto Maintenance, Position No. 1342, Highway Vehicle & Construction
Equipment Mechanic, two thousand seven hundred thirty-eight (2,738) days. I would like
to hear this one.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1342, Highway Vehicle &
Construction Equipment Mechanic I and related benefits in the Department of
Public Works-Auto Maintenance, and return savings to the Highway Fund Balance,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as excused.)
Mr. Tabata: Thank you for bringing this up and allowing me
to explain. As was presented in my budget presentation, over the last year, have had
multiple issues with keeping up with the repairs of our heavy equipment. We relooked at
the structure and our personnel and how we use our personnel, and in-line with trying to
get more as mechanics on the floor, wrenching, we decided to take this position, which was
previously identified as the Body Fender Repair Worker, and we had not been able to fill
this position for lack of applicants. So we decided, "Well, we need a wrench on the floor," so
we presented in the budget to reallocate this position for the Body Fender to this Heavy
Equipment Mechanic, where we are severely lacking wrench time on the floor. That
explains the long amount of days, but in actuality, since we just reallocated and are trying
to fill, I would like to say that I am ready to hire somebody, because I recently hired to fill
another mechanic vacancy and there were two (2) excellent candidates. Right now, HR put
the brakes on me, because I asked, "Okay, we reallocated. I would like to hire." But we
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 50 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
wanted to come before the body and get approval for the change in the budget, because I
presented it as part of my budget discussion. I am ready to hire as soon as I get approval.
We interviewed and I have to say that we have two (2) excellent candidates. We hired one
for the previous vacancy, and if I was allowed to, I would hire the second person.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: So this was the Body Fender Repair Worker?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, which we had ongoing posting and never
had any applicants. So with the crisis we felt we were in or we have seen, my presentation
was to reallocate this to be the Heavy Equipment Mechanic so that I can get another
working body on the floor.
Council Chair Rapozo: So how do we deal with the damaged cars now?
Mr. Tabata: We have one (1) Body Fender Repair Worker.
Council Chair Rapozo: In Kapa`a?
Mr. Tabata: No, he is based in Lihu`e. The paint shop is in
Kapa`a, so they do the repairs and when they want to go paint, we take it to Kapa'a to
paint.
Council Chair Rapozo: You folks really have not painted much. I was
talking to some of the workers in Kapa'a and they said that they painted two (2) cars in
that booth since we built it.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So we are not painting. Who is painting our
cars?
Mr. Tabata: Majority of the time, we just do...how can I
characterize this...if we have damaged fenders, we just remove it and swap them out.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will bring the
meeting back to order. Any discussion on this? Roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1342, Highway Vehicle & Construction
Equipment Mechanic I and related benefits in the Department of Public Works-Auto
Maintenance, and return savings to the Highway Fund Balance was then put, and
failed by the following vote:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 51 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
FOR MOTION: Rapozo TOTAL– 1,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami,
Kaneshiro TOTAL– 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Yukimura TOTAL– 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL– 0.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: In all fairness to Councilmember Yukimura, I
lost track of time. She said she had to leave at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chair Rapozo: I apologize.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No problem. We got through one more. We are
going to take a one-hour lunch break. We will be back at 1:05 p.m., roughly.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:04 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 1:08 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Yukimura was noted as present.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. We are still on cuts. Council
Chair Rapozo, do you have another cut?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. The next one is Hanapepe Baseyard,
Department of Public Works, Position No. 939, Laborer II, one thousand one hundred
fifty-four (1,154) days.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 939, Laborer II in the
Department of Public Works-Hanapepe Baseyard, and return savings to the
Highway Fund Balance, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments on this dollar-funded
position? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just have one question, Lyle. I know when we
went with the automated trash pick-up, we freed up some workers to instead do other
duties, so I was just wondering with the automated trash pick-up, have those guys replaced
some of the...or added to some of the work that was going on, so maybe this position can be
just eliminated?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you. Lyle Tabata, Acting County
Engineer. Councilmember Kagawa, good question—part of the reorganization and
completing the total automation of the island, the refuse section of the Roads Division was
carved out and transferred permanently to the Solid Waste Division. So what we have is
the refuse operation be less dependent on refuse for support. The people who came off of
the back of the truck are now what we have identified or reclassified as "Solid Waste
Workers" and they are used to supplement the needs for the Solid Waste Division and fill
vacancies. For the Roads Division, however, since we did just complete movement of the
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 52 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
refuse section out of Roads, we have identified that this dollar-funded position...we were
trying to do our part in the Department of Public Works to not fill positions to meet the
budget needs. Presently, we are trying to bring this position back and we ask for it to be
funded. That was our way of trying to meet the budgetary needs.
Councilmember Kagawa: So you asked for it to be funded, but it was not
funded?
Mr. Tabata: No. By the way, this is also just a Highway Fund
funded position. This is not a General Fund position.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will bring this
meeting back to order. Any final comments or discussion on this position? Roll call vote.
The motion to eliminate Position No. 939, Laborer II in the Department of Public
Works-Hanapepe Baseyard, and return savings to the Highway Fund Balance was
then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Rapozo TOTAL— 3,
AGAINST MOTION: Kagawa, Kawakami, Yukimura,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 3:4.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Laborer I, Hanapepe Baseyard,
six hundred thirty-nine (639) days vacant, $55,513.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1990, Laborer I and related
benefits in the Department of Public Works-Hanapepe Baseyard, and return savings
to the Highway Fund Balance, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Tabata: This position, fortunately, is in the process of
hiring. We have selected and are in the process of onboarding an employee.
Council Chair Rapozo: When is that anticipated for? When is the start
date?
Mr. Tabata: HR has been really good on supporting us. I
believe that within two (2) weeks we should have somebody, contingent on the physical.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 53 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 1990, Laborer I
and related benefits in the Department of Public Works-Hanapepe Baseyard, and
return savings to the Highway Fund Balance, Councilmember Kagawa withdrew
the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Next.
Council Chair Rapozo: The next one is Position No. 1932, Landfill
Operations Assistant, four hundred seventy-one (471) days, $63,187.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1932, Landfill Operations
Assistant and related benefits in the Department of Public Works-Solid Waste
Disposal and return savings to the General Fund, seconded by Councilmember
Kagawa.
Mr. Tabata: I will defer to Keith Suga, who has been working
very closely with the Solid Waste Division.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions on this cut? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: What is the status?
KEITH SUGA, Department of Public Works: The current status is this has been
going through the 105 consultation with UPW and this position is to establish a working
supervisor at the landfill. Since I have been engaged with UPW recently, maybe for the
past three (3) to four (4) months, I can say that conversations with UPW have been going
really well. I had a most recent meeting with them about a week and a half ago and this
was one of the items up for discussion, and working through with them, we provided the
sufficient information that they can move forward with approval. I think we are very close
to getting UPW's approval, which then would allow us to recruit for this position, finally.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am going to say this because I am hearing it
more and more often, like some of the times they say, "Well, we are having trouble getting
the job done because the working supervisor is out," on vacation or whatever. So I am
thinking that when a job has to get done, regardless of who is out, if you work and the
person above you is not there, you still have to do the work. Sometimes it gets to this, "The
supervisor position is not there," so that leads to the excuse of why the job does not get
done. I do not know how we convey that to the employees, but I think we should have
ramifications. If your supervisor is not there, it does not mean you have an excuse not to do
anything. I am kind of hearing some of this, like, "Well, it is because the working
supervisor position has been taken away or is not there." When the supervisor is not there,
there is another manager above the supervisor that can tell them what to do. Can that be
corrected a little bit?
Mr. Suga: Good point. We agree with you. At the landfill,
there is a worksite supervisor that also manages the overall operations and works with
Waste Management. Yes, absolutely, that should not be an excuse by the workers.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 54 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: It seems to be the union's excuse a lot of times. I
can understand for the union that for every job there is, they want to create another
supervisor or a sub-supervisor. To some extent, that is fine, but do not make that as an
excuse for the job not getting done. Even if you are the lowest person on the totem pole, you
should be taught that if this person is out, you are going to help do this. That is just how it
goes in order to function like a business. If the manager is out sick, they are not going to
close Kentucky Fried Chicken, right?
Mr. Suga: Absolutely.
Councilmember Kagawa: The workers are still going to serve chicken.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So nobody is in this position right now?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Brun: Is somebody being temporarily assigned to this
position right now?
Mr. Suga: Not at this time.
Councilmember Brun: Okay, so it is just an add-on position?
Mr. Suga: It is an existing position that resides in the
Landfill Operations Assistant class. So with the discussions we are having with UPW, the
105 Consultation is to establish the working supervisor position. Right now, it is a vacant
position.
Councilmember Brun: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: If I may add, just to address Councilmember
Kagawa's concern, we feel that a working supervisor at the site will help us become more
effective in our operation.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is Kekaha Landfill?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: This assistant position after the 105
Consultation is not going to be an assistant position; it is going to be reallocated?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 55 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: Now you understand the frustration, because in
the budget it does not say that. If I did not ask this question, we would never know that.
But the intent of your department is to create a new supervisor position?
Mr. Suga: A new working supervisor positon at the landfill,
correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is that pay?
Mr. Suga: WS12.
Mr. Tabata: WS7?
Ms. Rapozo: WS 11.
Mr. Tabata: Okay.
Mr. Suga: I do not know the exact number.
Council Chair Rapozo: We should know that because we are trying to
get through this budget. Anyway, I am not going to beat the dead horse. What is that pay
going to be?
Mr. Tabata: So a WS 10 is $57,372.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is W11?
Mr. Tabata: Sorry, I do not know.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, obviously more than $57,000, plus benefits.
Mr. Tabata: Sorry, I have it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I hope my colleagues understand my frustration
now and I hope they are finally seeing the picture because there are a lot of positions I
tossed on the side, because I do not want to go through this agonizing experience. I heard
you say earlier that you already have a site supervisor out there.
Mr. Suga: There is an overall worksite supervisor, Hawai`i
Government Employees Association (HGEA) employee, correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: How many people work at the landfill?
Mr. Suga: On any given day, the minimum manpower
requirement is seven (7).
Council Chair Rapozo: So you have a site supervisor who is going to
supervise the working supervisor, who is going to supervise six (6) people?
Mr. Suga: That would be the structure.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 56 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Tabata: WS11 is $59,580.
Council Chair Rapozo: So $59,000 minus $45,000 is $14,000 plus
benefits. To me, anyway, it is a significant increase. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am just
too critical.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Chairman, I do not think you are being too
critical. I think we have identified, and hopefully the Administration can kind of sense...we
are just asking them to walk a mile in our shoes, and I do not think you folks are doing this
with any type of insidious intent, but you have to understand the sense of frustration that
we face on this side of the railing. It is almost like my wife tells me, "Hey Sweetie, I am
going to the store. Do you need anything?" I say, "Yes. I need a can of tomato soup for the
spaghetti that I am making." Then she also comes home with shoes. The next time I give
her money to send her to the store to buy tomato soup, I am going to be like, "What is she
going to come home with?" Not to be funny, but I just want to paint a picture. Our job is to
appropriate funds, so when we put money behind the position, we are putting it down with
the intent of what is being described to us. Then when it comes and it transforms, there is
that level of distrust that I do not think is intentional, but if you were to sit here and kind
of see what we go through, then I think you folks can sense where the gaps are in the
communication of this whole thing. I think this example has identified what we are trying
to wrestle with during this budget process.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: You could not put it in until you got UPW
approval, and then formally created it, right?
Mr. Suga: As I understand it, correct.
Mr. Tabata: If I may, this was one of the initiatives of
reorganizing the Solid Waste Division that we embarked on in 2015. We just never got to
the point where we got the union to agree with us, so we have been coming back, saying,
"We have this plan of how we want to become more effective out there with management on
the line by creating these working supervisor positions," because to have one working
supervisor right now overseeing our refuse transfer stations and we have four (4) stations,
by the time he gets to Hanapepe, we have an emergency, and then in Hanalei he has to
swing around and we lose so much time in the transportation. We are trying to set up this
structure whereby we can have more working supervisors and spread the management
responsibility over with more people. I believe Keith has taken us to the point where we
are right on the cusp of it. If it happened in the middle of the year, we would have come
back to you, this body, to get the formal approval.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I appreciate the effort to be more
efficient. It makes sense to me. The one thing that I am a little concerned about is that you
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 57 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
have an on-site supervisor, a working supervisor, and a waste management person. Can
you explain that to me?
Mr. Suga: Another way to look at the working supervisor
position that is being requested through UPW for us is that the landfill does operate a
seven-day a week operation, obviously. The worksite supervisor works five (5) out of those
seven (7) days, so this working supervisor would work a staggered schedule so that we can
have the appropriate coverage seven (7) days a week. Granted there would be some overlap
during other days of the week, but that is also a push to have the proper supervision at the
landfill.
Councilmember Yukimura: We know how careful that operation has to be.
So you are saying there is an overlap with the on-site supervisor and the working
supervisor, but it is partly an arrangement to cover the seven (7) day operation that you do?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So if the site supervisor is not there, right now,
because we do not have working supervisor, then who is the supervisor?
Councilmember Yukimura: You have the site supervisor.
Councilmember Brun: The site supervisor is not there and we do not
have a working supervisor.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let us let the Administration answer.
Councilmember Brun: Who is the supervisor?
Mr. Suga: We have an individual at the landfill being
temporarily assigned.
Councilmember Brun: Okay, so on the days that we do not have a
supervisor, we could actually temporarily assign that and we do not need this position?
Can we TA for that site supervisor, being he is HGEA and the rest is UPW?
Ms. Rapozo: That is one of the concerns, but with the
structure right now, that is the only way that we would be able to have a supervisor on site,
is someone would have to TA up to the HGEA supervisor. So right now, by creating the
worksite supervisor, if the worksite supervisor is not there, it would be blue collar to blue
collar TA versus having to TA for the overall worksite supervisor, who is an HGEA
employee.
Councilmember Brun: But we can do that?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 58 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Ms. Rapozo: We have been doing it, but it is not working
really well. UPW has frowned on it. So this is one of the ways to try to address it.
Councilmember Brun: I guess my concern about supervisors is we have
been hearing so much about supervisors...we have one thousand two hundred (1,200)
employees and it seems like we have five hundred (500) to seven hundred (700) supervisors.
I think we have too much supervisors. That is why I am asking that question. It might not
be in this department, but just overall, we need more workers to do the work. It is the
same thing that I brought up with the police the other day that we need more officers on
the street, not officers riding around in cars. We need officers on the street. It is not just
you folks.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have one question about the TA situation, that
means that you have one (1) less person among the workers when you TA.
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: You mentioned the transfer station working
supervisors, right? Lyle, I think you mentioned that a little while ago.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that showing up in our budget?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is that title in the budget? I apologize
because I do not have my budget binder with me.
Mr. Suga: "Solid Waste Working Supervisor."
Council Chair Rapozo: It is called that in the Supplemental Budget
itself?
Mr. Suga: Yes, Solid Waste Working Supervisor.
Mr. Tabata: At the top of page...
Council Chair Rapozo: Which page are you on?
Mr. Suga: This would be in the Solid Waste Collections, not
Solid Waste Disposal.
Mr. Tabata: Page 231.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 59 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Look on the...
Mr. Tabata: Do you see the top, 810, 1975, 954, and 1917?
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. On page 226, under Disposal, you are
showing a Landfill Worksite Supervisor. I do not know what a F112 is. What is F112?
Ms. Rapozo: That is an HGEA Unit 2 position.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where is that person at?
Mr. Tabata: The landfill.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that the site supervisor?
Mr. Suga: That is the Landfill Worksite Supervisor, correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the HGEA person?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: On page 231, there are four (4) worksite
supervisors.
Mr. Suga: There are two (2) worksite supervisors and
two (2) working supervisors. The two (2) working supervisors are for the transfer stations.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so where are the worksite supervisors?
Mr. Suga: One of the worksite supervisors, 810, is a
position that covers the Refuse Collection Operations Automated crews, and then the other
worksite supervisor manages or oversees the transfer stations.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where do they operate out of?
Mr. Suga: They are mobile. Again, they cover a lot of
ground.
Council Chair Rapozo: Then you go to the Solid Waste Working
Supervisor, you have two (2) of those.
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where will they go?
Mr. Suga: One of them has a body in it and currently
assigned to the Lihu`e Transfer Station.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 60 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Suga: The other position that you have on your list is
the second one that is vacant and the idea is to do reorganization through UPW. That is
something we are also working through UPW to establish a second working supervisor for
the transfer stations. The idea, right now, in discussion with UPW is to have a district type
of situation where we have an east and a west so that we have better coverage amongst the
four (4) transfer stations.
Council Chair Rapozo: The position that we are discussing right now
that I am proposing to remove is Position No. 1932.
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where does that show up?
Mr. Suga: In the budget, it is covered under Solid Waste
Disposal.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Page 226.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so this position, Position No. 1932, you are
saying that you are going to reallocate it to another working supervisor?
Mr. Suga: That is the current proposal through working
with UPW right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: The other two (2) working supervisors that are
on page 231, those are already in existence?
Mr. Suga: For the transfer stations, correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: UPW did not have a problem with those?
Mr. Suga: Those were in existence for I do not know how
long.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, so you are going to have three (3) working
supervisors if this reallocation goes through?
Mr. Suga: Provided the next position that we go over,
because it is in this mix too, the one that you have on your list is one of the working
supervisors at the transfer stations that is vacant. Ultimately, if all were approved, yes, we
would have three (3) total working supervisors in the Solid Waste Division.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions for the Administration?
