HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2011 Regular Council MeetingCOUNCIL MEETING
January 26, 2011
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to
order by Council Chair Jay Furfaro at the Council Chambers, 3371 -A Wilcox Road,
Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., after which the
following members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable Dickie Chang
Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Mr. Rapozo moved to approve the agenda as circulated, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura, and unanimously carried.
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
PETER A. NAKAMURA, County Clerk: The following minutes of the Council
for approval:
Inaugural Meeting of December 1, 2010
Council Meeting of December 15, 2010
Public Hearing of January 12, 2011 re: Bills Nos. 2387, 2388, 2389, 2390,
2391, and 2392
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you and I will recognize Councilwoman
Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Could we take the inaugural minutes separately?
Council Chair Furfaro: Say that again.
Ms. Yukimura: Could we take the inaugural minutes separately.
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes, I understand your concern. We met yesterday
that although there are attachments of the testimony from you and Mr. Bynum, the
reality is they have not been scanned to actually be part of the electronic copy.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: And therefore I heard your concern yesterday and I
will move on a discussion with the county clerk later after this meeting.
Ms. Yukimura: So I just wanted to take the item separately so we
would approve all the others...
Council Chair Furfaro: Understood.
COUNCIL MEETING - 2 - January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Yukimura:
... first.
Understood your concern.
And then defer the inaugural minutes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Well, let's start with the inaugural meeting
of December 1. There is a request to defer as I've just explained at the request of
Councilwoman Yukimura. Those minutes are part of the written document of the
minutes, but they are not scanned accordingly. So there's a request to defer. Do I
have a second to defer that item?
Ms. Yukimura moved to defer the Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of
December 1, 2010, seconded by Mr. Bynum, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, may we please take the
next several items as minutes of this body.
Mr. Nakamura: Approval of the...I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, approval of
the following minutes of the Council: Council meeting of December 15, 2010 and
the public hearing of January 12, 2011 regarding Bills Nos. 2387, 2388, 2389, 2390,
2391, and 2392.
Mr. Chang moved to approve the minutes as circulated, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo, and unanimously carried.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Chair Furfaro: Can we move onto the next item, Mr. Clerk?
Mr. Nakamura: Next matters on page one of the council's agenda
are matters for receipt. This would be communication C 2011 -37, C 2011 -38,
C 2011 -39, and C 2011 -40.
C 2011 -37 Communication (12/03/2010) from the Chief, Building Division,
Department of Public Works, transmitting for Council information, the Building
Permit Information Reports for November 2010:
1) Building Permit Processing Report
2) Building Permit Estimated Value Summary
3) Building Permits Tracking Report
4) Building Permits Status
Mr. Chang moved to receive C 2011 -37 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and
unanimously carried.
C 2011 -38 Communication (12/29/2010) from the Purchasing Division,
Department of Finance, transmitting for Council information, the Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 Second Quarter Statement of Equipment Purchases: Mr. Chang
moved to receive C 2011 -38 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and
unanimously carried.
C 2011 -39 Communication (12/29/2010) from the County Engineer,
Department of Public Works, transmitting for Council consideration, a traffic
resolution establishing no parking at any time restrictions along portions of Po`ipu
Road in the vicinity of the Grand Hyatt Kauai Resort & Spa: Mr. Chang moved to
receive C 2011 -39 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING - 3 - January 26, 2011
C 2011 -40 Communication (12/30/2010) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council information, the Schedule of Fund Balances for Fiscal Year
ending June 30, 2010, pursuant to Section 19.14 of the Kauai County Charter:
Mr. Chang moved to receive C 2011 -40 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Go to the next item, please.
Mr. Nakamura: On page two of the council's agenda, Mr. Chair,
communications for receipt: C 2011 -41, C 2011 -42, C 2011 -43, C 2011 -45, and
C 2011 -46.
C 2011 -41 Statement of the Condition of the County Treasury as of
November 16, 2010: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -41 for the record,
seconded by Mr. Chang.
C 2011 -42 Communication (01/10/2011) from Councilmember Nakamura,
providing written disclosure of possible conflicts of interest relating to the
interviews of the mayoral appointees to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Water Supply at the January 11, 2011 Special Council Meeting, and Resolution
Nos. 2011 -11, 2011 -14, and 2011 -18 regarding the aforementioned appointees at the
January 26, 2011 Council Meeting, due to her sub - contractual relationship with the
consultant firm Wilson Okamoto & Associates (who has a contract with the County
of Kauai, Planning Department) and her sub - contractual relationship with the
consultant firm Kodani & Associates (who has a contract with the County of
Kauai, Department of Water): Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -42 for the
record, seconded by Mr. Chang.
C 2011 -43 Communication (01/19/2011) from Councilmember Nakamura,
providing written disclosure of a possible conflict of interest relating to the
interview of a mayoral appointee to the Board of Water Supply at the January 25,
2011 Special Council Meeting, and Resolution No. 2011 -24, regarding the appointee,
at the January 26, Council Meeting, due to her sub - contractual relationship with
the consultant firm Kodani & Associates, who has a contract with the County of
Kauai Water Department: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -43 for the record,
seconded by Mr. Chang.
C 2011 -45 Communication (01/14/2011) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration, a proposed resolution establishing a sister -city relationship
with the Municipality of Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte, Republic of the
Philippines, whose City Council has already approved such a relationship with the
County of Kauai: Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -45 for the record, seconded
by Mr. Chang.
C 2011 -46 Communication (01/14/2011) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council consideration, a $525,448.00 appropriation "from the
surplus and appropriations estimated in the General Fund to the Golf Fund to fund
anticipated revenue shortfalls and repair work at the Wailua Golf Course:
Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -46 for the record, seconded by Mr., Chang.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Any discussion before I have some
comments? (Inaudible.) Mr. Clerk, I would like to point out that I had made a
motion last year that each quarter that we receive the county's treasury report, I
would like to have the treasurer present to review those... financial forecast and I
COUNCIL MEETING - 4 - January 26, 2011
see no one here today. I would like to send a follow -up communication again on my
request since this is only a quarterly report and the summary should pose an
opportunity for members to question the treasury report. The clerk had asked me if
I would like to defer that item for right now. I've been able to review it. I'm not
wanting to defer it. I just want to make sure next quarter that we have the
treasurer present, if that's acceptable for you folks?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. On all of the items that were so read,
may I have a ... we have a motion to receive and a second. All those in favor, please
signify by saying aye.
The motion to receive C 2011 -41, C 2011 -42, C 2011 -43, C 2011 -45, and
C 2011 -46 for the record was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Clerk, next item.
Mr. Nakamura: On page two of the council's agenda, Mr. Chair, a
communication for approval, communication C 2011 -44:
C 2011 -44 Communication (12/20/2010) from the Chief of Police, requesting
Council approval to apply for, accept, and expend funds from the State of Hawaii,
Highway Safety Project Grant through the State of Hawaii, Safe Community
Program – Safety Office, in the amount of $28,004.00, to provide for law
enforcement overtime and public education through banners and public service
announcements, relating to distracted driving, which includes Ordinance No. 892 –
Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Operating a Vehicle: Mr. Rapozo moved to
approve C 2011 -44, seconded by Mr. Kawakami.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to
approve. Any discussion? Anyone from the audience wishing to speak on this item?
We are on item 2011 -44. Did you want to comment on that, Mr. Mickens? The
rules are suspended for the purpose of taking public testimony.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Jay, for the record Glenn Mickens. I
just have a question. Somebody wrote a good question in the paper the other day
about they had pulled over to the side of the road — Derek, maybe since you
introduced this bill, maybe you can answer the question —if you pull over to the side
of the road and you're using your cell phone, your motor's running, he said he got a
ticket for it. I just wondered, is that true? Or, you know, what if you shut your
motor off, then is it okay? Is it just the fact that your engine's running, does that
make it illegal?
Council Chair Furfaro: If Mr. Kawakami would like to answer that since it
was his bill, I will refer to him. If not, I'll answer that.
Mr. Mickens: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Would you like to answer that, sir?
Mr. Kawakami: If you would like to answer, you can answer.
COUNCIL MEETING - 5 - January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, I'm answering the question. The idea is
when you're addressing the phone and your vehicle is still running, Glenn, that
could... actually the vehicle could go in motion because the car is running. The
intent of the bill, if you're on the side of the road, I believe the engine is supposed to
be off and I will forward this as a discussion item over to the police commission, if
you would like. But that's how I understand it.
Mr. Mickens: Yeah, I would appreciate it. I thought it was a
very, very good question. You know, if the car is sitting on the shoulder on the side
of the road, you're making a phone call. So basically what you're saying is the key
point here is if the engine is running or not running. If the engine is not running,
it's permissible. If the engine's running, then it's a violation. Is that what I hear
right now?
Council Chair Furfaro: That ... that is how I understand the legislation.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro:
police department...
Mr. Mickens:
Council Chair Furfaro:
concern of yours so that they
it.
But I will send that question again over to the
Okay.
... and I'll have the commission surface it as a
can answer you directly. But that's how I understand
Mr. Mickens: Thank you, Jay.
Council Chair Furfaro: You're welcome. Any further questions from the
public? If not, the meeting is called back to order.
There being no further questions from the public, the meeting was called back to
order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: Did I have a motion to approve? A motion and a
second to approve. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you and I just want to say that's why this is
such an important item because the public education component of this bill is
necessary as we just found out that there's many questions and this money will be
used for that purpose, to educate and let the public know. So thank you, Glenn.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, thank you for that Mr. Rapozo. I've a motion
and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'm going to call for the vote. All
those in favor, say aye.
The motion to approve C 2011 -44 was then put, and unanimously carried:
Council Chair Furfaro: Next item, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Nakamura: We're on page three of the council's agenda,
Mr. Chair, on communications for receipt. This would be communication C 2011 -47,
C 2011 -48, C 2011 -49.
Mr. Bynum: Move to receive.
COUNCIL MEETING - 6 - January 26, 2011
Mr. Rapozo: Hang on... did you say 2011 -48?
Mr. Nakamura: Yeah, oh, I'm sorry mister ... I'm sorry
Councilmember.
Mr. Rapozo: Yeah, that was a request to have the
administration present, so.
Mr. Nakamura: Yes, correct. At this time for receipt, Mr. Chair, I'm
sorry, C 2011 -47 and C 2011 -49:
C 2011 -47 Communication (01/14/2011) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council consideration, a $417,238.00 appropriation from the
surplus and appropriations estimated in the General Fund to the Solid Waste Fund
to fund anticipated shortfalls and equipment upgrades that will improve
compaction at the Kekaha Landfill: Mr. Chang moved to receive C 2011 -47 for the
record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
C 2011 -49 Communication (01/18/2011) from Councilmember Bynum,
transmitting for Council consideration, a $300,000.00 appropriation from the
surplus and appropriations estimated in the General Fund to the Office of the
County Clerk — Council Services Division, to fund unanticipated costs associated
with furniture and equipment for the Historic County Building, and other
operational costs associated with the renovation of the Historic County Building:
Mr. Change moved to receive C 2011 -49 for the record, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro: To the clerk's office, was there not a request of the
administration to be present?
