HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2017 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order
by Council Chair Mel Rapozo at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201,
Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:42 a.m., after which the
following Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Excused: Honorable Arthur Brun
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Chock moved for approval of the agenda as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
MINUTES of the following meeting of the Council:
August 9, 2017 Council Meeting
August 23, 2017 Council Meeting
September 6, 2017 Public Hearing re: Bill No. 2661
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve the Minutes as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Council Chair
Rapozo for the Consent Calendar, we have one (1) item that Mr. Mickens would like
to speak on, C 2017-212. But we do have C 2017-210 and C 2017-211 for receipt.
There being no objections, C 2017-212 was taken off the Consent Calendar.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2017-210 Communication (08/15/2017) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, Mayoral appointee Carol E. Suzawa to the
Charter Review Committee — Term ending 12/31/2017.
C 2017-211 Communication (09/05/2017) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Condition of the County Treasury
Statement quarterly report as of August 8, 2017.
Councilmember Chock moved to receive C 2017-210 and C 2017-211 for the
record, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Can we have C 2017-212,
please?
C 2017-212 Communication (09/08/2017) from the Executive on
Transportation, transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Accepting And
Endorsing The Short-Range Transit Plan As A Policy Guideline For The County Of
Kaua`i.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion to receive?
Councilmember Chock moved to receive C 2017-212 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. With that I will
suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Who is the speaker?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Glenn Mickens.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. Good
morning, Councilmembers. You have a copy of my testimony. Let me read it for the
viewing public. Hopefully, this Council will not use the County's usual modus
operandi (m.o.) of"ready, fire, aim" with C 2017-212 and Resolution No. 2017-48, the
Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP). From the fourteen (14) points in the Resolution,
it appears to me that number eleven hits the heart of it and says, "BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the County's transit services be grown..." emphasis added, "...via
a mix of funding strategies intended to continue recent growth in transit ridership."
I presume that this rather clouded use of words simply means that we need to put
more buses on the roads, and that this issue of putting more buses on the roads is
COUNCIL MEETING 3 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
due to our traffic problems that more buses will somehow miraculously cure. I have
said this many times before and will say it again, our tax dollars are subsidizing the
bus system to the tune of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) or more a year. The only
pilot program that the County did to see if be needed more buses was to give one
thousand five hundred (1,500) County employees free bus passes for thirty (30) days
to see how many would use the bus. Only fifty (50) employees used this freebie
proving that putting more buses on the roads would be ludicrous, since even free
ridership proved to be a complete failure. The Multimodal Transportation Plan,
which I have a copy and I am sure you have one, too, adopted by the Council in 2013,
had projections showing that by 2020, eighty-seven point five percent (87.5%) of the
driving public will still be using their vehicles, three point six percent (3.6%)will bike,
seven point six percent (7.6%) will walk, and one point three percent (1.3%) will use
the bus. How can any planner or elected official think of adding more buses to our
road when our subsidization is now eight million dollars ($8,000,000) and in eighteen
(18) years, could possibly be doubled? Sure be need buses or even better, a taxi
service, which we talked about, for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) people are
the ones that cannot drive by the like Big Island, but not more buses. When the
Washington, D.C. subway system was under construction, our President at that time
said some wise words that can apply to all transportation systems today. He said,
"Most cities once had a rapid transit. The clang of the trolley cars bell was a familiar
sound until the people abandoned their public transportation for their own set of
wheels. The automobile gave more freedom, freedom to choose his own timetable and
route to travel on a portal-to-portal basis. He has shown he does not intend to give
up that freedom, and government has no right to take it from them." We must stop
this insanity of wasting our time, energy, and money playing around with dream
world scenarios of more buses, bikes, walking, and paths and ignoring...
Council Chair Rapozo: Mr. Mickens...
Mr. Mickens: Do you want me to come back?
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify on this item? If not, go ahead.
Mr. Mickens: ...making our island more vehicle-friendly for
locals and visitors alike. As I have said over and over, facts and numbers I have given
you do not lie. The cane haul roads can immediately solve some of our problems just
as the Kapa'a Bypass did, and added lanes can alleviate traffic just as contraflow
does. If any of you Councilmembers feel that my testimony is flawed or wrong, then
please have the courtesy to tell me why by meeting, phone, or E-mail. Please use
yourselves as examples of what I said. Will any of you abandon your vehicles and use
a bus, bike, or walk to whatever destination you or your wife is going? I do not mean
an occasional bus ride, but full-time transportation use. If you are honest, I know
your answer will be "no." I know I am being repetitive and I keep saying these things
over and over, but when I do not get answers from anybody, I do not know whether I
am being criticized or being congratulated for what I am trying to say. None of you
COUNCIL MEETING 4 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
will leave this place and get on a bus, bike, or walk to where you are going. I know
there is an occasional person like Thomas Noyes and a few people who say they ride
their bikes all of the time, but we are talking about a select few. We have to do
something for the mass of people here on the island. The mass of people are going to
drive their vehicles wherever they are going. So this is all I am saying. We bought
those four (4) big buses from O`ahu, what happened to them? Are they sitting and
rotting or something? We had to redo them. They had two hundred
thousand (200,000) miles. We paid big bucks to have them shipped over. Can you
imagine those big sized buses our roads and what that is going to do for traffic with
cars lining up behind it? I only ask for commonsense. I think the average person, if
you read their letters to the editor, I think commonsense will show what the people
on this island expect of their elected officials. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Mickens. With that, I will call
the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just want to state for the record that as far
as the meetings I have had with the bus and the consultants, the purpose of this
SRTP is to make the existing bus service more efficient with the moneys that they
have. So, it is not expanding the funding towards the bus. It is trying to use the
existing funding and become more efficient with the way we spend it. I am all for
more efficiency. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I believe the Short-Range Transit Plan
is going to start with making things more efficient, but a part of it also includes
expansion. So it is two-fold, but we will find out as we get briefed today.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? I want to say thank
you to Mr. Mickens. Yes, he is repetitive and yes, we hear you loud and clear. I do
not know if it is criticism or congratulatory messages, but the reality is that, and I
will speak for myself. I think Councilmember Kagawa kind of touched on it, but I
have been critical over the years of our bus system. I have been very critical of the
efficiencies. But I will say that with the consultants that they hired this time, I am
very pleased with what they have done. I am very pleased with the outreach that
they have provided. They have kept this Council in the loop from day one. I have not
seen that with too many other projects in this County. It is a change. It is really an
effort to make that system more efficient, which is what I believe all the Councils I
have ever served on have been asking for. We will have the discussion later today,
but I wanted to make that clear because I know Mr. Mickens has to leave for a
baseball game. I think he is catching the bus. You should. But anyway, we will have
that discussion later today, but I wanted to make that clear. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 5 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion is to receive.
The motion to receive C 2017-212 for the record was then put, and carried by
a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. With that, BC, we will take a
recess from the meeting. We are going to go ahead and proceed with the presentation
of the certificate.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 8:52 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:37 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Clerk, can we have the next item, please?
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2017-213 Communication (08/21/2017) from the Fire Chief, requesting
Council approval to accept a donation of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
mannequin and associated software from the Kaua`i Lifeguard Association (KLA),
valued at $4,232.80, to be used by the Junior Lifeguard Program as a teaching tool
that allows CPR performers to be evaluated in real time: Councilmember Kagawa
moved to approve C 2017-213 with thank-you letter to follow, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being on objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2017-213 with thank-you letter to follow was then
put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2017-214 Communication (08/21/2017) from the Executive on
Transportation, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and expend, a
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 Non Urbanized Area Formula
Program grant, in the amount of$985,200.00, and FTA Section 5339 Non Urbanized
Area Formula Program grant in the amount of$1,000,000.00, that also requires that
the County indemnify the FTA. The Section 5311 grant will fund fifty percent (50%)
of bus driver wages, hourly pay, and fringe benefit line items, and the Section 5339
grant will fund eighty percent (80%) of vehicle purchases and miscellaneous transit
facility expenses: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2017-214, seconded
by Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 6 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony? With that, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
ALICE PARKER: Alice Parker, for the record. Funding buses is
fine, but they cannot go anywhere because the roads are terrible. I take the bus to
Kilauea and we sit in traffic for over an hour. The other day, Monday, the bus from
Hanalei was an hour late. Instead of coming at 11:30 a.m., it was 12:30 p.m. because
of traffic. Now, we have to do something with our roads if we expect our buses to do
anything. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Alice. Is there anyone else
wishing to testify? Seeing none, we will call the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? The motion is to
approve. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Alice, I agree that something needs to be done
especially the State highways and improving it. It has basically been the same way
since the 1970s or even the 1960s where we have not had much major improvement.
For me, I would hope that at some point, I know we have the plan to do the four (4)
lanes from Kapa'a so the contraflow will become almost permanent, which will help.
However, there is no plan from west side as well. I know you are talking about North
Shore, but the west side has zero (0) plans, and there is significant traffic on the west
side. In the afternoons at about 5:30 p.m., the Kalaheo traffic light backs traffic up
all the way up to Matsumura Store or now 7-Eleven. It is horrific, and the State has
zero (0) plans to improve that area. I have been working with Representative
Morikawa trying to come up with some type of solution so that the public knows that
we need to do something. You cannot just continue to hope that traffic will improve
when you do nothing. I think that is what we need to do on this Council. We need to
do more, work with the State, and try to get to these traffic solutions because with no
plan, we are basically telling the residents that nothing is going to happen. The
residents have been waiting from the 1960s and 1970s with basically nothing
happening. So hopefully, that can be our focus in working with the State, how to get
some movement in those areas in the upcoming session because I think sitting around
will get nothing done. We have been basically sitting around for fifty (50) years.
Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Seeing none, the motion is to approve.
The motion to approve C 2017-214 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 7 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
C 2017-215 Communication (09/08/2017) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council consideration, A Bill for An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance
No. B-2017-822, As Amended, Relating To The Capital Budget Of The County Of
Kaua`i, State Of Hawai`i, For The Fiscal Year July 1, 2017 Through June 30, 2018,
By Revising The Amounts Estimated In The Bond Fund, for the purpose of
establishing and appropriating funds for the various projects identified in Bill
No. 2665: Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to receive C 2017-215 for the record,
seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have questions for the Finance Director.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken. With that, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Councilmember Yukimura: Good morning, Ken.
KEN S. SHIMONISHI, Director of Finance: Good morning. Ken
Shimonishi, Director of Finance.
Councilmember Yukimura: I was just wondering if you folks have found
out whether the State Revolving Fund (SRF) funds cover private activity operations.
Mr. Shimonishi: I did have a conversation with Keith Suga on
that, and he assured me that it would be okay to fund that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions for the
Department of Finance? If not, thank you, Ken. I will call meeting back to order.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion? This is the
Communication and the Bill will come up later today. The motion is to receive.
The motion to receive C 2017-215 for the record, was then put and carried by
a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item.
C 2017-216 Communication (09/08/2017) from the Acting County Engineer,
transmitting for Council approval a request to apply for and receive engineering,
construction labor, and equipment support from the Department of Defense (DOD)
Civil-Military Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program to construct a portion of
COUNCIL MEETING 8 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
the Lydgate-Kapa'a Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Phases C & D to include upgrading the
existing County-owned parking lot located behind Kapa'a Missionary Church, and
the construction of a new comfort station: Councilmember Yukimura moved to
approve C 2017-216, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being on objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to approve C 2017-216 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
LEGAL DOCUMENTS:
C 2017-217 Communication (08/10/2017) from the County Attorney,
recommending Council approval of a Grant of Easement, made between the
County of Kauai and Sandy Saemann, Trustee of the Sandy Saemann Trust of 1990,
conveying Easement "AU-1," Tax Map Key (TMK) No. (4) 5-2-004:069, Kilauea
Gardens Subdivision, Kilauea, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, for access and utility purposes.
• Grant of Easement
Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve C 2017-217, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Can we
have the Administration up to explain what this is for?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: It would be a lot easier in the future—I know
we get a lot of these legal documents that come over with a request. But a very brief
summary of what the easement is for in the cover letter would make it so much easier,
because this does not tell me anything except that there is a legal document that we
need to approve. I kind of want to know what the easement is for.
MAUNA KEA TRASK, County Attorney: Aloha. For the record,
Mauna Kea Trask, County Attorney. I will definitely do that, Council Chair Rapozo,
in the future. Thank you. A brief background to this item, the Office of the County
Attorney was contacted by the attorneys for the Saemann Trust. If you look at
"Exhibit A" that is attached to the Communication and the backside of that exhibit,
which is a map of the area. If I may really fast, approach the Deputy County Clerk
to put up a larger map for you to see?
COUNCIL MEETING 9 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Are you talking about the actual grant of
easement? Is that your "Exhibit A"?
Mr. Trask: Correct. It is identified as Easement "AU-1."
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Trask: Okay. Long story short, as some of you know,
after the Kilauea Plantation ended in the 1970s, they subdivided and sold off a lot of
their old lands. That was the Kilauea Gardens Subdivision, which essentially later
became the town of Kilauea. If you look at this map, this is the area we are talking
about. This is Kiilauea Town over here, here is the lighthouse, and this is Kilauea
Road coming up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Where is Kuhio Highway?
Mr. Trask: Kuhio Highway is over here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: Here is the town proper, gas station, you turn
in and you go down over here to go to the lighthouse. When this was subdivided, and
this was done in 1978. This is a map done by a gentleman back then. As part of the
subdivision, this is the road over here. The County was granted this oddly-shaped
parcel, this is parcel 11. The Saemann Trust parcel is here. Now, in looking at the
documents, this is a landlocked parcel. There is no record of easement, and that is
for access. That is according to the Quitclaim Deed document 2003-020076 filed with
the Bureau of Conveyances on February 3, 2003. In looking at Planning subdivision
documents from the 1970s, this subdivision, for some reason, did not include an access
easement to three (3) of these lots due to the presence of this County lot. So the
request by the landowner is to provide access. As you know, only kuleanas are
afforded automatic access. It is part of the bundle of rights as a kuleana property
owner that runs with the property. Apparently upon discovery of this, a request was
made to convey an access easement right over here in this area. So that is what this
is. We checked with the Planning Department and they had no objection to it. I
communicated with the Department of Public Works and the Director of Finance, and
of course, they signed off as well. We are actually making right something that for
some reason, was not done originally. We have looked in the records and from all
over here, there is no access easement from through any of these parcels to these
three (3).
Council Chair Rapozo: Are those developed lots?
Mr. Trask: They are developed lots. Apparently, the
easement is actually currently there. Once this was found out, the attorney contacted
us and said, "Oh, we need an easement." So I worked with that counsel regarding
this, and this is document that we came up with right here.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is this County land?
COUNCIL MEETING 10 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Trask: Lot 11 is County land. The Saemann Trust is
what is called a "dominant estate." The County's property is what is called the
"servient estate." The easement is being recorded with the dominant estate because
that is what the easement serves. So the access easement, as described, is a little
driveway and it is not to inhibit the County's use for it and everything like that. It is
a necessary thing.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any questions?
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is this necessary because somebody dropped
the ball somewhere or made a mistake or error?
Mr. Trask: Yes, it should have been included in the
subdivision, of course. You have to have access to your property.
Councilmember Kagawa: So somebody on the County end did not do it
properly before it was approved?
Mr. Trask: Well during subdivision, the County did not
prepare the map, but it should have been caught by somebody.
Councilmember Kagawa: I would think that when we approve the
subdivisions like that, we know we have a significant historic area that is going to be
visited and traversed and to not make sure that before we approve it, that it is there,
to me, is a huge oversight. I am hoping that going forward, we are eliminating those
types of mistakes when we see these mistakes like this coming up.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Yes, I have a similar concern, Mauna Kea. I
am wanting to ensure a mechanism to identify these easements. It seems to me that
the only way it happens is by the landowner. So I do not know if we need a follow-up
on it, but it is not the first time that we have kind of tuned into this kind of situation.
Mr. Trask: Well, I think Councilmember Yukimura was
here in 1978, so I think you could talk most about this, not that you were at the
Planning Department, but just what was going in the County. I know that time has
passed. My understanding is that things definitely work much better. That is the
part of the County's purpose of electronic file and permit processing. There is no
paper. You can search these things better. It is moving on with technology. This is
Hawai`i. Obviously, it is not perfect. Mistakes were made in past and obviously, this
was one of them. I do not find it though, very productive to lay blame just when the
things are found. We work together to solve them. So I think it has worked in that
regard.
COUNCIL MEETING 11 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Chock: I do not think it is about blame. I think it is
about creating a system that we can move forward from. I understand it exists. Is
there a need for us to actually put energy towards relooking at some of these maps
and easements that are being overlooked is my question.
Mr. Trask: I think as Councilmember Chock as Chair the
Planning Committee, that is definitely something that you can discuss with the
Planning Department and Councilmember Kagawa with the Department of Public
Works. There is always room to improve. Definitely.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. I will make that request.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: In 1978, I was negative three (-3) years old. I
have a question on Lot 11. What is the purpose of it? What are we doing with it? Do
we have any intention of doing anything as far as the County goes?
Mr. Trask: We were looking at that. My understanding
is that it had something to do with perhaps a parking opportunity in future or
something related to being near the road. Once I got my questions answered for this,
I moved on to many other assignments, but it is definitely a parcel of land we had
there. I did not know we had it, so whatever we can do staging. I know there are
potential parking issues in and around that lighthouse area. It is County property,
so maybe there is an opportunity there. I think that is the best I can say at this point.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you. I never heard of that lot
before either.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is the access just to one (1) parcel?
Mr. Trask: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you point out which parcel that is again?
Mr. Trask: Sure. The Saemann Trust property is here.
Councilmember Yukimura: What about the parcel that is to the right of
it? Does that have access?
Mr. Trask: This one?
Councilmember Yukimura: To the right.
Mr. Trask: This one? I am not sure. That is not covered
by this easement. But if your concern is do these have easements, they may or they
may not at this point. I am not sure.
COUNCIL MEETING 12 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: I am taking off of what Councilmember
Kaneshiro is talking about in terms of maybe there is an opportunity that in exchange
for an easement, we get some land for parking.
Mr. Trask: Well, this is our property. This whole portion
right here...
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Trask: ...this is our property. They need an
easement to go over it to get to their property.
Councilmember Yukimura: I guess it is the Planning Department who are
charged with ensuring that there is public access, which sometimes includes parking,
because sometimes the shape of our lot may not be conducive to what our needs are.
In the process of negotiating, we are doing them a favor and we are giving them
access. Are there opportunities that are there that we need to recognize before we
settle?
Mr. Trask: I do not know how to answer that today. I am
sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is the Planning Department available to
answer that? I do not know how that lot to the right has access and the lot that you
are talking about does not. There is only one (1) way to get to the lot on the right.
KAAINA S. HULL, Deputy Planning Director: Aloha Council
Chair Rapozo and Member of the Council. Ka`aina Hull on behalf of the Planning
Department. It looks like this subdivision happened decades ago. In looking at the
files, we do not see exactly how it was created without an access. I am not sure if
there was a handshake with the Administration at the time saying, "We are not going
to have problems with you traversing County property." But essentially, it was
created with no access. When Mauna Kea approached us saying that the attorney
representing one (1) of the properties had recognized that an actual official easement
needs to be executed, we had no objection to it.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as not present.)
Mr. Hull: As far as entering into negotiations with other
property owners that also may need easements over the County property,
negotiations can be had at the table. At the same time, the only way you are going to
force somebody's hand is if we start issuing trespassing notices to those traversing
the County property to get to onto theirs. So it is really the question of how much it
is worth to fight for that additional piece of land that we are able to extract or what
level may be a takings. I will defer to Mauna Kea on that.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are not talking about fighting anybody.
We are talking about looking to see what our needs are from the public's standpoint
and seeing whether in the process of straightening this thing out, we might have the
COUNCIL MEETING 13 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
opportunity to just better the entire easement because right now, that is the informal
easement to Kauapea Beach, right?
Mr. Trask: No.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Trask: There is an access easement to Kauapea
Beach in and around this area. I am not exactly sure where it is, but the Office of the
County Attorney with the Planning Department and the community is working on
that issue right now. What we have here is this parcel, in total, is three point one
one zero (3.110) acres. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, which was in effect
at that time, we did an access easement to Kauapea Beach in this area. This is an
easement for the landowner here to get to this property. We would have to check the
Bureau of Conveyances to see if there are easements for these other two (2) flanking
it. But there is a public beach access there, and that was appropriately acquired at
subdivision.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is it existing and well documented? There is
no dispute over it. Where is the former Garfinkle property?