Seeing none, any discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 61 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: When Keith came in, amidst a lot of problems, I
told Keith that I would support him and he is putting work towards trying to improve
efficiency. I think myself and Council Chair Rapozo received a lot of the complaints that
occur and a lot of them were from the Kekaha Landfill. We had all kinds of problems going
on, but hopefully Keith can minimize some of those calls that we had last year and years
before. We had some as ridiculous, like, "The landfill worker, the one who weighs the
trucks, called in sick so we have to shut it down for the commercial workers." We had
trucks going from the east side, all the way out to Kekaha, burn all of that gas, and find out
that they had to turn around, come back home, and wait with that rotten garbage in their
truck for the next day. It is those kinds of things that hopefully if we give Keith the
support that he wants now then we can judge him on his own merits. I think if we deny
things early on when Keith is trying to change things is not going to be fair to him. I
appreciate the cut. I think we have too much supervisors all over the place, but then again,
maybe that is just the way we have to work. When you have a lot of supervisors all over the
place, another section is going to say, "What about us? Why are we not getting treated
equally?" I know it becomes a bit of a problem, morale-wise, and we want to have
employees happy. I think happy employees are productive employees. It has gotten to the
point where if we deny it, we tell Keith that we are not supporting your direction and I
think that could be dangerous, because I think he is trying all, whatever percent he got, to
try and get things to a better place. As the Committee Chair of the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, I owe it to the public to try and work with Keith going forward.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion on this? Council Chair.
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess I need to make something very clear.
The fact that I am proposing these reductions does not mean that I do not support the
direction of this County. That obviously is not the intent. I think Councilmember
Kawakami said it much better than me, but this body deserves some courtesy and respect.
For us, it takes less time for us to get a new position created than it does for you to get an
appointment with the UPW—that I know. This is not saying to toss it away or throw it
away. It is saying, "You go back, get your stuff together, and then come to the Council
when you have a plan and when you have a focus on what you are going to do, rather than
this coming up with a position." Like I said, if this never came up, no one would know. The
next budget would have come and we would ask, "Where did this come from?" It happened
without us knowing. This is not saying, "No." It is saying, "Regroup and come back when
you have a plan and you can tell us what you are going to do." This right now, honestly....I
do not know...there is a stack that...just in the interest of time...I plan to pursue
separately...there is a stack of them right here that what would we have been told? I am
just not going to waste your time. I do not think that is too much to ask for the
Administration to be outright, upfront, and tell us, "This is what we are going to do." This
is all in the budget hidden and if we did not ask the question, we would never know. I
remain committed to having them go back and come back when they are ready. This is
$63,000. You are telling me that they are going to the UPW, meet and confer, get all of the
agreements, everything approved, signed, post the position, do the test, list, and interviews,
all of that before July 1st? Please. All the while, we are trying to get to a number where we
will not have to raise property taxes. It is only six (6) weeks that we can get a position and
funding. That is on a normal track without an expedited posting. I apologize if I am
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 62 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
upsetting anybody, but I have to feel comfortable when I support this funding, that in fact,
the money that we are giving is going to go where you folks are telling us it is going to go
and not going to evolve into something different three (3) months from now. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? If not, roll call.
The motion to eliminate Position No. 1932, Landfill Operations Assistant and
related benefits in the Department of Public Works-Solid Waste Disposal and return
savings to the General Fund was then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Rapozo TOTAL— 2,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Yukimura,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 5,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 2:5, motion fails.
Council Chair Rapozo: This one is Wastewater, Position No. 1918,
Electrical Plant Electrician Trades I, seven hundred fifty-five (755) days, $88,368.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to eliminate Position No. 1918, Electrical Plant
Electrician Trades I and related benefits in the Department of Public Works,
Wastewater Division, and return savings to the Solid Waste Fund Balance, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: This question is for the introducer. Chair, is that
the General Fund or Sewer Fund?
Council Chair Rapozo: This is Sewer Fund.
Councilmember Kagawa: So this does not trim off some of the fat we are
trying to get?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct. It just replenishes the Sewer Fund.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. I will support this.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this is an Electrical Plant Electrician, right?
Mr. Tabata: Yes, the incumbent recently retired and we have
an open recruitment going on. Like what we heard this morning from the Department of
Parks & Recreation with getting electricians, there are challenges of finding available
people. If you notice, the salary rating is a BC15, so we did adjust salaries to make it more
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 63 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
attractive. To-date, we still have not had anybody apply, so right now, we have...how we
are addressing this issue is we have an open procurement that whenever we have
emergencies, we call a contractor to come in and support us. It is a hard way though
because then you cannot take care of the routine weekly, daily maintenance that the plant
requires. Wastewater is extremely regulatory in nature, so keeping this available to us, I
believe, is important because you never know when somebody is going to walk in and be
able to qualify for the position.
Councilmember Yukimura: Theoretically, this is not contributing to Real
Property Taxes because it is from the Sewer Fund.
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you not procure for routine maintenance,
too?
Mr. Tabata: Presently, the maintenance is being supported
via the UPW contract. So to make a change to go out and I guess you could say "privatize"
the maintenance is a challenge.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are just doing open procurement for
emergency work?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I see. Okay. How long has this been open?
Mr. Tabata: One hundred twenty-one (121) days.
Councilmember Yukimura: One hundred twenty-one (121) days?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am seeing seven hundred fifty-five (755) days.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Chair has seven hundred fifty-five (755)
days.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I have on my list that was provided
by the Administration.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the accurate number?
Council Chair Rapozo: No, I am sorry, it is one hundred
twenty-one (121) days.
Mr. Tabata: We had two (2) positions previously and with
previous budget discussions, that one was eliminated because it was very hard to fill, so we
are down to our last position.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 64 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: So the retirement was about one hundred
twenty-one (121) days ago?
Mr. Tabata: He left in December.
Councilmember Yukimura: December?
Mr. Tabata: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will withdraw that one.
Councilmember Kagawa: I had a question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: So this Electrician is assigned to all of the sewer
plants?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I would think so. It is not like there is always
the need to replace bulbs, right?
Mr. Tabata: The work is a little more detailed because the
wastewater treatment plants are an industrial operation, so we have many multiple phased
motors and switch gear systems that beyond just say a facility maintenance.
Councilmember Kagawa: Maintenance and things like that?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. He also maintains the programmable logic
controllers, which are computerized.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to make sure that there was
enough job for the position. Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: More than enough.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions from the Members? If not,
I will bring the discussion back. Any final discussion? I will take a roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: No, I will withdraw.
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to eliminate Position No. 1918, Electrical
Plant Electrician Trades I and related benefits in the Department of Public Works,
Wastewater Division, and return savings to the Solid Waste Fund Balance,
Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the second.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 65 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair, was that the final cut?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, that was it. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Now that we went through all of the individual
cuts, next are any cuts that affect multiple departments. Do we have any cuts that affect
multiple departments? Do we have any combination cuts? Now we are getting into the
realm of needing five (5) votes. Any combination cuts and adds?
Councilmember Yukimura: I do.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: In the Office of Economic Development, I want to
reduce the grant-in-aid line item for Agriculture, Agriculture Support, Diversified
Agriculture by $75,000, but I am adding funding for Grant-In-Aid for $75,000 for
Agriculture, specifically for the `Aina Ho`okupu (Kilauea Agriculture Park) Irrigation
System Only. Right now, the Agriculture Park is combined with a lot of other agriculture
projects and I want to take it out and specify that the funding should just go for the
irrigation system since we feel that water is really the important bottom line for the
agriculture. I want to make sure that it is restricted to the water infrastructure.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to reduce funding for Office of Economic
Development, Agriculture —Ag. Support/ Diversified Ag. (RFP) by ($75,000) and
add funding for $75,000 for Agriculture — `Aina Ho`okupu (Kilauea Ar. Park)
Irrigation System Only, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: We just had that discussion and I am kind of
curious because you were kind of skeptical of their plan in the long-range and they said
they were going to get it together and now you are proposing to put money for them. Did
you have a meeting with them and have a change of heart or something?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it is not reducing the money or adding to the
amount that was in the Office of Economic Development budget; it is just making sure that
it is earmarked for water infrastructure and that it is not going to be spent for anything
else. Without water, the project is dead. I think we all agree that you really need the
water, otherwise, you do not have an agricultural park.
Councilmember Kagawa: Why do we need to change it? Is there a fear
that George is not going to use it in that way?
Councilmember Yukimura: It is just to make clear the intent of the Council
that it be used for water infrastructure. That is all.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 66 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Not a question, but...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: A comment?
Councilmember Brun: I went out there and toured the farm and I see
him taking every effort to get it done, so I do not think this is necessary, but we can vote on
it. I went out there to the farm and he is doing a great job out there, so I do not think we
should put this limitation on. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: My only concern is about what was submitted for
in the request and how that may interfere with what it is we are proposing. I do not see
George or Nalani here.
(Councilmember Brun was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, the request was for an irrigation system.
That is what it was requested for.
Councilmember Chock: Yes, I am trying to remember. Was that the total
amount? $75,000 was the total amount, so why is that different then?
Councilmember Yukimura: It is just saying that you cannot use it for
anything else but water infrastructure.
Councilmember Chock: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is all it is saying because there are so many
pieces to the puzzle. Also, they said that the total amount for the water system is $750,000
and that they were asking the State Legislature for $450,000 and they just got $250,000.
They do not have the water rights tied down, so this is just a way to focus in on the water
because without the water the project cannot really happen.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not recall much of the discussion, as far as
the money. I do recall them saying that without water they are dead. I am just curious
though with this $75,000, if we put a prohibition for any other use, does that stop the
organization from moving forward in other projects? Again, I am concerned that if we do
not get the water, that we could actually waste $75,000 on other components of the farm.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is my worry, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think, if I remember correctly, and somebody
correct me if I am wrong, that their biggest concern was the water and if they do not get the
water then they will not be able to have that farm.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 67 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I am hesitant to support the proposal just
because there have been organizations and other businesses that have been reaching out,
as well as other partners to help them with this project, so some of this infrastructure costs
may be covered as they start to build these relationships. One the companies came out and
said, "Hey, we have expertise in the engineering of the irrigation systems and we are
wanting to help these folks," and these folks have to go to their board of directors to make
sure they have the proper approvals. So to tie money specifically for something that may be
covered with voluntary action from outside entities, to me, might be a waste of$75,000 with
the limited amount of funds that they do have. I am not inclined to support it, just because
there are too many level of unknowns.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think Councilmember Kawakami makes a good
point. I do not mind amending it to instead of "Irrigation System" to "Water
Infrastructure." According to their own testimony, they need at least $750,000 for water
infrastructure, which is the pipeline running from mauka of the main highway down to the
agricultural park. So if they want to use it for that, I do not mind that. It is true that if
they get some irrigation help, they can, but I do want it to focus on water, otherwise it will
be spent on other things and we will not get to the water. I think the Chair's point is
well-taken that it might be spent on something else not dealing with water.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I try to avoid asking fellow Councilmembers
questions and I am not sure if it is out of protocol, but have you gotten the okay from this
organization that has taken on the responsibility of this agricultural park?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, because they already have told us that they
are going to use it for water infrastructure and we have a right to say that we want our
taxpayers' money to be spent on the infrastructure that is essential to our goal of an
agricultural park. That is why we are funding it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think what it comes down to is how comfortable
we are at giving the money and seeing that they are going to do what they say they are
going to do with it. For me, I am comfortable the way it is without an amendment. I am
just throwing that out there. Final discussion? We will take a roll call vote on this. There
is no change, just more of a reclassification of the amount.
Council Chair Rapozo: Does it require four (4) or five (5) votes?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This requires five (5).
Councilmember Yukimura: We are taking it out and putting it back into the
budget so that we can earmark it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Got it.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 68 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, we are cutting money out of one budget and
specifying a line item for it. It needs five (5). From now on, we are in the five-vote
territory. Roll call vote.
The motion to reduce funding for Office of Economic Development, Agriculture —Ag.
Support / Diversified Ag. (RFP) by ($75,000) and add funding for $75,000 for
Agriculture — Aina Ho`okupu (Kilauea Ag. Park) Irrigation System Only was then
put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Rapozo, Yukimura TOTAL— 4*,
AGAINST MOTION: Kagawa, Kawakami, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Brun was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative vote for the motion.)
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3, motion fails.
Councilmember Kagawa: Councilmember Brun is a "yes"?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, let the record reflect that Councilmember
Brun is a "yes" vote.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts and adds? After cuts and adds,
we will go to just adds. Any more cuts and adds? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The goal is to add Saturday bus service, four (4)
runs, at 5:30 a.m., 6:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., and 9:30 p.m. In order to do this, I am proposing to
increase the Golf Fund Revenues by $150,000, reduce the contribution from the General
Fund to the golf course by $150,000, increase the Residential Investor class tax rate by
$0.14 to generate $157,000 in additional Real Property Tax revenue, contribute the
required percentage to the Public Access Fund...
Council Chair Rapozo: We are not doing Real Property Tax right now,
right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This is a combination add.
Council Chair Rapozo: I thought that Real Property Tax was going to be
at the end?
Councilmember Kagawa: But that is straight, not a combination, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I am not exactly sure.
Council Chair Rapozo: If you want to start doing Real Property Tax,
then I am going to put my reduction in Real Property Tax, too, in this one.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 69 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I would like to wait on the Real Property Tax,
but I think we can go and move on this and take our votes on it because I have a big
problem with the way we are doing this cut and add. If we are going to come with just Real
Property Tax stuff, I wanted to hold on that. I do have a problem on this and we still need
a second.
Council Chair Rapozo: I only bring it up because in the beginning you
said that we are going to go through cuts and adds, and when we get to that number at the
end, then we will address Real Property Taxes.
Councilmember Yukimura: This is the way that I am paying for an increase
in Saturday bus service without cutting other places. The only place I am cutting is the
contribution to the golf course. We are reducing the $1.1 million dollar subsidy to the golf
course from the General Fund because the golfers have said that they are considering a fee
increase. Councilmember Brun said that he would be willing to introduce that. I am trying
to find a way to not impose any tax increases on our local residents, but to give the service
that is desperately needed, so it would add $317,000 to the Transportation Agency to
increase the bus service.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to increase the revenue in the Golf Fund by
$150,000, reduce the contribution from the General Fund by $150,000, increase the
Real Property Tax rate for the Residential Investor tax class by $0.14 to generate
$157,131 to the General Fund (with $790 contribution to the Public Access, Open
Space, Natural Resources Preservation Fund), and add $307,921 in the
Transportation Agency — Other Services for increased bus service on Saturdays to
add 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., and 9:30 p.m. runs for four additional runs,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I say why this is important?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: In 2013, the County Council adopted the
Multimodal Land Transportation Plan, which provides a blueprint for building the County's
land transportation system over the next twenty (20) years. By land transportation, we do
not just mean roads for automobiles, but also infrastructure, including roads, for
automobiles, bus, bike, and feet. It has been shown that planning and building only roads
for automobile does not work because a great percentage of the population does not or
cannot drive, like the kupuna, keiki, the people with disabilities, and the people who cannot
afford to buy and maintain a car. In the next twenty (20) years alone, thirty percent (30%)
of our population will be elderly, including some of us around the table. This means that
our multimodal plan must provide options to the private automobile. The four (4) modes of
land transportation also affect congestion, environment, and health. The last time the bus
service was increased was in 2011 when weekday service was extended from 6:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m., and weekend and holiday service were added. When the service was increased,
ridership skyrocketed, showing that you do not need to persuade people to ride the bus; you
just need to increase services where there is a need for it and people will ride. It is time to
increase services on weekends. Because of the fiscal constraints, I am proposing limited
increases to Saturday's bus schedule. If any of you were to ride the bus, you would get
much input about the need for weekend service. Every two (2) hours and ending at
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 70 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
4:30 p.m., which is the present service, is so inconvenient that most people are not able to
use the bus on weekends. When my dad was sick and in the hospital, I did not have to ride
the bus to get the input, because workers at Garden Isle Rehabilitation and Healthcare in
Wilcox Hospital approached me on several occasions to beg for better weekend service. As
it is presently, they cannot accept weekend work assignments because they cannot get to
and from work due to the bus schedule. These are some west side residents who talked to
me. This affects family income. Access to work is a critical factor for the visitor industry,
as well as the healthcare industry. Peter Sit, the General Manager (GM) at Pono Kai,
knows personally the impact of not having public transportation for his workers on
weekends. Adding Saturday services is an economic necessity if we are to help the workers
and employers in this tight employment environment. Compare this to the golf course fund
deficit of $1.1 million, which requires the transfer of General Fund moneys, Real Property
Tax revenues that you and I pay, to the Golf Fund so that some golfers can pay about $2.50
a round for primetime golf. This is definitely a "need" versus a "want"; transportation to
work versus holoholo on the golf course. Golf course play, for some, is not just a cost, it is a
luxury at $5 a round for primetime. This is a "nice to have" versus a "need to have" issue
and that is why I am proposing it.
(Councilmember Brun was noted as present.)
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. I will be the first to comment, only
because we have seen a type of add and cut like this before, and I do not think it is good for
us to arbitrarily increase the Golf Fund revenue without anything supplementing it. I
know we have talked about golf increasing their fees, but there has been nothing done to
increase it, so as far as increasing a golf revenue fund, I would highly frown upon it from
the Members. That just one part of it. The second part is I know we are working on a
short-term transit plan, which I believe our contractors or planners have met with us on it
before and they said the plan will be coming out next year sometime and I know they have
a lot of good suggestions, but it is still premature to make any moves on it and I would
rather wait on that, rather than going forward with an increase to Saturday bus service.