Mr. Rapozo: Yes, there was.
Mr. Bynum: They were here a minute ago.
Council Chair Furfaro: I thought I saw them in the building.
Mr. Nakamura: I think there was a request for the planning
director and for the fire chief, I think, to be present.
Mr. Rapozo: Yeah.
Council Chair Furfaro: So, I'm sorry. Should we take a short recess if
they're here?
Mr. Nakamura: If we could just ... if we could just take the vote
on ... receipt 47 and 49, Mr. Chair, then we can ... we should gather up the
administration.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, did we have a motion and a second? We did.
Okay, we're moving to... on a vote to receive these two items. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
The motion to receive C 2011 -47 and C 2011 -49 for the record was then put,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Then we will go on to 1149?
COUNCIL MEETING - 7 - January 26, 2011
(Inaudible.)
Council Chair Furfaro:
of our speakers.
Okay, we're going to take a short recess to get some
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed 9:40 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 9:44 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: Due to some conflicting schedules and people's
appointments on the south shore, I am going to ask, and the administration has just
arrived, I'm going to ask if we could take Resolution No. 2011 -34, page six, and this
resolution is ... just a resolution so it will require just a single roll call vote. And if I
could have the clerk read that item, I'd appreciate it.
RESOLUTION:
Mr. Nakamura: Mr. Chair, we're on page six of the council's agenda
on Resolution No. 2011 -34:
Resolution No. 2011 -34, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NO- PARKING AT
ANY TIME ALONG PORTIONS OF PO'IPU ROAD, KOLOA DISTRICT, COUNTY
OF KAUAI
Council Chair Furfaro: Are there members in the audience that would like
to speak on this one? I'll suspend the rules.
Mr. Rapozo: I'll move to approve (inaudible).
Mr. Kawakami: Second.
Mr. Rapozo moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -34, seconded by
Mr. Kawakami.
Council Chair Furfaro: I have a second from Mr. Kawakami. Come. right
up. We have this tendency knowing you're in the back to imply that we'll cancel the
rules, but we actually need the motion first to get it... dialogued on.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Furfaro: Auntie Stella, I'm going to ask if all of you are
going to testify, I'm going to ask you first of all to introduce yourselves for the
record.
STELLA BURGESS: Sure, mahalo, Stella Burgess.
LINDA RUBY: Linda Ruby, Director of Safety and Security.
ROBERTO INTRIAGO: Roberto Intriago, Director of Rooms.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We recognize you and the floor is
yours. This resolution deals with an area on K51oa ... in K61oa along Po`ipu Road as
a designation for no parking? Go right ahead.
COUNCIL MEETING - S - January 26, 2011
Ms. Burgess: Yes, that is correct. It is the area that is on the
left- and right -hand side of our two entrances, the employee entrance into the... and
exit and the guest entry and exit. Our concern is there was no problem to this area,
but meeting all ADA requirements as to sidewalks and as to stop lines that need to
be behind ADA accessible sidewalks, the stop line was moved about four feet into
the driveway. So when that happened, side view on two sides became less. But
when you have parking, there is no side view. You are actually onto Po`ipu Road
and then you need to see. We have had many near accidents. We have not had one
yet, mahalo ke akua, but many near ones. So it is not only ... it's a hazard at this
time as to where the stop lines are now currently. This is the reason that we're
asking for no parking. I believe in the original information you got, you actually got
maps and some photos of the area. I would like to also bring up there is a third
entry at the exit at the far eastern end of the property, Ainako Road that goes down
to what everybody calls "Shipwreck Beach." In this area, we did not ask for a no
parking because the road is at a different angle with Po`ipu Road. So when you get
to the stop sign, side view to the left is actually very good. Sightline to Mand'ulepu
and to the Grove Farm property road is okay. But if you go two feet more, you're
not on the road yet, side view becomes very; very good on two sides. So that is the
reason that a roadway was not asked for.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, let me see if there's members who have
questions for you.
Ms. Burgess: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Aloha, Auntie and excuse me, I just wanted to
thank you guys for bringing this up. When we reviewed this, it's just logical, it
makes sense, and we'll add an added level of safety to that area. So, thank you for
the initiative to address these issues.
Ms. Burgess: It became a great concern when our employees
would come in and say, we stay on the road already, like almost to the middle line
and we cannot see to the left because the cars park all the way up until the red zone
and then it's gone, side view is gone.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, Mr. Chang, you had a question?
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Auntie Stella, thank you all for coming
here. Yes, it does create a lot of awareness because we have concerns also because
within the county, in our own county roads, you know, there may be rental homes
either to the left or either to the right that pretty much people just store their cars
and you can tell because they would cover it up, you know just... and ... it ... the cars
don't move. So that's a classic example of what conditions are, you know, really
throughout the island. So I hope this creates awareness because even within
residential areas many of us have to drive that distance out just to look either left
or right. So I think we can all relate to what ou folks are saying right now at this
point as far as it being hazardous, about having to have to get out on the road just
to see which way you're going to go and blindsided by the cars that's actually
moving instead of trying to merge. So I really appreciate that awareness that you
give to us and bring to us, thank you.
COUNCIL MEETING -9- January 26, 2011
Ms. Burgess: Mahalo, Dickie, for that. It is always the
awareness of all of our people of the island that we have to be aware of. It is not
necessarily one group against another group. We are all together on the island of
Kauai and we must all be treated in the same manner no matter who we are.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead.
Ms. Yukimura: I thank you for bringing this to our attention so
that we can actually provide a remedy and I want to just make some connections
here that hopefully in the future when our bus system goes every 15 minutes and
reaches... and does it to K51oa- Po`ipu by some way of networking our public
transportation systems that people may not even have to bring their car and you
won't have as much of a parking problem.
Ms. Burgess: We actually have the Kauai Bus as a bus stop on
the property itself.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much for that.
Ms. Burgess: So we've already done that as of last year.
Ms. Yukimura: And now all we have to do is make it later in the
evenings and more frequently so that it actually can serve more people and they
don't have to bring their cars. But thank you for making that parking ... that Kauai
Bus stop available because that's ... that really helps.
Mr. Burgess: It helps a lot of our people and a lot of our guests
who come. They actually use the bus to go see other parts of the island. So it's very
good. Thank you for having that on the island of Kauai.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Members, any further questions? I want to thank
you very much for bringing this matter to a conclusion, we hope after this vote,
regarding safety for both the public, the guests, and your employees. So I'm going
to go ahead and call the meeting back to order, excuse you now, and we will be able
to take a vote on this, yes. Thank you very much.
Ms. Burgess: Mahalo to you all for your time.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, members, is there anyone else in the
audience that would like to speak before I call us back to order? No? Okay, this
body will come back into session.
There being no one else wishing to speak on this matter, the meeting was called
back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: And I would like to say that we intend to have a
roll call vote on this. We had a motion by Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Nakamura: We had a motion and a second, Mr. Chair.
COUNCIL MEETING -10- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: We had a second by Mr. Kawakami. And so is
there any further discussion amongst the members? If not, I would ask that the
clerk do a roll call vote now.
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -34 was then put, and carried
by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Nakamura: At this time, Mr. Chair, we're back on page three of
the council's agenda on communication C 2011 -48:
C 2011 -48 Communication (01/14/2011) from Councilmember Rapozo,
requesting the Administration's presence to provide the Council with an update on
the relocation of the Kekaha Lifeguard Tower.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you and we need a motion and a second on
this.
Mr. Rapozo: Move to receive.
Council Chair Furfaro: Move to receive.
Ms. Yukimura: Second.
Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -48 for the record, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura.
Council Chair Furfaro: And a second, very good. Now, I thought
mister... oh, there he is, there's Mike. I'm going to go ahead and suspend the rules,
and ask the planning director if he can come up.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
Council Chair Furfaro: Gentlemen, for the record if I could ask you both to
introduce yourselves.
MIKE DAHILIG, Planning Director: Good morning, Council Chair and
members of the Council, Mike Dahilig from the planning department.
KALANI VIERRA, Fire Department, Ocean Safety Bureau: Kalam Vierra,
Kauai Fire Department, Ocean Safety Bureau.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Rapozo, I'm going to
turn the floor over to you.
COUNCIL MEETING - 11 - January 26, 2011
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you and thank you, gentlemen, for being
here today. You know this has been an issue and it's gotten a lot of media attention
in the newspaper and I did attend the meeting back in January 12 out in Kekaha
and there's a lot of public concern as to what's going on and I guess what I
wanted... first of all, Mike, if you can give us an overview on kind of what the
history is and why we are at that point that we are today that we need to move that
tower.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, from the planning side what the research
has shown us is prior to 2000, we weren't requiring SMA permits for the original
orange towers that were fabricated in- house. But after 2000, we went through a
series of reinstallations of these new towers and specifically I think they're towers
that are bigger than the ones that were originally there. And we started requiring
SMA permits, and this goes back after 2000. Most recently in 2009 the department
had received... had begun ... had to be ... began to receive SMA applications and
specifically minor applications for these towers. Lydgate and Kealia have SMA
permits. And right now what our approach to making sure that the ocean safety
division is following is that we want to educate them about what the requirements
are for these particular towers where they're going to be and then we actually go
forth and try to educate them about how to come into compliance in terms of the
siting. We're taking this approach rather than trying to be punitive about it
because we think that they've been making good progress towards coming into
compliance with the SMA laws and they've been very open and we've had a good
dialogue with them so far.
I think what is of immediate concern and what's prompting the discussion
today is specifically SMA minor permit 2011 -4. Now this was issued by the
department back in August 5 of last year and this is the one that shows the location
of the tower. It's closest to what is the pavilion area in Kekaha. Since then, we
have been made aware of the desire to want to relocate the tower, and in our email
communication, Councilman Rapozo, you are correct that if the location is going to
change, it will require an amendment to the SMA permit. When we do value the
project, right now we have an estimated value of $39,766.00, the estimation is done
based on what is represented by the applicant at the time. However, we were made
aware that there is a waterline that was put in previously to help the
firefighters ... sorry, not the fire ... the lifeguard gentlemen and gentlewomen wash off
their equipment at the existing tower site. It's not there meant ... it's not there to, I
guess, water or sustain vegetation in that area. And so what is being included in
the estimate, from what we understand, is, I guess, the severing of the line and, I
guess, reattachment to wherever the tower will' be. We do not anticipate that the
amount of the cost for relocating or adjusting the waterline will ultimately exceed
the threshold of $125,000.00 as required by law. But we are monitoring it and we
will be asking that they include the waterline as part of their permit amendment
because it is... anything that is related to the installation of an 5... a vertical SMA
structure, we have to include as part of the cost. I don't know if that provides you
sufficient information, councilmember, but I'd be more than happy to...