Mr. Trask: I do not want to get too far...
Councilmember Yukimura: But if parking is an issue, is that the United
States Fish & Wildlife right next?
Mr. Trask: Right here.
Councilmember Yukimura: I mean, they do not have enough room for
parking. I was just reading in the Short-Range Transit Plan that they have some
desire to tie in the shuttle system. I mean, it is just about doing a comprehensive
look to see what the needs are rather than just this tunnel vision that is dealing with
one (1) request, and just saying whether we want to fight it or not is not the issue. It
is whether what are our needs there if we take a look at it, and are there things that
we might mutually exchange? If one of the perpendicular access is needed to Kauapea
Beach, do any of those properties have an opportunity for that?
Mr. Trask: If I may? Can we take a quick recess? I will
call my Deputy to talk about that. But I do want to stay upon the agenda item, which
is strictly the utility and access easement to this parcel. For Kauapea Beach, we can
get you that information either after a recess really briefly or we can come back later.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can move this to a later part of the agenda
because I have a couple of questions as well.
Mr. Trask: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Number one is, is this something that the
homeowner or property owner is entitled to? Is this something that the County is
COUNCIL MEETING 14 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
obligated to provide versus they have to pay for that? If we want a little access, we
have to go to court, and it is one million dollars ($1,000,000) to get a little access. I
guess my question is, are we obligated to provide this individual landowner access
legally? If not, then we do need to negotiate and I think Councilmember Yukimura
is right. We need to say, "Okay, fine. We will give you access, but you give us x," not
ten dollars ($10) like this says. That is the first question. Are we legally obligated to
provide this for free? Number two, both of those other properties that abut this
property, is there a current easement for that? Obviously, there is not because that
is why we are here. I do not know how—those people are obviously crossing the same
road to get to their properties, right?
Mr. Trask: They are crossing the same County parcel,
yes. But whatever the record shows on this one (1) parcel would not pertain to these
others. It would not be in the subdivision. I cannot say that since 1978, they have
not gotten their own easements to access.
Council Chair Rapozo: How would they get an easement without
County Council approval?
Mr. Trask: No, they would have gone through the same
process.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right.
Mr. Trask: But I do not know if they have or not. I have
not looked.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Then, I think that is very important
because if that does not exist, why would we not just, again, create the access or the
easement for all three (3) properties?
Mr. Trask: I will not be able to answer these questions
today. So if we can maybe defer this item and you can send me written questions, I
can get back to you.
Council Chair Rapozo: We can try. I hate to put our staff through
that. I do not know how you would check. We can probably check. My bigger concern
is are we legally obligated because if not, then I think we really have to get into some
real serious negotiations of what we get in return.
Mr. Trask: Understood. I will not be able to answer that
question today either.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Mr. Trask: If we can just defer, I think that would be the
most economical use of your time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
COUNCIL MEETING 15 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Kagawa: It just goes back to what I was originally
saying. Obviously, if the subdivision was approved in 1978, we must have made a
mistake because how do you grant a subdivision with the intent of a private owner
wanting to get to his property without checking whether he has a driveway to his
property from Kilauea Road? What he is going to do? Is he going to swim from the
ocean to get to his property? What I am saying is I do not want to point the finger at
who did wrong on this because yes, that will get us nowhere. It would not make sense
to go back to any fault that any employee made years ago. But what I am saying is
that we have to look at whether we made a mistake, because probably if we made a
mistake, then we are required to grant that person an easement. I mean, that
answers your question, Council Chair Rapozo. Now, have we like Councilmember
Chock said, made sure that we are double and tripling-checking so that we do not
have these kind of situations? Where else do you see a situation like this? It is a very
unique one. I have never actually seen one like this in my six (6) years where you
have the County road and you have a County easement. What are we going to do
with that property anyway? What was the plan for the County to have that property?
How can you approve a subdivision inside without any access to their property?
Really, if it was an oversight, it was a huge oversight. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: It could very well be that part of the
conditions of the subdivision was that they would negotiate with the County for the
easement. It could very well be possible they said that as part of this application or
however that process was back in the 1970s, was that will you negotiate for an access
easement with the County of Kaua`i. At that point, the County should have
negotiated so that we get something in return. I do not know. We are speculating on
all of these areas, but I want to make sure that we are not giving away something
that we should be compensated for. That is all. This landowner is not even from
Kauai. This is a mainland owner, right?
Mr. Trask: I am not sure.
Council Chair Rapozo: According to the map...
Mr. Trask: For the record, I know it is a fair question and
it is not to be taken as discriminatory in any way.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. I am just saying that I want to make sure
this County gets compensated for land that we are going to give up...
Mr. Trask: Correct.
Council Chair Rapozo: ...like the private landowner expects what we
want a little access down to the beach. We end up going to court for six hundred
thousand dollars ($600,000), seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000), or eight
hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) because they do not want to give it up. I am not
saying that we want to be that way, but I want to make sure that this is not something
that we are entitled to and we are giving up because some attorney wrote us a letter
saying, "Hey, we are ready for our easement." I want to make sure that is not the
situation. Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 16 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that highlighted portion not a County road?
Mr. Trask: No, that highlighted portion is the County
parcel that abuts the County road and is between the County road and these parcels.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. When a developer subdivides, they are
supposed to provide the roads to the lot. The question is, how was this subdivision
approved without the developer putting a road to the lot? Were the lots re-subdivided
afterwards such that there was no access? I mean, if the three (3) lots were one (1)
parcel so then the County road was the access, and then they were re-subdivided. Is
this agricultural land so that re-subdivision is not allowed? I think we need to know
the history of this. How did it happen? Was it through developer deception?
Mr. Trask: No. To our knowledge, the records show that
the three (3) lots right there were subdivided during the subdivision process.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Trask: It very well could be that oddly shaped three
point eleven (3.11) acre parcel, given that my understanding, and I am going
follow-up on this. But for the record, my current understanding is that the Kauapea
Beach access is along one (1) of those lot lines between those three (3) parcels. That
could be the County parking area or the public—because as you know, when you
provide subdivision, you have to provide access and then you have to provide a
parking area. That could be the County parking area. These are all really good
questions, and I would be happy to receive them in writing so as to follow-up with you
and answer them appropriately.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us defer this.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us defer this. How much time do you
think you need, Mauna Kea?
Mr. Trask: There are a lot of things going on right now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Two (2) weeks?
Mr. Trask: I need some time. Yes, that would be good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is October 18th okay for you?
Mr. Trask: It should be good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Let us just do that, or we can shoot for a
Committee Meeting. I would rather have this discussion in a Committee Meeting.
COUNCIL MEETING 17 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Trask: Maybe at a Committee Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is the meeting after the 18th? This
obviously has been twenty (20) something years. I do not think another month is
going to hurt. October 25th Committee Meeting.
Mr. Trask: That would be good. I will work with the
landowner's counsel. Maybe they have an easier way to get the records to me versus
trying to dig through it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I am hoping that it is just nothing, but I
think we have enough concerns. If there is no objection to that, we will move it to the
Planning Committee on the 25th.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2017-217 to the October 25, 2017
Planning Committee Meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
The motion to refer C 2017-217 to the October 25, 2017 Planning Committee
Meeting was then put, and carried by a vote of 6*:0:1 (*Pursuant to Rule
No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai, Councilmember
Kawakami was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative vote for the motion; Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2017-218 Communication (08/17/2017) from the Emergency Management
Administrator, recommending Council approval of the third amendment to the
five (5) year license agreement between the County of Kaua`i and Bank of Hawai`i,
Trustee of the Kukuiolono Park Trust Estate, extending the County's license for the
800 MHz radio site located at Kukuiolono Park in Kalaheo, Kaua`i, Hawai`i, for
emergency radio communications for the County of Kaua`i, which license fee will be
paid in incremental increases of three percent (3%) each year for the five (5) year
period commencing July 1, 2017.
• Third Amendment of License Agreement
Councilmember Chock moved to approve C 2017-218, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
COUNCIL MEETING 18 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: I guess it is for you, Elton, probably. I think
we may need Wally up here as well at some point. Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just for the public's disclosure, can you
explain a little bit of background as to what this radio site is, what the taxpayer pays
for this site, and the service that it provides that makes it a necessity for the people
of Kaua`i?
ELTON S. USHIO, Emergency Management Administrator: Okay. For
the record, Elton Ushio, Emergency Management Administrator. To address your
question, Councilmember Kagawa, first if I could get Council Services to put this up
for display.
Councilmember Kagawa: Just a brief description of where the location
is, where the tower is, and how much we pay a year.
Mr. Ushio: This location is part of our infrastructure for
our 800 megahertz (MHz) P-25 public safety radio system that services the entire
island and is utilized by the County as well as State and Federal partners. The
location at Kukuiolono, the technical aspects can best be described by our
Telecommunications Officer, who is seated here, but I will just say that it is an
essential repeater location in the network. What the taxpayers will pay for this site
in year one comes out to a monthly rate of three thousand seven hundred thirty-six
dollars and eighty-six cents ($3,736.86), that is incrementally increased three
percent (3%) each year. In year five, it will be four thousand two hundred five dollars
and eighty-seven cents ($4,205.87) per month. If we were to multiply that by
twelve (12), I can give you ballpark figures. It comes out to between approximately
forty-four thousand eight hundred forty-two dollars ($44,842) in year one, to fifty
thousand four hundred seventy dollars ($50,470) in year five.
Councilmember Kagawa: That is all I wanted. I had concern that it was
more and the amount that you mentioned sounds reasonable for the service that it
provides. I am satisfied. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, maybe I am not as convinced that it is a
good deal. How big is this parcel?
Mr. Ushio: The parcel size is approximately two
thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet. I will need to...
Council Chair Rapozo: Two thousand two hundred (2,200) square
feet. Just think about the size of your house, people, and think about paying two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) or so for five (5) years, let us just say
property tax. We would be upset. We had discussion in past about condemning this
property, and I guess that is why I wanted Wally to come up. I do not know if we
have departed from that plan. I am not sure. We had some active discussion not long
ago, maybe a Council or two (1) ago. Councilmember Kagawa, do you remember that
discussion?
COUNCIL MEETING 19 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: I remember.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, we are the old goats on here,
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: But pretty goats. It is a small parcel that we
need, but it is two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet of land that we talked
about condemning for a public purpose, which this fits because we cannot do without
this. The tower is there. I believe there is some revenue that we get. Do we rent out
that tower? I thought we had some kind of cell phone company or some people put
their equipment. I guess the bottom line is are we not pursuing that anymore?
DAVID MIYASAKI, County Telecommunications Officer: David Miyasaki,
County Telecommunications Officer. We do not actually rent. We have some
interagency agreement with the Federal and State partners.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh, okay.
Mr. Miyasaki: Such as the ambulance and Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
Council Chair Rapozo: But we do not get compensated for that?
Mr. Miyasaki: We have a little bit of cost-sharing as far as
the electricity expenses.
Council Chair Rapozo: Of the electricity?
Mr. Miyasaki: Yes.
Council Chair Rapozo: But they are not cost-sharing the land?
Mr. Miyasaki: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are they cost-sharing anything else?
Mr. Miyasaki: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think that is where my concern is, and that
is why I remember we did the whole exercise of condemnation. I thought we were
heading down that road. I obviously forget. It is something that I do not think about
all the time. Every five (5) years when we have to do this agreement, it comes up
again. So I guess what is our plan? Are we just going to continue to pay a two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) on a lot that is probably not worth that?
Mr. Ushio: The long-term considerations, I mean, it
really comes down to our analysis of whether or not it is feasible for us to continue
COUNCIL MEETING 20 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
funding that. But to the best of my knowledge, if we look at commercial rates charged
to cell carriers and whatnot, although that site may seem costly, it is in the ballpark
of what the private sector is paying for locations. Condemnation has been discussed
on the side as a possibility, but we have kind of looked back at what has been done in
the past. By my recollection, there was significant resistance because that particular
location was supposed to be for certain terms in the original trust for that property
that was to be in perpetuity for the public good. Is this the public good? Yes, but
maybe a different purpose as originally intended for that parcel.
WALLACE G. REZENTES, JR, Managing Director: I know when we
had a discussion on this one, one (1) of the questions was what the alternatives were
that we have besides identifying an appropriate parcel as an alternative, the
acquisition and then the build-out? My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong,
was upwards of one million dollars ($1,000,000) total potential. I just got out my
amortization calculator, so you are talking about sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) or
so per month to amortize that kind of debt.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am sorry. What was that?
Mr. Rezentes: About sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) per
year, in that neighborhood. It maybe upwards depending on the market of bonds of
however you finance it.
Council Chair Rapozo: To finance what?
Mr. Rezentes: One million dollars ($1,000,000) worth of
costs, if the alternative was to relocate someplace else.
Council Chair Rapozo: I am not talking about relocating. I am
talking about condemnation of two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet of land
that cannot be used for anything else, but a tower. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Rezentes: Again, I do not know. At the end of the day,
that may be what the market value is because that is how an appraiser would look at
it. They would look at what the revenue generations are and try to bring that cost
back to present value. My understanding is that we would probably be in that
potential ballpark. But again, you either can go that way acquiring that parcel
through that type of action or look at an alternative parcel, and whatever the
associate costs of developing, building, and timeline to address it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: It is sixty thousand dollars ($60,000)
amortized over a twenty (20) year bond, but to pay rent, you are going to pay in
perpetuity. So, you are not just talking twenty (20) years.
Mr. Rezentes: If I am wrong on numbers, you can correct me.
COUNCIL MEETING 21 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Ushio: I believe the starting price is about five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) and then from there, we would add per
Telecommunication Officer. But what I wanted to contribute to this discussion is that
in the lease agreement, the County Attorney can correct me if I am wrong, we do have
a clause where we could terminate in the event of condemnation. So that is still on
the table and we can analyze that feasibility cost-benefit analysis further even after
this is extended.
Councilmember Yukimura: So you are saying that you need this extension
now, and I guess we are concerned about the ever increasing costs. So, we would like
to see some commitment for a serious analysis of what the parameters are so we can
make some decisions. Is that accurate, Council Chair Rapozo?
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, unfortunately at this moment, we have
no choice. We have no choice. We have to approve this thing. Again, I do not know
and I apologize. I guess I lost track of the discussion, but we did the analysis. I know
we did the analysis. I remember seeing the spreadsheets. I remember seeing the
cost-benefit analysis, but I do not know what happened after that. I do not know if
the Administration's decision was not to pursue and just continue to pay this money.
So maybe that is say discussion that we have to have at a later time, but it makes
absolutely no sense to me to continue to pay this. It goes up every year three
percent (3%). It keeps going up. For two thousand two hundred (2,200) square feet,
that is what baffles me. I cannot believe that an appraiser would appraise that two
thousand two hundred (2,200) square foot parcel for one million dollars ($1,000,000).
I also do not think that one million dollars ($1,000,000) of bond float is sixty thousand
dollars ($60,000) a year for twenty (20) years. Maybe that is right. I do not know. I
guess the bottom line is that, again, as we are looking at trying to crunch our
expenses, it would seem that we would at least look at some alternatives. I am not
looking at purchasing new land. I am looking at staying where we are at. Hopefully,
it is a friendly condemnation that when they realize it is something that we are
moving towards, that we could come up with a negotiated price. I do not know if the
Administration has departed from that thought that we are not going to go there, and
we are just going to pay. This Council is in a bad situation. We cannot not approve
this because we need the tower for public safety. It is vital. I think for condemnation,
this is exactly what condemnation laws were implemented for, for situations where
the public benefit outweigh the rights of the owner. Councilmember Kagawa, I know
you had your hand up.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. I just wanted to clarify that I am not
totally happy with the price. I said I am satisfied. So that is a big difference given
the price. The location is a choice spot because the height. Is it a choice prime
location?
Mr. Ushio: My understanding is that it is.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is the tower is functioning well? It is not
significantly rundown or rusted or what have you, is it?
Mr. Ushio: Telecommunications Officer?
COUNCIL MEETING 22 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: No. We do not need to have him come up. We
maintain that quite well.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: That is why to consider moving the tower is
ridiculous. To consider going out and finding a lot and then moving that tower with
all of the permitting that is required and all of the community issues that you have
to deal with, there is one (1) option in my opinion. One (1) alternative would be
condemnation. If we choose not to do that, then fine, we move forward. But to even
bring up buying another lot and rebuilding a new tower, that is crazy. That should
not even be discussed. We had that discussion and that alternative was—I cannot
remember the number, but it was really high, and the time it takes to do something
like that. Really, it is either pay rent, or condemn, or come up with a purchase
agreement.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. For me, if we are going to get into a
condemnation process and it is going to require extensive fighting legally with the
landowner, then I would say at some point, it is not worth it because I would rather
not waste money on attorneys either. So for now, I am satisfied. That is just my
feeling.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I guess have an option "c" if the agreement
allows it. Do you know if we have the ability to sublet space and if we have been
approached by a carrier that would actually pay like Verizon, or AT&T, or someone
like that because we only see the third amendment, so we do not have the full
agreement? If they are going to collect a portion of that money if we sublet, that
would be a way to reduce our costs on the tower.
Mr. Ushio: I handed over the original agreement to the
Deputy County Attorney. Hopefully, he can answer that question.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. We can get the answer later. But that
is another option.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Again, we cannot force people to be on the
tower. But if we have been approached, it is a good opportunity to reduce our cost on
it. Why is it only a five (5) year extension? Did we try to get a longer term?
Mr. Ushio: That is what was initially proposed by Bank
of Hawai`i. They provided us with the draft and we felt that was reasonable.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING 23 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we get a commitment from the
Emergency Management Agency to do an analysis within a year and get back to us
about what the options are in terms of condemnation?
Mr. Ushio: I am fine with that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. If we can ask for you to submit a report
a year from today, that would be helpful just so that we can get a complete analysis
of what it would take, the pros and cons, and even a recommendation from your
Agency as to what might be the best for your emergency management.
Mr. Ushio: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I guess the option "c" mentioned by
Councilmember Kaneshiro is creative. I think it would raise the fair market value
though, of the site and be incorporated into the rental.
Mr. Ushio: Our Deputy County Attorney just handed me
and pointed out item 18, which states no assignments or sublicensing.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, okay.
Mr. Ushio: So, there is a clause that does not allow us.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: And that would really impact the appraisal.
If you cannot sublease on that and make money off of that, then the appraisal would
be significantly less. It is in a location that might be great for a tower, but it is not
prime land for a home. I do not know if any of you have been up there, but if you go
up there, there is a water tank and a tower right there. It is not like you are going to
build your house right next to the water tank. I do not think that the appraisal would
come in that high. Anyway, we can have that discussion at a later time. I know we
had this pretty detailed discussion in the past. I do not think it was that long ago,
but if we can at least get that to the all of the Members in next couple of weeks so
that they can at least refresh their recollection, or if they were not here, they can take
a look at that. Thank you. Are there any other questions? With that, the rules are
still suspended. If you could state your name for our captioner and then you can
proceed.
EVAN PRICE: Evan Price. Just in the discussion, a couple
thoughts come to mind. The money that is received is that looped back around and
spent to community benefit? If so or if not, would it come into play? It seems like the
final outcome would be good if there was a long-term lease at a reasonable price if the
money that the County is paying for that lease ends up benefiting the community
through maintaining the public park, golf course, and public access to that very
desirable area. I just wanted to throw out those thoughts for the discussion. Those
are things that just came to my mind while I heard things being discussed. Is there
a public benefit that the Kukuiolono Trust is providing to the community with the
COUNCIL MEETING 24 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
money that the County is paying for that lease? Can we get a long-term lease and
weigh the threat of condemnation against the price of the landowner and the trust?
The manager of the trust needs to determine if they are going to lose that asset
through condemnation, maybe they should reduce the rent and make it affordable for
the County to continue making a long-term lease. Those are just thoughts that came
to mind. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will
call the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think we have to approve this today. But I
also think we need to look seriously at the alternatives, and I think long-term lease
is one (1) alternative to look at and definitely condemnation because there is a public
purpose. I appreciate the commitment to come back in a year to give us that kind of
analysis. I might mention that we need to change the name of the parties or the
address anyway because we are no longer Kaua`i Civil Defense. We are Emergency
Management. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Seeing none, the motion is to approve.