That is my take on this, so I will not be supporting this. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ditto.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The short-range plan is coming and there will be
many proposals, from shuttles to paratransit changes, and I am waiting for that, too. I am
working for the one-half percent (0.5%) excise tax so that we will have money to actually
implement some of the needs that will be coming forth. This is a very simple proposal to
address a very imminent need. We also need to increase frequencies during the week, but I
am not proposing it because we cannot do it without more buses and we cannot have more
buses without more baseyards; although, I do not see the baseyard in our bond float and I
hope that is going to be there. But just increasing Saturday service, we can do with what
we have right now. The only thing that we do not have is money. The budget is always
projections. The Administration has the whole year to propose new fee increases because
the budget will carry them forward for at least three-quarters of the year. So I am asking
for a commitment to provide a much needed service for our people right now.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 71 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I agree with some of the merit and I would love
to increase Saturday bus services, especially for working-class people that need to get to
work. What I have a difference in opinion is the tone towards the golf course and I will tell
you why: one, we have identified sports and recreation as a hub for economic development,
so it is a part of our revenue generation. Can the golf course do better for revenue
generation? Absolutely. For health and wellness, when we talk about being preventative
in our healthcare and we build walkable and complete streets, bike paths, and multimodal
transportation plans to get people to walk...do you know how many people and what kind of
people I see walking on that golf course, getting their exercise? It is our kupuna and our
keiki that cannot necessarily afford to play at the private golf courses. I just want to
remind people that it is not just a sport. For many people, this is a window of opportunity
for scholarships to get to college. For our kapuna, it is their daily exercise that prevents
them from going to the hospitals, which drives up our healthcare costs. So in my opinion,
all of the pros that go along with multi-use paths and walkable and complete streets have
the same benefits with that golf course. With that being said, I will not support the current
proposal. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I stated that I would not support, Council Chair
Rapozo dittoed that, and Councilmember Kawakami said that he is not going to support it.
You need five (5) votes to do it. I would like to take the vote on it already.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like to be able to respond.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not think the votes are there already for it.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know, but I still have the right. Our rules say
that the minority is able to say its piece and the majority makes the decisions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Go ahead. I will let you talk about it for an
entire page of notes. I really want to get the meeting going because there are not enough
votes for it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. My proposal will not stop golf on the
golf course or the opportunity to walk and exercise on the golf course, nor will it require
people who cannot pay to play, because the fees are...we can arrive at an increased fee
schedule without making it prohibitive to play golf.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Roll call vote.
The motion to increase the revenue in the Golf Fund by $150,000, reduce the
contribution from the General Fund by $150,000, increase the Real Property Tax
rate for the Residential Investor tax class by $0.14 to generate $157,131 to the
General Fund (with $790 contribution to the Public Access, Open Space, Natural
Resources Preservation Fund), and add $307,921 in the Transportation Agency —
Other Services for increased bus service on Saturdays to add 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m.,
8:30 p.m., and 9:30 p.m. runs for four additional runs was then put, and failed by the
following vote:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 72 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
FOR MOTION: Yukimura TOTAL– 1,
AGAINST MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Kaneshiro TOTAL–6,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL–0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL–0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 1:6, motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts and adds?
Councilmember Kawakami: We have an area where it is just straight adds,
right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We do. Straight adds will be right after this. I
actually had a proposal. Councilmember Kagawa, you might have to introduce it. I hate to
bring it back up, but things got a little confusing for me at one point in the meeting. My cut
and add is regarding the position for the Assistant Fire Chief and the only reason I bring it
up is because I know we had a lot back and forth and things were flying on the table, but
we in the past just recently accepted the Deputy and I just wanted to get the temperature if
the direction was to cut the overtime or to reduce the position back to a Fire Fighter I from
the members. Again, this takes five (5) votes to do. We looked at it and we said we will
allow them the position, but cut the overtime to account for overtime that that Assistant
Fire Chief position would be making up. I think we cut $50,000. If we put it back to the
way it was, it would a $25,000 difference or $75,000 difference.
Councilmember Kagawa: I will introduce this on behalf of Committee
Chair Kaneshiro. This is a cut and add to the Assistant Fire Chief, resulting in a savings
after the add and the cut of$23,180.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to reallocate Position No. 630, from Assistant Fire
Chief in the Administration Division back to Fire Fighter I in the Operations
Division, and related benefits in the Kauai Fire Department and add back $30,000
in Overtime to Fire Operations and $20,000 to Overtime in Administration,
seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me state this a little clearer—I think
yesterday when we were looking at it, we brought up the Assistant Fire Chief position and
it was to eliminate all of the money in the Assistant Fire Chiefs position, but when the Fire
Chief was up here, he mentioned that they were taking off a lower fire position and moving
it there so there was some money there. If we cut the whole thing then we pretty much cut
the Assistant Fire Chief and we would have cut the funding for the fire position that they
moved it up to, so there was a difference in that amount. With the conversations going on,
the decision was made to not do that because I think it was a $100,000 cut and it was to cut
overtime, being that this Assistant Fire Chief would be able to reduce overtime by $50,000.
In this case, we would get an additional reduction of $23,000. I just wanted to get the
temperature from the members on this. Councilmember Kawakami.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 73 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kawakami: Just as a clarity check, it was that position that
was vacant that they were going to morph into this Assistant Fire Chief, so we had left
some of that money in that vacant position and we are just removing it now?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: This would be the difference.
Council Chair Rapozo: The way I am reading this is that yesterday we
approved the Assistant Fire Chief position and we removed overtime. This reverses it. So
basically, the Assistant Fire Chief position, which was approved yesterday, if this passes,
will now go back to the Fire Fighter I position, and the $50,000 that we cut from the
overtime will be reinstated?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: So you are actually unwinding what we did
yesterday?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Being that I think the proposal we had at-hand
was to cut the entire $118,000, and it did not take into consideration that that money was
moved from a fire fighter position. Again, it is just to get the temperature of the Council on
it? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this recommends then not approving the
Assistant Fire Chief, right?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Are you trying to trick us?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No. This is the situation we went through in the
prior years. In the prior years, there was only a Fire Chief, there was no Deputy Fire Chief
and no Assistant Fire Chief. In last year's budget, it was budgeted for a Fire Chief, a
Deputy Fire Chief, and an Assistant Fire Chief. In last year's budget, we got rid of the
Assistant Fire Chief and we allowed them to have a Deputy Fire Chief. In this budget, they
came with that Assistant Fire Chief again, which came from a lower position. So Fire did
not add $118,000 to the budget; they added the difference between that Fire position that
they moved and this $118,000. Yesterday's proposal was to cut the $118,000, which would
have eliminated both the Assistant Fire Chief position and the lower Fire position.
Council Chair Rapozo: But that proposal did not pass.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right, it got withdrawn.
Council Chair Rapozo: Wait, no...
Councilmember Kawakami: We supported it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, the position was basically approved
yesterday.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 74 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, it was not cut.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It was not cut...
Councilmember Kawakami: No, but now we know what you want to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: I see, okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yesterday, it was withdrawn and the proposal
was instead of taking out the money for the Assistant Fire Chief, it was to decrease
overtime with the rationale that having this Assistant Fire Chief will reduce overtime by
$50,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right, but the Supplemental Budget today
includes the Assistant Fire Chief. So regardless of what we did yesterday, nothing
happened yesterday. We cut the $50,000 of overtime.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: But the Assistant Fire Chief position is in the
budget today, so that is approved.
Councilmember Yukimura: But we have not finished it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, we did yesterday. Correct me if I am
wrong, Committee Chair—yesterday, there was a proposal to remove that position from the
budget.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: $118,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct, that position would be gone.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right.
Council Chair Rapozo: It actually got voted on and it did not pass.
Councilmember Yukimura: No, it said that we will come back. That is what
my notes said.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It was withdrawn.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I only bring it up because when we look at it, the
difference is a matter of...if you look at the savings to the County, it would be a matter of
$23,000 more now than in the previous. I think the difference between the $118,000 and
the previous fire person, you would see an additional $23,000 saving this way.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 75 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: But you would lose the position.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Which has not been in the budget before.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So it is a matter if whether there is going to be a
warm body or not because this Fire Fighter I position...we do not know if that is actually
going to be filled if we leave it at that. The main issue is whether there should be an
Assistant Fire Chief.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: So for clarification, if this does not pass, the
Assistant Fire Chief remains?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Correct, everything stays the same.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So with the Fire Fighter I, there is no warm body
right now?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No.
Councilmember Brun: So it is either two (2) positions or one (1) position
then if we eliminate the Assistant Fire Chief, right? If this does not pass then the Assistant
Fire Chief would stay there.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: No, it would either be you have an Assistant Fire
Chief or the position goes back to a Fire Fighter I.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, he asked if this does not pass.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: If it does not pass, then you have one (1) position,
Assistant Fire Chief.
Councilmember Brun: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: It is a little confusing with the overtime stuff
that happened yesterday. It is do we want the Assistant Fire Chief or not? That is the
question.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is the question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This comeback one from yesterday passed, so you
really need four (4) votes.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 76 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, and we are going pass it, so this needs
five (5) votes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, you need five (5) votes because you are
putting back the overtime.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Right, because the rationale was that this
overtime would be reduced with the Assistant Fire Chief. If the Assistant Fire Chief is not
there, then they need this overtime. That is why it is a cut and an add. Any further
questions?
Councilmember Kawakami: I do not know if I am not getting it because I am
just hungry again. When I look at it, I see the cut from the whole...sorry Chairman...I do
not even have the floor.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I am thinking out loud. I am just seeing the cut
for Assistant Fire Chief, and then I see the cut for the benefits. I also see a $61,000 add for
Fire Fighter I and I see the add for the benefits. Then I see the add for the overtime. So
this is a cut to the Assistant Fire Chief?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: So this is a cut to the Assistant Fire Chief?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay. Now I got it. I cannot support this.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yesterday, Councilmember Chock asked the
question, "Would you rather have the position or the overtime," and the Chief said,
"position." So at that time, the action was to cut the overtime and give them the position.
With this here, you are basically cutting the position and giving them the overtime. I
cannot support it either.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The only reason I brought it up is because there
is a $23,000 difference. If you did not have the Assistant Fire Chief, we would save an
additional $23,000. If we have the Assistant Fire Chief, then it costs us an additional
$23,000 in the budget. That is the only reason I brought it up.
Councilmember Yukimura: The other thing is that you would have a
high-level administrator or you would not. That is the issue and the question is, is there a
need? Do you have a recommendation?
Council Chair Rapozo: Just ask the Chief. That is what we did all
morning.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 77 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: We know the Chiefs recommendation.
Council Chair Rapozo: You knew it earlier. Just "yes" or "no."
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules. Chief Westerman.
Mr. Westerman: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is what I thought.
Mr. Westerman: If I may, I would like to make some corrections.
This is not the first time and this is not, last year, for the Deputy. The Deputy has been in
the department for almost nine (9) years. We dollar-funded it for two (2) years to help
support the shortage in the budget. So we came back the year before last and funded the
Deputy Fire Chief and asked for the Assistant Chief, and that the recommendation of the
Council that year, we went back to HR and asked them, "Could we transfer that position to
another Deputy Fire Chief?" HR responded, "No, you cannot have two (2) Deputy Fire
Chiefs." That is what the Council directed us to do. So we came back this year saying that
we cannot do the two (2) Deputies, so that is the Assistant Fire Chief position that we are
requesting.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Again, let us take the vote and the votes will fall
where they fall and we move on. Any further questions? Any further comments?
Council Chair Rapozo: Did you have a motion and a second?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to reallocate Position No. 630, from Assistant Fire Chief in the
Administration Division back to Fire Fighter I in the Operations Division, and
related benefits in the Kaua`i Fire Department and add back $30,000 in Overtime to
Fire Operations and $20,000 to Overtime in Administration was then put, and failed
by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3, motion fails.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further cut and add combinations? If not,
we are going to move on to adds. Again, adds take five (5) votes. Councilmember Kagawa.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 78 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. We have some patient gentlemen
back there, the "Uncles" from Kekaha have been waiting for a while. I want to make a
motion to add $500,000 to the Kekaha Solarize Project and I am hoping that this will be the
first installment of a four-year plan to fund one hundred percent (100%) of homes in
Kekaha for hosting the Kekaha Landfill. It was recently announced that...on numerous
occasions, extensions upon extensions, and now it looks like another ten (10) years, at least,
that Kekaha will be taking our daily trash and burying it and making the mountain bigger
and bigger. I feel like it is kind of disingenuous of the County of Kaua`i to say, "Hey, we
gave you a certain percentage already when we keep changing the amount of years." In any
other field of private business law, there is a penalty when you lie or when you are not
truthful, and I believe that we need to finally come to a decision as to when the final day
that we will be sending our rubbish down there. With no options, I am afraid that we are
going to continue lying. But at least I would hope that this legislative body would take
responsibility for this County's failure to find an option and keep giving the Kekaha
community false hope that the due date is any time soon. With that, can I get a second on
my motion to add $500,000 as the first year of a four-year plan to fully solarize the Kekaha
community as hosts to the landfill for who knows how many more years?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to add funding in the amount of $500,000 in the
Office of Economic Development, Gran-In-Aid, to Host Community Benefit (Solarize
Kekaha Project), seconded by Councilmember Kawakami.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a lot of questions about the project. Does
Councilmember Kagawa want to answer them or do we want the Uncles to come forward?
Councilmember Kagawa: No, I do not think we need the Uncles, I think I
explained it clearly. I think everybody else gets it. They are $2,000,000 short. They have
spent roughly $800,000 and $800,000 did not go as far as I think they had hoped. It is not
that cheap to put up, but let me tell you the benefit of every person that has solar panels on
their house, they have raved to the Uncles about how successful it is. We have looked at
ways of cutting their property tax and it is illegal. I think Mauna Kea did an analysis of
that of trying to give a special credit to the people in Kekaha. That did not fly. That is the
only way that we can ensure that every homeowner in Kekaha will have the benefit of
having a solar panel. If we stop now, then only the few lucky ones...it is almost like a
lottery, but they did a fair lottery—they went to the oldest first. But the oldest or the
youngest, everybody down there has been lied to, whether you have been there last year or
whether you have been there one hundred (100) years. We cannot keep changing the date
on them. Just because we said that we did the Host Community Benefit...well, we did
that...we told them it was going to close in five (5) years or seven (7) years. Now, those
seven (7) years have gone and we are going another twelve (12). I think...
Councilmember Yukimura: Excuse me, I did not ask for a whole essay about
why this is important...
Councilmember Kagawa: I am sorry.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 79 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I just wanted to ask some questions and I think
we are in the question and answer time right now.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I think you asked Councilmember Kagawa the
question, but I was trying to look through my notes on something. Did he answer it?
Councilmember Kagawa: That is what you do to me sometimes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Everybody is fussy.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Did he answer your question?
Councilmember Yukimura: No. I did not even have a chance to ask my
questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: May I ask my questions?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sure. Councilmember Brun, do you have
something?
Councilmember Brun: I just have a clarifying question for the Uncles
because I need to know if I need to recuse myself or not.
Councilmember Kawakami: You probably do if you live in Kekaha.
Councilmember Brun: I have a question for them because I need to
know if I need to recuse myself. That is what I am looking for.
Councilmember Yukimura: We need somebody to answer specific questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: As far as the recusal part, Councilmember Brun,
that is usually your own discretion.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think the Uncles are the wrong people to ask
that question.
Councilmember Brun: I want to know how they are going to do this.
That is what I am looking for. We are talking about the landfill and who have been there
for a long time. My wife lived there her whole life, forty-seven (47) years. Are we only
going to do the Kekaha houses or are we going to take care of the Kekaha people that
moved out in a different community and help do their house because they were part of the
landfill longer than some of the new houses? That is all I want to know.
Councilmember Kagawa: I can give you my understanding, which is that it
will only be physical residents of Kekaha.
Councilmember Brun: Residents of Kekaha?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 80 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kagawa: Physically residents of Kekaha at this point.
Anyway, you can have the Uncles answer that.
Councilmember Brun: Mauna Kea, can I see you in the back, please?
Councilmember Kawakami: I probably have to see Mauna Kea, too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me take a recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 2:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Again, we have a $500,000 add.
Councilmember Yukimura, do you have a question?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question first to the maker, and then to
somebody who knows about this program.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Well, let us ask the maker first. Also, I do not
see anybody in the audience from the Administration that could help answer, too.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: My question for Councilmember Kagawa is we
have not gotten $3,600,000 in cuts, so by adding another $500,000, you are basically saying
that we are going to raise Real Property Taxes to do that.
Councilmember Kagawa: This project is important to me and whatever we
have to do to balance the budget...whether I support it not, it is either that I am going to do
a cut from the Reserve, which is frowned upon by our Budget & Finance Committee Chair,
or Real Property Tax increases will be in effect. Hopefully, it will be much less than the
$0.19 across the board.
Councilmember Yukimura: So basically, all of the taxpayers of the island
will be paying for solarizing Kekaha.
Councilmember Kagawa: I think the Uncles have kind of said it and they
host all of the rubbish for the island and I do not think they wanted it originally and they
did not want it to go longer, but the Administration keeps telling them when the end point
is and it keeps going on.
Councilmember Yukimura: The longer it goes, the more money they will
have for the community.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Is that a question? Do you have any other
questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: I do have questions about the program itself.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 81 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules. Please introduce
yourselves.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
DENNIS EGUCHI, Kekaha Resident (Uncles): Dennis Eguchi, Kekaha Resident.
WAYNE AYUDAN, Kekaha Resident (Uncles): Wayne Ayudan, Kekaha Resident.
PATRICK PERREIRA, Kekaha Resident (Uncles): Patrick Perreira, Kekaha
Resident.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much for being here and for all
the work you have done to help your community. There is $200,000 a year that is produced
from the Host Community Benefits, so why is this money not being used to solarize the
community?
Mr. Eguchi: First of all, we do not think it is $200,000; I think
it is more like $160,000.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, whatever it is.
Mr. Eguchi: But initially, Kitty for the Host Benefit was at
$780,000 and we used up $700,000 of that money. That is where the first phase came from.
Shall I explain about the program a little bit? No?
Councilmember Yukimura: If we need more information, we can get it. I
think basically you said that you used $700,000 of the initial $800,000 to...
Mr. Eguchi: $780,000.
Councilmember Yukimura: $780,000?
Mr. Eguchi: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: To solarize part of the community.
Mr. Eguchi: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: But you get some every year, right?