Mr. Rapozo: Yeah, I think the - bigger concern is we're being
mandated to move it by the Army Corps of Engineers and that is, I think you know,
I didn't want to bring you folks here to be... it's not about being punitive or not, but
there's ... I'm concerned because from what the records that I've read, apparently
this goes back a few years, it involves the Army Corps of Engineers, it involves the
unpermitted structure as you've explained, and then as I read the SMA application,
you pointed out that the location is wrong and, you know, on most, I thought
anyway, on an SMA permit, there is a requirement to have the... and it states on the
permit application that you gotta attach the estimate of the contract. All this
COUNCIL MEETING -12- January 26, 2011
application shows is $39,766, which is the cost of the tower back in '08. What's not
taken into account in the application is the fact that you gotta do the planning, you
gotta do the actual construction work, you gotta relocate the waterline, you know,
and I think in all fairness, you know, when even ... when the county is the applicant
and, you know, we gotta kind of follow the law, and that is my concern.
I'm not convinced that that project is less than $125,000.00 because that's a
huge project. It's not as simple as capping off the line and just moving the tower. It
is a huge project. It also means site preparation in the new location. It means
putting in some foundations over there. I mean it's not just moving this and that's
what concerns me. The SMA permit application is entirely inaccurate.
So my question, I guess, and the whole purpose if you could start from
where ... where they started, how come the Army Corps of Engineers, why are they
telling us to move it? And why does this mandate require us to move the tower to
an area that actually the citizens are concerned. And I'll get to the public safety
part later with Kalani because I think he's the expert on the public safety aspect.
And I'm not ... I'm in total agreement with Kalani that the... as far as the safety of
the public will not be compromised with the relocation. That wasn't my ... the reason
for this. It was how did we get to this point? How did an SMA permit get approved
with total inaccurate information? That's the concerning part for me, sitting here
watching this and thinking wait a minute, $39,000 is not what this is going to cost.
And the other problem that I... and maybe... I don't know if we got exempted or
maybe we're exempted as far as the shoreline certification. This is a construction
project on the shoreline, right on the beach, and I didn't see any shoreline
certification or a waiver in here. Maybe it is here, maybe I just don't know where to
look. But that... so that's the questions that. I kind of wanted ... was . hoping to get
answers for today. So, I guess if you could start at the Corps, the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Dahilig: Well, where I would start and again this is doing a
forensic research of the file, specifically again the permit, as well as discussions
with Lisa Ellen Smith, who is our SMA planner. I think part of the problem that
was encountered was the revetment that is there that specifically was under the
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers was actually buried underground. The
revetment is not visible and that's part of the, I guess, part of the problem. And so
once we got notice that the revetment was in fact there and that the Army Corps
was not going to allow this structure to be on their arming device, it was when the
public safety division ... I'm sorry, the ocean safety division started the process of
trying to relocate the tower. It does have implications statewide... I'm sorry,
islandwide with respect to whether the Corps will come in in a circumstance of a
disaster. So it is a very serious situation and I acknowledge that. And so, all I can
say is that that probably was where ... from the site visit where some ... some of the
confusion was... came from.
With respect to the actual cost of the tower, we actually asked for a further
breakdown. And what we have is that the tower ... the tower cost as well as the cost
of the cement pad, relating a crane, paying for that operator as well as the relocation
have been calculated into the $39,000.00 mix. Obviously, my department is not
staffed with individuals that are ... like for instance in the building division that can
value the cost of putting up a vertical structure. And we... we are solely reliant on
the representations of the applicant. Now I can understand where you could
see... and we can have this disagreement concerning the actual cost of whether we
are crossing the $125,000.00 threshold or not and I think it's a valid point,
Councilmember Rapozo. But what we relied on and what we looked through in our
COUNCIL MEETING -13- January 26, 2011
files and it seems reasonable to us given back in 2010... given the amount of cost
associated with the actual physical structure and the relocation cost that $39,000.00
was an appropriate estimate. So that's what I can tell from the file.
Mr. Rapozo: So, Mike, you're saying that the application amount
of $39,766, it includes the rental of the crane, the operator, and all of that?
Mr. Dahilig: That's my understanding from ocean safety, yes.
Mr. Rapozo: And then on October 29, 2008 when they ... the
contract for the actual purchase of the six towers, unit cost $39,766, valuation of
development $39,766, that's a coincidence?
Mr. Dahilig: You know ... I think that is... it may not be a
coincidence, but again I'm relying off of information that is provided to me, again,
by ocean safety, and their breakdown includes what I see as a waterline, cement
pad, and these other relocation costs. I do not know what the programmatic
agreement is with ocean safety as to how the contractor is costing out the purchase,
installation/relocation costs for each of the individual sites. Again, we're relying
solely on the information that is provided to us by the applicant and when we look
at it from a standpoint of the $125,000.00 threshold, even if we were to just say that
the tower was $39,766.00, the relocation cost, the cement pad, and those types of
matters would ... we would think comfortably not fall over the $125,000.00 threshold.
Mr. Rapozo: Do you have a breakdown?
Mr. Dahilig: Right now I'm relying on a breakdown from and
this is an email from Chief Westerman. And part of what was in there was, I guess,
the tower, the waterline, cement pad, and relocation. I do not have detail amounts
that are in, I guess, that are itemized probably to the ... to your satisfaction, but I'm
sure...
Mr. Rapozo: Well, it's not to my satisfaction, it's to the
requirement of the application. I mean the application requires a contractor's
estimate.
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Mr. Rapozo: That's not Mel Rapozo's satisfaction or... it's what's
in the application.
Mr. Dahilig: I agree.
Mr. Rapozo: And because the county's the applicant, doesn't
mean that we treat them any less.
Mr. Dahilig: Oh, certainly we do not..-.
Mr. Rapozo: And I'm just questioning $39,766 as the unit cost.
Now that's not the contractor's cost. The $39,766, thirty -nine thousand seven
sixty -six is the cost of the tower that we purchased. It's not a ... it's not what it cost
to put up. That is a ... from the vendor Industrial Design, they charged this county
$39,766 to purchase a tower. You're telling me that the application which was
approved by the department, the development will cost $39,766. I can tell you what
happened. They took the amount of the tower, put it on the application, submitted
COUNCIL MEETING -14- January 26, 2011
it. And yet even though the application says attach contractor's estimate, it's not
here. So, how ... you know, there's a huge difference, as you know, between a minor
and a major.
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Mr. Rapozo: And we're talking about a development on the
shoreline...
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Mr. Rapozo: ...which is protected.
Mr. Dahilig: Right.
Mr. Rapozo: So it bothers me that this, in fact, application was
approved and it really wasn't even ... in my opinion it wasn't even reviewed. It's not
complete, I guess, that's my concern.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, well, I can...
Mr. Rapozo: And if that's how you gonna run it, that's your
prerogative, but I think that's not in line with what the SMA laws are saying.
Mr. Dahilig: And I certainly hear your concern, councilmember,
and you know, again, part of where the department's research had to go was doing
again a forensic on a permit that was issued in August 6th of 2010. And so my
understanding is, again, we do not have staff in -house that do the type of valuations
and the detailed construction valuations that are ... that you would see in the type of
situation with the building division would ask for the value to a permit. In this case
when we're looking at what was represented by the applicant and specifically the
$39,766.00, what we are ... we do not know that nature of what the cost of
seven ... $39,766 is ... how that breakdown goes. It's what is represented to us. We
don't know what the contract actually says in terms of this amount is for this cost,
this amount is for this cost, because it was a bulk sale. Maybe there were other
agreements as to how these things were going to be charged or paid for. I...
Mr. Rapozo: I guess the question is why was the permit
approved?
Mr. Dahilig: Again, the permit was approved...
Mr. Rapozo: Remember, I mean you're sending out a message
now that you're relying on the applicant. So any applicant out there submits an
application, you're just going to approve it based on their number?
Mr. Dahilig: Well obviously we're going to look at it and say,
well, does the valuation make sense. Now... and it's not a carte blanche reliance on
just whatever the applicant says, but...
Mr. Rapozo: No, that's what you said earlier.
Mr. Dahilig: That's what I did say earlier, but... and if you'll
allow me to clarify, part of what I had said earlier also is an evaluation of
whether... does the valuation make sense and ... where again keeping in mind the
COUNCIL MEETING -15- January 26, 2011
$125,000.00 threshold and if...even if we were to say the $39,766 was just the cost
of the tower alone, we would feel comfortable that the relocation of the waterline,
renting a crane, and bringing an individual to operate the crane, as well as pouring
a cement pad would not necessarily amount to another $80,000.00 to $85,000.00
charge. And it would seem almost, I guess, just in my judgment, does that... does
$85,000.00 amount to installation cost? And I think that's where ... where our
common sense would kind of go and if there's a disagreement as to whether the
installation cost and the pouring of a cement ... the cement pad is not a large cement
pad, as well as the installation of a waterline, I guess one -inch PVC line, whether
those costs would equal to $85,000.00, I think really is, you know ... I think our
judgment was sound in saying that it wasn't going to exceed the $125,000.00
threshold.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I have to say I take offense to that comment
about common sense because you're inferring I don't have common sense. Whether
your .common sense and my common sense are the same, it's not the point. The
point is we have a law that governs the application process.
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Mr. Rapozo: That law wasn't followed. There is no contractor's
estimate. But you ... whoever just approved it basically because it sounded right.
That's not how we do things here and I hope that's not how we're doing things and if
it is, you know, I ,think we need to drastically change that because that's what the
estimate is for. I mean we've seen the cost of projects on this county. Believe me, I
have. In my short time here, I've seen projects that what I thought was no way that
could cost a hundred grand, but that's what it is today. Cement is not cheap. Labor
is not cheap. Equipment's not cheap. We ... did ... we didn't even do a shoreline
certification, right?
Mr. Dahilig: It was not required in this particular case.
Mr. Rapozo: And under what is that? What exemption is that?
Mr. Dahilig: From what we understand, it's with a consultation
with OCCL in terms of these types of structures and whether they would require
something along those lines.
Mr. Rapozo: With who?
Mr. Dahilig: OCCL, the Office of Coastal and Conservation
Lands.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, that waiver's not in here and that's
concerning, but you know, the existing structure is not permitted.
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Mr. Rapozo: That ... is that the reason why the Army Corps is
telling us to get `em off the wall? Are they... are they... what are we in violation of?
I mean I saw the letter from them. They didn't... they weren't very cooperative. In
the correspondence that I got copies of, they sound very angry and I'm not sure of
the history, and that's what I was asking for is, you know, what is the real history?
When did this all start because they basically put that project on an inactive status.
That project is that entire wall.
COUNCIL MEETING -16-
Mr. Dahilig: That's right.
Mr. Rapozo: It runs from where w
sand, but it runs all the way down to Saint Theresa.
status now, if there's anything that happens to that
whatever, we don't get any funding.
Mr. Dahilig:
That's correct.
January 26, 2011
e see it, a lot of it is under
And basically an inactive
wall because of a storm or
Mr. Rapozo: My question is how did we get this done if we had
applied for permits back then, we would have probably known. Hey, you know,
there's a wall under there, we cannot be on the wall. We would have avoided all of
this.
Mr. Dahilig:
Right.