The motion to approve C 2017-218 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6*:0:1
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmembers Kagawa and Kawakami were noted as silent (not present), but
shall be recorded as an affirmative vote for the motion; Councilmember Brun
was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
C 2017-219 Communication (09/07/2017) from the Housing Director,
recommending Council approval of a Ground Lease with Koa`e Workforce Housing, L.P.,
a Hawai`i Limited Partnership, for Koa`e Workforce Housing Development project,
Tax Map Key (TMK) No. (4) 2-6-004:019, Koloa, Kaua`i, Hawai`i.
• Ground Lease
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve C 2017-219, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 25 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Could we have the Housing Agency?
Council Chair Rapozo: Housing Agency. I will suspend the rules. We
did get a memorandum from the Housing Agency in our packet today. They are asking
for a conditional approval, and I will let the Housing Agency explain what that is. So
if in fact, the Council is amenable to that, we will have to modify the motion at that
time. With that, the rules are suspended.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Kanani.
KANANI FU, Housing Director: Hi. Good morning. Kanani Fu,
Housing Director. The request that we have put before you, on Friday, we were
notified as a procedural matter, that through Hawai`i Housing Finance and
Development Corporation (HHFDC), prior to executing the legal document, the
Ground Lease, the United State Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requires that they issue the Environmental Review Clearance.
We kind of were jumping the gun to get this Ground Lease completed for other
purposes. The Ground Lease will not change with approval of the Environmental
Review Clearance. It is a procedural matter in the sense that the Environmental
Review Clearance requires us to post publicly, that the project has received a
(inaudible) and that we do intend to utilized Federal funds.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Ms. Fu: After the publication notice and the thirty (30)
day period, HUD will then review the publication and any responses, and then issue
the clearance.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. I am fully in support of this
project. As you know, I negotiated the amendment that is helping to make it move
ahead, I think. But for the purpose of the public, can you just brief us generally on
this project?
Ms. Fu: Sure, I can. We have the developer here
today, Mr. Craig Watase, is here as well. He is with Mark Development, Inc. Would
you mind if he...
Councilmember Yukimura: Not at all.
Ms. Fu: He flew in special just to take all of your
questions this morning.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, then we better have him step forward.
We do not want to waste your trip.
COUNCIL MEETING 26 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
CRAIG WATASE, President of Mark Development, Inc.: Good
morning Councilmembers. Craig Watase, President of Mark Development, Inc.
Council Chair Rapozo: Just so you know, he holds the keys to many
opportunities for affordable housing, so be nice.
Councilmember Yukimura: We are very excited to have you here.
Mr. Watase: I am very excited to be here. It has been a
long time since I have been here. I took the opportunity to bring my son, who is the
next generation and an affordable housing developer in training, Kyle Watase. He
makes fourth generation actually, because my father was a developer before me and
we have built a lot of things here on Kaua`i and even when you were Mayor. Then, I
had the pleasure of seeing my grandfather who was on the Board of Supervisors back
in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.
Councilmember Yukimura: So the Watase family has really made a mark
on Kauai. It has been a good mark.
Mr. Watase: We are very grateful for the opportunity to
continue to do so here.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, thank you. It is so perfect that you are
here. I think there has been a couple of articles in the Garden Island Newspaper, but
not everybody knows about this project. I think it is a stellar project for the County.
It is located in the heart of Po`ipu, close to jobs where people can hopefully walk or
bike to work, or even just a short car ride if necessary, and it is affordable housing,
which we desperately need. If you might just brief us on what the project vision is.
Mr. Watase: Okay. We are building one hundred
thirty-four (134) apartments; one, two, and three-bedroom units using low-income
housing tax credits, which we were recently were awarded in a competitive
competition...
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. Congratulations.
Mr. Watase: ...with HHFDC. I think it is quite possibly
the largest tax credit award the State has ever made. I credit that to this County,
the Housing Director, the Council, and the Mayor. The commitment of the County
resources, I think, is what made the difference in our competition where our winning
score of possible one hundred (100) something points, we won by one-tenth of one
point. So it made a big difference having the support and the commitment of the
County to commit project based Section 8, HOME Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME) funds, and National Trust funds. So one hundred thirty-four (134)
apartments in I forget how many buildings, but mostly four-plexes. I have pictures
of the design if you want.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you tell us where it is located just so
people can orient themselves? Is it not mauka of the roundabout?
Mr. Watase: Yes. I do not know how to describe it. A half
mile...
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, it is along Po`ipu Road.
Mr. Watase: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Just mauka of the roundabout in Po`ipu.
Mr. Watase: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: On the east side.
Ms. Fu: Before you hit the roundabout, it will be on
your left, right before the Kiahuna Golf Course abutting the photovoltaic panels.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So if you come down Po`ipu Road, just
before you hit the roundabout, it is on your left?
Ms. Fu: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. One hundred thirty-four (134)
apartments, and what is the range of pricing and incomes that you will be meeting?
Mr. Watase: The rents are for sixty percent (60%), fifty
percent (50%), and we actually have some thirty percent (30%) Area Median
Income (AMI) requirements. So it is a mix of that. A lot of that is going to be met
with the use of the Section 8. There is a wide range of affordability for a wide range
of people. I do not know if you will be able to show it for the public, but I have the
site map layout where ninety-five percent (95%) is done with engineering and almost
ready to go out to bid. We are finalizing the Letter of Intent with our tax credit
investors. We have been moving along quite quickly thanks to some advance
pre-development funds from the County. We have been able to pay the architects and
engineers. We are just not getting paid, that is all. It is okay. I have the site map
here, Councilmember Yukimura, if you are interested in it.
Councilmember Yukimura: If staff can take it. I do not know if we need
it, but maybe a copy for the Council that we can just circulate.
Mr. Watase: I have the elevation plans as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. One (1) of my questions, I guess is for
the County. Actually, I remember discussing this with Gary Mackler. I am concerned
that one hundred thirty-four (134) units will all be in the sixty percent (60%) and
below. I think studies have shown that having more of an income mix creates better
communities. So, I am presuming that the sixty percent (60%) and below was part of
COUNCIL MEETING 28 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
the Request for Proposal (RFP), but I know there was some discussion. I just scanned
the newspaper article because I could not get to the meeting, where the need is also
for eighty percent (80%) and one hundred percent (100%), and whether or not the
County has thought about or even you as a developer, having a broader mix to
actually enhance the development that way.
Ms. Fu: Part of the inability to go above sixty
percent (60%), is that it is very rare that a project can be developed without
low-income housing tax credits nowadays. It is pretty much impossible to do. The
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program guides the income ranges, and the income
range is sixty percent (60%)AMI and below. As you heard Craig point out earlier, we
won the tax credits by a sliver of a point. So the more units you allocate towards the
sixty percent (60%), the greater your scoring is. We recognize the greatest need on
Kaua`i is from eighty percent (80%) and below. But if we break it down, we still have
sixty percent (60%) and below as the greatest, into income categories. Further, to
enter into the unit, you have to have income sixty percent (60%), fifty percent (50%),
or thirty percent (30%). But perhaps your income grows or perhaps you gain wealth,
you are not ineligible to reside there anymore. You can still reside there as long as
you have entered the unit with the income requirement. So it does not prevent
families from growing their wealth. It does not prevent families from staying at this
low-income job just to maintain or have their housing unit.
Councilmember Yukimura: That is excellent. The question is how often
does that happen with the families? I would love to see some data on that because
the studies that I have heard of have said that when there is this wider mix, actually
there is a greater influence on the families in the lower mix rising.
Ms. Fu: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: For future developments, it seems that if we
had another source of capital to support the higher income, which is still lower
income, one hundred percent (100%) of median income is not anywhere out of range
of affordability, that we could create developments that are more socially conducive
to a very good community.
Ms. Fu: Agreed. We do recognize that there is a lack
of Federal subsidies, which is what we use a lot for that gap group, anything
particularly above sixty percent (60%) to the one hundred percent (100%) on Kaua`i.
I look forward to future discussions on how to create revenue or a fund that would
allow us to contribute to create units targeted at that area. Again, for projects that
we pencil out, at the end of the day, we have to pencil the project out.
Councilmember Yukimura: I understand.
Ms. Fu: It is really done through the tax credit
program.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. It seems to me that HHDC, in its
criteria, could recognize that income mix is important for good housing projects and
COUNCIL MEETING 29 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
change their criterion. I do not know if there is a movement afoot nationally, of course
the political environment is not that strong, but to increase the tax credit
qualifications to allow for higher-income families to be support by tax credits. Do you
understand what I am saying?
Mr. Watase: I think so. But I go to a lot of seminars at the
National level, and I think they see that when we are having a hard time marketing
and findings renters at the sixty percent (60%), fifty percent (50%), and thirty
percent (30%) level, they would probably broaden that. But right now, there is no
shortage of low-income renters. So they are serving the neediest as a priority, and I
understand that. I also understand yours, and I am actually an advocate of that, too.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. I think we have to keep remembering
that we are not just building affordable housing, but we are building great
communities.
Mr. Watase: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: If I can move on. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Watase: Councilmember Yukimura, I wanted to say
that a big piece of making that community great, I think, is on the property
management side. Mark Development, Inc. will be the property manager for this
project. We are not just the developer. We will also be doing the property
management. I think you are familiar with some of our properties that we have
managed here. We take pride in making them well-kept properties. We are tough
landlords, but for exactly the kinds of reasons that you said. We want nice
communities.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for...
Mr. Watase: I can assure you in the longevity of this
project is something that you will be proud of.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. That is very reassuring because I
am concerned when a for-profit developer comes in and develops and then contracts
out for property management. I worry about the long-term management.
Mr. Watase: I told my fellow developers, "If you all had to
manage the properties you built, you would make them differently."
Councilmember Yukimura: That is so true.
Mr. Watase: Being a property manager makes us better
developers, and being developers makes us better property managers. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. On the
Ground Lease, I have not read through it. But do we require maintenance and
occupancy reserves?
COUNCIL MEETING 30 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Watase: On the Ground Lease?
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Ms. Fu: On this particular Ground Lease, no. The
Ground Lease is specific to the land.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right.
Ms. Fu: The building improvements is under the
developer.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. So that must be in our RFP and the
contract that we then have with the developer in terms of management?
Mr. Watase: Those reserves and such on the buildings are
stipulated by the tax credit investors who are going to be contributing upwards of
thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) in equity for this project. Then also, the debt
financing, the bank also has reserve requirements.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Is that for sixty-five (65) years?
Mr. Watase: As long as the tax credit investors are in it or
there is debt.
Councilmember Yukimura: But at some point, they can pull out, or sell,
or something?
Mr. Watase: Yes. After fifteen (15) years, the tax credits
are earn for the most part. We recently have another tax credit project that matured
in Kapolei where we bought out our tax credit investor, and yet, HFFDC governs the
program. We still have to comply with the tax credit rules, and so we still have to
provide financials and show the reserves and whatnot.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am just worried about the long-term after
the tax creditors are out. What incentives are there to make sure that the buildings
are still maintained and what are the mechanisms for County enforcement and
oversight? Unless HHFDC is the oversee...
Mr. Watase: HHFDC actually contracted out to a private
company, in fact, called Spectrum Enterprises. They were on O`ahu yesterday
inspecting our units. They review our files.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Watase: As long as we are under the use restrictions of
the tax credit program, we will be subject to that.
Councilmember Yukimura: How long are the use restrictions?
COUNCIL MEETING 31 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Watase: We have committed to sixty-five (65) years.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Watase: Sixty (60) years.
Councilmember Yukimura: So even when we do other projects and we do
not have this ideal situation where the developer and manager are the same, I just
want to make sure we have enough oversight privileges or powers to be able to make
sure that things are okay fifteen (15), twenty (20), thirty (30), or fifty (50) years from
now.
Ms. Fu: The lease does have a repair and maintenance
paragraph within it. So that is one (1) thing. I wanted to just be very clear that in
this particular arrangement, the County is the lessor of the land, and the building
improvements are under the operation and ownership of the developer and their
partners. Because of the funding mechanisms put in this project, there are very strict
housing quality compliance standards that we follow, similar to HUD. As Craig
mentioned earlier, we are subjected to audits and inspections. It is really intense.
We have a good team of people that work in HFFDC and then communicate with us.
So inspections happen yearly and you get dinged for a railing that is loose. It is very
thorough, and then at that point, you have thirty (30) days to mitigate it, or address
the repair or maintenance concern, or you get dinged with the removal of the
financing.
Mr. Watase: We will also have Section 8 project
restrictions.
Ms. Fu: And Section 8.
Mr. Watase: We will have HUD scrutiny also.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Fu: But the projects are governed by Federal
guidelines and funding, I can pretty much assure during the sixty-five (65) years,
there is a very high standard of quality of our buildings.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you sure that it extends for sixty-five (65)
years?
Ms. Fu: This tax credit program is for sixty-five (65)
years or as long as the investors are involved.
Mr. Watase: What typically will happen...
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, but they can get out after fifteen (15)
years?
COUNCIL MEETING 32 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Ms. Fu: Yes, and typically after twenty (20) years, you
have to rehabilitate, so you apply for any kind of HOME funds...
Mr. Watase: Yes. (Inaudible) has to be recapitalized.
Ms. Fu: ...or recapitalized money and your period
starts again.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Fu: You go into another fifteen (15) year binding
agreement.
Mr. Watase: Are you familiar with Kekaha Plantation
Early? We developed that, owned it, and then at a certain point in time, it had a
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan on it. But when it no longer
has depreciation or interested deductions, you have this phantom income situation,
so we sold it to another affordable housing developer who used the tax credit program
to recapitalize it and to modernize it. That is typically the model that you will see
that happens.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. As long as the oversight—I am
concerned that either it will be sold out and then rented at market.
Mr. Watase: No, that cannot happen.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, or that the maintenance will
deteriorate. I feel confident about the tax credit format and framework, but I just do
not know it lasts for sixty-five (65) years. It seems that somebody has to be on top of
it to watch that it is being...
Mr. Watase: Even if the Section 8 went away, theoretically,
your scenario...no, we have the HOME funds.
Ms. Fu: There is paragraph...
Mr. Watase: It is really hard that this is not going to
happen.
Ms. Fu: ...five and six within the Ground Lease that
allows for repair and maintenance.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Fu: It is not as extensive as you are wanting. But
I really think most affordable housing projects do not exist without Federal subsidy,
the Federal subsidy guidelines will guide the conditions of the projects.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you very much.
COUNCIL MEETING 33 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Mr. Watase, for your vision and
serving our needs. The question is maybe for Kanani. There was a lot of work in the
South Shore Community Plan, particularly in the Koloa area, and how it was focused
on mixed-use development. This is on the cusp of that. I was wondering if that was
taken into consideration in the planning of this development. I am guessing there
are a lot of limitations in these terms of how to use these tax credits, but we have
seen other communities and developments like this really take advantage of it for
access and so forth.
Ms. Fu: Honestly, at the time when we were going
through the ordinance amendment with Kukui`ula, originally Kukui`ula had to
deliver only seventy-five (75) workforce housing units. Then, through the vision of at
the time, Councilmember Yukimura was the Housing Chair and with Kamuela
Cobb-Adams, we worked to amend an ordinance where the County would use the
model to solicit the developer, and it was done with the intent to create more units,
to create density. Seventy-five (75) versus one hundred thirty-four (134), is almost
doubled. At the time, I can recall there was very little discussion of mixed-use on any
kind of development that we did. In fact, we have not really talked about it a whole
lot or dived into it until maybe a year ago, that we, the Housing Agency, is starting
to see the potential and the benefits of mixed-use. So that was not a scoring factor or
a consideration when we did the RFP at the time. We were just strictly looking at
addressing the affordable housing needs as well. I do not recall that we have any
kind of restrictions for mixed-use, but again, it was not something that we had
considered at the time of going out for the developer.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I just want to get a clarification of this last
conversation. Mixed-use, are we talking a mix of residential and commercial, or are
we talking about a mix of housing incomes?
Councilmember Chock: No, I was talking more about from the
commercial side.
Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, okay.
Councilmember Chock: You were talking about the income side, I
think.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, I see. I think the parcel is too small
really, to do mixed-use, but it is definitely going to add to the mix of housing in Po`ipu
in a really positive way. I want to acknowledge Kanani, thank you for acknowledging
the Mayor, Kamuela, Gary, but also Kukui`ula Development, Alexander &
Baldwin (A&B), and Tom Shigemoto really helped to moved us to this other vision of
permanent affordable sites instead of thirty (30) year buybacks.
COUNCIL MEETING 34 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Watase: I am excited to build affordable housing along
a golf course.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
Mr. Watase: It is cool, right?
Councilmember Yukimura: That is the kind of mixed-use you want.
Mr. Watase: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am really happy, too. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any more questions? Thank you
very much. Thank you for the project. I think that it is one (1) income group that we
really need to help out. Thank you to the Housing Agency. I appreciate it.
Mr. Watase: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
testify?
Ms. Parker: Alice Parker, for the record. I reside in a
Watase project, Lihu`e Gardens Elderly. It was very well-designed; however, perhaps
they could trade medicine cabinets in the bathroom for a ceiling fan in the living room
because most of us are sitting outside on the benches and it is bloody hot. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will
call the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: I would ask that we restate the motion to
approve pending receipt of the HUD's Environmental Review Clearance and to allow
the Clerk to sign the documents upon that clearance.
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved to approve pending receipt of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Environmental
Review Clearance, and authorize the County Clerk to sign the legal document
upon receipt of that clearance, seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any further discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. I said it before and I will say it again. I
am all for these projects, the vision, and the goals. However, I believe this problem
will not be solved if we continue to see market values go up the way they are where
only people from the mainland have the money to buy these properties and our local
COUNCIL MEETING 35 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
families cannot afford it. Yes, Hawai`i, Kaua`i especially, is the paradise. It is
everybody's dream to move here, but as long as the market dictates that whatever
price it is, the property will go to the highest payer. We will never solve this problem.
I think we are just playing games. I think we need a cohesive effort with the Federal
government, State government, and the County government to try to solve this
together. How we are going to really address this problem with true solutions? As
long as the market values keep running away, the incomes will never keep up, and
what you have is you just have a continued movement of people from the mainland
buying up all the properties with nothing for the local people. I mentioned this many
times and there seems to be no interest at the Federal and State level to really try
and address it cohesively. I do not know what it is going to take, but all I can tell you
is that the problem is not going to go away. It is not going to go away in O`ahu. It is
not go away in Maui. It is not going to go away, especially on Kaua`i. Just look at
the last property, the one by the Puakea Golf Course. The land price was three
hundred seventy-nine thousand dollars ($379,000) or something. You still have to
put a house. What local family that is starting out with a new job and getting married
can afford that? Just the land and then you have to build a house. Again, I want to
solve this problem, but I think it is going to take cooperation at all levels. How do we
protect the local people of Kaua`i with housing opportunities at affordable prices? The
Hanamd'ulu one was intended as affordable duplexes with prices as low as four
hundred forty thousand dollars ($440,000). Are you kidding me? Four hundred forty
thousand dollars ($440,000) for a duplex? It is a problem. It has gotten away from
us and I cannot solve it here myself. This Council cannot solve it here ourselves. I
do not know. We have to somehow get a bigger plan together and work with the
Federal government and the State government, or else we will be pawns to people
from money from the mainland. They will gobble up this place and it will continue
to get worse. I do not want to paint a depressing picture on Peace Day, but it is
reality. Who is going to step up? Who is going to step up and try to really fix the
problem? I mean, we can question all we want on these individual projects, but as
long as the market keeps running way, we are asking Mr. Watase to do a miracle in
trying to address the low-income. Even one hundred percent (100%) cannot afford it.
Who are we fooling? I do not know. I think we have to do more and we have to get
more buy-in from all of our Legislators, Congressional Delegation, and everybody.