Mr. Eguchi: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the community gets $200,000, at least that is
what it shows in our CIP Budget, $198,000 is what is showing here.
Mr. Eguchi: At our meetings, they say it is about $160,000.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. If you get $160,000 per year, why is that
money not being used to solarize the community?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 82 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Eguchi: Well, the money that is sitting there right now
goes to other projects. People can put in for grants from the community. But when we do
this project, we are definitely going to be asking them for money from there also. Our
project, we used $700,000 and retrofitted two hundred forty (240) homes. The rate of
return on the money that the community saved was able to be put back into the community.
Within three and a half (3.5) years, that $700,000 actually came back to the community,
was being spent on this island. So that is why we feel that out of all the projects that Host
Benefit has done, this is the most viable one for us. With that being said, the reason why
we are asking you for more funds is because you folks told us that the landfill was going to
be gone by a certain time. You folks spent big money to have consultants come by to say,
"This is how we are going to beautify the landfill." Now because we are going to host the
landfill, we literally just threw all of that money away. We are saying the initial amount
that we settled for, which we were not the ones that actually came up—some of the kupuna
actually came up prior—we are looking at it and saying, "You know what? If you break it
down for fifty (50) years of hosting the landfill, given initially $600,000, we literally just got
taken for granted." We keep on saying we know that the landfill in Kekaha is the best
place to keep the landfill. So we do not have a problem with that. All we are saying is that
if we are going to have to host the landfill, then please just make it worthwhile for us.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, making it worthwhile could be whatever
you want, right?
Mr. Eguchi: Basically, all we want is to finish our project
because that is what the community is asking for.
Councilmember Yukimura: The initial Host Community Benefit was set
based on a formula, so I am thinking if you think the formula is not accurate, then we need
to see the rationale for changing the formula to increase the amount. I have not seen any
data to say that the impacts are greater. I do want to say that the return to the community
that you described, I am well-familiar with, because the payback for a solar water heater
is...I think you can pay it back in five (5) to seven (7) years, which is why I lobbied hard to
require that every new single-family house on Kaua`i would be required to do solar, but
unfortunately this body rejected that effort. The question is, why could you not do it in
loans? The payback is so good that after five (5) to seven (7) years, then the people have
"free money," so to speak, but if you do it as a loan, then you would be able to help more
people faster.
Mr. Eguchi: We are open to any option. Will the County
Council loan us the money then?
Councilmember Yukimura: No, you are making a proposal and I am saying
had you thought about how to use that money most efficiently—anybody who is making a
proposal needs to come forward and say how they are going to use the money and when it is
taxpayers' money, it needs to be as efficient as possible. You do not want to use $100,000 to
get your end goal when you could use $50,000. That is why I am asking how you
formulated your proposal.
Mr. Eguchi: Initially, the money that you are talking about,
the $160,000, was proposed by the County Council. I think Jay Furfaro came up with a
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 83 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
formula and it just so happens that the people that were here that accepted that from
Kekaha at the time were not basically true representatives of Kekaha, and that was the
problem. There are four (4) of us. We hold meetings regularly and when we do, we literally
ask the community, "What do you folks want?" With that being said, we are not here
representing the four (4) of us; we are here representing the community that comes out and
says, "This is what we want. Can you please try to see if you can do it?"
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me just preface the questions to questions
that are going to make you get closer to a decision of whether you are going to support or
not support this proposal. I know asking them whether they are going to do buybacks or
something...if they say, "Yes," then make sure it is a question that is going to make you
want to support it or not and just gear the questions towards that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. If a program is really well-thought
through and it maximizes the use of taxpayer money then that is important to me in
considering whether or not to vote for a project. My other question is if the people of
Kekaha want this so badly, why are you not using the Host Community...if that is the top
priority, why are you not using the Host Community moneys that you have to do the top
priority for the community? Then these families who save the money can buy the sports
equipment, pay for sports trips and so forth, and they will have a continuous annual
income.
Mr. Eguchi: Basically on the initial project, we did it for
$700,000. We set out bids for contractors on Kaua`i, and throughout the State to be honest
with you, and what happened was we got a contractor that came out and said, "For $5,000,
I can provide you fifteen (15) panels. No other contractor could even come close, but what
we did was we had them come and do a presentation to the community and the bulk of the
community went with one contractor and some of the people in the community went with
other contractors. The only reason why we are able to get it down to a very, very good price
was because we offered the contractor out there...this many people are looking for
photovoltaic (PV) or water heaters...if we went with $150,000 and said, "Contractors, we
want you to bid on this." They are going to look at it and say, "Okay." This is the price and
you know why? There is no volume there.
Councilmember Yukimura: Why could you not accumulate the money over
time, like we do for our road money? We do not spend it all every year, but we accumulate
it for that very purpose.
Mr. Eguchi: Well, like I said, we need enough money to make
it worthwhile. When we did this, it actually benefited the entire island because for $5,000
and fifteen (15) panels, we are able to pass it on to every community, from Kekaha to
Ha`ena, right? So everybody actually benefited because of the program. I will give you a
perfect example—the four (4) of us, we did not want to have any conflict with the project, so
we went ahead and purchased our own. I spent $35,000... I think it was forty (43) panels—
if I had waited for the project, my roof would have been just too small. I could have had so
many panels, but we went ahead and did it because we did not want to have conflict. When
we did this and we passed the word out in Kekaha, all the relatives starting calling from
literally the entire island.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 84 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Everybody on the island would like what you
want.
Mr. Eguchi: Right and they all benefitted. What we plan on
doing again is that if we can get this money and run a program, we plan on offering it to the
entire island the same way we did the first time.
Councilmember Yukimura: So why are you having people that can afford it
or can do a loan not do that instead so that the money could go farther to more people?
Mr. Eguchi: Because we feel that the people that resided in
Kekaha that have hosted the landfill for this time deserves something for a change. I will
be honest with you, we went and hosted somebody in Kekaha recently at one of our parks,
and just so happen this person brought for us some lunch. We sat down there and before
we even open the lunch, I made a comment, "Watch this," and as soon as you open the
lunch, here comes the flies. That is part of the inconveniences we live with because we live
with the landfill. Everybody says, "Well no, the landfill really does not propagate flies," but
it actually does because you can go to other communities, do the same thing, and the fly
never comes. In Kekaha, the people are getting really tired of all of these inconveniences.
At least tell them to make it worthwhile for us to host it. We do not mind hosting the
landfill. All of the other communities do not want the landfill. We are saying that if you
are going to leave it in Kekaha, please make it worthwhile for us. That is all we are saying.
If you folks do not want to make it worthwhile for us, then I would suggest that you quickly
go ahead and find an alternative place and see what community would want the landfill.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we are saying we want to offset the
impacts of the landfill. If it is to put on solar, then we want to do it in way that is going to
maximize the benefits to Kekaha people and you can do more with less money when you do
it with certain kind of guidelines.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not want to get into a debate, because we
can debate this all day. I do not want to torture them and have them have to answer one
million questions. We go through it and vote it up or down.
Mr. Perreira: Patrick Perreira. Councilmember Yukimura, I
want to tell you something, and you are a businesswoman, so you should know this—if we
want, like you say, for ten (10) years and accumulate the money until we get enough, we
are not going to have enough to pay for the project. The contractor is not going to wait with
this year's price, ten (10) years from today. Everything goes up.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Perreira: To put the record straight, Dennis is correct, but
we did one hundred forty-one (141) homes on County money. The other forty (40) homes we
did were with gifted money. The Uncles, we look at ways that we can increase the
production of what we are trying to do. That was gifted money, $200,000.
Councilmember Yukimura: Where did that money come from?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 85 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Perreira: That money came from a contractor that told us,
"If the people go with us, we will do the system and we will kickback $1,000 every system."
So for every five (5) houses they did, we got another $5,000 of free money for another
system. That is what happened.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is very creative. Thank you.
Mr. Ayudan: Councilmember Yukimura, my name is Wayne
Ayudan. In the initial matter on the funding for the host community, whatever the funds
that was appropriated back then, it was great, with the intention of getting the landfill
relocated. Along the way, we came across a few endeavors and the County decided this, the
County decided that. I cannot blame them for some of the decisions they have to make
because of the fact that there is no other place for us to go and utilize the landfill. We are
talking about additional funds for this specific project. The funding that comes into the
community is basically utilized for all different kinds of projects. It just so happens that
the project that we came up with and the grant that we asked for, we asked for the most
money because we felt that this was one of the best projects for the community at-large. We
did not specifically tell them that they had to do or suggested that it will be only PV
systems. They could also have done hot water solar. The balance on hot water solar and
the electrical side, there is an imbalance there, only on the fact that it is because of usage.
That is water under the bridge. Regardless of which residents are allotted this grant, they
can choose whatever they want to do. Getting back to public money, it is something that
nobody wants to spend public money back into the public, and I understand that. It is just
like how you folks were talking about $75,000 to get water for this agricultural park. That
is the same thing; there is no difference there. We are talking money, money; it is just how
it being utilized, what is the community's benefit, and what is the island's benefit at-large,
State into State, whatever it may venture forward on? I know it is a hard thing to come up
with money to do things like this, but it is also a very hard thing for our community. We
never ever voice our opinions. We do not come out headstrong, "We want to do this and we
want to do that." We basically use a little bit common sense and after we do our homework,
we will come out and speak our piece. I have to tell you this much and I definitely know,
because I have met with some of the community people that I have known for a long time.
If and when the landfill gets relocated, wherever it is going, they are not going to come sit
here, asking for funding. They are going to expect big money. Hanamd'ulu and the Lihu`e
area—you folks are going to have to get the Department of Health out chasing around the
flies...we only talked about flies. I know there are big plans on different ways of
eliminating our trash, but until we get to that point, the discussion can go on and on, and
on. We are just asking for something to subsidize what we have been putting up with for a
long length of time. There are a lot of people that are passing away that have lived with
that landfill forever. You do not hear them come crying to you. We have to be the people to
come to you and whatever information we bring is wholeheartedly from the community.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, I will call this
meeting back to order. Any discussion on this before we take the vote? Councilmember
Brun.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 86 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Brun: Thank you for the recess earlier. I just needed
some clarification to see if I had a direct conflict of interest. I do not because I will not
directly benefit from this. I lived in Kekaha for eighteen (18) years and now I moved to
Waimea, so I missed out. My wife lived there for almost forty (40) years and she missed
out. I will not be directly benefitting, so I will be voting on this issue. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? This is not an easy
decision and we have seen how the budget is going so far. We are chasing $3,600,000.
Right now, we are chasing $1,400,000. I do not know what other adds we are going to get.
This will be a direct increase to Real Property Taxes. I commend the Uncles. I know
exactly what they are feeling. We have heard them. I missed the meeting when they came
in, but I did watch the meeting online after. Again, for me, it comes down to County money
and how we spend it. The Kekaha Host Community Benefit will be getting $198,000, $2.38
times 83,407 tons from last year, so $198,000 this year. I am not going to be able to support
this add at this time. Any further discussion? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: This is a hard one. I do believe that Kekaha
should be getting their worth out of their role in hosting the landfill. As you can see, and I
will not repeat, but I focused really hard these past couple of days to ensure that I can try
and support every single cut so that we do not have to raise taxes for our community. I also
told myself and made a promise that I would not support any adds unless we really focused
on the core need of our County operations. There are a couple of things that I think I would
like to see: one, I would like to see the Administration come back with a revised formula
and a formula that I can support and makes sense so that I know what I am giving money
towards and why, some reasoning behind it if there is a proposal for an increase. The other
thing is...I am a little bit...I guess I am not real clear...I was going to ask George to come
up, but forget it, because I think I have enough information about it. Really, it is about the
host benefit organization, how that is organized, and who is making the decisions behind it.
I totally appreciate the Uncles and they represent the community in Kekaha. I also see
that there may be already an established process that it needs to go through in order to vet
these funds. I would like to see their wishes come to fruition. I think it needs a little more
work, in my opinion, given where we are with this budget and it looks like we are about
$1,000,000 behind still. I will not be supporting this at this time, but hopefully we can
come back to this soon. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. There are a few variables or
unknowns that we have to really take into consideration. I tried to cut a lot of positions
today, but I was unsuccessful. I can tell you that in my opinion and my experience, those
positons will not be filled, and I know for a fact that a lot of them will not be filled for the
entire year, so we are going to get some lapsing of funds there. We are going to get lapsing
of funds in our budget. I was actually kind of surprised to see this drop on the floor today
and my initial reaction was, "Oh my God, that is going to take us further back," but then I
went back to 2000...I am not sure when we even put that money in first, but it was the
intention at that time, for the Council at that time, that we would put $1,000,000 in this
account and that would be an annual contribution. That is what the intent was and it
never ended up that way. It was a pretty controversial time, and at the end of the day, I
think we got $650,000 or $750,000, and then it just dropped to $40,000 or $80,000 and it
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 87 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
took a lot of effort by the Council to get the Administration to kick that up, even to what it
is today. The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) out in Kekaha provided $700,000 for
the first go-around for this project. From what I have found in talking to a lot of people in
the community on the west side is that they want to be able to utilize funds from the CAC
money, the Host Community Benefit money for many small projects. They want to be able
to do certain things in the community, utilizing those funds, which was the original intent
as well. Then there is this other large segment of the community that wants to continue
the solarize project. I think it was you, Dennis, the last time you were up here and the
Mayor was sitting back there, and I said, "If you funneled the money through the Host
Community Benefit, then it has to go through the CAC." So I told you, "Go talk to the big
man in the back and see if we can get a separate line item for these funds? That way, it
would be earmarked for that project." So whether it is coming from the Administration or
from a Councilmember, it is here for the deliberation and discussion and what we are going
to do. Councilmember Kawakami and I were talking and there are still some uncertainties
about the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), whether or not we are going to get our
share of the TAT. We have options of how we are going to address the shortfall, if we have
the shortfall, and there are options that are besides raising taxes. I will just say that for
now. I will express my thoughts later when we get to that point. I do have some additional
adds that I think I had discussed during the budget process that we still have to go up. I
see that George is here and I would assume that should this get approved that Economic
Development is going to be the caretaker of the funds to make sure that there is a policy in
place on how we are going distribute these funds to the families that could benefit from
these services or from these projects. I am going to support this today, just because I
believe that the community on the west side deserves this. I fully support the CAC and the
Host Community Benefit as well. I do not think that we should disqualify or kick out this
project because maybe the CAC at this point does not necessarily want to spend these large
sums of money for projects. I do think that money should be used for mini projects
throughout the community. So this would be the proper venue to ask; this would be the
proper place to do it. So I will be supporting this today and I will figure out how to make
the adjustments as we get through the budget process.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other comments from the Members?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: For me, I do not think anybody should be
surprised because last year I tried it and I think I started at $1 million, and then I tried it
again at $500,000. It is something that I believe in, I believe that it is right. Maybe I am
biased because I am from the west side. Even if this happened on the north shore or
whatever if we state things to the community that something like the landfill is going to
stop by a certain year and we keep changing the date, because we find out that Ma'alo is
not going to be ready and we need this or that—the terms have changed. Any agreement
you make...you lie...you are breaching. Just because it is the government, we say, "No, we
can just change it how we want to because we are broke and we do not have money." To
me, it is not right. It is not an excuse. Again, it is just about values. What values you have
in doing the right thing for the community and being fair. I think this is a very small step
in being fair. Even if this would pass, I do not think we are even close to what the
community deserves, but they are a humble community and I think we should respect and
appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 88 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I totally support the goal of solarizing Kekaha
and I would like to see the entire island solarized. That is why I have been working for over
ten (10) years for a solar water heating law that would require solar water heating on all
new construction to start to kind of turn off the faucet, instead of creating houses that do
not have solar, and have every new house get solar and figure out how to retrofit our
existing houses. After paying off a solar water heater, it is free hot water and the savings is
about thirty percent (30%) of a household electricity bill. With that kind of additional
money, it would really help our families and I think you, Uncles, have shown that and you
have actually made it happen for those two hundred forty (240) families. I think though
that when it is taxpayers' money, we have to use it in the most cost-effective way possible. I
do not think there is a plan for how to do that yet. I do not think that people who can afford
to get a loan...I think that the credit unions have interest-free loans for solar water heating
that we need to do it that way, because that will maximize the taxpayers' money. If we are
going to have to raise taxes this year, I would rather take the time to work with you if you
would be willing to work out a program that would be more cost-effective that you can come
back here and get the moneys next year, perhaps.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any final discussion from the Members?
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: No, I am ready to vote.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I just want to add to be clear that if we had the
money, I would love to give the money. But again, as the Budget & Finance Chair, I need
to be strict on the budget. Right now, as far as Solid Waste goes, we are losing $8.3 million
a year on Solid Waste. So the General Fund subsidizes the Solid Waste program by
$8.3 million, so if a proposal came in later to increase the tipping fees and a portion of that
goes to Kekaha for another project, it might be an easier pill to swallow. The money is
based on the amount that was dumped in there, but as of right now, with or financial
situation, it is just something that I cannot support. With that, can I get a roll call vote?
The motion to add funding in the amount of $500,000 in the Office of Economic
Development, Grant-In-Aid, to Host Community Benefit (Solarize Kekaha Project)
was then put, and failed by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3, motion fails.
Mr. Perreira: May I say something?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Mr. Perreira, we typically do not allow more
discussion because the time to speak was before the vote.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 89 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Perreira: This is an apology. Most of you people do not
know me per se, but when I am passionate on something, that is when my voice gets loud
and boisterous, but I did not mean to hurt anybody. I would like to thank the Council for
all of the work they do. Please excuse my loud, boisterous voice. Sometimes I think I am
still coaching.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have heard louder.