Mr. Rapozo: Going forward and all I'm trying to say, Mike, is
that let's try to do it right and starting it with an accurate SMA permit, I think, is
the way to do it.
Mr. Dahilig: And certainly, you know, councilmember, your
comments are greatly appreciated and if, you know, it's something that in -house we
need to take a look at with respect to requiring more detailed contractor's estimates
that breakdown including installation costs and other related costs, that's certainly
something that we can make an adjustment to in- house. I mean, we're
obviously ... we want to do better and if this is an item that you are concerned about,
I will raise that with my staff and we will try to change the protocols appropriately.
Mr. Rapozo: Well, I appreciate that. It's ... it doesn't look like it's
anything that needs to be changed because it's already there. I mean the
requirement is here. We just need to follow the requirement and I don't think you
need additional staff or you don't need to hire an appraiser. I mean, really if they
submitted the contractor's estimate and the contractor's estimate stated whatever it
was, then it's fine. Then you can actually ... you can rely on that because it's by a
contractor. But this ... there is ... that's not ... that's absent in this application, so. I
mean I think, you know, the bottom line is your staff, when you have a checklist
and they go down the list and they say, oh, this one doesn't have a contractor's
estimate, send it back. We ... cer ... whether it's the county, the state, whoever, a
private citizen, we need a contractor's estimate. I mean that's all I'm asking. I
don't think that's unreasonable.
Mr. Dahilig: And you know, again, if we need to demand that a
more detailed contractor's estimate rather than just the cost of the tower in this
particular circumstances was required in an SMA minor permit evaluation,
specifically with respect to complying with the law and making sure that
construction is under $125,000.00 if we're going to be issuing these permits, we can
certainly make that adjustment in -house and I will have a talk with my staff about
it.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. You know, I would like to share with
you that this has been an issue for me for a long time on the council and I'll be glad
to share with you some project release forms that would really support our SMA
minors under $125,000, where we actually identify the cost of the project starting
with design fees, followed by purchase order of materials, followed by equipment
COUNCIL MEETING -17- January 26, 2011
rentals, some of the things that have come up here, plumbing, electrical if there is,
contract labor, and in -house professional fees. And you know I have to tell you that
would be a great help when we estimate an item and then we actually have a ... we
have a project release that gets signed off by several people who have ... finance has
looked at the numbers, building department agrees with the specs, the planning
department agrees with the codes, and then it leaves us an audit trail. I have
something that I've used in the private sector, but it would've been a really big help
for this project. And let me ask you, what I haven't heard here is do we not have,
for the purpose of public safety, do we not have an opportunity to go to the Corps
and ask for a variance? Have we done that?
Mr. Dahilig: (Inaudible.) I'll yield the floor.
Mr. Vierra: We did apply for an exemption and we got denied.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, I would like to see that if I could.
Mr. Vierra: Yeah, we have it. We have that document.
Council Chair Furfaro: At your convenience. We'll send something over
because ... you know, it seems ... when it ... when we start to get into an area about
public safety, which I know we haven't addressed in this discussion so far, we
probably should plead our case with a variance application, and if you could send
that over I'd appreciate it. I think Councilwoman Yukimura has some questions, so
councilwoman, go right ahead.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I ... I wanted to know whether the $125,000.00
valuation is defined as the cost of the activity to get to the construction of the
structure or whether it's just the valuation of the structure itself?
Mr. Dahilig: It's... the way that we're interpreting it is that for
instance if a tie -in has to be done underground, normally, I guess, a pipe if you
would just put it underground for no reason, or just put a pipe underground, that
would not be part of the calculus. But if you were to ... have to put the pipe to tie
into the vertical structure, then that cost of putting in the pipe actually has to be
calculated as part of the $125,000.00. So if any ... we do concur with the ... what has
been talked about today, about the valuation of installation costs as well as the
vertical and the materials required to put up the vertical structure must be put in
as part of the $125,000.00. But it's oftentimes and I guess this discussion does
bring light today about ... it may be difficult to ... the difficulties that maybe we need
to rectify in terms of itemizing what is and what's not, but our position is that it's
whatever it costs to actually put up the structure.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, because I'm reading the rules and it says you
know, and I hope this rule is... it's the one officially on record.
Mr. Dahilig: We do need to codify the rules from what I've found,
so yeah.
Ms. Yukimura: It means an act ... the "SMA minor permit needs an
action by the director authorizing development, the valuation of which is not in
excess of $125,000." So I'm thinking it's the end valuation.
Mr. Dahilig: And that's the ... when we look at the end valuation,
if we were to just purchase the raw materials to build a house, theoretically
something like that could be under $125,000.00 just to put up a house. But the
COUNCIL MEETING -18- January 26, 2011
actual labor costs and the actual, you know, engineering cost, as well as
architectural cost should be included because you're... that's the total purchase price
or that's the total contract.
Ms. Yukimura: Right, you would go by the purchase price, right?
Mr. Dahilig: Exactly.
Ms. Yukimura: The value which the person would pay ... a buyer
would pay for.
Mr. Dahilig: Essentially because these actions, like for instance
a contractor putting together the sticks of lumber and the wiring is a value -added
process. So because of that, we take that view that (inaudible).
Ms. Yukimura: And you said that your process is to look at that,
make some rough estimates, make sure it's way below the $125,000.
Mr.. Dahilig: Yup.
Ms. Yukimura: And then issue a minor permit.
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct, councilmember.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: Hi.
Ms. Nakamura: I have a couple of questions. Are lifeguard stands
exempt from the environmental assessment process?
Mr. Dahilig: That's a good question. I do not know off the top of
my head whether 343 does exempt them. What we do know from past practice by
other counties is that the lifeguard stands have not gone under a 343 type of
evaluation. It may be that the lifeguard stands could be exempted by categor ... I
guess the category... what would be the equivalent of the categorical exemption list
on the state side and for the federal. So I...
Ms. Nakamura: Right, actually every county department is
supposed to have a list of projects that could be exempt from the environmental
assessement process. So the question is does the fire department have it on their
list or does public works have it on their list?
Mr. Dahilig: I think what the practice has been and we're
undergoing one right now, because of the historical split from parks and public
works and then also because the ocean safety division was previously under parks
before being. transferred over to the fire department, it's one of those situations
where we can kind of say, yeah, this ... for actions in the past that the 343 list could
still apply. But at the same time, you do bring up a good point, councilmember, that
the departments maybe need to take look at having...
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, I was just thinking to answer
Councilmember Rapozo's question that if this project wasn't exempt from
Chapter 343, environmental assessment laws, then that would have been the
process to flag Army Corps of Engineers' concerns early in the process. You know,
they would have said, you know, not to build at that current site.
COUNCIL MEETING _19- January 26, 2011
Mr. Dahilig:
Ms. Nakamura:
comment.
Okay.
But other than that, it's hard to catch that type of
Mr. Dahilig: You know, what we can do is we can take a look
back at... and we can try to provide you the specific...
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, and just to clarify that you did apply for the
waiver and the Army Corps denied your request for a waiver to keep it at the
existing site. Okay, and just the final one is... and this is just a separate concern
but related to this area, concern raised by a community member about rocks that
were set up to protect the beach and are now kind of falling into the ocean and
people are concerned about beach users being affected by the, you know, rocks
hitting them.
Mr. Vierra: Well, I can kind of maybe touch on that.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay.
Mr. Vierra: I don't know if you've been to the west side. I'm not
sure if you've been to the Kekaha Beach area lately, but the high waterline is
coming directly against the rock wall now right in front of Saint Theresa's, right in
front of the Kekaha Neighborhood Center. There used to be a whole beach there
maybe a year and a half ago, but there is not. Now the water is coming directly to
the rocks and with this past big northwesterly swells, I believe last week some of
the water has been coming up onto the road already with the high ... the high tide
and what have you. But that's ... I seen that one testimony from one citizen from
Kekaha and yes, rocks are slowly falling off its place and it can create a hazard if
kids or people are boogie boarding or swimming in that general area.
Ms. Nakamura: Is ... whose responsibility is it to then maintain that
area?
Mr. Vierra: I'm not sure.
Mr. Dahing: It's hard to say. I mean it could be the department
of transportation if it's supposed to (inaudible) the road up. I don't know.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. This can be a follow -up.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay (inaudible). First of all before I recognize
you, councilwoman, Mike, I think that will be a separate communique to you folks
regarding the specific comments about wall repair, maintenance associated with it,
and who has the stewardship for that. Before I recognize Councilwoman Yukimura,
I would like to make sure that as a follow -up to Nadine's question and mine, we
want to see our actual application to the Corps asking for the variance, that was my
question, or exemption, whichever it is, I haven't seen it. And we want to make
sure, we're also saying we want a copy of what they actually responded. So just to
make sure we're all clear here, Councilwoman Nakamura's question and mine were
very similar, but we want both parts of it. Councilwoman Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING -20- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. In the response regarding the rocks,
which I think it is DOT probably and to a certain extent with the revetment from
the Corps of Engineers, it's also the Corps ... it's a Corps issue too, which is why
the ... what is that called, Councilmember Rapozo? The action of disengaging from
us or not taking...
Mr. Rapozo: The inactive status.
Ms. Yukimura: The inactive status of the Corps right now puts us
at risk that if something happens to the revetment, they will not be there to fix it
for us, yeah. But would you please also then as a follow -up, consult with Chip
Fletcher and the others as to ocean currents because in previous discussions, I've
heard that some of the construction of the Kikiaola Harbor is causing some of the
change in currents...
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: ... that... down the coast, so. And then whether... I
don't know whether that's true or not, but we should check with our ocean
experts... coastal erosion experts on that matter.
Mr. Dahilig: Sure, we can definitely send an inquiry to
Dr. Fletcher and so as ... I mean we can also ask OCCL what ... I'm sorry, we can also
ask OCCL if they had any past consultation or correspondence regarding the
installation of the revetment.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay and then I think as to the question about
shoreline setback, I think in ... we exempted lifeguard stands from shoreline setback
permits because they are ocean related, they have to be close to the ocean and so
forth.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: So I believe that issue was clarified with recent
amendments to the shoreline setback law.
Mr. Dahilig: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Just to summarize between both councilmembers,
Mike, and we'll send this to the county attorney's office as well, within the CZM, we
want to know the list of exemptions, as well as the EIS, you know, what items are
exempted in the shoreline. So, Amy, you heard me on these questions. We'll send it
over in writing, but I think that's a follow -up to both of those. Councilwoman and
then Mr.Rapozo. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Bynum, did you have a question?
Mr. Bynum: I do.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so we'll go to M:i. Bynum, then we'll go to
Mr. Rapozo and then we'll go back to you. Sorry for that line -up change.