We all have to get together because this problem is just getting worse. It is not getting
better and it is depressing. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I want to thank the Housing Agency and
Watase Development Company for stepping up to do this project because it is actually
an example of State, Federal, and County cooperation. We are using Federal tax
credits, HHFDC is involved, and the County has been the key organizer of this
development. It is also involving private developers. This is a zoning obligation of
Kukui`ula Development, that they are doing an exchange for one thousand five
hundred (1,500) lot and units that they got for their development. They have had to
do their share, we have taken it and we have maximized the resources that they have
given, and because of this new framework, it will be affordable forever. So we are, in
fact, insulating these houses in the heart of Po`ipu that are close to jobs from the
market, from this ever rising cycle of prices. There will be the oasis of affordable
COUNCIL MEETING 36 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
housing. We need to create more. I think we solve the problem one (1) development
at a time. Hopefully, we get developments faster and faster because the County owns
of the Ground Lease. In the original proposal, the housing was going to be affordable
for thirty (30) years and then it was going to go into the market. So this way, we will
have generations of affordability from this parcel.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: We are avoiding the disaster that is coming
up at Courtyards at Waipouli, where forty to fifty (40-50) units are now affordable,
but by 2019, they will be going into the market. I am still hopeful we can avoid that,
but then it is hopeless. If our investments only last for thirty (30) years and then our
people get either evicted or very rich at the expense of the other families who do not
have the same options that they had, then we are on a never ending downward spiral
in terms of providing affordable housing to our people. This is a really wonderful
project, and I really appreciate all of those who have worked to make it happen.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else? If not, the motion was made.
The motion to approve pending receipt of the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Environmental Review Clearance, and
authorize the County Clerk to sign the legal document upon receipt of that
clearance was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun
was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
CLAIMS:
C 2017-220 Communication (08/30/2017) from the County Clerk, transmitting
a claim against the County of Kaua`i by Adam Barrett, for damage to his vehicle,
pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
C 2017-221 Communication (09/08/2017) from the County Clerk, transmitting
a claim against the County of Kaua`i by EAN Holdings, for damage to their vehicle,
pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
C 2017-222 Communication (09/11/2017) from the County Clerk, transmitting
a claim against the County of Kaua`i by Michael K. Whitehead, for loss of income and
personal injury, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
C 2017-223 Communication (09/11/2017) from the County Clerk, transmitting
a claim against the County of Kaua`i by Kainoa Jacobs, for damages to his vehicle,
pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to refer C 2017-220, C 2017-221, C 2017-222,
and C 2017-223 to the Office of the County Attorney for disposition and/or
report back to the Council, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
COUNCIL MEETING 37 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion to refer C 2017-220, C 2017-221, C 2017-222, and C 2017-223 to
the Office of the County Attorney for disposition and/or report back to the
Council was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was
excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PUBLIC WORKS / PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2017-17) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2017-14 Communication (08/31/2017) from Committee Chair
Kagawa, requesting the presence of the Director of Parks & Recreation, to
present the Kaua`i Summer Enrichment Program Child and Parent
Satisfaction Insights report and associated findings prepared by Summer
Enrichment Program Employee Erika A. Sy, M.A.,"
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2017-18) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2017-15 Communication (08/24/2017) from Council Chair
Rapozo, requesting the presence of the Acting County Engineer, to provide a
briefing on the Waipouli Connector of the Ke Ala Hele Makalae Multi-Use
Path, including, but not limited to, the cultural impact to the area and the
County's applications for Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback
Variance permits for the project,"
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2017-19) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"PWPR 2017-16 Communication (08/28/2017) from Council Chair
Rapozo, requesting the presence of the Acting County Engineer, to discuss the
enforcement of the County's Sign Ordinance,"
A report (No. CR-PWPR 2017-20) submitted by the Public Works / Parks &
Recreation Committee, recommending that the following be Approved on second and
final reading:
COUNCIL MEETING 38 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
"Bill No. 2661 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 16 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE TRAFFIC CODE,"
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion?
Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for approval of the reports, seconded by
Councilmember Yukimura.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the reports was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-BF 2017-18) submitted by the Budget & Finance Committee,
recommending that the following be Received for the Record:
"BF 2017-03 Communication (08/23/2017) from Council Chair Rapozo,
requesting the presence of the Director of Finance, to provide a briefing on the
new bond issuance for the County of Kaua`i, referenced in Bill No. 2665,"
Councilmember Yukimura moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING 39 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
PUBLIC SAFETY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PST 2017-05) submitted by the Public Safety &
Transportation Committee, recommending that the following be Received for the
Record:
"PST 2017-03 Communication (08/22/2017) from Committee Chair
Yukimura, requesting the presence of the Chief of Police, to provide a briefing
on the Kaua`i Police Department's new online crime mapping program,
LexisNexis Community Crime Map,"
Councilmember Yukimura moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Next item please.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2017-47 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (Carol E. Suzawa):
Councilmember Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2017-47, seconded
by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion?
Councilmember Kagawa: I just want to thank Carol for serving again.
I think she is an excellent choice given her experience and background in County
government. Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Based on Carol Suzawa's performance
on the Water Board and on the Charter Review Commission, she is a stellar
appointment, and I am happy to support it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none,
the motion is to approve. Roll call.
COUNCIL MEETING 40 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2017-47 was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kawakami, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Brun TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes and one (1) excused.
Council Chair Rapozo: At this time, I am going to take our caption
break here, BC, because we are going to run right through to lunch and I do not want
to break the discussion about the transit plan. With that, we will take ten (10)
minutes. We will be back at 11:20 a.m.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 11:07 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11:28 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Next item, please.
Resolution No. 2017-48 — RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING
THE SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AS A POLICY GUIDELINE FOR THE
COUNTY OF KAUAI: Councilmember Kaneshiro moved for adoption of Resolution
No. 2017-48, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will suspend the rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you for being here today. We have the
consultant and we have our Transportation Agency here. With that, if you could
introduce yourselves and proceed.
CRISTINA BARONE, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Senior
Associate: My names is Cristina Barone. I am with
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates.
CELIA M. MAHIKOA, Executive on Transportation: Good morning. I
am Celia Mahikoa, Executive with the Transportation Agency.
JEREMY KALAWAI`A LEE, Program Specialist II: Good morning.
Kalawai`a Lee with the Transportation Agency.
Ms. Barone: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you
today about the Short-Range Transit Plan. We are going to be talking about a few
items. First,just kind of an overview of what is the SRTP. We are going to talk about
things that we heard from the community. We are going to speak about some of the
COUNCIL MEETING 41 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
recommendations that are included in the plan. We will go through what the funding
plan is as well, and finally, we will talk about next steps associated with this planning
process.
First, what is the SRTP? This transit planning process actually began in the
summer of 2015 with the Transit Feasibility Study, and that study sought to establish
a short and long-term vision for transit on the island of Kaua`i. That vision, we have
then taken and kind of interwoven it with our short-range transit planning effort.
The Short-Range Transit Plan is designed to provide a roadmap to help us get to that
longer term vision. We are currently looking at strengths, weaknesses, and
opportunities associated with the Kaua`i Bus, some of the potential for cost-savings
and efficiencies; and also just kind of hearing the needs of the community and
identifying service improvements and policy changes to address some of those needs
that we have heard.
We have a lot of information included in the plan. We are only going to focus
on some of the elements today. But background information, planning context, trend
analysis, and peer review was all actually developed as part of the transit feasibility
planning process, and we have expanded on it as part of the SRTP. Those documents
are really linked together and we have merged them into one (1) final document that
is this SRTP that we are talking about today. We have a bunch of additional elements
as well including community engagement, marketing, fixed-route operations
planning, paratransit, fares, organizational assessment, capital and infrastructure
plan, and financial plan.
We are going to focus on just some of the items today, so not the whole list. We
really want to focus on recommendations that came out of our community process.
Speaking of that, what did we hear from stakeholders in the community? We talked
to twenty-one (21) stakeholder groups as part of this process, both the Transit
Feasibility Study and short-range transit planning process. We did three (3) online
surveys, the first of which was back in September 2015 and then two (2) online
surveys this year. We have about eight hundred fifty (850) total respondents from
those three (3) surveys. We had two (2) sets of open houses. The first was back in
November 2015 and then a more recent one was in February 2017. We had
sixty-five (65) attendees at those and we were really seeking to gather needs from
community and making sure we were hearing what people were looking for as part
of this planning effort. We did an on-board survey about a year ago. We had three
hundred eighteen (318) responses as part of that. The goal there was to make sure
that we were identifying the needs of current riders and ensure that this plan was
meeting those needs. We did two (2) focus groups back in Markh. Those were focused
on marketing, and we will talk about it in a little bit more detail about some of those
marketing details. But we wanted to make sure that anything we were proposing
was easy to understand and wanted to get people's feedback and initial reactions to
our proposals there. Those reactions helped inform our final recommendations. We
had eight (8) pop-up meetings about the SRTP proposals in July. We hosted those
over four (4) days at different places around the island, grocery stores in particular.
We really just wanted to meet people where they were instead of asking them to come
out and meet us at a specially designating meeting. We reached approximately six
hundred (600) through those meetings. We also had information about the SRTP
COUNCIL MEETING 42 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
proposals available on buses and we hosted additional outreach at the Kaua`i County
Farm Bureau as well. In addition, we had information available on our project
website. Articles were published in the Garden Island Newspaper kind of throughout
the process, both the Transit Feasibility Study and SRTP process, and we had
information available via Facebook as well.
I am going to highlight just a couple of the priorities we heard from our online
surveys. You will see this recurring later in the presentation. The top three (3)
priorities here; more weekend service, more frequent bus service, and later bus
service were the priorities that we heard from current riders.
In our Design Your Transit System Survey, which we asked people to prioritize
what transit improvements they wanted the most given a limited budget. So it was
a little bit different a planning exercise, but still the results were the same, which is
something that we really like to see, which included provide more frequent service on
weekdays, more hours or service on weekends, and more frequent service on
weekends. Those priorities were something that we have heard throughout this
planning process.
The most recent online recommendations survey was about our proposals for
the SRTP. We had kind of a high majority of people saying initially, "We like it," and
then also a large proportion of people saying, "I like it, but I have some additional
comments either in favor or additional concerns" that they wanted to share with us
through comments in the online survey as well. We are going to talk in more detail
about each of these four (4) areas.
First, the marketing recommendations. The marketing recommendations
were highly supported by the public. We are looking at making improved schedules,
a system map, improving the website, and also having stops available on Google Maps
so people can use Google to trip plan. These all were very highly supported and are
something that we look forward to implementing in the future. This just kind of gives
a little bit of a blowup of what the system might look like. This is the current system
map as the current system.
Then moving on to fixed-route recommendations, we have these divided into
two (2) phases. There are some quick wins that can be implemented just within the
existing budget. It is essentially making some alignment changes and being able to
do some things that would make the service a lot more effective for people. We are
looking at adjusting route alignments and eliminating some unsafe and difficult to
understand deviations for people. We want to make sure that the stop order and
direction is consistent, again, just to makes sure that people can understand the
service, it is easy for them to use, and there are no barriers related to just confusion
with the route alignments. We are looking at spending less time out of service. In
particular, on the mainlines making sure that those last trips of the day are running
back in service from Hanalei and Kekaha to give people an option at the end of the
service day. Then, we are also looking at revising shuttle option in Lihu`e, Puhi, and
Koloa as part of this. We believe we can do that within the existing budget just by
making some alignment changes so that routes are operating bi-directionally, so
COUNCIL MEETING 43 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
two-way instead of loops, again, making the service easier to understand and
increasing ridership in the process.
Then, we have a series of recommendations that are short-term priorities for
this plan. We have identified a few here. Some of these, we believe that we can
implement within the existing budget. We are currently in the process of undergoing
a service efficiency analysis, and that is looking at how can we do scheduling a little
bit more effectively and how can we maybe provide more service for the same amount
of money that is being spent today? We believe we will be able to get through a few
of these. Unfortunately, we do not have results yet so we are not sure how many, but
some of these will be able to be implemented within existing budget. Some high
priority recommendations, which we heard throughout the planning process from the
community are more weekday peak service and more weekday midday service. So
having a thirty (30) minute service on the mainline was something that we heard
from people. That will likely require additional funding in the future. But at this
point in the process, we are not requesting any additional funding with this plan.
Moving on to paratransit recommendations. I wanted to give a little bit of
background of paratransit to hopefully give some context for where our
recommendations came from. The Kaua`i Bus actually began its history providing
service for seniors and then after Hurricane Iniki, the Kaua`i Bus expanded and kind
of scope and scale into the system that looks more what we see today. Then to give a
little bit of background of what paratransit is, that is door-to-door bus service
available and it is available for three (3) groups on Kaua`i; people who are certified
Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA certified, seniors who are individuals
sixty (60) years and older, and then also Human Service Agency trips that are
contracted to provide transportation.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Ms. Barone: I am going to use two (2)terms throughout the
next few slides that I want to make sure to define that so that you understand what
I am talking about. Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA certification. The way
that is defined in the Federal regulations is a person who by way of their disability is
functionally unable to use fixed-route transit service. A lot of transit agencies will
take a more liberal application of that, but according to the Federal regulations, that
is what is defined. Kaua`i has gone over and above by offering paratransit service to
seniors. Again, that is any individual sixty (60) years or older who is eligible for that
on the island of Kauai. I will be referring to those as "age-only eligible."
There are a few trends that we have seen in terms of paratransit. The first is
that paratransit is just really expensive to provide. It costs more than four (4) times
as much per trip compared to fixed-route service. We have also seen ridership
increasing. Over the past six (6) years, we have seen ridership increase twenty-one
percent (21%) from about sixty-eight thousand (68,000) trips to eighty-two
thousand (82,000) trips. When you do the math on that, at thirty dollars ($30) a trip,
it does add up pretty quickly. Also due to some of the ridership increases, we have
seen strains on quality. So passengers waiting longer amounts of time for their bus
to arrive or riding on the bus for a longer amount of time than is desirable. I also was
COUNCIL MEETING 44 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
to point out that Kaua`i is the only island in Hawai`i that offers age-eligible
paratransit. So it is kind of unique in that way. Again, that is over and above the
Federal requirements. So it has been a really great service for people. However, at
the same time, we have to keep in mind that the population over the age of
sixty-five (65) is forecasted to continue increasing on the island. Really, now is a good
time to take a step back and really understand how to provide a sustainable future
for paratransit on the island. Is there a way to kind of take an edge off of some of
that growth that we have seen?
First, we wanted to understand some of the trip patterns of the age-eligible
population, and again, that is just the population aged sixty (60) and over who can
qualify for service. What we are essentially seeing is that there is a small number of
riders that are actually using a large proportion of the resources. We see about
twenty-five percent (25%) of the riders actually using about seventy-five
percent (75%) of the trips. We have frequent riders and infrequent riders described
up here. Frequent riders are those riders using the service more than ten (10) trips
per month. So quite a few of the riders are using the service less than that, so less
than ten (10) trips per month. You can see that the resources are being used by just
a few people and maybe there is a way to kind of allocate what we have available
more effectively.
Ultimately, we want to make sure that our paratransit recommendations
ensure good quality service for the people who use those most, so for those ADA
passengers particularly, and then we also want to make sure that seniors who
currently are using the service still have an option to get around. We are proposing
a few changes as part of our paratransit recommendations. The first would be going
to in-person assessments for most cases. Essentially, anyone under the age of
eighty-four (84) would come in for an in-person ADA assessment.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Ms. Barone: That would likely be instituted or
administered by a third-party, typically someone with a physical therapy background
who would have been trained in doing this eligibility assessment screening process.
We are also looking at changing some of the age eligibility. So instead of having
age-eligible service available for people at sixty (60), we would be moving that up to
sixty-five (65), and then ADA eligibility would automatically start at eighty-five (85).
Essentially, the only change would be for people age sixty to eighty-four (60-84). For
those people aged sixty-five to eighty-four (65-84), we would be looking at
implementing some trips limits for them, so limiting trips available to ten (10) per
month as opposed to unlimited now. Again, for most riders, that would be no change
at all. It would only be kind of a select few riders that might see a change associated
with that. We are also looking at increasing fares for paratransit, but I will kind of
put a pin in that. We are going to come back to in a little bit and talk about that in a
little bit more depth. But again, ultimately, we want to ensure that those who need
paratransit have high quality of service and are getting the quality of service that
they are entitled to.
COUNCIL MEETING 45 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Moving on to fare recommendations. I want to say before I talk about this in
more detail, the fares are actually adopted into ordinance and will require a separate
process for adoption. There will be more opportunity for public comment in addition
to anything that we talk about today. The SRTP essentially establishes a roadmap
and kind of our ideas for fare recommendations, but there will be more opportunity
for public comment before those would be adopted in ordinance. There are a few
reasons we are looking at changing the fare structure. We want to ensure compliance
with Federal regulations, we also want to incentivize the use of fixed-route service
over paratransit for those passengers who do have a choice, and we want to provide
a short-term pass option for people. Right now, there is only monthly and annual
pass. We heard multiple times throughout our community engagement that a shorter
term option would be really useful. We want to make sure we are maintaining
affordability for low-income riders, but at the same time, we want to kind of strike a
balance between the cost to provide paratransit service in particular and affordability
for customers knowing that those trips are much more expensive to provide. We are
also looking at encouraging balanced pricing between passes and the regular fare. It
has been a few years since the monthly fare prices increased, and so we want to look
at what makes sense for the future. Then, also keeping pace with increasing costs
and inflation as well.
This slide presents the existing fare structure. Kind of the takeaway here is
actually that paratransit fares are the same or lower than fixed-route fares in some
cases. That is something that we noted early on and something that we wanted to
make sure we were taking a look at as part of this planning process because maybe
there are instants where people could ride the fixed-route service, but are instead
choosing paratransit just because it is a cheaper option for them, and we want to
make sure that we are making recommendations that encourage fixed-route transit
use whenever possible.
Our high priority recommendations include a day pass, which was really highly
supported in the public comments we received and was also requested by some of the
human service agencies that we talked to as being a really good option to hand out to
some of their patrons. We estimate that just implementing that would increase
revenue by about seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) per year. Also to comply with
Federal regulations, we would be looking at implementing a half-fare for people with
disabilities on fixed-route service. That is currently not in place, so that would be
offering a fare at one dollar ($1) on mainlines and then twenty-five cents ($0.25) on
the shuttles. In addition to the cash fare, we also want to implement a discounted
monthly pass for those same passengers and also for seniors. That would be offered
starting at twenty dollars ($20). That would be a revenue loss of approximately ten
thousand dollars ($10,000) overall, but implementing that half-fare is something that
we would be looking at doing with pretty high priority to meet Federal regulations.
Some other recommendations that we are looking at as part of the fares are
adjusting prices for passes and paratransit. Currently, the monthly pass is priced at
forty dollars ($40), and that is a little bit on low side compared to what we see in the
industry when you consider the base fare of two dollars ($2). We look at increasing
that five dollars ($5) over next year or so and then another five dollars ($5) in two (2)
years. So it would be up to fifty dollars ($50) in two (2) years. We are looking at
COUNCIL MEETING 46 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
eliminating the annual pass and moving towards a bulk pass program. The reason
for that is currently, there is not a lot of usage of the annual pass. It makes up about
two percent (2%) of revenue and only about six percent (6%) of ridership. So, we think
that moving to a bulk pass program will allow us to offer a similar type of product,
but hopefully get a lot more usage out of it. We are also looking at implementing a
ten (10) ride paratransit pass. So that would simply be kind of a multiplier of the
base fare. If the base fare on paratransit is two dollars ($2), then the ten (10) ride
pass would be twenty dollars ($20). We are also looking at increasing the paratransit
fare, again, to provide some incentives for people who are able to use fixed-route
service instead. So, looking at increasing paratransit fare to two dollars ($2) and then
for ADA eligible passengers and then up to four dollars ($4) for those age-eligible
riders. All of these fare recommendations, if they were implemented, would increase
revenue by approximately one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) overall.
How are we proposing to fund this plan? Many of the recommendations will
be able to be funded within the existing budget. In the near-term, we look at
implementing those quick wins and our marketing plan within the existing budget.
We would look at using service efficiencies to fund as many short-term priorities as
possible. Again, some of those will remain unfunded for the time being even though
they are a high priority. Then, we also would look at potentially some additional
funding available eligible through fare modifications as well.
There are a couple other options that are sort of out there, but would require
additional action or additional coordination. That is the bulk pass program that we
talked about. We also want to make sure that we are continuing to pursue funding
partnership with local, State, and Federal entities. So that could include the resort
industry or also the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge, for example. General Excise
Tax could be a future option, but again, that would require future Council action. So
we will see what happens with that. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are
voluntary tax districts that could be implemented within Hawai`i State law, but that
also requires enabling legislation on the part of the County to be put in place. So
there is more action that would need to occur there. BIDs are actually current in
place on the Big Island and O`ahu. On the Big Island, it is being used to fund transit
service. It is something that we want to look at in a little more detail.