Councilmember Kawakami: Like Matt Bernabe.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Matt is a lot louder than you folks. Thank you
for being very respectful also. I have an apology because I have an add and cut that came
from the Administration. It balances itself out and I forgot to propose it.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am going to introduce it for Committee Chair
Kaneshiro as being circulated. This is to cut funding, $250,000, for the Kalaheo Fire
Station and add $250,000 for Anini Bridge.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to cut funding in the amount of $250,000 from the
Kalaheo Fire Station in the CIP-Bond Fund and add additional funding in the
amount of $250,000 to the Anini Bridge project in the CIP-Bond Fund, seconded by
Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Let me just explain this and I will try to explain
is as best as possible, but Keith mentioned that the Anini Bridge estimate ended up a little
higher than what they expected. With the Kalaheo Fire Station, they were able to reduce
the cost on that and so rather than coming back later on in the year, he wanted to know if
we could adjust it right now. It is two (2) items that are in the CIP: one, they went out to
bid and it came out over-budget; the other one, they are doing it and it is under-budget and
they are just moving the numbers around. Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I just had a question because this was one of the
items that constituents have reached out, not only fishermen that utilize that area, but also
we have somebody that utilizes paratransit operations out there. We have a gas company
that cannot service their customers out there. I just wanted to know so we can respond
back, when is this project going to be completed? When is the anticipated completion date?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The rules are suspended and this is what you get
for making me propose it and I forgot about it. Now you have to answer our question on
Anini Bridge.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Kawakami: Just the completion date. I do not have
problems. I heard the justification, but I just wanted to know when is this $250,000 going
to end up with a bridge that people can utilize?
Mr. Suga: I certainly apologize for the last minute request.
I do not know if Committee Chair Kaneshiro went through that the bid came in yesterday,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 90 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
it opened yesterday, and seeing that it came in over-budget, we thought maybe now is the
appropriate time to try to make the appropriate adjustments so we can award. At this
point, if this does pass Council approval, the moneys would be there July 1St, which we then
could award the contract at that time. From there, the Notice to Proceed (NTP) could be
issued. I believe the project, in totality, once the NTP is given, we are probably looking at a
three (3) to four (4) month completion to improve the situation out there at `Anini Bridge.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: October, I guess? Before the end of the year.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: How much was the estimate?
Mr. Suga: The initial estimate I received from Engineering
was...
Council Chair Rapozo: $250,000.
Mr. Suga: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: What was the award?
Mr. Suga: $534,000, I believe? Not the award...excuse
me...the potential low bid came in at $534,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Over two (2) times the amount?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Who does our estimates?
Mr. Suga: For this particular project, we have...
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not need to know the name, but do we...
Mr. Suga: We have a consultant.
Council Chair Rapozo: A consultant told us $250,000?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: And it is $530,000?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: Did we fire that consultant? It is not the first
time. I am going to tell you and be strictly honest—the Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is what my concern is. This is when we
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 91 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
come across with a number, like $250,000, and it is now up to $530,000. You know we are
not going to do it for $530,000. I think history tells us that we will have a change order and
it will be more than that. I am not sure at what point we say, "Hey, we have to find another
consultant." That is crazy. Keith, you are like the lightning rod for all of the venting of this
Council and do not take it personal, but that is something that I think we have to look at.
That is a bad estimate, unless the contractors are taking us to the cleaners, which is what I
am worried about.
Councilmember Kawakami: I have one quick question, Committee Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Is this bridge a complete replacement or is it a
rehabilitation project?
Mr. Suga: This particular project would be...it is more of a
replacement because this would be spanning the existing culvert that is in place.
Councilmember Kawakami: But it does not expand the footprint, the width,
or anything like that, right?
Mr. Suga: No.
Councilmember Kawakami: Just out of curiosity, how much did we have to
pay for Environmental Assessments (EAs) or compliance with Chapter 343 on this bridge
project?
Mr. Suga: I cannot remember off the top of my head what
our consultant contract amount was. It would have been included in that during that
process.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay.
Mr. Suga: I could find out for you.
Councilmember Kawakami: Afterwards, can you get it to us?
Mr. Suga: Yes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay. Thank you. I only raise that because in
order to cut costs, and I would like the constituents to know that the Legislature had taken
measures to cut costs of projects when it came to bridge repairs or replacements that as
long as it did not expand the footprint or as long as it was not new bridges and it was
existing bridges, to exempt it from Chapter 343, just to cut costs. But it was met with
extreme opposition. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Keith. My understanding is that
there is no alternative route in and out of this road.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 92 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Chock: Have you made a plan for how it is you are going
to complete this in the amount of time?
Mr. Suga: Correct, there is a phasing that has been
incorporated into the plans and that probably is why a lot of the bids came in higher, in
terms of the risk or liabilities being pushed onto the contractor to meet certain closure
requirements.
Councilmember Chock: So is that one of the reasons why the bid is
higher?
Mr. Suga: I believe so.
Councilmember Chock: ...than you had imagined?
Mr. Suga: Correct.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Roll call vote.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
The motion to cut funding in the amount of $250,000 from the Kalaheo Fire Station
in the CIP-Bond Fund and add additional funding in the amount of $250,000 to the
Anini Bridge project in the CIP-Bond Fund was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes, motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry about that. Any more adds?
Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: Mine is to reclassify Position No. 897 in the Auto
Mechanic Shop that they moved from a Repair Shop Supervisor to a Heavy Equipment
Mechanic. I want to move it back to the Repair Shop Supervisor.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 93 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Brun moved to reclassify Position No. 897, Heavy Vehicle &
Construction Equipment Mechanic, to Repair Shop Supervisor from BC11 to F211
and related benefits, reduce R&M Vehicles by ($11,979) to fund the increased salary
amount in the Department of Public Works-Auto Maintenance, Highway Fund,
seconded by Council Chair Rapozo.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion on this?
Councilmember Brun: After visiting the shop and talking to the shop
and talking to a lot of mechanics, they really feel that they definitely need this position.
They used to have this position with way less people and it was funded. But with more
people, they took it away and they wanted to put it as a mechanic and I think we had a
Body Fender worker that turned into a mechanic. So I do not think we are short of
mechanics. We do need this position. I think they are temporarily assigning a person there
right now. When we went there, somebody was temporarily assigned for this position.
Some of the workers really feel that this Repair Shop Supervisor should be in place. I also
talked to the repair shop foreman and he was in support of it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We do not have the power to reclassify, right? I
guess we have the power to put money in there, but I do not know if we have the power to
reclassify. Is that a reallocation?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Rapozo: In the budget, you can change the position to the
Supervisor and change the dollar value, as far as funding. I guess at that point, it will be
up to the Administration how they are going to be filling it.
Councilmember Yukimura: What is the Administration's position on this?
ERNEST W. BARREIRA, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer: Good afternoon
Councilmembers. Ernie Barreira, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer. This position was
vetted through the Vacancy Review Committee process, pursuant to standard procedure.
When a position is vacated, we take a look at it. The Vacancy Review Committee basically
conveyed its findings and recommendations to the Mayor, at which point the position was
not going to be filled, only because of situations at the automotive shop that indicated they
needed some time to closely evaluate their operations to make sure that the chain-of-
command was properly in place and that the allocation of duties was properly addressed.
In line with that, there seemed to be a very strong emphasis that based on the
Administration's visits with the baseyards, part of the problems were that we were not
getting turnover of large and small equipment in a timely fashion and that was adversely
affecting the productivity of the workers in the field. So that is why in the March Submittal
that position was re-described to a Mechanic as opposed to a line Supervisor.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 94 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Would this action be to remove a Mechanic?
Ms. Rapozo: The position was reallocated in this new budget
to be a Mechanic, so currently, it is vacant in this current budget as the Repair Shop
Supervisor. When we submitted the fiscal year 2018 budget, it was submitted as a
Mechanic.
Councilmember Yukimura: So this change does not change the Mechanic
position at all or does it? This is Position No. 897.
Ms. Rapozo: This position would revert back to what is
currently in the budget in fiscal year 2017.
Council Chair Rapozo: 2016-2017?
Ms. Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the Administration wants it to be a Mechanic,
rather than a Repair Shop Supervisor?
Ms. Rapozo: That is what was submitted, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the Administration by this proposal would not
be able to implement their plans?
Ms. Rapozo: As we have seen with all positions, it could be
reallocated.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, they have that down.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is part of the separation of powers that the
power to reallocate is in the Administration. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: If I heard you right that even if we do this
change, if the Administration sees it fit to leave it as a Mechanic then they will, right? I
think Councilmember Brun is giving you the option to do what the men have said would
make them more efficient. If the men's supervisor did not bring it forth you folks in the
budget submittal, I guess Councilmember Brun is trying to fix a problem that has not been
brought into the budget. If you folks deem that Councilmember Brun's alternative is not
what the auto supervisor wants, you folks will not do it, right? That is basically what you
folks just clarified to Councilmember Yukimura. You folks still have the power to shape
whatever position.
Ms. Rapozo: That is correct.
Councilmember Kagawa: I was in that meeting and what it came down is
that they said they cannot fix things when they do not have a supervisor processing work
orders, ordering parts, and picking up parts. You cannot fix without the replacement parts
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 95 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
and I think a lot of the backlog was in with those types. The mechanics are saying, "If we
are mechanics, we cannot go and order the parts on our own." They need that supervisor to
go and order the parts because he is the one going to approve of the job being done in a
manner that is requested to be done. I think this amendment is trying to give you folks the
power to fix a problem that was brought on to us and how do we get more vehicles, more
heavy equipment done faster. They are overwhelmed down there. We just sat down there a
little while and the amount of work that was coming through was unbelievable. I almost
feel like we have to have privatized powers, but I do not know...when we are really busy,
then that way we can just get the equipment fixed and what have you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I guess one of the concerns I heard earlier was
Lyle said that he is hiring one and he already has his eye on the second one. Is that the
same mechanics that he was talking about?
Ms. Rapozo: No, there was one (1) vacancy that is a mechanic
that he is hired already. There is the Body and Fender position that was vacant that they
converted to the Heavy Vehicle Mechanic that he is ready to hire, but it was pending that
the position remains in the budget. This is a third one.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: So ultimately it is your decision, whatever the
Department of Public Works is going to do. For us, we get the concerns from the
constituents and workers and this is what they want, so I am going to do my duty and put it
in so that they know we are doing what they want. What you folks do, bottom line, is up to
you folks. To answer that question, we are just doing what is right, and then you guys can
do whatever you think is right. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I guess it is a plea from
Councilmember Brun. I, too went down to the shop and I am not sure how many mechanics
they have. I guess that place is split in a couple of bays, so you get this side and this side,
so it is a mess—I have to be honest—there are some mean personality issues down there
and some mean workplace issues down there. You have a Superintendent who sits upstairs
and there is no supervisor. I do not know how we can expect that place to function properly
without getting problems and internal issues with employees without a supervisor. We
heard today regarding the Solid Waste Division—I cannot count how many supervisors we
are going to put in there: working supervisors, site supervisors, and all of these supervisors
for seven (7) guys. Then we have this shop who has problems. We know that. Let us not
pretend that it does not exist because it exists. But we are going to take the supervisor
away? You have to have a supervisor. I think that is what Councilmember Brun is trying
to say. He is basically pleading, understanding that we make this change...I had this
change, but I gave it back because I believe there is no sense, because we can make the
change and tomorrow, HR can go right back...I guess this is an attempt to plea with the
Administration, please consider the need for a supervisor down at that shop. We hear the
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 96 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
complaints. It takes forever for a car to get finished. There is no supervisor, no leader.
The Superintendent cannot be expected to take care of all of the supervisory functions of
that shop. Again, not micromanaging, but these are just observations that when you have
that many people in a shop and you have different functions in the shop, it just makes
sense to have a supervisor there. I would ask that you really consider this. I am going to
support this, obviously, because I think it needs to be done and I would ask that the
Administration seriously consider it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: There appears to be in the works additional
mechanics that are going to come onboard.
Ms. Rapozo: There was a position proposed to be changed
from the Body and Fender Worker to a Mechanic in the proposed budget and this is another
one that was also proposed to become a Mechanic to try to, as Lyle said, "Get more
wrenches on the floor right now."
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? If not, thank you. I will
call this meeting back to order. Any final discussion? Councilmember Kagawa.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Kagawa: We have a lot of equipment that we are ordering,
so I hope the Administration can be just a little more responsive to how we solve the
problem. This one seems like we have the workers, but they cannot work without the
coordination of a manager just letting the work orders flow and making sure that we order
parts. If we ignore the request of the men, I think we will continue to see backlogs in our
repairs. Like any construction company, when the equipment is down, construction
companies say you are losing big money. I think the County to have the excuse, "Well, we
County. That is okay if it is down," I do not think that is what the public wants. They want
roads fixed. Fixing by hand is outdated, so we have to have all of those equipment in
working order in order to function at our best. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: For this one, I asked the Administration to
please look at it deeply and see if we really need that position. I talked to somebody today,
which is why I was a little late. A Mechanic stopped me this morning and he was just going
off. He was saying, "It is horrible in there. We need that shop supervisor." It is out there,
the morale is down, and we need this person to kind of smooth things out and work with
them. Please, if we do get this passed, Administration, please really look into putting this
supervisor in instead of a Mechanic, because we have two (2) more already coming on.
Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 97 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: This is actually micromanaging and
second-guessing by the Council. By the way the Charter is set-up, it is protecting the
Administration against that because it cannot really take effect. I am actually going to vote
for this because I sense there are major problems, and all I want to do, because it cannot
take effect without the Administration, is signal to the Administration that there needs to
be a closer look at what is happening over there. I felt like I could tell just in the dialogue
in the hearing that there were issues and it is hard to get anything done when there are
those issues. So hopefully there can be a second look and maybe some work. I know these
issues are not easy, but it would be good to see what the best way is to resolve it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Thank you. I am unfortunately not going to be
able to support this currently. I do support the notion and the idea of having a Repair Shop
Supervisor. In that type of working environment and what was just described to us, I will
not be in judgment of, but I do know that in these type of work environments when you are
dealing with repairs, heavy equipment, and tools and dangerous things, you need to have
that shop supervisor, but I think it is incumbent upon the Administration to make those
calls. What I am afraid of...well, not afraid...what I am hesitant of is the unintended
consequences. I would hate to move things around, have them not support or not even have
a Repair Shop Supervisor candidate ready to be hired and now we are stuck with a position
that goes vacant for another two thousand (2,000) days. The apparent need right now is for
a Heavy Vehicle and Construction Equipment Mechanic and has some of our heavy vehicles
and construction equipment fall into dire straits with necessary repairs that cannot be
made. I totally support the merit, but I think it is incumbent on the Administration's
duties to go and come back to us and tell us that they need this Repair Shop Supervisor and
that we can fund it. I think from what I have heard, we are all willing and we all support
the notion that we need a supervisor, but I am not going to support it this way. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The motion on the floor is to reclassify
Position No. 897 "Heavy Vehicle & Construction Equipment Mechanic" to "Repair Shop
Supervisor" from BC 11 to F2 11 and related benefits and reducing R&M Vehicles by
($11,979) to fund increased salary amount. Overall, the net effect is zero. Councilmember
Brun.
Councilmember Brun: We have two (2) different numbers. Which one is
the right one? The top says "897" and the bottom says "987." I am just making sure that
we have the right one before we vote.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sorry, it is to move to reclassify Position No. 897.
Again, the difference is coming out of R&M Vehicles. The net effect is zero. I think we
heard it loud and clear that it is more of a message to the Administration. Roll call vote.
The motion to reclassify Position No. 897 Heavy Vehicle & Construction Equipment
Mechanic, to Repair Shop Supervisor from BC 11 to F2 11 and related benefits,
Reduce R&M Vehicles by ($11,979) to fund the increased salary amount in the
Department of Public Works-Auto Maintenance, Highway Fund, was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 98 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Rapozo, Yukimura,
Kane shiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST MOTION: Kawakami TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1, motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other cuts and adds, or adds?
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: This is an add to replace the funding that was
not submitted this year for the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA)-Family
Violence Shelter and the YWCA-Sexual Assault Treatment Program, $65,000 for the
Family Violence Shelter and $50,000 for the Sexual Assault Treatment Program.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to add funding in the Office of Economic Development,
Grant-In-Aid, in the amount of $65,000 in for YWCA-Family Violence Shelter and
$50,000 in for YWCA-Sexual Assault Treatment Program for a total of $115,000,
seconded by Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not think we need any discussion on this. I
think we discussed it at the budget hearing. I think it was clear that the Administration
said that they were focusing on cultural programs and they were going to reassess. It did
not come back across. This is funding that we have had in there for a long time, many
years. Although the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) moneys...very
generous to the YWCA. I look at it as two (2) separate things. Other agencies had the
opportunity to apply for the CDBG. This is completely separate; it is apples and oranges.
These are programs that we have funded, for what I believe is a very vital part of our
community and it is not like you can take the money from CDBG to fund these. I think we
owe it to our community to replace this funding.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or comments? Councilmember
Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I am going to support this. I think we have a
growing population and growing problems out in the community, and the women, children,
and families need to have this. It is definitely a need; it is not a want. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments from the Members?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I am going to support this as well. I do think it is
a core need in the community. I think it sort of undermines the direction of the Office of
Economic Development and how they are structuring their GIA, of which I am against. I
am hoping that perhaps this funding can find a home somewhere else in the future, because
I do believe that we need to separate those functions that we all deem are core and will
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 99 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
continue to fund without it being in a competitive process. There is some maneuvering that
needs to happen in order for me to really swallow this, but I will support this at this time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have had a proposal that I have not proposed
because of the tight budget situation, but I will at some point propose an Office of Children
and Families, which I think opens the need now...we have an Office of Elderly Affairs and if
we talk about prevention and the need, there is a great need for that. This grant
funding...I agree that the Office of Economic Development is an odd fit, if at all a fit, so I
think we need to evolve our County structure to really align with the needs of current-day
society and maybe you can see that next year.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? Right now, our total
budget that we cut is $2,200,000, just to remind everybody. Roll call vote.