Mr. Bynum: I think I got a clear picture of what's going on here,
but I just wanted to say that the Army Corps ... I mean ... it's clear if we had our
drothers we'd leave the lifeguard stand where it is. Now the Army Corps is saying
you have to move it because you've violated some regulation about a structure on or
near their revetment. And their concern is that somehow this presence of this
structure is going to undermine the integrity of the revetment. And the logical
COUNCIL MEETING -21- January 26, 2011
person looks at that and says hey, this revetment is underground, it may consist of
huge boulders, how could a waterline and a lifeguard stand, you know, logically
undermine the integrity of the wall. So I'm really glad that you asked for an
exemption because logic would say ah, you know, it's minor. Unfortunately it looks
like they're being rigid and I understand that the consequences are significant in
terms of them taking liability, perhaps for the whole revetment even the area where
you're talking about Saint Theresa's, in terms of the cost should there, you know...
So it looks like water safety did what they could to convince the Army Corps to take
a more logical position on this and I... if your answer would have been no, we never
asked for it, I think we'd all be unhappy. But just to say that clearly, you know, I
mean technically what they're saying is that somehow this lifeguard stand
threatens the integrity of this revetment, which I think a lay person would say ah,
it's a bit of a stretch. But we have to protect the... so it's an unfortunate
circumstance. Have I got this right?
( ?): Yeah.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah? Okay. I just wanted ... in case in the public
is like what's the big deal? Well, the Army Corps is putting this in our lap in
essence and so far hasn't been willing to take a thing that says yeah, yeah, yeah,
technically that's not okay, but, you know, logically it's not a big deal, here's your
exemption. We wished they would have done that.
Mr. Vierra: Yeah.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Rapozo: You remember when the request for exemption was
done? Was it done by water safety or was that done by planning? Or the...
Mr. Vierra: By the fire department.
Mr. Rapozo: Oh, the fire department. Do you remember when
that was? Within the last year, two years?
Mr. Vierra: I would say in the last maybe six months..
Mr. Rapozo: Oh, just recently?
Mr. Vierra: Yeah.
Mr. Rapozo: Yeah, okay. You know I think that one of the
problems was that the Army first came down a couple of years ago and gave us the
notice a couple of years ago and I think that's part of their frustration. The Army
Corps, I believe, in `08 first informed the state that we need to move this tower. So I
think that ... you know and I'm not here to defend the Army Corps, I'm just saying
that I think there's some reason why they're doing what they're doing and I think in
their eyes, you know, the only way they're going to get the state's and the county's
attention is by saying okay, now, you know what, your wall ... your project is now
inactive, which means if anything happens to that wall, you're on your own. And so
I'm not here to defend them, but just to understand why they're so upset. And then
the only other question I have, Mike, is you mentioned ... in this application there's
no... there's no mention of the waterline. And yet if we're going to relocate the
waterline or do anything, I mean that would require another... either added into the
application or it would trigger another SMA application just for that. I would
suspect that the most easiest way would be to just add that into your project
COUNCIL MEETING -22- January 26, 2011
because I think it just makes everything go by a lot quicker because I don't see
anything in the application regarding the waterline. In fact, I don't know how that
waterline even got there, but whatever, however it got there, we need to get the
right permits to move it back to where it's going to go.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, councilmember, and I have instructed
by staff, given the impending relocation, that when the amendment does come in
that we do need to go through a process of making sure that the waterline is in the
application as well as that we are also anticipating a value of the waterline that
goes above what was it previously estimated by the, I guess, the applicant. So that
is something that we are aware of, we're keeping our eye on, and we
definitely... your comments are appreciated.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay, and I guess when that application is
complete, the amendment, would we be able to get a copy of that as well?
Mr. Dahilig: Certainly, we can do that.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Let's make sure we send that request over, staff.
Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I was there also at the meeting on
January 12th at the Kekaha Neighborhood Center and my understanding was that
the ... that the fire department had asked for an exemption and I think that was
definitely the right way to go and we'll get the paperwork behind that. But I know
that Councilmember Rapozo had suggested that he and I do a letter to the Corps
expressing the council's concern, kind of as a last ditch effort. And perhaps what we
can do is turn it into a resolution, incorporate Councilmember Bynum's point about
how addressing the Corps' concern that it might damage or somehow lessen the
effectiveness of the revetment, which we think is not an issue but at least make that
point, and see what they do as our effort anyway. And then I wanted to ask Kalani
to talk about the fire department's effort and the ocean water safety division's
efforts to find at least the safest alternative spot because that was discussed as well
at that meeting. And maybe you could ... we have a map here of the different
options, and if you could just maybe...
Mr. Vierra: Yeah, I did a...
Ms. Yukimura: ...walk us through it.
Mr. Vierra: ... make copies of a map and it kind of shows where
the current tower is located. As you can see it is on the revetment wall. And our
first proposed location that ... we were suggesting moving the tower into the
developed portion of the MacArthur Beach Park. And after further review of
response times and sight /visual, we recommended that location number two be the
better location for the relocation of the lifeguard tower. We are off the revetment
wall, as you can see, and we're pretty much in the middle of MacArthur Beach Park
and where the current lifeguard tower is located now. So the response times going
south to where the current tower is would lessen by time if we were in the
MacArthur Beach Park. So, we feel that that would be probably the best position to
relocate the tower for public safety.
Ms. Yukimura: If we have to...
COUNCIL MEETING -23- January 26, 2011
Mr. Vierra: If we have to.
Ms. Yukimura: ...that would be the safest.
Mr. Vierra: And we are waiting. I believe Friday is the last day
for testimony from our last meeting we had in Kekaha with the... getting the
community's input on suggestions. And I believe we have about eight testimonies
so far and I... and it's like you know 50 against moving the tower and 50 move the
tower in recommendation of where the ocean safety recommends.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so the ... where do people send the testimony
if they want to give input on this matter?
Mr. Vierra: Yeah, we ... I guess we did a press release and also
from the night of the meeting, we are taking testimonies by email, fax or by mail,
and it's all to the fire department's office.
Ms. Yukimura: So that's to the fire department. Okay, I hope
that's on our county website.
Mr. Vierra: Yeah, it should be on the web ... on the website.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so if people want to tes... submit input about
the location of the tower, then they send email or snail mail...
Mr. Vierra: You can email the ocean safety at kauai.gov.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. Vierra: You can send a testimony letter to the fire
department office.
Ms. Yukimura: And that is by what date?
28th. Mr. Vierra: That's on Akahi Street and this is by Friday, the
Ms. Yukimura: By this coming Friday, the 28th...
Mr. Vierra: Yes, it's the deadline.
Ms. Yukimura: ...people need to submit testimony if they want to
about the proposed location.
Mr. Vierra: Yeah.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Vierra: You're welcome.
Council Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize Councilwoman Nakamura, could
you help me here because this is one of the basics? What is the distance, the sight
distance on this map that you submitted to us the recommended proposed tower
structure number two, what is the distance between number two and number one,
the existing...
COUNCIL MEETING -24- January 26, 2011
Mr. Vierra: From the current tower location now, it's about
163 yards west to location number two, and if you go all the way to location number
one, it's about 325 yards from the current lifeguard tower now.
Council Chair Furfaro: Three - hundred twenty -five from the current tower.
Mr. Vierra: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: What is the distance from the proposed tower
number two to (inaudible).
Mr. Vierra: It's about maybe 130- something yards, give or take.
I had it written down, but I didn't bring my notes. We...
Council Chair Furfaro: That's all right, we can all write it on our map, and
I just wanted to ask that question. Is that within the recommended sight lines from
the American Red Cross?
Mr. Vierra: Not sure.
Council Chair Furfaro: Could you check on that for us?
Mr. Vierra: I can.
Council Chair Furfaro: Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: That was the question I was going to ask.
Council Chair Furfaro: Oh, that was the question, okay, I'm sorry. Thank
you for this overview of the map as well. Did you have a question, Mr. Kawakami?
Any other questions here? Okay, I'm going to ask if there's other public testimony
at this point. We'll relieve you for now. Mr. Mickens.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Jay, for the record Glenn Mickens.
Number one it appears Mel hit the nail on the head. If the tower would have been
located in the proper place in the first round, we wouldn't be having this dialogue at
this time. And too if a firm bid for the project had been obtained, then we would
have an actual figure. We're talking about this major or minor permit. But why
wasn't it ... why didn't the county get a firm bid then to find out what it was? We
wouldn't be sitting here debating, well it's only thirty -seven thousand, the tower
cost that. As Mel pointed out, I know everything today is extremely expensive to do
any of this work, you get a machine down there to do any of this. But again, it's all
speculative, but it wouldn't be speculative if you had a firm bid. So anyway, this is
just my comments on it, Jay. I think it was misplaced in the first place, why it was
put there.
And JoAnn's asking a question about the public input on the thing. But the
public input, I wouldn't presume, is going to override the Corps of Engineers. If
they say that thing has to be moved, then, you know, the public isn't going to
change it. And from what Kalani said I think it was denied by the Corps of
Engineers. It's going to have to be moved. So I guess you don't have any wiggle
room there. Anyway, thank you, Jay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Ken, did you wish to testify? No? Is there anyone
else in the public that wishes to testify?
COUNCIL MEETING -25- January 26, 2011
Mike, I'm going to ask you to come up again, if I may. Mike, I just ... just real
quick. I... you know, looking at the SMA piece here, there are some definitions here
about development inside that area and one of the items in particular makes
reference to having to reapply for repair and maintenance on utility lines, i.e., water
or anything else. So obviously at some point, it must have been allowed if you do a
repair and maintenance function, you need to come in with another application. So
I would ask you to consider this and then also I'm going to pass over to Mr. Rapozo
because he's close to this issue and seems to be working with you. We have the
comprehensive exemption list for the County of Kauai, department of public works
and perhaps we can relate to some particular pieces that are in the current code
that might help us better understand, you know, what happened. And thirdly,
could I ask the planning department or the building department, there must be an
audit trace to the purchase order for multiple lifeguard towers. I would like to
actually see the purchase order that, you know, extends the amount for the actual
towers and maybe ... it would be good for us to have that.
Mr. Dahilig: Sure thing.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you for your testimony today. I would like
you to look into these documents.
Mr. Dahilig: Will do.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. You want to come and testify? Please
come right up. Just introduce yourself for the record.
DEBRA KEKAUALUA: Aloha, aloha everybody, my name's Debra
Kekaualua, and I just wanted to make a comment about the proposed new site or
the lifeguard station. We run the Kauai Bodyboarding Association and we're kind
of the new kid on the block. And we just had a contest in this area on Saturday.
And for us it would have been great to have the tower down more towards the area
that we had our contest, but... I don't know. I just wanted to make mention that
it's a shame that it has to be moved from the location that it currently is because it's
taking moneys that could be put somewhere else. And I think the Corps of
Engineers is lagging and they should be put more at task to either make some kind
of condition that would allow this tower to stay where it is or, you know, just kind of
work with us here because our ... Kalani people are really... working really, really
hard to keep our people safe and I think this is kind of undue on the part of the
Corps to push this button. I mean there's just too much other stuff that needs to be
taken care of So thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: One moment, appreciate your testimony and I
think you can see that we're trying to gather some information so that we might
want to revisit writing in or establishing our position with a resolution once we
gather the facts. So, thank you for your testimony and I will recognize
Councilwoman Yukimura now. She may have some questions for you.