Then, what are the next steps of this process? First, we want to incorporate
any direction we receive from Council and move towards finalizing the SRTP; we will
determine the scale of funding available from those efficiencies, that process that we
are currently undertaking; we will initiate the process for fare changes; and then
begin the implementation planning process, which according to the current timeline,
could occur as soon as spring 2018.
In terms of the Resolution, what would happen with adoption of that? The
marketing of fixed-route strategies would be implemented within the existing budget
of the Kaua`i Bus. Paratransit policies would be updated according to the
recommendations in the SRTP with the exception of anything related to fares, and
then fares would need to be adopted by ordinance, which requires a separate process
and more public opportunity for comment. That is the end of my formal presentation.
I am happy for any comments and questions.
COUNCIL MEETING 47 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Councilmembers, are
there any questions? Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you, Cristina. The work that you and
Tim have done with your staff and working in cooperation with the Transportation
Agency has been remarkable. I think Council Chair Rapozo mentioned earlier that
we are not used to consultants who brief us so frequently and keep us informed as
you go along. Your outreach to the community has also been excellent. We thank
you for all of that.
Ms. Barone: Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a few questions. The first one is, what
is the timeframe for the Short-Range Transit Plan?
Ms. Barone: It is intended to be a five (5) year plan.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Throughout the Short-Range Transit
Plan there is mention the Kaua`i Transit Feasibility Study. Now based on your
PowerPoint, you say it has been incorporated into the Short-Range Transit Plan and
the main deliverable or purpose of that feasibility study was to create a vision.
Ms. Barone: Yes. Essentially, establish a longer term
vision for transit on the island. As part of that plan though, we also looked at funding
opportunities, so the Business Improvement District conversation was actually from
the Transit Feasibility Study as well as some capital and infrastructure planning
processes. So all of the documentation you see as part of the SRTP does include the
work that was done as part of the Transit Feasibility Study.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. It might be good, somewhere in the
plan, to say that it has all been incorporated because your reference to the feasibility
study makes someone want to look for it and say, "Well, where is it? Where is the
reference for it? Where can I read it?" I think that would clarify your reference.
Ms. Barone: Okay, great. Certainly.
Councilmember Yukimura: Could you explain the purpose of eliminating
the annual pass?
Ms. Barone: Currently, the annual pass is not getting a lot
of usage. We know it is popular with County employees, and that is certainly a
partnership that we would want to continue into the future. But moving to a bulk
pass partnership program, we just think we can get more usage out of a similar type
of pass product.
Councilmember Yukimura: Because it seems to me that it is more efficient
if you can just get a pass once a year versus every month having to get one.
COUNCIL MEETING 48 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Ms. Barone: It would be likely an annual partnership, so
kind of a similar timeframe in terms of how it would be administered.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, because it would cost you less and there
were all of these visitor industry workers who were very concerned because it was the
day before the new month and they did not know. They work all the time on the
North Shore and they did not know where to get their pass for the next day. I am
just aware that people have to scramble. I guess they can get next month's pass ahead
of time.
Ms. Barone: They can, I believe, right? Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you get twelve (12) month passes all at
once?
Ms. Barone: The annual pass does provide that option, and
we would look at the bulk pass also providing that option.
Councilmember Yukimura: But not everybody is going to be part of a large
organization, and we still have to convince those organizations to work on an
agreement. What if it is just an individual who wants to just do it once a year, or if
they can buy twelve (12) months, then they just do one (1) transaction, right? They
would keep those passes in a safe place. I am just wondering about the
user-friendliness of a year's pass. It does presume you are financially well-off to buy
a year's pass. I do not know if you are saying that a year's pass is just not necessary
because there are so few subscribers.
Ms. Barone: Right, yes, essentially. We think we can make
that program just a little bit more effective partnering with resorts, or State
government agencies, the County, and other large employers on the island.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Where are monthly bus passes
available for purchase on this island, or does everybody have to come into Lihu`e?
Ms. Barone: They do not.
Ms. Mahikoa: Currently, the locations available are Kilauea
Food Mart, Kapahi Food Mart, and Kekaha Food Mart in addition to the Treasury
Division. The Treasury Division is able to sell...
Councilmember Yukimura: Is that Lihu`e?
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes. The Treasury Division is located at the
Department of Motor Vehicle. They are able to sell through the end of this calendar
year, as is available at our Office as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: Is there any need to make monthly bus pass
purchases easier by having more outlets?
COUNCIL MEETING 49 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Ms. Barone: I think that certainly would be useful for
passengers, having more options and more places to purchase passes, but that would
require some additional coordination and getting that put into place.
Councilmember Yukimura: But that is a fairly simple action compared to
a lot of the other actions in the plan, are they not? I mean, I am just thinking of
user-friendly and availability, especially if you are going to require them to come in
every month and get a pass.
Mr. Lee: As the grocers around the island have
transitioned ownership, we have engaged the original owners and new owners have
stated to us that they wanted time to get acclimated to the community and then
re-enter into potential conversations with them about using them as outlets in the
community.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Lee: So, it is something that we have as an ongoing
desire to accomplish. I think just as ownership has transitioned, it has been a little
difficult for them to accept that additional responsibility.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we set a goal to have at least one (1) place
to get a monthly pass in every community? I do not know. Can you enlist banks to
help or other vendors of some sort? I do not think you have to do a lot, but I do think
it is easier for people if they do not have to come into Lihu`e.
Mr. Lee: The point is well-taken. We do not want
everybody to have to come into Lihu`e for our services to purchase monthly passes.
We want to work with as many providers in community that are willing to have this
service available as many grocers have in the past. It is on their good graces that we
are able to operate out of their storefronts at no cost to the County. They do this
service for us and it is a great service to the community. So where there are willing
partners in the community that are able to do this service, we are definitely interested
and want to actively pursue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. Maybe we can just include
something like that in the plan. I do not think we should have a lot in every
community, but at least one (1) in every community would be nice. Okay. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa has a follow-up, and
then Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a follow-up. Can the public do the
monthly pass online?
Councilmember Yukimura: Good question.
Ms. Mahikoa: No.
COUNCIL MEETING 50 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Kagawa: No?
Ms. Mahikoa No.
Councilmember Kagawa: Is there any chance of that possibly
happening because I know the users that frequent it, they have good knowledge
online what time the bus is going to be there? I was thinking that if they could pay
online. A lot of them are very talented on phones. I was thinking that would be a
really easy way to save us. But we do not have that capability yet?
Ms. Mahikoa: No. We have inquired in years past about
being able to have where we accept credit cards for payment, but that has not been
an acceptable option for us.
Councilmember Kagawa: Well for years, the golf course did not accept
credit cards and I think we hounded them for ten (10) years on the Council. They
finally did it, and they found they got a lot better response with the tourist visitor
play. So maybe if you can look into that, I think it would be helpful. But I just
wanted to say great job on the presentation.
Ms. Barone: Thank you.
Councilmember Kagawa: I mean, on the transit study. Thank you.
Ms. Barone: I appreciate it.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro has a follow-up to
that follow-up.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Yes, it is a follow-up to that. Around the
Country, are there other options that other Counties use it make it more accessible
to purchase cards? I know when we are in D.C. for the National Association of
Counties' (NACo), you have major hubs along their metro so people can purchase
cards in the machine. But obviously with our bus, we do not have that type of masses
going to that area. Do other smaller Counties have other ways of getting bus passes
to their residents rather than asking grocery stores, "Can you please do this for us for
free?" I mean, are there other options also?
Ms. Barone: Yes. I think like some of the ticket vending
machines you are talking about in larger cities might not be a great option here just
because then they have to be maintained and they are actually very expensive to
implement. In terms of options that we see in other communities, I think it is kind
of just a lot of local outlets, probably more than what is available here, that is
something we see pretty often. Also, I guess, paying with credit card is something
that we will see more frequently in other locations, and also, I believe is there an
option currently where people can send in money and then you will be able to mail
them passes as well? So maybe kind of advertising that a little more effectively might
be helpful to people as well so that they do not necessarily have to go in person to get
a pass.
COUNCIL MEETING 51 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. I want to
take a moment to thank Kalawai`a and Celia for their foresight, and really taking the
first step of increasing efficiency with this plan. I think the consultants have been
thorough and thoughtful. The General Plan is upon us and if this Resolution passes,
I just wanted to get a sense if you foresee any potential amendments that would
inform the plan better in the transportation sector that need to be addressed ahead
of time.
Ms. Mahikoa: I am sorry. Would you mind repeating that?
Councilmember Chock: We will be reviewing the General Plan and
this Resolution and this plan informs what we should be doing and how we should be
doing it. My question is really if you foresee potential amendments that need to be
integrated into the current version based on the passing of this since this is a five (5)
year plan.
Ms. Mahikoa: I would have to defer to our Planning Director
for direction on that. This is very much a detailed implementation strategy for transit
in particular on the island. The General Plan tends to be a much larger scope vehicle
to relay that, so I am not sure what they would, in good judgment, decide what would
be most appropriate.
Councilmember Chock: My only request would be that we do make
that connection and see if there are needs that we address it timely.
Ms. Mahikoa: Okay. Thank you.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Thank you, Council Chair Rapozo. I want to
clarify on the monthly bus sales because I think I can speak to the subject matter
because in 2012, Menehune Food Mart, which I was overseeing, was approved by
Kalawai`a and Celia to participate in a public-private partnership. At the time, it
was a no-brainer for us because we had retail locations in every single neighborhood
except Lihu`e. We saw it as a value and it was a tremendous value. I am looking at
numbers now that we went from one hundred fifty-four (154) bus sales and then
three (3) months later, we bumped up to three hundred seventy-two (372) a month.
So that is almost ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in bus sales. Although you may say
the stores were not making money, we were because these three hundred
seventy-two (372) people were coming in and buying coffee or whatnot. Really, if
there is any private sector retail operator out there considering it, what the value is,
the accounting side is very simple. I mean, you folks took care of everything as far as
the accounting side. We did our side on our end, but it was just added value. I would
encourage people that are trying to grow their business to consider this because for
us, it was just easy, there were no headaches involved, and we saw our customer
COUNCIL MEETING 52 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
count grow exponentially just because people had found out that they no longer need
to come all the way into Lihu`e to buy a monthly bus pass. They could just walk to
the store and pick it up. It was a seamless transition. Thank you, Council Chair
Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions?
Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: This is still on the bus pass. In our
multimodal long-range plan, we do forecast the day of a smart card eventually do we
not? So maybe that is going to be in the next Short-Range Transit Plan in five to
ten (5-10) years.
Ms. Barone: Something we actually did look at as part of
this plan, there are actually flash passes that you can have on your phone and just
show the driver that does not require any additional hardware associated with it. So
that is something that we looked as part of this plan as a potential option to
investigate down the line. I think that probably has more viability here versus a
smart card option. It would be cheaper to implement as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: That sounds good. Is that something that will
be in this five (5) year window?
Ms. Barone: That is something that is maybe a little bit
further down the line, but it is identified in the plan as something to pursue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Good. Thank you. May I? You used
the terminology age-eligible rider several places and basically is that the non-ADA
certified person who is sixty (60) years and over?
Ms. Barone: Exactly, yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. If you could just define that
somewhere.
Ms. Barone: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: Or else say "able-aged." I do not know. That
would just make it clearer who you are talking about.
Ms. Barone: Okay, certainly. We can make sure that is
clearer.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Then, in your capital and
infrastructure category of action steps, I am curious as to whether that includes
baseyard expansion because up to now, I have been told that we are not able to
increase the frequency of the mainline, which as you showed, is one of the strong
desires of the bus riding population and is also something that we know that if we
increase, we will increase ridership because of the increased convenience. I have been
COUNCIL MEETING 53 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
told that we cannot do any of that until we expand our baseyards because our
baseyards are presently full and the assumption was that to increase the frequency
of the mainline, we would have to have more buses. I am concerned, because we are
doing a bond float today and so a long-range capital project is something that we need
to know about, especially if it is a prerequisite to this very important action of
increasing frequency of buses. Maybe you can explain what you are doing vis-a-vis
this baseyard concept.
Ms. Barone: Sure. We do talk a little more in-depth about
baseyards in capital and infrastructure planning chapter. I think we can make it
clearer in the executive summary that that is something that we are looking at. As
part of looking at service efficiencies, we are also looking at the vehicle fleet and kind
of seeing if the current vehicle fleet is what is needed to operate service, or maybe we
can operate service with fewer vehicles than are currently out on the street now. That
is something that we will have a better idea of in the next couple of months. We think
potentially being able to expand service actually may not, in the near-term, require
another baseyard. However, we do know that there are needs in terms of
maintenance bays. The current facility is very short on space there. There is no bus
wash currently and potentially, there would be more need for operator space, driver
break rooms, et cetera that we would look at in the future. An additional study would
be needed to determine kind of fine-grain details of where those sites could be located
throughout the island and exactly what is needed at those locations. So we refer to
it kind of from a planning context in the plan, but something more detailed would be
needed in the future to kind of determine exactly what is needed.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, you have given us cost estimates for the
expansion and if the expansion requires baseyard expansions, then the costs will
change.
Ms. Barone: That is correct. But the costs included in the
plan or at least in the executive summary are operational costs only, so cost for
putting of the service out on the street.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, you still have to pay on a bond if you are
going to use bond money so that becomes an operational cost, in my mind, if you have
to pay off the note.
Ms. Barone: Correct, right.
Councilmember Yukimura: When do we find this out because I am looking
at a five (5) year, and I am assuming that we will increase the frequency of the
mainline within five (5) years? So, this knowledge about our baseyards support
infrastructure is sort of a key urgent piece of information. Do you think we can get
that in a couple of months?
Ms. Barone: We will know more in next couple of months
about what the size of the fleet needs to be currently and then what kind of space we
have to play with in the future. So we will know a lot coming up soon.
COUNCIL MEETING 54 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Obviously, I did not get to your
baseyard section of your plan. I stopped at 1:30 a.m. Will you be including or do you
include that forecast about when the baseyard decision will be made and the potential
for needing a baseyard, or even if it is not related to frequency, all those baseyard
improvements that you just mentioned seem kind of critical to the implication of your
Short-Range Transit Plan, which was separating the washing of buses from the
driving of buses, et cetera. So, it seems to come within this five (5)year period. When
will we know?
Ms. Barone: We will know a lot more about the vehicle
needs in next couple of months and that will kind of determine the need for storage
at satellite facilities of vehicles, and we will be including some additional language
about the need for additional maintenance bays. I think that could use a little bit
more detail in the plan. It is something that is important that we need to look at.
Councilmember Yukimura: What if you find out that we will need more
baseyard expansion in order to increase the frequency of the mainline?
Ms. Barone: Then that is something that we would, I
guess, address as part of that service efficiency portion of our study. We will be
updating the plan once we have the results of that and know kind of what we can get
in terms of those fixed-route service priorities, and we will have a better idea of the
vehicle needs to provide service in the future.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Is there going to be a formal update in
the next six (6) months?
Ms. Barone: Once we have the results of the service
efficiency study, we were anticipating updating the results of that.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, because if we need to include it in your
long-range capital plan, then we will need to know.
Ms. Barone: Yes.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions for the
Administration and Consultant?
Councilmember Yukimura: I have.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you explain the reason for eliminating
the Haraguchi Farm Stop?
Ms. Mahikoa: Part of it was related to some of the responses
that came in when speaking with first of all, our drivers, needing to drive along that
COUNCIL MEETING 55 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
very narrow Ohiki Road in Hanalei in order to access that location while they are
driving to and from as well. They are dealing with avoiding the endangered birds
that are in the area as well as the tourists' cars that are going back and forth. So we
have a very large vehicle on a very narrow road needing to go and turnaround in the
driveway, basically. They are sometimes called out to that stop in the evenings as
well, so it is just our concern is safety first for the primary driver for this
recommendation. Additionally, it is a bus load of individuals taking the detour down
that road as well. We looked into the ridership for that location. It is about three (3)
individuals per day that are being served at that location. So with everything in
transit service, whenever we are needing to make changes, there is a tradeoff and
that sadly, would be the trade-off of removal where you have individuals who are
currently relying on the service needing to identify other options. Meanwhile, we are
also looking at other options for serving in that area. There was investigation done
years ago before we had implemented that way back when, and we were not able to
work out anything at that point. However, players change and situations change, so
we are more than willing to go in and see what can be done there for the sake of
adequately serving that area considering we have been.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. It is mainly a real safety challenge over
there.
Ms. Mahikoa: It is.
Councilmember Yukimura: I know you did do a survey of drivers and I
commend you for that, that you took the time to get their input. I did see that there
was considerable input from the drivers about that. In terms of alternatives, right
now, there does not seem to be any alternatives. I mean, the only alternative, because
the stops are either Princeville or Hanalei Town and to walk from there to the farm
is extremely difficult.
Ms. Mahikoa: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: From either side. So, it would mean
somebody going and picking them up at those bus stops.
(Council Chair Rapozo was noted as not present.)
Ms. Mahikoa: Yes, which is a challenge for anyone who is
needing to do that. To us, the obvious question is, is there anything that we can do
with the open area near the bridge, and that will be our natural progression of
questioning and proceeding with seeing what is...
Councilmember Yukimura: You mean on the other side of the bridge
rather than the Hanalei side?
Ms. Mahikoa: Right. But even that alone has its challenges,
which is the nature of rural transit and trying to place bus stops in various areas.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING 56 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Ms. Mahikoa: So we will do our best for the sake of the
farming community.
Councilmember Yukimura: As I mentioned to you earlier Celia, this is
very long-range, but in the discussion of the moving of the lookout to that new
site...remember that long discussion we had? There is talk about a multi-use path
coming down on an old road or a utility access. I am not sure what it was. If that is
ever built, people could actually walk down from the Princeville bus stop.
(Council Chair Rapozo was as not present.)
Councilmember Yukimura: So in the long-run, maybe that is possible, but
in the meantime, you might be looking at that opposite side?
Ms. Mahikoa: Right.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, great.
Ms. Mahikoa: We will do best we can.
Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you.
Ms. Mahikoa: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions? If not, thank
you very much. Do not go anywhere because we have public testimony.
Councilmember Yukimura: I do have one (1) more question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Go ahead.
Councilmember Yukimura: The Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)
was not mentioned among large employers in your list, or did I just miss it?
Ms. Barone: I went back and checked that. I think just the
data source that we got that information from did not have it listed. I believe it was
from Info Group via the State of Hawai`i. I am not sure why it was not included on
the list. That is a great point.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Yes, because they have a large
employment there, eight hundred (800), I think, although they are far out. So we
have talked about the huge cost that it takes of time and money to make that route.
I am trusting that there will be some addressing of that issue.
Ms. Barone: Yes, certainly. We can make some reference
to that issue in the plan.
COUNCIL MEETING 57 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Alright, Council Chair Rapozo, I did
mention to you earlier that I would appreciate, as Chairman of the Transportation
Committee, at least one (1) deferral.
Council Chair Rapozo: Like I said, I am ready to move on it, but we
will have that discussion once we get into discussion.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I mean, because if we do not have a
deferral, then I have a lot of other questions.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. How many here are here to testify?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair Rapozo, we have two (2) so far.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Just to let everyone know, we are going
break for lunch because we have a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. that we have to hold
at 1:30 p.m. So we are going to break for lunch at 12:30 p.m., we are going to come
back at 1:30 p.m. have the public hearings, and then we have a certificate that should
not take longer than ten (10) or fifteen (15) minutes right after that. We want to
finish up this item. I understand that there are people here to testify on the Executive
Session as well, which I want to accommodate so that they do not have to be here all
day long. How many people are here to testify on the Executive Session item? Just
one (1) of you. Okay. I am just trying to get an idea of how we are going to structure
the afternoon session. Yes, please come and testify. We are on the Short-Range
Transit Plan.
Ms. Parker: Alice Parker, for the record. I did not hear
where the bus stop on Pahe`e Street is. So there. The other thing is paratransit.
They do not have to come in large buses. We also need smaller vehicles because there
is no sense having a great big bus pick up two (2) people. Jacklyn Windsor-Ramos
and I like to go to the bon dance out on the west side. We can take public
transportation out, but getting back, it is tricky walking home in the dark. We do not
need a big bus for the two (2) of us, something smaller, and also perhaps
subcontracting out to taxi companies or something the way they did in the City of
Torrance that I moved from to pick up sick people. Yes, ADA, you need to call a day
in advance. I do not know a day in advance that I am going fall and split my knee
open. I cannot get to Urgent Care, which means I have to get to the emergency
hospital. Even there, walking from the bus stop in front of Wilcox Medical Center
over to the emergency room (ER) is tough when you are in agony. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I am sure they heard your
concern. Jerome. Come right up here now. We are on the Short-Range Transit Plan,
the bus.