The motion to add funding in the Office of Economic Development, Grant-In-Aid, in
the amount of $65,000 in for YWCA-Family Violence Shelter and $50,000 in for
YWCA-Sexual Assault Treatment Program for a total of$115,000 was then put, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The balance is going down now. Councilmember
Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Yes, I do have an add. I would like to take a
brief moment to explain the add. I would like to thank Council Chair because actually we
were approached at the same time by the same entity for this proposal and it has gone up
significantly since the last time we met and it was a last minute add, so we really apologize.
It was one of those things that came up because of the budgeting process...
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we see it?
Councilmember Kawakami: Excuse me?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura, he has not even
mentioned what his add is yet.
Councilmember Kawakami: It is for Kaumakani Park improvements.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 100 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The staff does not even know what paper to pass
out.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am sorry. Thank you.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to add additional funding in the Department of
Parks & Recreation-Administration in the amount of $200,000 for Kaumakani Park
Improvements (Roof, Repairs, etc.), seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kawakami: Basically, let me give you a brief history. We
have a gem up there in the hills of Kaumakani, the softball field; I think we have all been
there. This was actually a project that was on the books previously. Originally, it was a
smaller amount...I think it was $40,000 with the thoughts that it was going to be leveraged
with CDBG funds. But lo and behold, Kaumakani is an area that falls out of that CDBG
zone. Believe it or not, it does not qualify, which just baffles me; something is wrong with
the formula. We approached the Department of Parks & Recreation. The $40,000 had been
threatened to lapse because it did not get the leveraging from the CDBG funds, so that
money was moved over to Black Pot. The intent was to make the repairs, but they lost out
because the money was moved. Here we are today to add in a modest amount of $200,000
for repairs to their pavilion. If you were to go out there, in my opinion, it is a matter of
public health and safety. Council Chair has seen it also. It is badly corroded and the
Department of Parks & Recreation has agreed that they had intended to make the
improvements, but the funding was not there. So I am going to make an attempt to add in
the funding of$200,000.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Questions? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do not have a question. I just wanted to put it
up on the screen for all of you to see. I went out there and I spoke to a few gentlemen and I
will tell you that it is amazing—the average age of the three (3) gentlemen I met was
probably eighty (80). Kuku De Costa is probably the youngest and he is in his 70's, then
you have Mr. Sonoda, and Winky. Winky has got to be in his 80's. I have not been there in
a while, but when I got there the field was like...I am not exaggerating...I do not know the
last time you folks went out there. I think Councilmember Kawakami may have been out
there recently, but the field was like...you know the major league fields where they cross
the cut on the field, it was like that. I should have took pictures of the field. The three (3)
men were in there and they were just so humble. They said, "If can, can; if no can, no can."
I started to walk around. This is just in the little shack that they hangout in where the
restrooms are. If you look at that electrical box right here, which is directly under the
leaking roof. That is actually a better shot. That is a health and safety issue. If you go
more, that is kind of what it looks like here. That is the basketball court over there. It is
right next to a school, which would be a great asset for that school, I think. That is just
what it looks like. These people have told me that they think they can get it done for about
$40,000 to $50,000 if we provide the equipment, but in talking with the Director of Parks &
Recreation, he brought me back to reality really, really quick and I would have to agree
that it is going to be a lot more than that, just because of the plumbing and electrical. The
pavilion built there...they did a really great job. It is a project that I think these people
who take such great care of the field. I am glad that Councilmember Kawakami brought up
the add because it is a significant add, but again, maybe we do not have to do it all at one
time, but we have to get out there and we have to take care of those issues. The roof needs
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 101 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
to be replaced, obviously. Some of those beams need to be replaced. The plywood roofs need
to be replaced. With that basketball court, it is not going to take much to clean the weeds
and change the backboard, the rim, and the net. I am obviously going to support this. We
will figure out a way to get to that number at the end, but I am hoping that we can get the
support as well from the rest of the Council. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: My only question was, and I think I got it pretty
answered, was to ensure that the amount that is allotted here will get the job done. I know
we have seen in the past some issues with leaky roofs and it not getting fixed properly.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will say that according to Lenny, $200,000 is
using volunteer labor. Just the material and supplies...the designs...everything has been
done. Lenny said that all of the plans have been done prior to those moneys being taken
away and given to Black Pot. I think all of that stuff is done and now it just a matter of
getting the construction.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not have any questions.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I would have had a question for the
Administration, but I do not think someone can answer. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: There is a Special Projects Contingency Fund on
page 239; why can it not fit under there? $224,970.
Council Chair Rapozo: For the same reason we tried to put the water
requirement on your $75,000. If we identify the line, then it is dedicated for that use.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. That is the intention. It will still leave
$24,000, plus whatever they can move around.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I have a question for the Administration if
somebody wants to try to answer. My question is, is there other money to do this project, as
far as bond money? I know we have the Ho`olokahi Project. This is on our own park, so I
do not know why we would not try move towards fixing those types of things in our budget.
I just wanted some help on this as far as a little more direction.
Councilmember Yukimura: Page 239 of the Supplemental says "Special
Projects" and the use is identified as "Contingency Funds." This sounds like a major
contingency.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Can we take a five-minute recess?
Councilmember Kawakami: Or we could move on to the next item maybe.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes, we can move on to the next one and come
back to this. I would rather not hold up the process, but I know it is a big amount. We see
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 102 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
what it looks like, but for me, I want to go through the avenues and see if we have a plan
for it. Ideally, I would rather want to see these type of things come up in the budget prior
to the Supplemental where we have to make a decision off the cuff, which is very difficult.
That is my only concern and I just want to hear if there was a plan or other money for it.
Let us keep moving, keeping in mind...I do not know what the next cut is. If that $200,000,
then that number is going to be smaller, so do not propose anything more than that, plus
$200,000, just in case. Whoever proposed it, can we withdraw it, and then we will have it
back up again?
Councilmember Kawakami withdrew the motion to add additional funding in the
Department of Parks & Recreation-Administration in the amount of $200,000 for
Kaumakani Park Improvements (Roof, Repairs, etc.), Councilmember Kagawa
withdrew the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We will bring it back up. I guess I cannot recess
a decision. We will move on. Any further adds?
Councilmember Yukimura: Just a query, I thought we could not suggest any
adds without suggesting cuts?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have $2,000,000 more than cuts right now.
Do we want to add $2,000,000 back into the budget? I do not think it is wise. Do we have
flexibility to add some? We already have a cost right now, we are chasing $3,600,000. If we
want to add, then we will deal with it. That is our prerogative. We cut $2,000,000, we can
spend $2,000,000 if that is how the votes go.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I do have an add sheet and I am not going to
formally introduce it. I want to discuss it because there is a big problem that came up
recently with the Kaua`i Humane Society and they have stopped their Spay and Neuter
Program indefinitely. I do not know if they even have an idea of when they are going...that
is when I am going to need the help from Wally or someone from the Administration. This
is relatively new and I apologize for not discussing this with the Finance Director. We
discussed it in the past and it was before the Humane Society had shut down services. We
control the contract with the Humane Society for whatever they do, but the Spay and
Neuter Program was cut from their contract a while ago and they were supposedly doing it.
This is a question for us and for the Administration...on this sheet, I have $60,000 and is
there a way for us to work outside of the Humane Society with the private vets...sorry,
Wally...with the veterinarians? Again, it is a problem that we have to address. The Spay
and Neuter Program...the problems we have with feral animals and stray animals making
babies is a problem. The Humane Society is not addressing it. Right now, no one is
addressing it, unless you go to your private veterinarian, which could be very costly. Is
there an opportunity for the County to work with our veterinarians, whether it is through a
coupon system where we issue out vouchers to our private veterinarians for people that
want to spay and neuter their animals? I bring that up for discussion. Thank you.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 103 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Actually, let me get a motion and a second on it
for discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me just make the motion. Right now, the
add sheet says $60,000 and that number is only because that is what we funded. I had one
for $60,000 and one for $75,000. I believe our former contract was $60,000, so let us start
with the $60,000.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to add funding in the amount of $60,000 in the
Department of Finance, Administration, Special Projects for a Spay & Neuter
Program, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. We will continue the discussion.
Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Again, this is brand new to them as well, so it is
pretty unfair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I believe that the Humane Society does have a
Spay and Neuter Program, but it is being funded by grants. I know that, in fact, they are
bringing in...I think Scott Pisani mentioned that they are going to bring in this major
spay/neuter capacity that will come and I think they do around fifty (50) a day or something
like that and people will be allowed to bring in their pets. I think I would prefer that we
actually work with the Humane Society and come up with a good program, and then
consider how to fund it. As the Chair has said, I support the intention, but I think it has to
be thought through and developed with the Humane Society because they are the experts.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, I mean the expert is the veterinarian.
Again, whether or not the Humane Society decides to start up their program...I am reading
the E-mail from Scott Pisani and this was just on the 11th: "The public's spay and neuter
services are still temporarily on hold as we continue to assess our clinic and determine how
to ensure/provide high-quality of service with the greatest impact to our community." I am
all good with that. This money does not become available until July. If it is the Humane
Society, I really do not care who does it, but somebody has to do it. I guess what I am
saying is that if the Humane Society cannot get it together and offer that service for the
public then we need to find another angle. We are not obligated to contract with anybody
for this service. It just needs to be done. If you folks want to wait, then that is fine, too. It
bothers me. The reason the service was stopped was because a couple of animals had died
shortly after surgery. I believe it was purely coincidence. It just happened and that was
one of those unfortunate events. But because of the circumstances, they shut down the
program. That was a while ago and I am not so sure when it will come back.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 104 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think it is for lack of funding; I think it is
because of this logistics that they are stepping back to review their process and procedures.
We need to verify that, too.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I do not know if the Administration will have an
answer for us on it. If the Humane Society was here, they would probably have a better
understanding of it. Unfortunately, we are not going to get them here in time. Ernie, do
you have any comments?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Barreira: I think the first thing that needs to be addressed
is whether or not such an action would have any statutory prohibitions, so I think the
County Attorney should be asked to provide guidance before I speak as to the procurement
alternatives that might be there.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We put money in the budget for the Dog Barking
Ordinance and other stuff. We put money in the budget for other stuff.
Council Chair Rapozo: We had money for the Spay and Neuter Program
in the past. It is not something new. I am just saying that we should redo it and start it up
again. That is all. We do not need an attorney's opinion on that because we had it.
Councilmember Yukimura: But the pause by the Humane Society, I do not
believe it is for the lack of coins.
Council Chair Rapozo: The Humane Society has absolutely nothing to
do with this. Again, what I said was to have money available, and is the Administration
willing to work on a program, whether it is with the Humane Society, the Salvation Army,
the Boys & Girls Club, or some veterinarian's association? Is there a way we can figure out
how we can get this program back in place, preferably with the Humane Society, but if not,
then that is fine. If it is too premature, Wally, let us know if it is premature. We can do it
later in the form of a money bill. I guess my point is that I did not want to let this go
unaddressed during the time where we, as the Council, have an opportunity to share what
we think is important. I believe this is very important.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR., Managing Director: I will let Mauna Kea speak,
but I believe that if you state it generically, like how you are intending, then we will be fine.
That is how I feel. How do you have it? Just under "Special Projects —Animal Services," I
think that would be an appropriate line item. It is generic enough where we can manage it,
come July 1st.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is that okay, Mauna Kea?
Mr. Trask: For the record, Mauna Kea Trask, County
Attorney. The statute generally requires the County of Kaua`i to contract with the Humane
Society for the provision of these and other similar services, so that is kind of left to them.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, you have to read the whole thing, Mauna
Kea.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 105 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have to read the whole statute. It says for
the provision of what? Dogs, loose dogs, and stray dogs.
Mr. Trask: It says nothing in here that talks about dogs
shall be limited just to dogs, it could include other animals. It is supposed to be broad. I
think it is more of an accounting thing, not a legal question, really. We contract with them
and it is accounting, however you want to do this.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions?
Councilmember Yukimura: Call for the question.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Whoa, somebody is ready to vote. Any further
discussion on this? I guess I will say that I understand what Council Chair is doing. I
guess I am a little uncomfortable not knowing more information on it. That is simply why I
am voting the way I am going to vote. Any further discussion? Councilmember Chock.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Chock: I am feeling kind of similar. I definitely feel the
importance and want to support it and I will be there for a money bill if we have to come
back for $60,000 on this and get a little more into it. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am absolutely fine with that. If there is one
more of you that is uncomfortable, then let me know now.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am going to vote against it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, I will withdraw. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo withdrew the motion to add funding in the amount of$60,000
in the Department of Finance, Administration, Special Projects for a Spay & Neuter
Program, Councilmember Kagawa withdrew the second.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We will keep moving. It is 4:07 p.m., so
let us just keep it going. We see the light at the end of the tunnel. Councilmember
Kawakami, do you want to do your proposal again?
Councilmember Kawakami: Yes. I am going to pass out a new one. I would
actually like to turn it over to the Administration at your blessings.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 106 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Kawakami moved to move ($200,000) from the Parks & Recreation
Improvement & Maintenance Fund Contingency Funds for Department of Parks &
Recreation, Administration, R&M Parks Facilities to Kaumakani Park
Improvements (Roof, Repairs, etc.), seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kawakami: Would it be okay to ask some questions of the
Administration?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Sure, if you want to ask them the question to
guide this a little quicker.
Councilmember Kawakami: Wally, thank you so much because this new
proposal is actually coming from your side so I guess we found some money with the new
budget. This is just the move within the current budget...what is it...relabeling of the title,
right?
Mr. Rezentes: I think the intent is to re-categorize Contingency
Funds into that particular line item.
Councilmember Kawakami: Yes, it is basically just to move Contingency
Funds into earmark for Kaumakani Park.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Got it. Any further questions on this? It is a
pretty simple proposal that has not affected the budget. It is just moving funds that are
already there. Any discussion? If not, roll call vote.
The motion to move ($200,000) from the Parks & Recreation Improvement &
Maintenance Fund Contingency Funds for Department of Parks & Recreation,
Administration, R&M Parks Facilities to Kaumakani Park Improvements (Roof,
Repairs, etc.) was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL—0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Councilmember Kawakami: Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any other adds?
Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on...do we have $200,000?
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We actually have $2,200,000 if you want to use
all of that. I would highly consider not to.
Council Chair Rapozo: If we are done with adds, can we take a short
break?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 107 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any more adds? Councilmember Kagawa has an
add.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have an add. I am going to request that we up
the contribution to Project Graduation by $500 each to each of the three (3) public high
schools. I think it is a very successful program and they are struggling with increased costs
for bus and facility use and I want to ensure that this continues, because if you remember
in the old days, without Project Graduation, it was chaotic on graduation night.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to add $1,500 to Office of the Mayor —
Administration for Grant-In-Aid — Project Graduation (Kapa`a, Kaua`i, Waimea) for
a total of$7,500 or $2,500 per school, seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Any questions or comments on this? It is
an add of$1,500. Any final discussion? If not, let us take a roll call vote.
The motion to add $1,500 to Office of the Mayor—Administration for Grant-In-Aid—
Project Graduation (Kapa`a, Kauai, Waimea) for a total of $7,500 or $2,500 per
school was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL—0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes, motion passes.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have one quick question to Wally and the
Mayor about the Kaua`i Veterans Center. Did you want to revisit that, Wally? I see the
Mayor nodding. I just came across your packet and I told you if we had an opportunity then
I would propose it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The rules are suspended.
Mr. Rezentes: The Council posed questions yesterday on the
Kaua`i Veterans Center and I spoke to the Chair and he asked if I could gather the
information quickly, as much as I could find, from the volunteers of the Kaua`i Veterans
Center. I had a couple of discussions yesterday and today, this morning, before I got here
and I was able to get some of the questions that were posed answered. I put together this
cover sheet and in the back of that cover sheet, some of the financials from the Kaua`i
Veterans Center. The first question that was posed was whether or not Kaua`i Veterans
Center receives federal funding, and I confirmed with the Treasurer of the organization,
Russell Maeda, and he said basically that they did not receive any funding for their
operations. The financials that you see for fiscal year 2016 in the back depicts that they do
not receive any federal funding for operations for the center, the museum, or the Veterans
Council. I was also asked if CDBG funds were eligible and I confirmed with the Housing
Agency that it is not eligible because it is not in a low-moderate income area, so that
funding source is not available to them. I asked if they could obtain loans, and yes, they are
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 108 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
able to obtain loans. I know in the past they have gone out to commercial banks and
obtained loans. So they are able, as a nonprofit entity, to do that. The financials also show
the type of income that they receive and it is all self-generated type of income, rental
income for renting the audiovisual (AV) system, the food truck rental income, when they
allow food trucks to go there; they obtain fundraising income, grant income for Veterans'
Day and other donations. So it is very a real lean budget. They have no paid employees. It
is one hundred percent (100%) volunteer. They asked us if we could make this late request
for consideration for funding of some major roof repair that they need to do. I think the
number was $150,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: How much?
Mr. Rezentes: $150,000.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to add back funding of$150,000 to Office of the Mayor-
Administration for Veterans Center-Roof, seconded by Councilmember Brun.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I want to thank you for responding to some of the
questions, but I think for me, some of the more pertinent questions were the cause of the
leaking and if we had actually investigated whether or not...because it is a common
problem that these photovoltaic contractors come in and they construct or they put these
panels on, they void roof warranties, and they cause leaking. So I just want to make sure
that if it was the contractor's fault, if he even did the due diligence to find out whether or
not it was a contractor that was causing this leaking or maybe not. Because there are so
many panels and it is so obvious from the highway, whenever I hear of leaking roofs and I
see photovoltaic panels, the first thing to come to my head is, "Was it a faulty installation?"
Mr. Rezentes: I apologize, when I spoke to the Treasurer,
Russell Maeda, this morning, he did mention that the bulk of the problems on the roof is
the ocean-facing side and there are multiple problems, but the most severe problems is the
section that the panels are not on and it is the portion that is facing the ocean, facing the
airport, basically.