Ms. Yukimura: Hi, Debra.
Ms. Kekaualua: Hi, JoAnn.
Ms. Yukimura: Can you show me again, where you were having
your body—your boarding ... bodyboarding?
Ms. Kekaualua: We were at a place called, I believe it's First Ditch
or the kids call it First Halves.
COUNCIL MEETING -26- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Kekaualua
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Kekaualua
north.
So where is that on the map?
It's... it's north of.. .
Do you have the map?
...the current tower, it's like in here. It's more
Ms. Yukimura: Oh, okay. But you still want the ... you feel like the
current location is better for that?
Ms. Kekaualua: Absolutely.
Ms. Yukimura: Than the one that's closer, the number two which
would be closer?
Ms. Kekaualua: No, this would be ... I think that the one that's
currently in place should stay. I don't see any reason why it should be moved.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Ms. Kekaualua: Because most of the people that use that
location ... you know, those that have 4 -wheel drives, they're able to take off and you
know, they're not concerned about safety for whatever, whoever they're bringing
back there. But... most of the local people that do frequent the beach, I believe, you
know, are right in this area, yeah, so it's like...
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Kekaualua:
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Kekaualua:
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Kekaualua:
Council Chair Furfaro
Anyone here?
I see.
... moving it from here just doesn't make any sense.
I see, okay.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Let's see if there's any more questions for you.
Ms. Kekaualua: I wanted to say thank you to Kalani and everybody
for helping us out with our KBA.
Council Chaii, Furfaro: We're very fortunate to have great people that work
in the County of Kauai.
Ms. Kekaualua: Absolutely and Dr. Downs.
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes, thank you. Are there any more members that
want to speak? Excuse me, from the audience? If not, I'm calling the meeting back
to order.
COUNCIL MEETING -27- January 26, 2011
There being no one else wishing to testify on this matter, the meeting was called
back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: Members, Mr. Rapozo, do you want to be
recognized?
Mr. Rapozo: Sure, I mean I'll just, you know, we'll follow up
with some communications to planning with some of the requests we discussed
today, especially with the amendment to the existing permit. We'll also do
a ... request a communication be sent out to the Army Corps from this body and
expressing our concern of the safety issues and hopefully get an exemption that
way, and if that doesn't work, we would follow that up with a resolution as
suggested by Councilmember Yukimura. I think that's... that's ... I don't want to
upset the Corps right now because they're pretty upset already. So a resolution
might be too harsh, but definitely a communication as we had discussed earlier and
I held off on that because I wanted to get this meeting out of the way so we could
get more information. I know there's more activities that had occurred between the
Corps and the State that's not available right now. So I kind of want to make sure
we have our ducks in a row before we send off that letter to the Army Corps. I want
to make sure we have all the communications that had gone back and forth prior to
sending off a letter that might... I learned once before sending a letter to Senator
Inouye's Office and I got quite embarrassed because there had been some other
issues going on that I wasn't aware of So I want to make sure all of our
information is accurate before we send off the request. I honestly believe that that
might help. I think if the public safety issue is a concern, the Corps may be flexible.
We don't know. We'll definitely try that. And that's pretty much it.
I do want to thank Kalani and Mike for being here today. Kalani did a really
good job out in ... on the west side in Kekaha. It was a very hostile crowd that night
and ... very hostile and I thought that was unfair for the crowd to be upset with the
fire department because it's ... they're acting on a directive of the Army Corps of
Engineers. This is not something that the county initiated. This is something that
the county is forced to do, and Kalani and the fire chief was there, and they did a
really good job with keeping the order in that place.
And I'm looking over the exemptions list and I'll definitely look into it. The
problem in this project is because the waterline and the structure are unpermitted
at this time, it doesn't qualify as an existing permitted structure. So we basically
gotta start all over. And that's all I'm asking and not punitive, but let's fix it, let's
do it right so we're not here again three, four years from now having the same
debate. So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to get
informed and we'll move forward on these things.
Council Chair Furfaro: Councilwoman Yukimura, did you have any
comments before we vote on this to receive?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, mainly a point of inquiry. Councilmember
Rapozo; `this letter you want it from all of the council or do you -think 'it's just from a
couple of us.
Mr. Rapozo: You know it could come from the Public Works
Chair, it could come from the Public Safety Chair, it could come from the council.
COUNCIL MEETING -28- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura:
might be good to have
authorized this letter.
one letter...
Mr. Rapozo:
I'm just thinking if it does come from the council, it
a motion and a vote that shows on the record that we've
I know we've done before signing of letters all of us, I mean
That violates the Sunshine Law.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, there's some question about it, that's why I
was thinking if we authorize it here by a motion and a vote that that might solve
the problem because then it's a clear intention of the body. And I guess we can
amend the motion to receive and say move to receive and send a letter from the
council ... to the Corps of Engineers. If that is something that we're all in agreement
about.
Chair Furfaro: I'll recognize Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to say if that is an appropriate motion,
then we'll definitely ... I support that if that is an appropriate motion.
Mr. Nakamura: I think, Mr. Chair, it would be an appropriate
motion. I think the only clarification that we would need is whether it would be
signed by all councilmembers, which is still kind o£..
Council Chair Furfaro: Well, I have a different approach to that. I think
when we get to a point that we introduce a resolution, that is a sure statement of
the policy of the group. I think it is a little bit of a delicate issue and we want to
step out and have reasonable negotiations go on with the Army Corps of Engineers
because we have that piece of financial responsibility that's hanging over the
council. I would think if Councilwoman Yukimura and Councilmember Rapozo, as
having public safety first surface with them as our rationale, then we can certainly
follow up with a resolution from the body. You should also know that you can check
in with our staff members, Yvette. I had written to Bill Aila with DLNR as well. I
wanted to speak with him on his next visit to Kauai. There were several topics in
the letter that I won't list right now, but you know, I would like to follow this in
such a fashion that it is initiated as a public safety concern through Mr. Rapozo and
if there's one co- signature, and then the intent to actually, you know, develop a
resolution stating our position and policy that we can all vote on and submit a
resolution. That would be my preference. I hope I've shared my view with you,
Mr. Rapozo...
Mr. Rapozo:
Ms. Yukimura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Further discussion?
Ms. Yukimura:
an amendment...
Council Chair Furfaro
Ms. Yukimura:
the floor?
That's fine.
That's fine.
You're fine with that? Okay, okay, very good.
I'm ... if there's no discussion; I'll attempt to propose
Go ahead.
...because I believe there is a motion to receive on
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING -29- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura: So move to amend the motion by adding the words
"and have the Public Safety Chair and myself send a letter to the Corps asking
them on behalf of public safety to allow the existing tower to stay there."
Mr. Rapozo:
Second.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Okay, we that amendment in our
request to send correspondence. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Ms. Yukimura: Of the amendment.
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes.
Councilmembers: Aye.
Ms. Yukimura moved to amend the motion to receive C 2011 -48 for the record
by adding that a letter be sent to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed
by the Public Safety & Environmental Services Committee Chair Rapozo and
Vice Chair Yukimura, asking them, on behalf of public safety, to allow the
lifeguard tower to remain at its present location, seconded by Mr. Rapozo,
and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, and then we are to the main item to
receive ... I think that is the motion. Am I correct?
Ms. Yukimura: As amended.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, as amended. We already had a motion and a
second on that item to get it under discussion. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to receive C 2011 -48 for the record with a letter to be sent to the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed by the Public Safety & Environmental
services Committee Chair Rapozo and Vice Chair Yukimura, asking them, on
behalf of public safety, to allow the lifeguard tower to remain at its present
location was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. We'll go to the next item.
Mr. Nakamura: Council Chair, we're on page three of the council's
agenda on communication C 2011 -50, which is a communication from the
prosecuting attorney requesting council approval to apply for, receive, and expend
County of Kauai Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2011 funds.
In this one, Mr. Chair, I think in discussion with the.-.with staff ...with the housing
agency, . a motio ... a more appropriate motion would be 'to receive this
communication because the CDBG grant allocations will be approved by council via
resolution, so. There's a proviso in the budget that allows for the application
of... application received and expenditure of grants to be done via the resolution to
the council. So a motion to receive would be in order.
COUNCIL MEETING -30- January 26, 2011
C 2011 -50 Communication (01/04/2011) from the Prosecuting
Attorney, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive and expend $32,335.00
from the County of Kauai, Community Development Block Grant Program Year
2011, to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle for Process Serving in low /moderate income
areas.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so we are asking for, as the county clerk had
just pointed out,. a motion to receive this particular item as, you know, accordingly,
you know once we approve these funds and so forth, it is in that jurisdiction, so. I
am looking for a motion to receive.
Mr. Rapozo: So moved.
Ms. Yukimura: Second.
Mr. Rapozo moved to receive C 2011 -50 for the record, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anyone from the public (inaudible)?
No? Okay, Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: I just want to clarify that the CDBG process is for it
to go through our staff in the housing agency.
Council Chair Furfaro: That's correct.
Ms. Yukimura: They do the vetting amongst... and evaluation of all
the applications, which will be many more than just this one and so by receiving
this, we're sending it through the correct process.
Council Chair Furfaro: Right, so that the packaged amounts, depending on
where they .... would actually come to a figure tied into ... the funding that reflects all
programs that where...
Ms. Yukimura: A competitive process.
Council Chair Furfaro: ...we're expecting to spend money on, so.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair, do we need to ... I guess we've already
told the prosecuting attorney's office to reroute it?
Council Chair Furfaro: I've asked them to send a communication over to
housing and also to the prosecuting attorney's office summarizing that.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: So, we have a motion to receive, we have a second.
Any further discussion? If not all those in favor, signify by baying aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to receive C 2011 -50 for the record was then put, and
unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Next item, Mr. Clerk.
COUNCIL MEETING -31- January 26, 2011
Mr. Nakamura:
is communication C 2011 -51:
On page three of the council's agenda for approval
C 2011 -51 Communication (01/07/2011) from the Chief, Building Division,
Department of Public Works, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and
spend the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant for the retrofit of the Kauai Historic
County Building of which FEMA will fund $461,250.00 and the County's match will
be $153,750.00: Mr. Bynum moved to approve C 2011 -51, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura.
Council Chair Furfaro: Anyone in the public wants to speak on this item?
If not, members, we have a motion to approve. Any discussion here at the table?
Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, okay, the matching funds will come from the
bond fund for historic county building and Lihu`e Civic Center site improvement.
So that's all part of our renovations?
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes, and what I'll do is I've asked them to circulate
a memorandum. I met with the building department yesterday. I wanted to hold it
until this item. I will make copies for the public if you so desire. But basically
reviewing the project itself, an estimated completion date, some of the project finish
dates, challenges that we've had with the project, what's the current status of
different phases, as well as the anticipated completion date on construction, and
then kind of a reconciliation of, you know, these grants that will leave us with the
total of $707,000 of that can be used for further Civic Center approvals are all
attached in a quick review that I reconciled with building yesterday for your general
information. Can we make some copies of these if anybody would like to see them
up front, so? We'll make some additional copies, so. So I would like, based on the
summary that I have here for you, I would like to get a vote on this. We have a
motion and a second.