JEROME FREITAS: Council Chair Rapozo, Council Vice Chair
Kagawa, Councilmembers, and staff. Mauna Kea is not here today. Anyway, we are
talking about the bus stops. You have to go out and look at what is happening out
there. My name is Jerome Freitas. You have to drive around to know what is
happening. Sitting in the office here and only talking is nothing. Go out and go check.
COUNCIL MEETING 58 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
See what is happening. Number one, I know they are working on more bus routes
that are needed for the public. I had a lot of calls from Wailua Homesteads that the
bus comes up there five (5) days a week and on Saturdays and Sundays, there is no
service. Why? That is the reason why we are getting a lot of money from the Federal
government. It does not matter if it one (1) person or two (2) people. You have to get
the bus service for them. They depend on the bus. Number two, some places have no
bus shelters because of the private ownership. So what you have to do is talk to the
private owners if they can use part of their area. Sometimes, some things are easy to
get right away, but some, you have to negotiate. That is part of the job. I hate to say
this, but I already brought it up with Council Chair Rapozo. Can I bring it up? It is
the one about the bus shelter in Kapa`a.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Freitas: The lady.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Mr. Freitas: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: They are here.
Mr. Freitas: I hate to do this, but somebody has to know. I
do not know, but maybe you folks might know. Right by Kapa'a Neighborhood Center,
they have a bus stop and the lady sleeps there every day. It has been about three (3)
months. Is there an ordinance right now that nobody...like in Honolulu, they have
an ordinance that you cannot sleep at the bus depot. She has been there a long time.
I park my car there and then when people come to use the bus, they cannot sit down.
She is taking up the area. I am not going against Celia and the Transportation
Agency. I am not going against them. It is just that it has to be done. Do I only have
three (3) minutes, Council Chair Rapozo?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Mr. Freitas: Only three (3) minutes, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes, you have three (3) after that.
Mr. Freitas: Oh, okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: But we will see if there is anyone else wishing
to testify.
Mr. Freitas: Okay. Maybe I will ask these questions to you
rather than right now. Anyway, some residents ask, "How much does it cost to put
up a bus shelter?" How much does that cost? Who is going the job? How much does
it cost?
COUNCIL MEETING 59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, hang on. Is there anyone else wishing
to testify? Okay, if you could just come up. Just stay right there, Jerome. He can
come up right next to you.
Mr. Freitas: Okay.
Mr. Price: Evan Price. I am just curious about the
opportunity that bus passes would be available at farmer's markets maybe at a
specific limited timeframe right at the opening period or at some time. That would
be one (1) option since there is a County representative at the farmer's market
already. That person could be tasked with having bus passes available. For
long-range planning for bus stops, in Washington, D.C., in Seattle, and in bigger cities
they have a bicycle rental like city bikes where they are locked down until you pay a
fee to rent the bike. The next evolution of cycling is actually bicycles for rent without
a lock down stand. There is a Global Positioning System (GPS) and an activation lock
system on a free-standing bike. Those bikes could be placed at bus stops, riders could
get off the bus with an application on their phone, unlock a free-standing bike, ride it
to wherever they want to, the beach, and ride it back. So that type of non-lock down
bicycle system is becoming very popular in some European cities. I think the trend
will progress to where bicycles would be available to ride away from the bus stops
and especially between the hotels and bus stops to eliminate people who stay in hotels
having to rent a car. If they can actually have bicycles at the hotels and ride them to
the bus stops and make that little mini loop, we could eliminate a lot of car
transportation within the core tourist cities and in between. If tourists can ride a
bike to a bus stop and then take a bus to a good destination, same thing up there and
back. For long-term planning, there is technology coming online where we may need
some areas to park bicycles next to a bus stop. So for long-range planning, please just
put that into the back of your minds, that there may be bicycle rental potential
storage and use that would increase ridership and that would decrease traffic
congestion. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify? Seeing none, Jerome, you can have your last three (3) minutes.
Mr. Freitas: Okay. There is a bus stop when you go to
Kapa'a right across Longs Drugs. It is before you reach the marketplace. There is no
bench to sit down and plus it is very dangerous because when they drop-off the people
there on the bus, there is no crosswalk across there. So I think you have to look into
that. I had a lot of calls from the public saying that it is very dangerous. The next
one is...too much I have, right? Like is said, I like the Kaua`i Bus because I used to
use the bus for my mom before. It is really good when people need it. Like I said, you
can use your car and jump on the bus any time you want. It is available there for the
people and I am really happy for that. Then, another one is a lot of the buses—I am
not picking on anybody, but a lot of the buses go over the speed limit. For example,
the speed limit is forty miles per hour (40 MPH) by the golf course. It is very
dangerous for the general public that rides the bus. What else do I have to say? That
is about it. Anyway, I want to thank everybody here. We are here to work together,
not to pick on anybody. Just work together for the best interest of the public, the
people. You serve the people and we have to all work together for the best, like I said,
COUNCIL MEETING 60 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
interest of the people. So I appreciate very much you giving me the opportunity and
you folks have a nice lunch. I am not going pay you. I cannot buy the lunch. I do not
have any money for that. You folks take care.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Jerome.
Mr. Freitas: You are welcome. Bye.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will call the meeting back to
order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: How many are here to testify on the Executive
Session matter? If you could raise your hands, please. I want to try to accommodate
all of you so you do not have to come back after lunch because we are not going to
have a discussion today. It is an Executive Session matter. They are going to read
the item and we are going to go into Executive Session room, but I do want to take
public testimony. If we can do that before 12:45 p.m., we will do that so you do not
have to come back after lunch. If there is no objection by the Members here, let us
recess this item that we are currently on. Jade, can you read us into the Executive
Session just so that we can take public testimony?
There being no objections ES-920 was taken out of order.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
ES-920 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide the Council with
a briefing on Adam Asquith vs. County of Kaua`i Planning Commission, Civil
No. 17-1-0122 (Fifth Circuit Court), and related matters. This briefing and
consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities,
and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
Council Chair Rapozo: Can I get a motion?
Councilmember Kagawa moved to go into Executive Session for ES-920,
seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am worried about the procedure. What did
we do with the Short-Range Transit Plan?
Councilmember Kagawa: We are going to go back to it.
Council Chair Rapozo: We recessed it.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, we moved it?
COUNCIL MEETING 61 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Kagawa: That is right.
Council Chair Rapozo: I want to accommodate the people here...
Councilmember Kagawa: Accommodate the public before lunch.
Councilmember Yukimura: I am not opposed to that.
Councilmember Kagawa: It is a generous move by Council Chair
Rapozo.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: We are going come back to that. It is going to
be a long day, so I just want to make sure that they are not here waiting all day.
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Council Chair Rapozo, I know that our County
Attorney had some words to make on this item in public. I just wanted to say that
we will come back to this item, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Correct.
Councilmember Chock: Okay. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: I just wanted to make sure that we can
accommodate them.
Councilmember Chock: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: If the public wants to wait for Mauna Kea's
discussion, you have to wait until after lunch because we have a 1:30 p.m. public
hearing and we need to obviously break for lunch. If what Mauna Kea has to say may
impact what you want to say, then perhaps you should delay your testimony and let
us just do everything after lunch. However, if you have something to say and you do
not want to stay until 1:30 p.m., then you can speak now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes. I am just trying to accommodate them
because it is going to be a while before we get to this item, I will tell you that. We
still have to finish the transit discussion and we have a public hearing. So I just want
to make sure that the people understand that if you do not testify now, it is going to
be a while. Mauna Kea is here, and what I told Mauna Kea was that if there is
concern about the statements that are made publicly by the public, that I am going
to ask him to come up and clarify, but if not, then I will not. We just want to make
sure that everybody is putting out good information. That is all. Is there anybody
COUNCIL MEETING 62 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
wishing to testify? I will suspend the rules at this time if anyone from the public
wants to come up.
There being objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
BRIDGETT HAMMERQUIST: Good morning, Chair Rapozo, Vice Chair Ross
Kagawa, and Members of Council. My name is Bridget Hammerquist. I would just
like to offer a suggestion having read the complaint that was filed by Mr. Asquith and
having heard a lot of testimony about the General Plan. It seems pretty clear that
the General Plan has been described as a very vague and ambiguous document, not
sufficiently specific to serve as a guide going forward for the next twenty (20) years.
It also omits and fails to cover important areas of concern. As you know, I represent
Friends of Maha`ulepu. I believe it was Marie at the last presentation that noted that
when they sent out the postcards, the one area, for instance, on the South Shore that
got particularly repeated mentions of concerns with Maha`ulepu and yet, it is hardly
mentioned in the plan at all and the proposed industrial dairy for that area is not a
part of the plan whereas other areas where things are not approved are in the plan.
So it is really kind of a deficiency, and I think what Mr. Asquith's complaint is about,
too. He sees that there have not been the steps taken to assure preservation of water
going forward on the long-term and especially once the County takes it upon itself to
borrow and divert water, that is what it is all about. The suggestion I had if the
Council would consider it, I would just offer that there are many communities
throughout the United States now where citizens science and citizen input is being
valued and being found helpful. We do have a lot of members of our community that
are specially trained and are in a place that they can help. They have time to devote.
I know I called Anne Walton yesterday, whom you are aware of and know of. Based
on her experience, I said, "What is the chance for a potential community group to
maybe help the Council and offer an alternative plan? Work on it, give them
something that they can compare with what they have already received, and then
possibly look at this other plan that the community puts forth and try to get the best
of all possible worlds for the County of Kaua`i." She said she thought that was a good
idea. So I would just offer maybe by reaching out. Lawsuits like Mr. Asquith has
filed may be a little bit premature and may actually go away if he receives some
assurance that this is being addressed, being considered, and it would save the
County a lot of money. So that is my idea. Thank you for taking my testimony.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Next person. Anyone
else? Yes, please.
SHARON GOODWIN: Bridget inspires me. My name is Sharon
Goodwin, Wailua Homesteads. I am here again today to speak for our water because
the water cannot speak for itself. The Supreme Court of our State has identified the
Public Trust as the framework for protecting these things; the environment,
traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights including gathering rights and
that of course, is the basis, the heart of Adam Asquith's suit. Then our pertinent
rights; the water rights of kuleana and taro lands; domestic water uses, not municipal
water uses, domestic. I am a municipal water user. Then lastly, but not last, the
reservations for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL). The water that is
required for all of the growth that is suggested in the Lihu`e area and around the
COUNCIL MEETING 63 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
island must first be allocated to the Public Trust needs, and that is where the
Planning Department has failed its trust duties and that is where the Planning
Commission has failed its trust duties.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Ms. Goodwin: Sorry Councilmember Brun is not here and
sorry Councilmember Kagawa just walked out the door, but everyone from the Mayor
on down to Clerks, you all have the responsibility and the duty to protect the Public
Trust. That is the law of our State. If you do not understand what the Public Trust
is, please go online, Google "Kaua`i Springs v. Kaua`i County Public Trust," start
reading, or get online, and start reading Adam Asquith's lawsuit. What is he asking
for? He is asking for you to protect the duty—you have the responsibility, the kuleana,
to protect that Public Trust. It all comes down to all of you and all of us, too. I think
that what we need to do now as a community and I am responsible also for getting
out and helping to educate our community, and that is what I am doing now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on really quick. Is there anyone else
wishing to testify? Seeing none, did you want to continue, ma'am? You can have your
second three (3) minutes.
Ms. Goodwin: Yes. The last time we talked, you told me to
stop, Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I told you stop?
Ms. Goodwin: Yes, because I did not understand what this
meant.
Council Chair Rapozo: Oh.
Ms. Goodwin: So now I understand because I am
experienced now.
Council Chair Rapozo: Well, yes. If there was someone else and you
can reset the time. But if there was someone else wishing to speak, then I would ask
to you step down. But because there is no one else, I am giving you your second
three (3) minutes.
Ms. Goodwin: Alright.
Council Chair Rapozo: I apologize for not explaining that.
Ms. Goodwin: Well, that is awfully sweet of you.
Council Chair Rapozo: You can go ahead.
Ms. Goodwin: Anyway, what the Planning Department did
not do is take the matter of the water requirement under the Public Trust to all of
COUNCIL MEETING 64 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
those entities that I just talked about the DHHL requirements and things like that.
Then, they had to demonstrate that the water required for all of our growth be
allocated to Public Trust needs; that is first and foremost. Then, they have to
demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative water source before approving
development that depends on our stream water, and water that is all captured in
Wailua is all stream water. I understand this because I got taken to the Blue Hole
diversion February 25th this year. I saw the Wailua River stream bed bone-dry. It
was a horrible situation. Many of you need to go there yourselves so you can see for
yourselves. How about it? Council Chair Rapozo, do you want to go? We should go.
Then, the Planning Department must assure that there is no impact to the streams
and other stream users before that water is allocated to development. We need to get
this right. You might all go to an Executive Session meeting with County Attorney
Trask and he might try to convince you to just push away Adam Asquith's lawsuit. I
advise you or I urge you not to do that. Find out the right thing to do and let us do it
right because if that gets pushed away, there will be others like myself. We are right
behind Adam, and we want to see that which should be the Public Trust framework
put in place considered. Okay. Shucks, I even have a few minutes left.
Council Chair Rapozo: You have thirty (30) seconds.
Ms. Goodwin: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you so much.
Ms. Goodwin: Yes. Thank you so much.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, I will call the meeting back to
order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: It is now 12:45 p.m. and I understand and
appreciate your patience, but we will come back at 1:45 p.m. The public hearing is at
1:30 p.m., so let us come back at 1:30 p.m. Sorry, but we are going to cut it short
today. We will be back at 1:30 p.m. for the public hearings.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 12:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:15 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: We are now back on the Short-Range Transit
Plan. If you all could come back up. I will suspend the rules. I believe
Councilmember Yukimura had the floor when we...I am sorry?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
COUNCIL MEETING 65 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Actually Council Chair Rapozo, knowing that
we still have a full agenda for the afternoon, I would like to ask that we defer this
matter to the next Council Meeting, partly because this is a five hundred (500) page
report that we got on Tuesday, as did the public. I, as the Public Safety &
Transportation Committee Chair, would like to go over some of it. I have asked for
over a year now to see a draft and we got it six (6) days ago. If the Council would just
agree to a deferral, I think I can get whatever work I need to get done,
communications with the consultants, and it would be back on the Council agenda in
two (2) weeks. I think there was tremendous outreach, but there is also just a lot of
information and aspects to the plan. I would like to see a little bit more visitor
industry input and some union input on this matter. I would be just contacting them
to make sure that they know that the plan is out on the agenda and see if they have
any more input. So that is all I wanted to say.
Council Chair Rapozo: Members? The next Council Meeting is at the
Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall, we will have the General Plan update as well,
so I am not sure how you want to handle that. Go ahead, Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I can support the deferral. I understand the
Committee Chair's request and interest in reviewing the document further. I am
fairly comfortable with the work that has been done and I really appreciate the depth
of looking at this plan. But as courtesy, I would be willing to support this.
Councilmember Yukimura: Council Chair Rapozo, given the fact that
there is that public hearing on the General Plan, I would not mind if it goes to the
18th. I think the schedule that the consultants had did have final approval slated
sometime in October, right?
Ms. Barone: I believe we originally were looking at the
transportation sub-committee on October 11th and then final approval in early
November.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, so their timetable is not being curtailed.
Actually, I mean, if you want to put it in the Public Safety & Transportation
Committee for the 11th, that is fine, too.
Council Chair Rapozo: What is your availability as far as the
consultant?
Ms. Barone: I know that Tim Payne, who was unable to be
here today, he had the dates blocked off, I believe October 11th and I think
November 4th is the Council Meeting day we kind of had in mind. I would have to
check with him about the alternative dates and check my schedule as well.
Council Chair Rapozo: And cost? Is this all part of the contract or do
you folks have x amount of trips that you can come to Kaua`i?
Ms. Barone: Yes, we had those trips included, so that is
fine.
COUNCIL MEETING 66 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: I feel like Councilmember Chock. I am
comfortable with the plan and ready to approve it today. I hope that in this time that
we defer it, I think Councilmember Yukimura was the only one that had significant
questions. Perhaps her meeting with the consultant and the Transportation Agency
can answer a lot of the questions with individual meetings. I would say that would
save a lot of time going into the next meeting because the questions are only coming
from one (1) person. Why not work individually and see if some agreements can be
made on some of her points? I think that would be more helpful instead of just asking
all of the questions during the meeting. So it is good that we have time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: I think I am okay with the plan just because
this is the very first time that we have had a consultant reach out to us, I think
three (3) or four (4) times every step of the way. After every meeting, there was an
opportunity for us to give them their concerns if there were any questions. So we
utilized that opportunity to get a lot of those questions answered. If everything is
going to be okay as far as scheduling, then I am okay with it as well. But I would like
to point out that there was tremendous opportunities. I think consultants should
look at the way that you folks have operated as far as transparency, effective
communication, being very open, and take a note from your work. Thank you.
Ms. Barone: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I feel the same way. I am very confident in
what they have done. They practically held our hand the entire way through. It is
not like it is the first time we have seen the presentation or heard what they are
trying to do. But again, I am open to whatever the body wants if you want to push it
out for more questions. I know the document was a huge document, but in general, I
am okay with the plan.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. I am prepared to vote on it today,
obviously. I will echo what Councilmember Kawakami said. It got to the point when
Wilma called me to say, "The transportation consultants want to meet with you
again," I was like, "What? We just met." Every time we met, it was just very
informative and basically, I want you folks to start moving on this plan. Like I said
earlier today, I criticized the Department quite a bit over the years because of
efficiencies that I felt could have been done better. I look at the plan and I believe all
of my concerns were addressed in this dialogue in this period of time. I mean, how
long has it been since you started? I do not remember.
Ms. Barone: I think the SRTP has been about a year, a
little over a year now.
COUNCIL MEETING 67 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: It has been a long, long process and numerous
meetings. So, I am ready to move forward today. But again, Councilmember
Yukimura is our Public Safety & Transportation Committee Chair. I think she
deserves the courtesy of having that deferral. But I would ask that you do meet with
them prior. I do not want to have a long drawn-out debate at the next meeting.
Really, if we can get it out and give the public an opportunity to chime in again, and
then we can take the vote and you folks can get to work because I think it is
important, knowing that the significant changes or substantive changes, fares and
those things, have to come back to this body at some point. Right now is really getting
the foundation set and the process moving forward. I am anxious for that to happen.
Are there any other questions for the Administration before I release them? Okay.
Thank you very much.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Now, what would you prefer, Councilmember
Yukimura?
Councilmember Yukimura: I think it would be complicated if we do it on
the 4th, so if we could defer to the 18th. If you prefer to go to Committee, that is okay
with me, but the 18th is a Council Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: Jade, what are we looking at?
Councilmember Yukimura: I do not anticipate that there will be a lot more
discussion at the Council Meeting.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I appreciate the time. I do concur that the
outreach to the Council has been tremendous.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have been at every one of the meetings with
them and some of the issues that I have raised are not yet resolved.
Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead.
Councilmember Kagawa: My suggestion is that if you have
amendments that you would want to make to the plan, then we go to Committee,
because any amendment that you propose may not have the necessary support that
you may assume you have. But if it is just to review it and make sure that there are
no surprises that you did not foresee when you review it, then I can see just going to
Council because you do not anticipate amendments. But if you see amendments
coming forth, then I would say let us to go Committee and let us bang out the work
in Committee as we should.
COUNCIL MEETING 68 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. I will ask to refer to the Committee on
the 11th, and I do not anticipate a lot of amendments. It depends on how I am shown
that it is already been incorporated or how it has been addressed. But that has not
yet been resolved.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Just a clarification question. Is the
amendment is on the actual plan or is the amendment on the Resolution?
Councilmember Yukimura: It would be on the Resolution.
Council Chair Rapozo: The only thing we would be able to amend
would be the Resolution. I guess my suggestion is that Councilmembers that have
questions or concerns meet with the consultant and the Administration, come up with
whatever you want to see changed, and then have your amendments to the Resolution
prepared or ready to go on the 11th.
Councilmember Yukimura: Very good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Remember now, going forward, we are going
to be competing with General Plan discussions as well.