Councilmember Kawakami: I apologize for making you have to go dig that up,
but I have to tell you that when it is a federal building and they are asking for County
funding, I have no problem supporting the veterans, but I wanted to make sure that it was
not somebody else that is on the hook for these problems that we are bailing out, so thank
you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I kind of feel different from Councilmember
Kawakami a little bit on this because I am not real comfortable. The Federal government
have budgets in the trillions and a trillion is a million and a million, so we have a budget of
$200,000,000. So I see pictures of Senator Hirono, Senator Schatz, and Tulsi Gabbard.
Whenever they come to Kaua`i, they are at the Veterans Center. So I am wondering, did
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 109 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
they ask them? I cannot imagine them not having $150,000 to fix the leaking roof for the
veterans that served the United States in war, and instead we are going to bail them out.
What is our plan? After we fund this, are we going to let our Congressional Delegation
know or make them be aware that, "We are paying for this thing with our measly budget
and because you folks come to take pictures, but you cannot listen to their concerns." Are
we going to let them know? They might not fund it annually or whatever, but I am sure in
emergency repairs, they would be there for the people that serve this country. Can we get a
communication to them? I want them to know that this is not going to be acceptable going
forward unless they give their one hundred percent (100%) that they have nothing left in
the trillion dollar budget that they have to take care of, what I feel, is their responsibility.
Council Chair Rapozo: I will write the letter.
Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you.
Mr. Rezentes: I can tell you though, Councilmember Kagawa,
that in talking to the veterans, they did mention recently that the Federal government
would be funding a new building on that campus for the veterans, like a medical building to
support the veterans on-island. Again, they are going to house it on the existing campus
over there, so I know that future funds from the Federal government are coming, but I
cannot speak to the funding that we are talking about, whether or not they requested and
got denied. I cannot speak to that.
Councilmember Kagawa: I guess I just find the priorities a little mixed up
when you have a relatively new building that is functioning and you cannot address issues
that are corroding the building, yet you have money to give for a new facility. I would think
that they would tackle the one that is there, and then tackle the new one also because all of
it is important. I just hope that we can get this message so that this does not become a
recurring thing as we struggle with even tighter budgets going forward, that we get the
Federal government to address the needs first of the veterans as much as possible, because
I think the County budgets are going to be strained if we continue to get relied upon.
Nobody is going to vote against this. I think in every moment of this, we can all learn from,
go forward, and hope to improve. So I just want to hope that as we approve this, that going
forward, at least we send out a strong message that perhaps they take care of their
responsibilities. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further questions? Discussion? I will vote
against it and I apologize. Again, being the Budget & Finance Committee Chair, I am going
to try and make the best decisions I can and try to serve everybody. Councilmember
Kagawa did say that we are definitely the smallest fish in the pond and for a number like
this to come up in the Supplemental, it is very difficult for us to make a decision on it and
vet it without knowing all of the history. I know this says that they will not get operational
funds, but can they get capital funds, which are building improvement-type of funds, from
the government? I would think that the government does not want to have to continue
paying their operations, but when it comes to building repairs, I think they would have
some money in there for those types of things. This does not mean that I do not support the
veterans; my grandpa is veteran. A lot of his friends are all veterans that use that facility.
The veterans even came and visited my grandpa when he was in hospice and it really
means a lot of all the support they give to their veterans. Again, when I look at this, should
the County be paying for a federal building? It is really difficult, especially the timing of it,
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 110 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
in the Supplemental Budget where we do not have much time to vet it. I am going to say
that I am not going to be able to support it at this time. Councilmember Chock.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as
follows:
Councilmember Chock: I am along the same lines at this point as well, so
I will not be supporting it.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I will be supporting it. It is a community
building. I thank Wally for all of the research that was done on a short notice.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: No, I am ready to vote.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? Roll call vote.
The motion to add back funding of $150,000 in the Office of the Mayor-
Administration for Veterans Center-Roof was then put, and carried by the following
vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura TOTAL– 5,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Kaneshiro TOTAL– 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL– 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL– 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 5:2, motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you for making me look like the bad guy,
guys.
Council Chair Rapozo: I was that all morning.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any more adds? Again, these adds
are increases to taxes or raiding of reserve funds, probably. Any further adds? If not, let
me find my notes and see where we are at. Can we see our total? Okay. Going, going,
gone—we are done with our adds/cuts and now it is a matter of deciding what we are going
to do.
Council Chair Rapozo: When you are ready, I have a proposal for Scott
to pass out.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. Before we do that, we have provisos. Are
there any Councilmember budget provisos to the provisos that we have? No amendments to
the provisos? Okay, no amendments to the provisos. We can move on. Of course, the
action we have been waiting for the entire time is what are we going to do? We are at
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 111 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
$2,000,000. We are chasing $3,600,000. We probably need an exact number on it. We are
chasing $3,600,000, so we will see what our total balance is. Should we take a recess? I
know there might be some time to fix the numbers.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can do mine now. Actually, there is
Councilmember Kagawa's name on it, so he can introduce it. Councilmember Kagawa, do
you want to go ahead and introduce it?
Councilmember Kagawa: No, I do not want to.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Actually, are we up for a caption break? No?
What time was our last one? 3:30 p.m. We have half an hour more. Are we ready? Let us
take a quick recess and we will get organized on the numbers.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 4:25 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:15 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. Sorry that took long. I think we
have a difficult decision ahead of us. We have two (2) options and we needed to make sure
that our numbers were correct. We knew how many votes we needed for everything and I
think just based on what I know, we have two (2) options. We were able to cut $2,000,000,
we were chasing $3,600,000, so there is a difference of about $1,600,000 in the budget.
Basically, from where I stand, we have two (2) options: the first option would be to reduce
the Real Property Taxes, but still have a Real Property Tax increase for this $1,600,000. So
the Real Property Tax increase would be to make up for this $1,600,000 that we were not
able to cover, rather than the $3,600,000 that we were chasing before. The second option
would what...of course...I think I mentioned earlier that it does not go along with our
reserve policy, but it would be to take the money from the reserve to balance the budget, so
you are taking the money from your savings to balance the budget and I think those are the
two (2) options we have to balance our budget. Of course, I have no clue where the votes
are going to go. I think we take a proposal, take the votes; take the other proposal and
take the votes; wherever it lands. Ultimately, wherever it goes, we are going to have to
make a decision tonight. If we do not make a decision tonight on balancing this budget,
then the previous budget is going to get passed automatically, right? The original? The
Supplemental?
Council Chair Rapozo: We have until Monday.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have until Monday, but the Mayor's
March 15th Budget will pass, as-is, no changes. With that, we will take any first proposal.
Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Before I do the proposal, I want to
preface my comments...
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Should we get a second?
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 112 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Council Chair Rapozo: I did not even make the...well, let us do the first
part. The first one is to reduce the Real Property Tax by $0.19. In other words, removing
the Real Property Tax increase.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to reduce all real property tax rates for each tax class
by ($0.19) and the subsequent contribution to the Public Access, Open Space,
Natural Resources Preservation Fund for a total amount of$3,594,827, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let me just explain. We went through a great
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) process in the last year or so and the
GFOA had made some recommendations, and to the Administration's credit, they came up
with a financial policy or financial policy documents surrounding the General Fund
Reserve, long-term financial plan, as well as the structurally balanced budget. We
accomplished all of that. I have to remind those who were here that as far as the reserve
policy or the reserve recommendations, I do not believe that the GFOA said we needed to
achieve the thirty percent (30%) this year and that we needed to do it right now; it was a
goal that we needed to get to. Again, the TAT is still in limbo. We do not know. If you ask
me, there is probably an eighty percent (80%) chance that the legislature will have a special
session and the $103,000,000 will be restored, which is my pure speculation, but whether
that goes through or not, we have achieved quite a bit as far as our financial policy. As we
all stated in the beginning, we did not want to raise property taxes. So we have an
opportunity here to...and my first proposal is to really reduce that...that will reduce the
revenue by $3,594,827, which would leave a balance of $1,592,549. To me, that would be
the cleanest way. You take away the Real Property Tax increase and you transfer
$1,592,549 from the reserve, which would be my second proposal if the first proposal
passes. Very clean—$1,500,000 is almost what we would be getting in the TAT. Again, I
am hoping that we get that back. If not, we have one more year. Please, after what we did
today with the positions that were granted or not cut, with all of the different departments,
the funding that we saw today, we know for a fact that at the end of the next fiscal year, we
will have a lapse of more than $1,592,000. We know that. We are not going to fall short. It
is just not going to happen. Your reserve policy is really to build up to that thirty
percent (30%) number. I am suggesting avoiding any Real Property Tax increases and that
we take the funds from the reserve this year and next year, the thirty percent (30%) level is
obviously going to happen. There is not going to be any problem with reaching the reserve.
I did not do the numbers. I do not know if we take $1,500,000, what is the percentage that
we get to? It is not thirty percent (30%), but I have to believe that it is very close. It is not
like we are departing from our reserve policy by a significant amount and I think that is the
cleanest way, rather than trying to tinker with the different tax rates for $1,500,000. To
me, that is a very difficult way to reach the same goal. My proposal, my motion right now
is to remove...we have to do it separately. My first proposal is to reduce the Real Property
Tax rate for each class by $0.19, which would result in a $3,594,827 balance.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. We had a motion and a second.
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the Mayor submitted a balanced budget that
was not balanced? This is $3,954,000.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The budget was balanced.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 113 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but we do not minus...is that the interplay
of the fund?
Council Chair Council: We have the $2,278,000 credit or balance that we
have from our cuts. You subtract that from the $3,594,000 and you end up with the
$1,519,549.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Basically, we have two (2) options. This option is
to take it from the reserve to balance it and that is why we took so long, the numbers are
the correct numbers. If we reduce the amount of Real Property Taxes and we are reducing
the amount of Public Access Fund and things that depend on that. They did submit a
balanced budget. These numbers that we are going to propose now are going to continue to
keep the budget balanced, but it is depending on, are we going to balance it with Real
Property Taxes and current ongoing funds or are we going to balance it with our savings,
our reserve? Those are the two (2) decisions we have. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: When you pass a reserve policy, it is a discipline
that you agree to follow for the benefits of that reserve policy, which is being ready for any
kinds of crises, whether it is a natural disaster or a really significant drop in tourism and in
revenues. It is so easy to say, "We will just take a little here and we will just take a little
there," and pretty soon you start whittling away at the reserves. I think it would be nice if
the first budget we do after adopting the reserve policy we would stick to it. The
alternative, as the Chair said, is to have a Real Property Tax increase to cover the balance
of what we were not able to cut. Based on the calculations that have been done by staff, we
can lower the Mayor's proposed property tax increase almost by half to $0.10 across the
board instead of$0.19. This would cover the things that the community really needs based
on our decision-making today. To me, that would be the better way to go. It is a very small
increase. Everybody will pay something, but it is for things that are in the budget that this
community wants and needs. It is better to do it gradually, rather than not raise property
taxes for a long time and then raise it dramatically, because a long time has gone by, like
our motor vehicle weight tax where we waited for twenty (20) years or something to then
raise, and then it is such a shock to our people. I am thinking that I would prefer to follow
our reserve policy.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is kind of frustrating that we are going to...to
think that we are going to make a really big deal of not meeting the reserve policy of thirty
percent (30%). I understand that the Department of Finance and the Mayor really wanted
to achieve that, but if you look at our parents, the United States government, their Federal
deficit is $20 trillion. The State government is $13,000,000,000 behind in unfunded
retirement benefits. The County government is going to be in the hole $1,590,000 in not
meeting our reserve—I say that we are doing super, compared to our parents: the State of
Hawai`i and the United States government. There is no comparison. We are doing much
better than the other two (2). Sure, we would like to meet all of our goals, but when the
taxpayers are hurting and they beg and plead with us, "Please cut the budget," and we did
cut the budget, this Council cut $2,000,000. I applaud all of the Members. We work
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 114 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
together, we tried our best to make reasonable decisions. I did not get cuts passed because
some of you found it to be responsible and I appreciate it. Everybody can disagree. As far
as following GFOA standards, I would hope that if we follow the standard, we are going to
tell the Federal government, the United States government to follow the standard and get
out of debt. We will tell the State government, get out of debt, fund your $13,000,000,000
in unfunded liabilities. We at the County level are funding our retirement debts and we
should be proud of that. So if today we do not raise taxes and we do not meet our reserve
policy, I have two (2) words: "So what." Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: For me, it was my first budget and it has been
interesting. We said all along...I think we heard it from everyone that we do not want to
raise taxes. I think we have a chance not to do it. I am just coming in, we have a reserve—
yes, it is not good to take the reserve, but we have to weigh this out. There are some tough
times out there and I do not think I had one (1) person come up to me and say, "That is
alright. It is only going to be so much. Let us just do it and raise the taxes." For me, I do
not want to support the tax increase, even if it is $0.10 or whatever it is, so I think that this
is the better way to do it. Like Chair said, we should get some excess at the end of the year
and hopefully we can spend responsibly and put it back. I think that is the best thing to do
and I will be voting that way.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? As far as my vote goes, and I have
no clue where the votes are going to go—I am trying to think in the future, we may end up
in deadlock and some people are going to have to change their votes somehow to get
somewhere so that we do not end up in a stuck budget, which I think would be the worst
thing we could do. I set the tone from the beginning of the budget that it was my intention
to not raid the reserves. Raiding the reserves shows that we are not covering our expenses,
our revenues are not covering our expenses. Even if this number was $10,000,000, we can
still sit here and say, "I do not want to raise the taxes on the people. Let us just take the
$10,000,000." Again, that shows that we are at a $10,000,000 deficit every year and it is
only going to get worse the next year. For me, I did not want to get into that habit of taking
from the reserves, because that is really like your savings account. You live every day and
your revenues do not make your expenses and you start taking from your savings to
supplement that; is that a good policy for yourself? There is no way your savings is going to
increase anymore. You are going to keep taking from it. I do appreciate what everyone
said and take into consideration that maybe the TAT may come back. There are a lot of
stuff that float around. Are we going to lapse in our budget? We probably might. Again,
for me, as the Budget & Finance Chair, I think I need to keep to the strict policy of: we are
going to try our best to not raid our reserves. That is how my vote is going to fall for now on
this to try and get through this. I will not be voting for this policy. Anyone else? Council
Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: If I could just respond, we created the deficit.
This body today created the deficit. We had an opportunity to fall within that number, we
really did. We had some cuts that never made it through and we had some adds that we
did not really need. We created the deficit. Now, we either take it from the reserve, which
is...I am asking Scott to try to run the numbers to see what that number would be...is it
twenty-eight point nine percent (28.9%) or twenty-nine point one percent (29.1%) percent of
the target of thirty percent (30%), which is a really a recommendation and part of our
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 115 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
policy? Or do we take it from the people? That is where that is going to come from. It is
either going to come from our reserve, which the people built in taxes, or we are going out
and get them from the people, in a time where I do not think it is the right time. We talked
about that throughout the budget process. People are struggling and working extra jobs,
three (3) to four (4)jobs. Somebody might say that it is only "x" amount of dollars per year,
but we have a lot of people that are struggling. Unless we are going to raise taxes for the
sake of raising taxes, because we do not want to go without raising taxes, so we are just
going to raise the taxes, "Let us do it because we can." There is an opportunity to stay away
from that. Again, for such a minute number, if that number...if we had exhausted all of our
cuts and were responsible in the adds and we ended up with a significant deficit, then I
would say, "Yes, there is no option but to raise taxes," but right now we have an option. We
have an option to take a very small percentage of the reserve to avoid the property taxes.
Unless we want to show the public that we can raise taxes because we have that ability.
Thirty percent (30%) target of last year's revenues, $41,500,000; we are at $40,300,000, so
about...the $690,000 that was added in this year or proposed to add this year. That is
where we are at, a very small number. Do we go out and raise property taxes to keep that
number, or do we just get it from the reserve? I am proposing that we get it from the
reserve. If we had a bull's eye for the target, we are in the circle; we are just not in the
bull's eye, but we are very close to the middle, which I think, compared to our prior years,
and this is going out to the Administration, we did a damn good job. We just did not get it
in the bull's eye, but we got pretty close without having to tax the public. So that is where I
am suggesting we go. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not think our chances of getting the TAT
revisited this year is very good. I do not think they will do a special session for that. I do
think the chances that the General Excise Tax (GET) will be reconsidered is a real option,
because they are in such a dilemma with the rail and that is where we have a chance. If
this is not a good year for protecting reserve, next year is not going to be any better. In fact,
we have seen our Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF) and our Employees'
Retirement System (ERS) payments increase year by year and it is likely to increase next
year. If the collective bargaining increases go in, I think it is about $500,000 this year per
unit and it is going to go up to over $1,000,000 next year per unit. So it is going to be
harder than ever to protect the reserve then. If the reserve is an option, we have an option.