Mr. Nakamura: We have a motion and a second.
Council Chair Furfaro: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to approve C 2011 -51 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nakamura: Excuse me, at the bottom of page three, Mr. Chair,
for council approval, communication C 2011 -52:
C 2011 -52 Communication (01/07/2011) from the Executive on Aging,
requesting Council approval of the following:
1) Agency tin Eld&r"ly Affair's (AEA) 4 -Year Area Plan on Aging (from
October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2015). It serves as the
blueprint and framework for program development and service
delivery for the next four years and is a compliance document that
will enable the County's AEA to receive federal funds and
administer programs and services for older adults as an Area
Agency on Aging.
COUNCIL MEETING -32- January 26, 2011
2) to apply for, receive, and expend federal funds through the Older
Americans Act, as amended, from the Administration on Aging, to
cover the future Area Plan on Aging for Fiscal Year 2012 - 2015, in
the anticipated total amount of $555,111.00 for FY 2012, for the
first of a four -year funding period, and
3) to indemnify the State Executive Office on Aging.
Ms. Yukimura moved to approve C 2011 -52, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Council Chair Furfaro: We have a motion to approve and seconded. I am
going to allow Mr. Kawakami the floor because I think he's circulating an
amendment. I'd like the public to hear the proposed amendment before I suspend
the rules for public testimony, so. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. This is for the resolution, so.
I'm going to suspend the rules for public testimony. Is there any? If not, the
meeting's called back to order. We have a motion to approve and a second. All
those ... having further discussion, I will recognize Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: I had a chance to review this 4 -year Area Plan on
Aging, and I think it's a really good example of a strategic document for the agency
on elderly affairs. I think they did a terrific job in identifying their mission, vision,
very clear goals and objectives, very clear action plan and, you know, the strategies
that are in here are data driven with clear measures for evaluating the agency.
And I read a lot of plans and this is one that really, to me, sets a high bar and I
would ... you know, I think the administration should be commended. This is the
kind of planning that I would hope all departments would have... something... a
document like this. So I just wanted to just point out that I think this is a really
good plan and will help to bring in federal funds, so thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, councilwoman. Any further discussion?
Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah, I just want to piggyback on that because last
term I was the chair of the elderly affairs committee. I felt like I neglected that
responsibility because we never... didn't really have much action, but it was because
we have such an outstanding elderly affairs group of people. They do amazing
work, hard work every day running their programs and I just really admire them,
so it's nice to hear that feedback. So, I apologize for my neglect last term, but you
guys are just doing a great job. We didn't have much council business. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Did you have an addition to that, Councilwoman
Yukimura?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I too want to acknowledge the excellent and
dedicated work of our agency on aging. And I also want to say how wonderful it is
to have Councilwoman Nakamura with her experience in strategic planning and
that whole process of going from plan to action, and to have her assessment of the
work here, of the agency. I'm glad that we have a model and I do also hope that the
other departments can work on that hind of approach so that we can have really
good action that's based on very good planning.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, any more commentary? If not, I'm
looking for a vote on all those in favor to approve?
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to approve C 2011 -52 was then put, and unanimously carried.
COUNCIL MEETING -33- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro
Thank you very much. Let's go to the next item.
Mr. Nakamura: We're on page four of the council's agenda,
Mr. Chair, on communication C 2011 -53 for approval:
C 2011 -53 Communication (01/06/2011) from Robert G. F. Lee, Major
General, RING, Director of Civil Defense, informing the Council of the appointment
of Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. as the Deputy Director of Civil Defense for the
County of Kauai, in accordance with H.R.S. Section 128 -3(d): Mr. Chang moved to
approve C 2011 -53, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Yukimura:
Ms. Yukimura:
Thank you.
Is this a motion to approve?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: And the copy of the letter from the Major General is
available to you. It came to me as the chairman, so we put it on as an agenda item.
We have a motion to approve and second. Any comments from anyone in the
audience. If not, may we ask for a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to approve C 2011 -53 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. We will go to claims now.
Mr. Clerk.
CLAIMS:
Mr. Nakamura: Next matter is a Claim, communication C 2011 -54,
which is a claim filed against the county by Michael Cox.
C 2011 -54 Communication (01/03/2011) from the County Clerk,
transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kauai by Michael Cox for damage
to his vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kauai:
Mr. Rapozo moved to refer C 2011 -54 to the County Attorney's Office for disposition
and/or report back to the Council, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and unanimously
carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. And on that note, I'm going
to. ask if we can take a recess., 10 minutes, caption break same time.,
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 11:04 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:22 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: I'd like to call the meeting back to order and if I
can, Mr. Clerk, would you read the next item, please.
COUNCIL MEETING -34- January 26, 2011
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Mr. Nakamura: Mr. Chair, we're on page four of the council's
agenda on Committee Reports, from your committee on
Housing /Transportation/Energy Conservation & Efficiency, committee report
CR -HTE 2011 -01.
HOUSING / TRANSPORTATION / ENERGY CONSERVATION & EFFICIENCY
COMMITTEE
A report (No. CR -HTE 2011 -01) submitted by the Housing /Transportation /
Energy Conservation & Efficiency Committee, recommended that the following be
approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2390 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE
SURPLUS AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL
FUND ($575,000.00 -Kauai Bus services expansion),"
Mr. Rapozo moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Bynum, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2390)
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, next item.
Mr. Nakamura: From your Committee on Economic Development &
Renewable Energy Strategies, committee report CR -EDR 2011 -01.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGIES
COMMITTEE
A report (No. CR -EDR 2011 -01) submitted by the Economic Development &
Renewable Energy Strategies Committee, recommending that the following be
approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2391 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND APPROPRIATIONS
ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($200,000.00 — Kauai Visitors
Bureau),"
Mr. Rapozo moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Bynum, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2391)
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, next item.
Mr. Nakamura: From your Committee on Public Safety &
Environmental Services, committee report CR -PSE 2011 -01.
COUNCIL MEETING -35- January 26, 2011
PUBLIC SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
A report (No. CR -PSE 2011 -01) submitted by the Public Safety &
Environmental Services Committee, recommending that the following be approved
on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2387 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
B -2010 -706, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS
AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND
($1,5 71, 001.00 - County 800 MHz radio system P25 compliance upgrade),"
Mr. Bynum moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr. Chang, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2387)
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, next item.
Mr. Nakamura: On page five of the council's agenda, from the
Committee of the Whole, committee report CR -COW 2011 -06, CR -COW 2011 -07,
and CR -COW 2011 -08
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
A report (No. CR -COW 2011 -06, CR -COW 2011 -07, and CR -COW 2011 -08)
submitted by the Committee of the Whole, recommending that the following be
approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2389 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET
OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE
SURPLUS AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE VARIOUS
FUNDS AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE TEXT CHANGES AS IT
RELATES TO FURLOUGHS ($2,328,554.00),"
Mr. Bynum moved for approval of the report, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2389)
A report (No. CR -COW 2011 -07) submitted by the Committee of the Whole,
recommending that the following be approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2392 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
ORDINANCE NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 BY
REVISING THE SURPLUS AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE
GENERAL FUND ($325,000.00 — County Auditor) ",
Mr. Bynum moved for approval of the reports, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2392)
COUNCIL MEETING -36- January 26, 2011
A report (No. CR -COW 2011 -08) submitted by the Committee of the Whole,
recommending that the following be approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2393 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY AUDITOR TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF A CONTRACT
AUDITOR AND APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR A CONTRACT AUDITOR
FROM APPROPRIATIONS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND FOR MORE
THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR,"
Mr. Bynum moved for approval of the report, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and
unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2393)
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Nakamura: Next matters are Resolutions. First resolution for
approval is Resolution No. 2010 -59:
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2010 -59, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN LANDS REQUIRED FOR
PUBLIC USE TO WIT: AN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC PARK SYSTEM,
SITUATED AT HANALEI, DISTRICT OF HALELE`A, COUNTY OF KAUAI,
STATE OF HAWAII, AND DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE NECESSITY
OF THE ACQUISITION THEREOF BY EMINENT DOMAIN: Mr. Bynum moved
for adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -59, seconded by Mr. Rapozo, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Nakamura: Next resolution for approval on page six ... page five
of the council's agenda is Resolution No. 2011 -24:
Resolution No. 2011 -24, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY (Daryl Wayne Kaneshiro)
Mr. Rapozo: Move to approve.
Ms. Nakamura: I'm going to recuse myself.
Council Chair Furfaro: Excuse me. We ... before we move to ... there is a
request here to be recused.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Although, you know, I don't have a contract
with the water department, I do have a sub - contract for a project that I'm trying to
finish up.
COUNCIL MEETING -37- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Rapozo. Was there a second?
aye.
Mr. Bynum: Second.
Okay, we had an approval from
Council Chair Furfaro: By Mr. Bynum. All those in favor, signify by saying
Councilmembers: Aye.
Council Chair Furfaro: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm back to a roll call.
Mr. Rapozo moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -24, seconded by
Mr. Bynum, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Rapozo, TOTAL — 6,
Yukimura; Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: , None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: Nakamura TOTAL — 1.
Mr. Nakamura: Six ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, next item, next resolution.
Mr. Nakamura: Next resolution for approval is Resolution
No. 2011 -25:
Resolution No. 2011 -25, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE COST CONTROL COMMISSION (Glen H. Takenouchi):
Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -25, seconded by
Mr. Chang, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Nakamura: Next resolution for approval is Resolution
No. 2011 -26:
Resolution No. 2011 -26, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE COST CONTROL COMMISSION (Laurie Lynn Koike
Yoshida): Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -26, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
COUNCIL MEETING -38- January 26, 2011
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair. Next resolution for
approval at the bottom of page five is Resolution No. 2011 -27:
Resolution No. 2011 -27, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW (Jose Ricardo da Silva Diogo):
Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -27, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair. At the top of page six, the
next resolution for approval is Resolution No. 2011 -28:
Resolution No. 2011 -28, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE COST CONTROL COMMISSION (Brant Shoichi
Fuchigami): Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -28, seconded
by Mr. Chang, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Next item, next resolution.
Mr. Nakamura: Next resolution for approval is Resolution
No. 2011 -29:
Resolution No. 2011 -29, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION (Charles Patrick
Stack): Ms. Yukimura moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -29, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair. Next resolution for
approval is Resolution No. 2011 -30:
Resolution No. 2011 -30, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS (Kathleen Ann Clark):
Ms. Yukimura moved for approval of Resolution No. 2011 -30, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING -39- January 26, 2011
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Next resolution.