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: But I think it is fair that we have our
opportunity to clarify questions that we have. With that, I know the motion is...we
did not make a motion. Councilmember, did you want to make a motion to refer?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair Rapozo, we have a motion to
approve on the floor.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Can somebody withdraw their motion?
Councilmember Kaneshiro withdrew the motion for adoption of Resolution
No. 2017-48. Councilmember Chock withdrew the second.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay.
Councilmember Yukimura: I think a motion to refer has precedence.
Councilmember Yukimura moved to refer Resolution No. 2017-48 to the
October 11, 2017 Public Safety & Transportation Committee Meeting,
seconded by Councilmember Kagawa.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Thank you. Is there any further
discussion? Mr. Taylor, did you want to speak on this? I will suspend the rules for
public testimony.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
COUNCIL MEETING 69 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
KEN TAYLOR: Council Chair Rapozo and Members of the
Council, Ken Taylor. A couple of things. The paratransit activity of the system is a
beautiful program for the island, but it is about ten percent (10%) of the total
operation and about forty percent (40%) of the cost. I raised some issues sometime
back to the bus company about some misuse of paratransit and they said, "Well, we
are going to look at it sometime in a couple of years." But with the cost being forty
percent (40%) of the total operation, it seems to me that any misuse should be front
and center on taking a look at and moving forward. So I bring that up, hopefully,
that you can get this clarified and straightened out. The other thing is I just wanted
to read a quote from Professor Moore at the University of Southern California (USC),
who has been working on public transportation issues for well over twenty (20) years.
He says, "It is not the dream of every bus rider to arrive in a bus that is on-time,
air-conditioned, and cleaned where a seat was always available. It is the dream of
every bus rider to own a car and as soon as they can afford one, that is the first
purchase they make." I raise this issue because in the General Plan, we are looking
at solving some of the congestion problems by getting people in the bus. That is only
possible if you eliminate the high price of free parking. You can get people to get out
of their automobiles if they have to pay a high price to park when they get where they
are going. You have an opportunity to put a higher fuel tax in place. As the cost of
operating the car goes up, more people will park and use public transportation. I hope
that you keep these things in mind as we move forward not only with this issue, but
with the General Plan. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. With that, I will call
the meeting back to order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: The motion is to refer to the October 11th
Public Safety & Transportation Committee Meeting.
The motion to refer Resolution No. 2017-48 to the October 11, 2017 Public
Safety & Transportation Committee Meeting was then put, and carried by a
vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Brun was excused).
Council Chair Rapozo: Motion carried. Thank you very much. Can
we have the next item, please?
BILLS FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2668) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2017-822, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CAPITAL
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2018, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE BOND FUND (2017 Bond Issuance Projects - $25,750,000.00):
Councilmember Kagawa moved for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2668) on first
reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
COUNCIL MEETING 70 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
October 18, 2017, and referred to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Is there
any public testimony?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
There being no one present to provide testimony, the meeting was called back
to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Seeing none, roll call.
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2668) on first reading, that
it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
October 18, 2017, and referred to the Budget & Finance Committee was then
put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kawakami, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Brun TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes and one (1) excused.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item.
BILL FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2661 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16
OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
TRAFFIC CODE: Councilmember Kagawa moved to approve Bill No. 2661, on second
and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by
Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any discussion? Is there any public
testimony? Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes. I want to thank you, Council Chair
Rapozo, for having this. This is to remove the bus stops, right?
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Move the public school bus stop responsibility
to the State. Based on a meeting you had with some of the representatives from
O`ahu, they suggested this change. They said that bus stop needs for students are
ever-changing, and by moving in function to the State, which runs the school and the
school buses, that we would have more flexibility and efficiency for the school bus
COUNCIL MEETING 71 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
stops. I want to thank Council Chair Rapozo for instituting this change and
hopefully, we will have more efficient bus stops going forward. Thank you, Council
Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. As the State reached out, they
needed some help. We are the only island that the whole bus stop process for the
school bus had to go through County, through the Department of Public Works, we
had to send an engineer out, and then we would get a Resolution; whereas in all of
the other Counties, the Department of Education or the Transportation Department
of the State would determine based on demographics of the school. So when a
demographic of a school changed, they could move the school bus without having to
come back to Council to amend the Resolution. It is just one of those things we should
have caught a long time and I am glad that the State reached out. Thank you very
much. It will just make everything work a lot better. Is there any other discussion?
Seeing none, roll call.
The motion to approve Bill No. 2661 on second and final reading, and that it be
transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kawakami, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Brun TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes and one (1) excused.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next item.
ES-918 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide the Council with
a briefing and request for authority to settle the case of Bruce R. Chapin vs. County
of Kaua`i, et al., Civil No. 13-1-0160 (Fifth Circuit Court, State of Hawai`i), and
related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of powers,
duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they
relate to this agenda item.
ES-919 Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 92-4 and
92-5(a)(4), and Kaua`i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County
Attorney requests an Executive Session with the Council to provide the Council with
a briefing and request for authority to settle the case of Carlos K. Lopez vs. Pacific
Concrete, Cutting & Coring, Inc. vs. County of Kaua`i, Civil No. 14-1-0164 (Fifth
Circuit Court, State of Hawai`i), and related matters. This briefing and consultation
involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities
of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
COUNCIL MEETING 72 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: ES-920 was read earlier. Did you need that
read again?
Councilmember Kagawa: No.
Council Chair Rapozo: No, we already had that one.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to convene in Executive Session for
ES-918 and ES-919, seconded by Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Is there any
discussion?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Council Chair Rapozo, we do have registered
speakers for ES-920.
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. Are there any for ES-918? Is there any
public testimony for ES-919? Okay. Can you call the first one? I will suspend the
rules.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended to take public testimony.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registered speaker for ES-920 is
Anne Frederick.
Councilmember Kagawa: I have a process question.
Council Chair Rapozo: Yes.
Councilmember Kagawa: Are we going to get Mauna Kea's briefing
before public testimony, or are we going to let the public testify first and then hear
what Mauna Kea has to say?
Councilmember Yukimura: We should have Mauna Kea first.
Council Chair Rapozo: Mauna Kea, the rules are suspended.
Councilmember Kagawa: I just wanted to avoid where he said
something and then they are going to want to come back, but we could have actually
done it this way first.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Again just as a process, this matter is
currently in litigation. The County has received a civil complaint, therefore, the
Councilmembers are prohibited from discussing any of these matters in open session.
The public testimony obviously, is available for all of the members of the public who
want to testify. I understand. I think most of you, if not all of you, read the complaint
and I think we heard the concerns loud and clear in the earlier session. This is an
COUNCIL MEETING 73 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
opportunity for the public to discuss. Again, just keep in mind that the Members are
not allowed, at this point anyway, to discuss the lawsuit. But Mauna Kea does have
a presentation, I presume.
Mr. Trask: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Mauna Kea
Trask, County Attorney. Going into this agenda item, I was speaking to
Councilmember Chock just about the subject matter. We are not going to talk about
the case and the current position or the litigation that we are in. Today, there was a
request to talk about just the facts of the draft General Plan and how the Public Trust
is addressed currently. What I am going to do today is just a presentation of actual
excerpts from the General Plan where the Public Trust is discussed. It is not that
long. I am just going to stick to that and then we can answer any questions about the
case itself in the Executive Session Chambers. But this is just to clarify some
misconceptions right now regarding the alleged lack of the Public Trust being
addressed through the General Plan and to really get people interested in reading
the plan itself, and learning what is in it for themselves. So just real briefly, to clear
up, as you know, Kaua`i Springs was mentioned earlier today. I just want to state
again for the record, every time Kaua`i Springs comes up, the Office of the County
Attorney reminds everyone that Kaua`i Springs stands for basically that the County
of Kaua`i knows what the Public Trust is. The County of Kaua`i, in fact, protects the
Public Trust and got sued protecting the Public Trust. In this case, a private
commercial water bottling company was seeking permits and in front of the Planning
Commission and then the Planning Commission said, "You did not fulfill your
burden" and did give them permits. We were sued for that and we won. Under that
case, the County held that the applicants must affirmatively approve that a proposed
private use will not affect the protected use. The agencies in this case, the Planning
Commission's inquiry into the applicant's legal standing and compliance with other
agencies' process was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious because under the
Public Trust Doctrine, the Planning Commission had a duty to protect the public
water resource for future generations. So the County of Kaua`i, our client, did not
abrogate the Public Trust in that case. To give us a little orientation regarding what
the General Plan is, Kaua`i County Code (KCC) Section 7-1.2 states the purpose of
the General Plan. Now the General Plan, this is under KCC 7-12(b), the General
Plan states the County's vision for Kaua`i and establishes strategies for achieving
that vision. The strategies are expressed in terms of policies and implementing
actions, and they may be augmented and changed as new strategies are developed.
Section 7-1.2(c), the General Plan is a direction-setting policy document. It is not
intended to be regulatory. It is intended to be a guide for future amendments to land
regulations and to be considered in reviewing specific zoning amendments and
development applications. I just wanted to make that clear. This plan does not
allocate any water. This plan does not act on any entitlements. This plan is a policy
document. It is not regulatory. It is not intended to be. Really, under the law, it is
not. Moving on. We will just get to it.
The General Plan, this is from page 24. This kind of sets up how the General
Plan is. This General Plan seeks to be really accessible, it appears. There are a lot
of graphs in it and starting one here in Section 1.1.3.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can we put it in focus, please?
COUNCIL MEETING 74 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Trask: The theme of the General Plan, Kaua`i Kakou,
acknowledges Kaua`i's strength lies in a strong diverse community and ability to work
together to provide a better future.
Council Chair Rapozo: Is that it?
Mr. Trask: This is about the General Plan structure. It
is a planning document and it is technical in that regard. We suggest when you read
this plan, read it with an open mind to learn. It does not read like an article or a
novel. It is a planning document. It is a little technical. So it is an opportunity to
check other styles out. The plan's framework, we are right over here, represents
Kaua`i's approach to managing future growth and unifies the visions and goals,
policies, objectives and actions, and maps.
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as present.)
Mr. Trask: The General Plan framework is illustrated in
Figure 1-2. The five (5) elements of the framework are described as follows: the vision
and goals. The vision and goals are aspirational in nature. They describe Kaua`i's
ideal and desired state by the year 2035. The vision for Kaua`i is organized by four (4)
overarching goals identified through the community process. This is Figure 1-2. This
is the concentric circles of planning process in the General Plan. It starts with the
four (4) goals and visions, it goes to the nineteen (19) policies, and then the ten (10)
objectives and actions. Let us move on.
So these are the visions and goals. This is on page 32. Goal number one is a
sustainable island; growing responsibly to meet the needs of current and future
generations without depleting the resource. Under goal number one, right here,
Kauai is a sustainable island rooted in principles of aloha and malama aina, and
remarkable in its thriving ecosystems. Kaua`i is a place where conservation and
restoration of land and water resources, provide the foundation of sustainable policies
for land use, energy, infrastructure, society, and economy. Goal number two...
Councilmember Yukimura: Are you going to read all of them?
Mr. Trask: Yes. Goal number two, a beautiful place. I
think it is necessary only because, and forgive me, but it just seems that this is an
opportunity to educate people on what it does say regarding the Public Trust. I am
afraid if this is not read on the record right now, there is going to be accusations that
it is not there. There are twenty-three (23) slides here, and if you do not want to
proceed with this, I can say it is clear from the document...
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, if you just read the four (4) main goals,
that is fine.
Mr. Trask: Well no, but the Public Trust is actually cited
verbatim on page 33 under goal number one.
Councilmember Yukimura: Well, that...
COUNCIL MEETING 75 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, hang on. That is why I kind of wanted
to have the public testimony first, that way if you needed to clarify any misstatements
you could do so.
Mr. Trask: Oh, okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Right now, we are going to go through
twenty (20) pages of General Plan discussions that I would really rather not. I know
it is what came first, "the chicken or the egg?" But I think we cannot discuss the
elements of the case, obviously.
Mr. Trask: I understand. That is fine. If that is the
Council's request, I am abide by it. Believe me, it saves me the time of sitting here
and reading. But I just want to say in regards to the "chicken or the egg problem," I
always say whenever that comes up, the Kumulipo makes it clear that the egg came
first. So I am just afraid it is never an opportune time to read these things. I just do
not think in hearing what we are hearing, anyone is actually reading this plan. If
not now, when? I am happy to wait after the public testimony to address any
misconceptions, just to say the General Plan is peppered with the Public Trust
Doctrine. It seeks to protect it in the overarching goals, in fact, it is the primary
overarching goal for this plan. It is in the policies and also in the action sectors.
Council Chair Rapozo: I think from what we heard already today and
what we have seen in E-mails is the appearance that the General Plan does not
address Public Trust and the General Plan does not address the watersheds. If you
read all of the E-mails, to me, it is basically the public has this impression that the
General Plan makes no mention of our preservation of water and the Public Trust.
As I read ahead in your presentation here, I see some specific issues or areas that
address that. I would ask if you could go to those and not the General Plan discussion,
but more so in the General Plan policy number twelve, protect our watersheds.
Mr. Trask: I will do just two (2) more.
Council Chair Rapozo: I would hope that you could do them all, but
in a very condensed...
Mr. Trask: Yes, I understand. What I am going to do is I
am going to go to goal number one. We are going to see that right here, it states the
2000 General Plan, which is the existing one, broke ground towards recognizing
sustainability goals for the County. But this General Plan is the first to adopt it as
an overarching goal. Then, it goes on to say sustainable development does not
endanger the natural systems that support life, air, soil, and living organisms. Next
page states right here, talking about goal number two, unique and beautiful place.
This area, second paragraph. There is a shared belief that applying traditional
Hawaiian concepts of resource management such as the ahupua a system can help to
develop and support a cultural stewardship on Kaua`i. In addition, there is a
recognition of a need to protect the Public Trust resources provided special protection
to Article 11 of the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i, which states, "For the benefit
of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall
COUNCIL MEETING 76 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
conserve and protect Hawai`i's natural beauty and all resources including land,
water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and
utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in
furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources are held
in trust by the State for the benefit of all people." It goes on to say, "The General Plan
identifies those resources and qualities in need of stewardship, identifies issues and
challenges, and sets forth policies that strengthen, uphold, or support their
protection. The Heritage Resources Sector identified special resources in need."
Moving on from there. Real briefly just to go over policy number twelve. Policy
twelve of the General Plan is specifically oriented to protect our watersheds. In short,
it states to, "Act with understanding that forests, biodiversity, and water resources
are fragile and interconnected." The goal of that policy is to restore and protect our
watershed from mauka to makai. There are some really good statements there.
Going on to Sector 1. Chapter 3 is the Sectors, Actions by Sectors. Sector 1 is,
in fact, the watershed. It goes on to perpetuating wisdom of Native Hawaiian
watershed management. It talks about the ahupua'a system right here. Again, I do
not want to belabor the point, but really take the opportunity to read this plan. It
talks about Wao Nahele, the upper watershed and the objective of that to conserve
the upper watershed and restore native habitat and forested areas. Identifies
partnership needs. As you know, the County does not regulate the allocation of water
resources. It is done by the State level by the Commission of Water Resource
Management within the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). So this
is really important. In order to effectuate this goal, we have to work with partners.
Two, kahawai; the middle watershed, drainage, and freshwater resources. The
objective to protect, restore, and enhance freshwater resources to support aquatic,
environmental, and cultural resources; and to recognize and mitigate impacts from
the built environmental in the mid-watershed area. Kaua`i has basically three (3)
watersheds; the mountains, in the middle, and makai down by the beach.
It has a really good graphic about the aquifer sectors on Kaua`i and sustainable
yields in millions of gallons per day according to scientific studies conducted.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as not present.)
Mr. Trask: Really look at that if the Public Trust
resources and water concern you. This is a really good section to understand. Then,
it goes into protecting the drainage system and water quality. Protecting perennial
streams and instream flow. Instream flow standards are a big issue. The General
Plan acknowledges and embraces those duties and responsibilities thereunder. Also
talking about utilizing community partnerships and water management. It was
mentioned earlier by a testifier that the community should be folded in. The General
Plan recognizes that. It promotes it, actually.
We go on to domestic water. The objective in this Section is to ensure water
infrastructure is planned to accommodate domestic needs and to protect the Public
Trust, going through reconciling water supply and infrastructure, improving system
COUNCIL MEETING 77 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
reliability and addressing growth always within balance because of the overarching
goal of sustainability. This is more text on that. Then, enhancing water conservation.
This is a very important section as well. It talks about even though there is ample
water on Kaua`i, achieving delivery systems to get that water has become an issue
and really looking at irrespective of the fact that there is a lot of water within the
island, nonetheless, taking action to conserve water with what we have so as not to
use anymore or use it carelessly. I am almost done. Going into implementation of
monitoring of the plan. This is the action portion or the practice part of the plan.
This is really to improve, identifying shortcomings in the 2000 General Plan, and
trying to improve it in this one. Here, it is talking about monitoring progress and
methods to do that. Looking at, again, ways to improve from the 2000 General Plan.
This is the objectives section. Real briefly, Sections 9 and 10 are pertinent to
our discussion today. 9, to conserve the upper watershed and restore native habitat
and forested areas; and 10, to protect, restore, and enhance freshwater resources to
support aquatic environmental and cultural resources. Including in this on 10, is the
draft measure of increase in freshwater capacity by one hundred
million (100,000,000) gallons a day. That would be into the streams. I think this
would be something that would resonate from with what you are all currently
hearing. Going also to item 27, right here. To ensure water infrastructure is planned
to accommodate domestic needs and, of course, to protect the Public Trust. That is
really looking at...housing is needed, everyone can agree. But of course, housing
requires water. When you do that, you have to enter into the Public Trust discussion
and analysis, and make sure it is a reasonable beneficial use and done appropriately.
So looking at these issues and really looking at them and evaluating them
appropriately. That is really how the body of the General Plan treats this issue. Then
also going into the appendices. The General Plan is broken up into the main body and
appendices. The appendices are extremely important and I do not want anyone to
skip those either. The appendices are good because it discusses—going into the
objective section of the appendices, it talks right here, about the watershed. To
conserve watershed areas and restore native habitat in forested areas. 1, 2, 3, and 4
are all in-line with the Public Trust and discuss preservation, protecting, enhancing
coastal resources, public access, and protecting flora and fauna. Also, in the critical
infrastructure section, to ensure water infrastructure is planned to accommodate
domestic needs and protect Public Trust, mitigate impact on Kaua`i's freshwater and
ocean water from wastewater. Heritage resources, too. Native Hawaiian culture is
always folded into the Public Trust because of the relationship between the people
and the wai. So, that is addressed here.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Mr. Trask: To recognize and protect the resources and
places important to Kaua`i's history and people, and also scenic resources and
important landmarks. Really in brief, that is the Public Trust in the General Plan.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any questions for Mr. Trask?
Councilmember Kagawa.
COUNCIL MEETING 78 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Kagawa: In a nutshell for the general public that is not
familiar with the case, what is the lawsuit alleging that the County is liable for?
Mr. Trask: I am just going to read from the complaint.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, in a nutshell. Is it saying that we did not
give him water or what is it?
Mr. Trask: Well, the complaint in paragraph four, and
this is public document, just states, "the Kaua`i County Planning Department
applicant demonstrate that their expansion of..." well, they said that the Planning
Commission failed to require the Planning Department to demonstrate that their
expansion of residential and commercial zoning in the General Plan update and its
associated ground and surface water usage will have no impact or mitigated impact
on protected Public Trust uses. Therefore, they have breached their Public Trust
duties. It praised that the Court—this is in press release ordered the defendant, in
this case, the County, to fulfill their trust duties by protecting the waters of Kaua`i
from misappropriation by the Planning Commission through the plan and that the
Commission be enjoined from approving and forwarding the General Plan to the
Council for adoption as law until the trust responsibilities have been fulfilled. That
is it.
Councilmember Kagawa: Okay, that is good.