The reserve is an option then we do not have a reserve policy, because the policy says that
we are putting this aside. It is going to be sacrifice, so it will discipline us to work within
our plusses and minuses. We are deviating from our policy already in the first budget if we
choose to take this from the reserve. Yes, some people are struggling, but that is why we
are giving some of these services that we have approved, that we did not cut. It is actually
giving people services that they need, so people need to pay for the services. Otherwise, we
are paying with a deficit, which is not sustainable.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? For me, I just want to be perfectly
clear as far as what my philosophy on this is, and my philosophy is, yes, we do have a
reserve, but if we do not make enough revenues to cover expenses this year, it is likely we
will not make enough revenues to cover expenses next year and the next year, and the next
year. Yes, we can balance the budget with our reserves this year, but to me, it is kicking
the can down the road. Inevitably, we are going to have to raise taxes because I do not see
expenses getting any lower. That is my philosophy. We have $30 million to raid the
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 116 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
reserve—are we going to raid the reserve every single year? I do not know, I cannot talk for
the future years, but as far as my philosophy goes and looking at the budget—yes, whatever
we are chasing, it may not be a big number and we can take it from the reserve. But if we
continue to do that year after year, it is not a good policy. It is showing that we are not
covering our expenses and we will continue to take from our reserve. We are basically
kicking the can down the road. That is just my philosophy on it. Of course, that is just why
I am voting the way I am voting. Anyone else? Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Thank you, Committee Chair. I would like to
begin my statements by thanking our Budget & Finance Chair. I think he has done a
wonderful job as far as being responsible. I have to say that most times the right decisions
are not the popular decisions, so I think that your position you are taking is a very
responsible one. I think this body in general made a lot of compromises to come to the point
where we are at, where it is not going to be major bloodshed to balance this thing, either
way. I do want to thank you. I do have a foreboding feeling about the future as far as
revenue from Federal and State governments; I do. I have to say that despite criticism for
our state legislative body, I can tell you that I have witnessed that our Kaua`i delegation,
all of them who have County ties, advocate tirelessly for our County's fair share of TAT,
because they have all, or most of them, have sat at this table at one time or another and
have relied on that partnership with the State. I have to tell you that my foreboding feeling
is that there is a new world order of elected officials coming in and it is very apparent that
some of that history that we take for granted is being lost. We have sunk this new world
order, ousted Calvin Say, who has been the longest running speaker, and we have recently
ousted Joe Souki, because of disagreements as far as leadership style. People ask me, "Why
do you think this is important?"—because it is history. To know where we are going to, we
have to know where we came from. I have to tell you that a lot of that old guard that knew
what the intent of TAT was, that understood that TAT was to replace GIAs and it was to
partner with the counties and pay the counties for their fair share, is slowly eroding. It is
not our Kaua`i delegation; it is this new world that does not see the value of county and
state relationships. I do take your words, Committee Chair, seriously. I also believe that
you are taking the responsible avenue, but I also do know that I can count and I can see
where this is going. I can see that nobody wants to raise taxes, but let me remind
everybody out there that the cost of everything is going up, like the cost of milk and the cost
of spam. Everything is going up. If you were to run this like a business, you need to
readjust when things go up, or cut expenses. I think we had an exercise in trying to do
both. I do have hesitancy into cutting into our reserve fund, but like I said, at this time, I
think I can support the current proposal because I do have faith that there is some hope as
to some kind of compromise at the state level. I do look at the numbers and see where we
had difficulties in making cuts and I do believe that some of that money will lapse. So I am
not so sure that the number that we are chasing now is going to be that big at the end of
the day. That being said, I would like to once again thank you, the staff, for the hard work
and thank you for being fiscally responsible. Thank you, Committee Chair.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I also want to thank you, Committee Chair. I
think you have done an excellent job in guiding this process and really just being objective.
I appreciate that in every sense of the word. Coming into this budget, I told myself that I
would try to support every single cut that came forward if it was feasible, and feasible to
me was that it was not already obligated to a match or already obligated in a position, or if
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 117 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
it support a core function for our organization. I am pretty proud that we have come far in
trying to reduce the deficit that we are in. It was so that I could say to the public that I
have done everything that I can. It is a tough decision, and when I think about some of the
things we have talked about and some of the things we have invested in the over the
years—one of the main things that we wanted to do is to find financial help of our
organization. This is why we have invested in some of these policies that we have talked
about. Because of it, it brings up the question about which one I should pick: is it the taxes
or is it the reserve? There are a couple of reasons why I think that we should try and
preserve the integrity of our reserve. The first is that I believe we send a strong message to
everyone else that we are willing to compromise. I think that I am in a place where I am
less willing to compromise who we are, and I think you have seen that throughout some of
my decisions these past couple of days. One of the things that I say is one of the core or root
causes that we are dealing with is our collective bargaining in certain arenas. I think that
if we compromise this reserve, it sends a clear message to those that we are trying to send
the message to that we are willing to use this money whenever a raise comes that we do not
like. I also think that in regards to the TAT, it sends a message to the State and our
legislators that we are also willing to take the money from our reserve in order to balance
our budget and that we do not really need the TAT. I think that others around the State in
the other islands have seen that and they have pushed hard for it. I think the reason why
it could be a good chance that we get this TAT is because of those counties pushing hard on
it and saying that we are not going to compromise. This is the basis of my decision. I think
that some would say it is a tough pill to swallow, but I think it is the discipline that we
need to practice. I also think that when looking towards the future, it is very uncertain.
We have shortfalls in projections that are coming forth that we do not even have a revenue
source for. So how do we intend to pay for these things in the future? They are already on
the board for us. We know we have to pay for them, like the ERS, EUTF, and Other-Post
Employment Benefits (OPEB). These are just things that we just do not have an answer
for. If we do not start now, we will never catch up with that. This is the basis of my vote. I
do not think that we will get the right votes to support this increase or any of the options.
Obviously, someone is going to have to jump ship on this and I look forward to that
discussion because we need to come to a decision. My last option would be that we go back
on all of the hard work we have done in the last two (2) days. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I know the Administration is biting at the bit to
probably explain ramifications of this proposal. I will give you a quick chance at it, but I
am counting the votes and it may end up coming to the fact that someone is going to have to
jump ship. Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: If there are no votes, there is no sense. I do not
want to waste any more time listening to how it is going to affect the bond rating.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Actually, let us take the vote and see where it is
at. Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: What are we voting on? Taking out the $0.19
first and taking out from our reserve or is it one at a time? We are going to do the $0.19
first, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. That is the only thing on the table right
now.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 118 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Yes. The vote on the floor right now is to take
away the $0.19.
Councilmember Brun: Okay.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: There has to be five (5) votes. Let us take a
recess.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 5:47 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:54 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Okay. I think I got this a little straighter. So
this is a straight cut. It is going to take four (4) votes. We all know what the plan is. We
will take the votes. If that passes, then we take a vote on moving the reserve money, which
will take five (5) votes and we will see where those votes go and we will just go from there.
It is the only way to do it. With that, roll call vote.
The motion to reduce all real property tax rates for each tax class by ($0.19) and the
subsequent contribution to the Public Access, Open Space, Natural Resources
Preservation Fund for a total amount of$3,594,827 was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo TOTAL— 4,
AGAINST MOTION: Chock, Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 3,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 4:3, motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The motion passes with four (4) votes.
Council Chair Rapozo: By reducing the Real Property Tax increase, we
now are chasing $1,592,549 to balance the budget. My proposal here is to use the General
Fund Reserve Fund Balance of$1,592,549.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to use General Fund Reserve Fund Balance of
$1,592,549 to balance the budget, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any discussion or questions on this? If this
passes with five (5) votes, then the budget is balanced, what passed is that we used the
Reserve Fund to balance the budget. We all know the consequences of both, we just have
to keep going. Any questions or comments on this? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I just want to clarify that if this vote does not
pass, essentially the only other option would be in the long run, even if we introduced
another measure would end up in deadlock, given the sentiments of everyone who has
spoken around the table about the two (2) choices. Ultimately, if we cannot get through it,
we will revert to our original budget.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 119 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is true if we cannot find any other
compromised position and I would suggest that we could try to maybe take half from the
reserve and half in Real Property Taxes or something like that. I think a $0.10 increase in
Real Property Tax is pretty small, so I am thinking we could just do that, but if the votes do
not do that then you go to the next round.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further discussion? I think right now is the
time to make the decision. If not, it is just going to go another round of this and someone is
going to have to jump ship. I see where the votes are. There is no way if we do the other
proposal that it is going to get five (5) to pass this vote. That would mean that the budget
will go back to the March Submittal, which I do not think anybody wants; not the
Administration or us. I think it is where the votes fall. So if anybody wants to state their
position on this vote...there may be people that did not want the reserves, but again, what
is the end result? It is like we are playing chess; we know where the end result is going to
be. I am pretty clear on what the end result is going to be. If we do not pass this, we will go
and take the vote on the other proposal, which is taxes. It needs five (5) votes and it
probably will not pass and someone is going to have to jump ship. The matter is do they
jump ship now or do we go through that same exercise and jump ship later? Those are
basically the two (2) options. I do not think we are going to stay here all night trying to
adjust Real Property Taxes by a penny here or a penny there. I think it has been late and
this is the end result of the budget and it is what it is. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: We have done good work today. A $0.10 increase
or $0.09 drop in the Mayor's increase is a compromise. If that is not going to pass then I am
willing to compromise further, but not to just completely take everything from the reserve.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: My question for Councilmember Yukimura is do
we have to raise taxes? Are you not going to be happy unless we raise even penny, $0.02,
$0.05, or $0.10? We have to raise the taxes? Is that your position? That is what it sounds
like, "As long as we raise the tax by something, then I am okay." I guess it troubles me. If
you want to raise taxes for the sake of raising taxes, then say it. What impact is $0.10?
What does that do for our deficit?
Councilmember Yukimura: It balances the budget without harming the
reserve. My position has been stated by myself, as well as the Committee Chair, as well as
Councilmember Chock that the reserve is something very important to keep. I would be
compromising to say, "Yes, let us take from the reserve." I have also said that the Real
Property Taxes...if you wait a long time...the Committee Chair is correct—next year is not
going to be a better year, not with collective bargaining, probably increases in the EUTF
and ERS, we still have spiking...if the Adolescent Treatment and Healing Facility gets
built, then another $1,000,000 for operating. It is not going to get better. People have to be
willing to pay for the services. We try to offset it as much as we can by hopefully having
efficient, effective services and by doing our budgeting well. If we want to keep servicing a
growing population, we have to increase it somewhat just to keep up with inflation. If you
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 120 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
wait for so many years, and then do it, that is really wrong because then people cannot
adjust. It is better to do it a little at a time.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: I know we can debate this all day. The way I
look at it and see it is that if we were to do the other proposal, it might get three (3) votes.
It might not even get four (4) or the five (5) that it needs. In a manner to save time,
sometimes the votes just do not go the way you want them and sometimes you have to
compromise to get the meeting going. I am going to make the compromise and vote for this
proposal because I do not see an end road if we continue going. If we all stay hardheaded
and we vote no on this, we go to the next one, and the next one gets three (3) or four (4)
votes. Then we come back to the same table and we are not going to get anywhere.
Ultimately, we need to make a decision and get somewhere. Any last comments on this? I
do want to take a vote on it. We all know the ramifications. We do know that the budget
next year has some big stuff coming. Would we rather want it take the hit now or later? I
think we all explained our positions and where it goes, but again, there are seven (7) votes
here and I just do not want to get into a dead tie where we do not move. That is where I see
it going if we make this thing prolong any longer. Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Committee Chair. I stated my
position and I also stated that I am not willing to go back to the drawing board on this in
terms of going backwards and accepting what we worked so hard on. I will be supporting
this moving forward as well because I think that we need to get through this and I have
two (2) choices. These two (2) new choices are the ones I have to choose from that are either
to accept the Supplemental Budget or go with utilizing the reserve and I will be utilizing
the reserve to balance the budget in this decision. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Thank you, Committee Chair. I would like to
begin by saying that of course I am going to support this proposal. I supported the
reduction in the proposed property tax increase. I do want to thank the Administration;
they did provide a Supplemental that also made some cuts and reductions as well and I
think it was a collective effort. I think this whole exercise...if we adhere to what we have
learned during this budget, it should improve the way that we operate as a team by
improving our communication so that there is no mistrust. I want to say that if I felt
personally that I had done everything in my power to make the necessary cuts so that we
did not need to raid this surplus, I would certainly be more in favor of raising our tax, but I
do not think that I did. I did see some cuts that we could have cut because there was not
any warm body there or nobody was going to lose their job, but I have heard some
explanations, so I went along. I do not think that we did everything in our power, but I can
tell you that more than half of our children on this island qualify for free or reduced lunch.
So if that is any indicator onto the economic status and realities that our island faces and
the hardships that people are facing, then that leans me towards if we have to dip into our
surplus a little bit, then so be it. I do know that, in fact, most of my friends do not have a
reserve fund. They are living paycheck to paycheck. If our island was an economic status
where most people had a reserve fund and that we had done everything in our power to
make the cuts without having to raise taxes, I would certainly be in favor of raising the
taxes reasonably. I think that this is a compromise. I think we reduced it so the impact to
the reserve fund will not be as significant as it was looking like at the beginning of this
process. So for that, Committee Chair, I will be supporting this proposal. Thank you.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 121 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have indicated that I am willing to make some
compromises, but it does not look like we are going to go there. I will be voting against the
proposal as a matter of principle, because I think we need to protect the reserve. I was
willing to go and take some from the reserve, but I also think we needed to be cognizant of
our need for additional revenues because we will be in a terrible position in future years.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any further comments? Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you to our Committee Chair, everyone,
and the Administration. I said from the beginning that I was going to try and avoid any
kind of property tax increases. I think I said it earlier that I do not feel like we did our best
in cutting expenses. We could have done more. I know I speak for every one of us here that
we all get E-mails, complaints, calls, and Facebook messages or Facebook posts and the
public is not happy. The perception of the public right now, in my opinion, is that the roads
are obviously in trouble and the parks are in trouble. I think Councilmember Kagawa
referenced this several times in his commentary on different issues that our fees have gone
up, all of these different taxes and fees. Yet, the standard of service has not necessarily
gone up with the increase. It is difficult for me to tell the constituents, "We are going to
raise your taxes." "What am I going to get for it?" We are not going to see much and I
think that is where I am troubled. When I can show a product that I believe that the public
will be willing to support and pay for, then it is a lot easier for me to raise the taxes. Right
now, I am not at that point. We have a long way to go in many areas and it is very difficult
to go and raise the taxes on your constituents. We just saw it today, whether it is
shortages, union issues, or we cannot get people where they need to be—we are not
providing the standard of service that I think we should be. Until we get to a better place, I
just cannot support a tax increase. I especially appreciate those of you that were able to
support the proposal to move this along, but I think at the end of the day, we will be in a
better place and that this will be a workable budget. I am very optimistic that we will be
able to get through the next fiscal year in good shape.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I see the frustration a little bit from the
Administration, but to me, it is like I hope you care as much about today's motion as all of
the times we waste money and we come to the Council during the year for the reserve, like
"Oh, we are getting sued because we dropped the ball." If you folks want us to do better,
you folks do better, too. That is how you prevent the reserve from being raided; start
eliminating unforeseen errors. Thank you.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, our roads are bad today because we were
not responsible and did not have the courage to raise fees and taxes in the past, and it is
going to get worse. By not putting in $6,000,000, today we are going to get a bigger bill in
the future. We cannot fix our roads without money. So that is what we are kicking down
the road.
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 122 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Anyone else? Roll call vote.
The motion to use General Fund Reserve Fund Balance of$1,592,549 to balance the
budget was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST MOTION: Yukimura TOTAL— 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: 6:1, motion passes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: We have an Operating Budget Proviso just to tie
the number, so I need someone to introduce it.
Council Chair Rapozo moved to amend Section 6 of the Operating Budget Provisos to
modify the contribution to the Public Access, Open Space, Natural Resources
Preservation Fund from $644,159 to $626,094 to reflect the decrease in Real
Property Tax Revenue and the subsequent decrease in the contribution to said Fund,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Any questions or discussion? This is just a
matter of housekeeping. Can I get a roll call vote, please?
The motion to amend Section 6 of the Operating Budget Provisos to modify the
contribution to the Public Access, Open Space, Natural Resources Preservation Fund
from $644,159 to $626,094 to reflect the decrease in Real Property Tax Revenue and
the subsequent decrease in the contribution to said Fund was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR MOTION: Brun, Chock, Kagawa, Kawakami, Rapozo,
Yukimura, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 7,
AGAINST MOTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Seven (7) ayes.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: Before we adjourn, I would like if I could get a
motion and a second to provide Council Services Staff with the ability to make adjustments
after entering the various proposals, if necessary, to balance the budget.
Councilmember Kawakami moved to allow Council Services Staff to balance the
budget after entering Decision-Making proposals, seconded by Council Chair
Rapozo, and unanimously carried.
Committee Chair Kaneshiro: The Committee's decision-making session is now
complete. Before we adjourn, I would like it go over a few more housekeeping items. Staff
DELIBERATION & PRELIMINARY 123 MAY 12, 2017
DECISION-MAKING
will be preparing our amendments made today and incorporating them into the budget. On
Tuesday, May 23rd, which is a Tuesday committee meeting due to the Western Interstate
Region (WIR) Conference, the Budget & Finance Committee will be formally approving all
decision-making items by procedurally amending and approving the budget bills and Real
Property Tax Resolution, along with receiving the Committee's report, detailing the various
pluses and minuses. I would respectfully like to ask Councilmembers to refrain from
making their final commentary that week and make their final comments during the
second and final reading of the budget, which will take place May 31st. That is going to
help save our people time on typing up minutes, so that we do not have duplication. We
have a few weeks to do a great message on our budget. As I mentioned, after Committee,
Council will then approve the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget on second and final reading,
which will be accompanied by the Council's budget message on May 31, 2017. On May 31St,
Councilmembers will be able to make their final remarks on the budget in accordance with
our Council Rules. Again, I want to thank the Administration for sticking this process out.
It has been long and arduous. I do not think anyone looks forward to coming into budget or
making budget decisions, but again, this is probably one of the most important parts of our
job. People can complain to us about a lot of things, but the doing the adds an cuts and
balancing the budget is probably our most important job. I would also like to thank Council
Services Staff and our Councilmembers for their hard work during this budget. We know
how fun it is. Council Staff, you folks have been awesome as far as providing us the
information we need, running around and answering all of the questions. Admin, thank
you for answering all of our questions also and being here through our long meetings. This
has been a long session and this has been a very long journey. With that, the Budget &
Finance Committee's Decision-Making session is now adjourned.
There being no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0
Darrellyne M. Caldeira
Council Services Assistant II
Codie K. Ya I ,uchi
Council Services Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on June 7, 2017:
. 1h. liIAA !4IlJ)
AR'YL ESHIRO
Chair, Budget & Finance Committee