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Thank you, Mauna Kea, for the
presentation. We received some testimony from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)
and in its last paragraph, it suggests some specifics that I wanted to just kind of
throw out there in terms of how you would see it integrated into the plan. It says,
"OHA recommends that the Council consider including specific provisions that
express the condition of future growth on the number one, the prior implementation
of updated instream flow standards and monitoring plan for any surface water
sources that are needed for any permitted project or development when there is
reasonable possibility that Public Trust purposes are or may be harmed; number two,
ground and surface water management area designation for any aquifer area where
new or expanded water sources will need to be developed when there is a reasonable
possibility of harm to public trust purposes in either ground or surface waters; and
number three, the explicit application and execution of the framework of analysis put
forward by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in Kaua`i Springs, prior to the issuance of any
permit or other discretionary approval by the County Planning Department,
Planning Commission, or County Council." So these are the recommendations that
came from OHA in terms of this protection. This came in through testimony. I do
not know if you folks got that, but I did. I just was wondering. It seems to me that
part of what I am hearing in the testimony that happened before lunch was really
housed in some of these specifics. I was wondering if those specifics would be okay to
look at these types of inclusions as related to what it is you presented.
COUNCIL MEETING 79 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Mr. Trask: Again, the General Plan is a policy document.
It creates kind of like a thought process and an evaluative procedure with which you
can make decisions, which with the Mayor and Planning Commission can make those
decisions. As far as those evaluative criterion, I believe that those are taken from
Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) 174(c), which is the State Water Code, which again,
I discussed sea worm. In that this is a policy document, you are going to have to ask
yourself, "Is this appropriate to require every single legal criteria that a State agency
would have to go through when it sets it as the overarching goal of sustainability and
protection of Public Trust?" That is something that you are going to have to ask
yourself. It is a policy document.
Council Chair Rapozo: Are there any other questions for Mr. Trask?
If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Trask: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, who is the first registered speaker?
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The first registered speaker is Anne
Frederick, followed by Don Heacock.
Council Chair Rapozo: For those of you that are here for the first
time, that little light bar will start when you start. The green will go on, when you
see yellow, it will be thirty (30) seconds, and then when it goes red, your time is up.
You have three (3) minutes and you will have a second opportunity for three (3)
minutes after everyone else has gone.
ANNE FREDERICK: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon,
Councilmembers. My name is Anne Frederick. I am a resident of Anahola and I am
here today on behalf of the Hawai`i Alliance for Progressive Action to provide
testimony regarding agenda item ES-920. At the heart of this complaint is an
assertion that the Planning Commission did not fulfill its obligations in protecting
the Public Trust resources in its review of the Kaua`i General Plan. According to
Hawai`i State Constitution, "For the benefit of present and future generations, the
State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawai`i's natural
beauty and all natural resources including land, water, air, minerals and energy
sources." The complaint going on to cite the affirmative duty of the State and its
political subdivisions, to take the Public Trust into account and the planning and
allocation of water resources and to protect Public Trust whenever feasible. The
Plaintiffs complaint raises concerns about how the proposed future development in
the General Plan will impact public trust resources. But also, the complaint cites
current violations of the Public Trust that are not being addressed. We, too, are
concerned that the Kaua`i General Plan is not taking into consideration the Public
Trust rights or the importance of addressing issues related to water diversions,
specifically at the north fork of the Wailua River. The current diversions at the north
fork of the Wailua River are designed to take one hundred percent (100%) of the base
stream flow. As the complaint states, this wholesale diversion of base flow decimates
stream resources and beneficial instream uses. These diversions leaves the stream
virtually dry below their diversions under normal base flow conditions. Consistent
COUNCIL MEETING 80 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
mauka to makai base flows are critical to sustain native stream and nearshore
marine ecosystems among other public trust purposes. We strongly support the
Council taking action to ensure that the Kaua`i General Plan reflects and enforces
Public Trust rights by addressing these water diversion issues. Thank you for your
consideration.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Next.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Don Heacock, followed by Ken Taylor.
DON HEACOCK: Aloha Council Chair Rapozo and Members of
the Council. Sorry I have not seen you for a long time. I did hand out my written
comments, so I will just summarize them right now for time.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Heacock: As Mauna Kea pointed out, the General Plan
is only a guide. Sorry, Don Heacock. It is only a guide. It is not an explicit action
plan on how to build a sustainable Kaua`i. That is what we need. Many of us have
argued this, not argued, but suggested this at two (2) previous General Plan updates.
I know you, like myself, we are public servants. We do the best we can to help this
island, the species we love, and the people we love. Right now, our basic problem is
that the current planning system allows land use planning to precede water use
planning. Water is our most limited natural resource. It is literally life. Water is
life. Waiola. Limited water, limited life. Altered water, altered life. We are also now
using the California model. We have been for a long time, where we divert water
from one (1) watershed to bring it over to another watershed. That model does not
work. California is already in some of the biggest lawsuits you have ever seen over
water. We need to step back and truly take the ahupua a integrated water resource
management, community-based management system that was created here five
hundred fifty (550) years ago with the ahupua a. Ironically, Oregon adopted it in
1993 and they have over three hundred fifty (350) watershed councils. Their budget
every year to improve watershed resources, trap, and get rid of invasive feral species
is one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) a year. I had this conversation with
my boss, Governor Ige, just two (2) weeks ago. He is proposing two million
dollars ($2,000,000) to protect our watersheds. Oregon has one hundred fifty million
dollars ($150,000,000)every year to do that there. They have a handful of endangered
species and we have one hundred seventy (170). Whoops, that means I have how
much time? So look at my action items in there. I pointed out specific action items.
Change the current system to require that water use planning precede land use
planning, prohibit inner basin in our watershed moment of water, and prohibit no
more than fifty percent (50%) of the base flows of streams to be diverted, and establish
watershed councils that once were established here five hundred (500) years ago so
that we truly have community-based management.
Council Chair Rapozo: Don, you can come up again for a second
three (3) minutes.
Mr. Heacock: Okay. Thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING 81 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Ken Taylor, followed by Felicia Cowden.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ken.
Mr. Taylor: Chair and Members of the Council, Ken
Taylor. It looks like I have to be the skunk in the room. I truly believe that
Councilmember Kaneshiro has a conflict of interest in water issues due to his
employment with Grove Farm Company and their extensive activity in water on the
island. I think he should excuse himself from this item. I will save other comments
until later. I do agree with a lot of the comments that the previous speaker made.
Without taking up a lot more time, he addressed some of my concerns and issues. I
will leave it at that. But I really do believe that Councilmember Kaneshiro should
step away from this issue. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Felicia Cowden, followed by Anne Walton.
FELICIA COWDEN: Felicia Cowden, for the record. One of my
roles, as you know, is a community affairs host on Kaua`i Community Radio. I say I
feel like the complaint department for the island. In the eight (8) or more years that
I have had that role, very consistently is deep discord over water management issues.
Powerful and passionate feelings often ending up in criminal court. This plan does
not seem to be specific and direct enough in terms of the Public Trust Doctrine
relative to making sure, for example, in Maha`ulepu, that we do not contaminate that
water source. We have watched work happen in Waimea. Wailua is a huge issue. I
am sorry...I am thinking how to say it simply. Please look at this very carefully. I
am glad this has come up before that the plan is really completed so that it just puts
an extra emphasis for why we need to give it a really hard look and make sure that
the water issue is adequately addressed, and it does not really like it is yet. If what
we have now is what we have had, it has not been enough. The State is not over here
enough to really have any idea of what is going on and keeping the waters flowing
down the rivers, like Waimea River did not have it water. Wailua River does not have
all of its water. We really do need to fix it in order to be respecting the community.
It is a very strong issue and just give it a very hard look. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Anne Walton.
Council Chair Rapozo: Hi, Anne.
ANNE WALTON: Good afternoon, Council Chair Rapozo and
Councilmembers. Thank you for hearing my testimony this afternoon. I am one of
the people who have actually read the plan, all two hundred eighty-eight (288) pages
of it, as well as all eight (8) other versions of the plan. I have spent a career in policy
planning and natural resource management. With all due respect to Mauna Kea,
COUNCIL MEETING 82 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
maybe it is implicit in the plan that natural resource management is an integral part
of the plan, but it is not explicit in the plan.Very specifically, I provided thirty-six (36)
pages of comments on the last version of the plan to the County Council for your last
meeting and I identified in my comments that there are at the least six (6) different
areas where we should have addressed the Public Trust Doctrine more explicitly.
That is in the area of watersheds, infrastructure, agriculture, heritage resources,
housing, and more than any other area future land uses. In no way is it explicitly
addressed in the plan pertaining to the actions in the plan. Yes, it is said to be a
policy document, but it gets very specific in terms of the actions and those actions
have implications. I suggest that since this is the last stop for the plan, that you all
take a careful look at how it is not addressed in these six (6) areas, and ensure that
those corrections are made however you see best to do so. Thank you for your
attention.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Anne. Is there anyone else
wishing to testify for the first time?
DEBBIE LEE JACKSON: Aloha Council Chair Rapozo and
Councilmembers, Debbie Lee Jackson. The proposed Kaua`i General Plan denies my
rights to Public Trust water. I hate to be redundant, but I feel what I have to say is
pretty much what I have heard today. It denies my rights to Public Trust water and
also denies my right to Native Hawaiian participating in traditional and customary
gathering rights. I support Adam Asquith's complaint and I urge the Council to take
action to ensure that the Kaua`i General Plan reflects the Constitutional Public Trust
rights and Hawaiian rights for now and in the future. I do appreciate in the vision
and goals, as Mauna Kea had presented, that sustainability is very important and
the Public Trust and Native Hawaiian rights are very important. But I did not see it
mentioned in the plan. I also feel that my personal issue in this is that I live in
Hule`ia Valley and Hule`ia River has been diverted one hundred percent (100%),
especially during this time when during summer time, the water gets very warm and
the ecosystem is devastated. The flow is not good and there is not enough flow to
come through the ancient ditch. There is not enough water flow to come through my
taro patches and so the taro dies. But again, I am hoping for our rights now and
especially in the future for my grandchildren and their grandchildren. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else for the first time?
HOPE KALLAI: Aloha. Hope Kallai. You folks have a big task
in front of you, not only Adam's lawsuit, but the County General Plan. I would like
to address some "meat and potatoes" about something that links all of them together,
and that was Mauna Kea's beautiful map of the groundwater aquifers and all of that
pink area there that has a sustainable yield—water—that the future development of
our County is based on in this General Plan. Sustainable yield is groundwater well
yield. Our water use now—I believe we have about thirty-three thousand (33,000)
water meters and fifteen thousand (15,000) of those are dependent on the surface
water treatment plant. That is not considered in the General Plan. Leaving that out
of the discussion is part of the Public Trust violation that I believe Adam is talking
about here. How can you make a decision based on development if you do not know
where your water is going to come from? If all you are talking about is well water
COUNCIL MEETING 83 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
and right now we are using half surface water, leaving that out of the discussion
means the plan is junk. How can you base any future on an unstable foundation like
that? It is not that the County General Plan totally left out the words "Public Trust"
out of the document, it is the particulars were not addressed. To me, you really need
to specify how much of future development in this County is going to be based on
groundwater versus surface water and the legality of that surface water use before
our decisions are made. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify for
the first time?
(Councilmember Kawakami was noted as not present.)
TIM KALLAI: Aloha, Council. Tim Kallai, for the record.
You have heard a lot of great testimony today, I am sure from quite a few people in
regards to the Public Trust, in particular, water. I, too, find that it is very important
that we review all that has been presented before you by everyone with the facts and
knowledge that we need to keep in mind as we move forward in future times. Two (2)
things that pop out to me always in the course of this—yes, the State is the grand
overseer of that particular resource for the public, but when they fall short of knowing
or seeing, or even trying to help the public as we try to make presentations to them,
that is the State, about certain issues that are confronting us and we find detrimental
or deleterious to our lifestyle here, when they fall short of enforcing or even managing
the aspects of those particular resources, I then do feel that it should be the County's
responsibility to pick up where they fall short. That is once again the intertying of
how we deal with dealing as you taking the office on behalf of us, the beneficiaries, to
make sure there is accountability as well as a decent enforcement capacity to help
with that. I think that is where things in the past have fallen a little bit short and
have created certain issues for us as we are facing these times now. As we are moving
forward, we do know and it has been projected that weather patterns are going to be
changing and not necessarily for the betterment, meaning with water or the source
coming down as much as it is. With that in mind, is this General Plan or do the
projections also reflect that for the General Plan? If we do not get the amount of
water that has always been there to help with the recharge of our aquifers and surface
water elements, we could be having critical problems here. So I would like to make
sure that, once again, that those facts or those figures are current and also reflect
current or future projections as to where we are going with this because once again,
we can surmise things now, but ten (10) years from now, will that be reflective? I do
not know. I am just asking once again that we take a look at that, and if so, just keep
that inclusive. Thank you so much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify for the first time?
ALBERTO GENOVIA: Aloha, Council Chair Rapozo and Council.
Alberto Genovia. I just want to say that I am here for our community and I believe
that we can move in the right direction if we can just gain more knowledge and just
being respectful of our place of life and homestead, and if we plan to live out the rest
of our life, and of course our kids and their kids and their kids, and if they want to be
COUNCIL MEETING 84 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
really here on Kaua`i as the family and `ohana of the island, I think we should really
respect the land that we live on and this world that we live on, and try to figure out
exactly what we need to do to process our thoughts and move it in the right direction.
I know it is in all of the songs that we sing, all of the chants that we hear, and all the
hula that you can imagine. It has been there for years and years, and years. It is
going to be here for the rest of our life. I believe that is the sense that actually guides
us to where we are today and is going to guide us even further than this. I believe
that you folks are wanting for the perpetual means of our knowledge and I think that
is it. So I hope you folks can find that in your heart to feel that, because I can feel
that. I know this is a special place because all the other people think they can come
here and be a part of our life that we have been here from our grandfathers' days and
their judgment to come here and make this their life. They brought us here for a
reason and just to be happy and respect each other. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify for the first time? Second time? Mr. Heacock, did you want to finish?
Mr. Heacock: Yes, please. Thank you, Council Chair
Rapozo. Don Heacock. Thank you. So just picking on certain elements here, as I
stated earlier, the General Plan is only a guide for policy. It is not an explicit policy
that really has any teeth in it and those are usually done through ordinances. I have
recommended a number of different ordinances in here in the recommended action
plan. These are only drafts. We need to change the current system, as I said, to allow
water use planning to precede land use planning; prohibit inner basin transfer of
water, which was never done on Kauai prior to sugar; to prohibit more than fifty
percent (50%) of base flows of streams to be dewatered; and to reestablish the
traditional watershed or aha councils that existed here from about five hundred
fifty (550)years to about one hundred fifty (150)years ago. Ironically, those have been
adopted by the State of Washington. We need to change our planning districts. Some
of them now, the boundaries run down the middle of the Wailua River, which flies in
the face of holistic watershed resource management. We need to adopt sustainable
development ordinances, very similar to what State of Washington has done in their
Hydraulic Code and what the sustainable Seattle has done with working with the
Puget Sound Action Committee and the Seattle Contractors Association that found
out they can build things that do not have stormwater runoff. Their impervious
surfaces do not cause additional runoff and damage to the neighboring downstream
properties because they are all handled onsite, very similar to the old village homes
in Davis, California. We also need to restore at least a significant portion, if not all
someday of the thirty-eight thousand (38,000) acres of lo`i that once occurred on this
island. We wonder why our reefs are in bad shape. It is because we have lost the
functional kidneys of the watershed, which were the thirty-eight thousand (38,000)
acres of taro lo`i that functioned as sedimentation basins to trap sediments, organic
waste, et cetera. Finally, you have, as a body, a unique opportunity right now to
reject this current plan and help to work with watershed communities and
appropriate agencies to develop a truly sustainable watershed island restoration plan
that would be good for the economy, good for our people, good for the environment,
and actually would go down in history. Thank you.
Councilmember Yukimura: I have a question.
COUNCIL MEETING 85 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: Hi, Don. I have one (1) question.
Mr. Heacock: Sure.
Councilmember Yukimura: At least one (1) of the things you suggested, I
think, was establish minimum stream flows.
Mr. Heacock: Yes. If you look at Hutchins 1947, he noted
that Hawaiians usually only diverted about ten to fifteen percent (10-15%) of the base
flows.
Councilmember Yukimura: So is that not a kuleana of the State Water
Commission? The County cannot do that.
Mr. Heacock: No, but they can work with the Commission.
Remember, it is all of our responsibilities to protect all of the natural resources.
Councilmember Yukimura: Right. But how do you see it in the General
Plan?
Mr. Heacock: I would see it where right now, you have
surface water uses that are not even permitted by the Commission on Water Resource
Management. A lot of the assumptions, I think, have been that since they diverted
water for sugar, they can continue to diverting the same amount of water for other
resources, but that is not the case. When use changes, the whole thing changes.
Councilmember Yukimura: But those are case-by-case determinations,
are they not?
Mr. Heacock: They are. They are Supreme Court decision.
Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. They are not really something we
address in the General Plan.
Mr. Heacock: No, but it would be something you could
recommend, certainly. Only the Commission on Water Resource Management could
permit that through a water withdrawal permit or a stream alteration permit. But
right now, we are doing a lot of the diverting and withdrawals without really any
surface water use permits.
Councilmember Yukimura: Are talking about the County of Kaua`i?
Mr. Heacock: Well, it is more complicated than that. The
County is certainly part of it. It is part of that. I think when the County went in to
approve the Waiahi Surface Treatment Plant building, they certainly knew that they
were going to use that water and they probably knew where it was coming from. I
have to make that assumption because I have not seen those documents.
COUNCIL MEETING 86 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much.
Mr. Heacock: You are welcome.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
testify for their second three (3) minutes?
Ms. Hammerquist: Thank you. If I may, I am Bridget
Hammerquist again. Just really briefly. I listened to what Mauna Kea offered and I
would just ask that we all remember that while the General Plan is a policy
document, a second part of the statutory authority that he read about what a General
Plan is supposed to be, the policy document is supposed to serve as a guide for future
development for the protection of what all these people are concerned about. I think
that is basically where the public has concluded the document falls short. There is
not sufficient specificity to use it as a guide. It might be an overarching policy. There
might be broad, general goals, but there are action items that can keep it in the realm
of being a guide. As a member of the public who hopes for a good future for Kaua`i, I
would just say that you can have your action items have some teeth so it can serve as
a guide and it can truly serve and promote, as Councilmember Chock read for the
record, the items that can be entered in furtherance of preservation of water, air,
land, and consistent with the Hawai`i Constitution and the overarching preservation
of Public Trust resources. Thank you.
(Councilmember Kagawa was noted as present.)
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I will call the meeting back to
order.
There being no further testimony, the meeting was called back to order, and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Rapozo: Is there any further discussion before we go
into Executive Session? I do want to say that tho Planning Commission did their job
by getting this thing together and getting it to us. That is their job. That is their
deal. I think maybe the lawsuit may be premature in that sense, but nonetheless,
the lawsuit was filed. I think it really gives us an opportunity to become aware of
what the concerns of the public are. I will agree that the General Plan should be
general. It should be broad and it should not be so specific that it really hinders the
community going forward. However, I agree with Mr. Heacock that the discussions
in the General Plan should result in some ordinances being created, some specifics of
how development should occur, and the preservation of our resources. I appreciate
your written testimony, Mr. Heacock. It is now our job to incorporate that,
Ms. Walton's six (6) areas, her comments that she had submitted for the last meeting
that needs to be incorporated in the final product. That is our job now. I know a lot
of people feel that we should reject it and send it back, but I disagree. This is where
the rubber meets the road. It is going to be the seven (7) of here, hopefully it in this
term, that will have to come up with the final document that does protect and
preserve our resources. That is what we have to do. So I think it is at the right place
and I appreciate the testimony and the input. You will have a lot more as we go
COUNCIL MEETING 87 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
forward. Councilmember Chock, obviously, will be chairing that Committee going
forward. But I believe at the end of the day, that broad guiding document, I think we
will have to create some enforceable measures to make sure that those resources are
protected. That is, I think, the process that I would recommend going forward.
Anyway, is any other discussion? I appreciate you being here. The motion is to go
into Executive Session. Roll call.
The motion to convene in Executive Session for ES-918, ES-919, and ES-920
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chock, Kagawa, Kaneshiro,
Kawakami, Yukimura, Rapozo TOTAL — 6*,
AGAINST EXECUTIVE SESSION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Brun TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
(*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kauai,
Councilmember Kawakami was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as
an affirmative vote for the motion).
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Five (5) ayes.
Council Chair Rapozo: With that, that concludes the open part of the
meeting. BC, you can leave. If there are no objections, this part of the meeting is
adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
targit
11
JAD . • . FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA
County Clerk
:aa