Mr. Nakamura: Resolution No. 2011 -31:
Resolution No. 2011 -31, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE FIRE COMMISSION (Guy Spencer Croydon):
Mr. Bynum moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -31, seconded by
Ms. Yukimura, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Nakamura: Next resolution for approval is Resolution
No. 2011 -35:
Resolution No. 2011 -35, RESOLUTION INVITING THE MUNICIPALITY
OF LAOAG, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, TO ENTER INTO A SISTER -CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Mr. Kawakami moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -35, seconded by
Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. I believe we're going to go to
Councilmember Kawakami, who has an amendment.
Mr. Kawakami:
circulated.
Mr. Rapozo:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Second.
Move to amend as
Mr. Kawakami moved to amend Resolution No. 2011 -35, as shown in the
floor amendment attached hereto (Attachment No. 1), seconded by
Mr: Ra'poz0.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are going to take some commentary on
the amendment starting with Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is just a small
change. It changes some language from municipality to city, and that's just to make
things correct.
COUNCIL MEETING -40- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, is there any further comment? I guess
changing municipality to city is consistent with their city corporation reference to
themselves as city?
Mr. Kawakami: Yes and if you were to ask me the difference
between the two, I would not be able to answer that question. But it does make it
correct, so.
Council Chair Furfaro: It does make it correct and consistent with their
incorporation.
Mr. Kawakami: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Any further discussion? If not, we'll ask for
a voice call on the amendment as submitted. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Councilmembers: Aye.
The motion to amend Resolution No. 2011 -35 to Resolution No. 2011 -35,
Draft 1 was then put, and unanimously carried.
Council Chair Furfaro: Fine. Now we'll go to a roll call vote on the entire
resolution as amended.
The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -35, as amended herein to
Resolution No. 2011 -35, Draft 1 was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, can we now move to bills for
first reading.
BILLS FOR FIRST READING:
Mr. Nakamura: On page six of the council's agenda, first bill for
First Reading is Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2396):
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2396) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING -THE SURPLUS
AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($525,448 —
Golf Fund): Mr. Chang moved for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2396) on first
reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
February 23, 2011, and that it thereafter be referred to the Committee of the Whole,
seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Is there any public testimony on this
item? Mr. Mickens.
COUNCIL MEETING -41- January 26, 2011
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you again, Jay, for the record Glenn
Mickens. I have a short testimony. Let me read it for the viewing public and
for ... you members have copies of it.
With Bill 2388, the golf fund was just given a money bill for $62,719.00.
Now, they —and I presume this is the administration —is asking for another
$525,448.00 for the same 2010 -2011 fiscal year. Who has the responsibility of
overseeing exactly where these funds are going and what can be done to stop our
tax dollars from going into what I call a black hole? Since this council is the gate
keeper for our tax dollars, I would hope that you would fully research where these
funds are going —maybe you're doing it, I don't know —what justification there is for
giving them, and finding a solution to the problem or at least hold the
administration's feet to the fire. Don't give them any more money bills until they
give you answers. Whether it's the golf fund, the sewer fund, or the solid waste
fund, way too much money is being spent and I don't think anybody here can
disagree with that. If it is the job of our county, (inaudible) the county auditor to
find answers to these questions, I would highly suggest you give him the $90,000.00
he's requested. Let him and his staff do the work they were hired to do.
So, anyway, I guess my biggest question remains who oversees this? Who
actually goes and says we're giving them $500,000... we're putting a million dollars
or more into this thing. I know what you said, Jay, that, you know, the sprinkler
system broke, the maintenance shed burned down, they gotta replace that. But
why not float a bond or something, pay that off and see if we can't get the golf
operation back into a true enterprise fund. You pointed it out. It used to be that
way. Dickie, I'm sure you know it. You play golf. I don't play golf. And I'm not
trying to knock the golfers. People want to have that as a recreation activity, that's
fine. But it just seems that why should we have to keep on... again, it's not an
enterprise fund as you will agree. So if it's not an enterprise fund, call it what it
happens to be, but why do we have to keep on putting that kind of money into this
operation continually?
Council Chair Furfaro: Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, thank you. Mr. Mickens, I just wanted to let
you know that I have sent an inquiry to the finance ... to the mayor and the finance
department asking them what their intention is with respect to these enterprise
funds. Whether it is going to be ... whether it is a goal of theirs to move toward self -
sufficiency because it is mainly an administrative function. And we do have
oversight by the fact of this bill because we can vote not to appropriate...
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Ms. Yukimura: ...the subsidy. But we need to know what the
strategy, what the plan is, what the goals are for dealing with these big amounts,
well these large divisions or departments that are utilizing a lot of money and also
providing services.
Mr. Mickens: And obviously you want to know what direction
they're going to go. Is this going to be a perpetual thing or you're just going to keep
on...
Ms. Yukimura: , That's correct.
COUNCIL MEETING -42- January 26, 2011
Mr. Mickens: ... costing and you know. Until you get answers
back, do you have any idea when do you expect to hear back from the mayor's office
or...
Ms. Yukimura: I just wanted to let you know that that's what we're
doing right now.
Mr. Mickens: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Hold on, Glenn. Mr. Bynum
Mr. Bynum: Never mind. I changed my mind.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, Glenn, I just want to say and I've been
saying this for awhile. I really doubt that the golf course can truly be an enterprise
fund and secondly, the fact of the matter is there is some query as to the handling of
the assets itself, whether we replace a building, we improve the sprinkler system
and so forth, those are capital items that actually should be added to the book value
of the golf course and not expensed as an operational issue.
Mr. Mickens: Sure.
Council Chair Furfaro: But, you know, i£..if the opportunity comes about
that I can set up a meeting with the parks department and someone from finance,
I'll be glad to introduce you to those individuals so that we can walk through the
critical part. But I do not believe and I've said it many times that the golf course,
until we change the application of how we handle the asset, the golf course cannot
get to be an enterprise fund.
Mr. Mickens: But as you pointed out before, it used ... it once was
a true enterprise fund, the outgo equal the income. What has changed then? I
mean I know you mentioned it, sprinkler system, etc., but what has changed then to
make it a non - enterprise fund at this stage of the game then from what it used to
be? Why can't we get back to that system, whether it's increasing the fees or what
it happens to be? If it's a private course, then, you know, with your hotels, you
know, the golf course that you had, they had to be self - sufficient. They had to pay
for themselves. So what do you feel is the rationale? Why isn't it the same as it
used to be? Why can't we get back to that system?
Council Chair Furfaro: Because really, Glenn, it's a different type of course
now. You know, we have hotels that are one star, two star, three star, four star.
There was a time when this golf course was not perceived as being at its utmost
manicured condition. We have changed that to now it is one of the best municipal
courses in the nation.
Mr. Mickens: But it was rated one of the best in the nation prior
to this.
Ms. Yukimura: Long ago.
Council Chair Furfaro: Well, we can debate that and I won't. I mean I see
Councilwoman Yukimura shaking her head, but a lot of that came about in
preparing us for some national exposure. There were reinvestments.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING -43- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: But as we talk about the bookkeeping aspects of
this, we first have to talk about how we're handling the CIP items that go into the
golf course.
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: They should not be expensed, those payments.
Mr. Mickens: I agree.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, but anyway, I'll invite you.
Mr. Mickens: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: I'll invite you if the ... when the opportunity comes.
Mr. Mickens: Okay, appreciate it. Thank you, Jay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, did you have a question for Mr. Mickens?
Mr. Bynum: I'll let it go.
Council Chair Furfaro: You'll let it go. Okay, okay. Anyone else would like
to testify on this? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Oh, there's further
discussion before we go to roll call?
There being no one else wishing to testify on this matter, the meeting was called
back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Go ahead, councilwoman.
Ms. Yukimura: I just want to recall for historical purposes the
factor that I think was the reason we were able to have a profitable golf course and
be in the top 10 of municipal golf courses in the county and that was Toyo Shirai.
He was the golf course manager and he was legendary for his ability to upkeep the
Wailua Golf Course and have it be in the top nationwide. So I just want to recall
that, you know he was a very good man.
Council Chair Furfaro: No, it's good to recognize his contributions to the
fine golf course that we have now. Thank you very much, councilwoman. Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I just ... you know we have this bill before us to
address some revenue shortfalls and also to do some investment in the course. And
.whether this is the mechanism or another, it's time for us to renew this dialogue.
about the course and about the future of the course. And I'll take the Chair's
guidance about whether we do that with this item or a separate item in the parks
committee. But the ... you know the question I would consider posing is do we expect
that the county won't put any general fund revenue into this course? I certainly
don't expect that it will be self - sustaining. All of our recreational activities require
some investment from the general fund, whether it's baseball or soccer or motocross.
You know, our citizens engage in various forms of recreation and the county
supports that. And I think that's great. And so it's logical to me that golf would be
one of the recreational activities that we provide support for. The course is a
COUNCIL MEETING -44- January 26, 2011
wonderful asset for the County of Kauai. We are all so fortunate to have it,
whether we golf or not. And so it's nurturing it and caring for it and having meet
its potential as a revenue generator are all important items. So I think it's time to
renew that discussion and this bill may be the mechanism or some other. So thank
you very much.
Council Chair Furfaro: And on that note, I would, if the chairman of the
parks department would like to make this a future agenda item, we can certainly go
through the number of rounds, the proposed rates, the average fees, the concession
incomes, the staffing guides, the marketing charges, operating cost as related to
water, fertilizer and so forth. I mean, it is at the discretion of the parks chairman to
do that and I would be open to it, Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Any further discussion? Okay, this is to approve
on first reading. All those in favor? Oh, sorry, sorry. It is a roll call vote and I'm
sorry that I... that's the third time I made that mistake because we go from a roll
call vote to a discussion on an amendment, which is a voice vote, my apologies. Roll
call.
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2396) on first reading,
that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for
February 23, 2011, and that it thereafter be referred to the Committee of the Whole
was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for first reading is Proposed Draft Bill
(No. 2397):
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2397) — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS
AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($417,238 —
Solid Waste Fund): Mr. Rapozo moved for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2397)
on first reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be
scheduled for February 23, 2011, and that it thereafter be referred to the Public
Safety & Environmental Services Committee, seconded by Ms. Yukimura, and
carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
COUNCIL MEETING -45- January 26, 2011
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, next item please.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for first reading on the bottom of page six
of the council's agenda is Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2398):
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2398) — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS
AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($300,000 —
Office of the County Clerk — Council Services Division): Mr. Chang moved for
passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2398) on first reading, that it be ordered to
print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for February 23, 2011, and that it
thereafter be referred to the Finance /Parks & Recreation/Public Works Programs
Committee, seconded by Mr. Bynum, and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Now we're on bills for second reading.
Mr. Nakamura: We're on page seven of the council's agenda,
Mr. Chair. These are Bills for Second Reading. First bill for second reading is Bill
No. 2385:
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2385 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($90,211- County
Auditor): Mr. Bynum moved to adopt Bill No. 2385 on second and final reading, and
that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr. Chang.
Council Chair Furfaro: We have a motion and a second.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair, we have some amendments.
Mr. Bynum:
Yeah, I have an amendment.
Council Chair Furfaro: Let me ask to get the amendments introduced so
those that want to speak know what amendments are being circulated. Did you
hear me, Mr. Mickens? I'm going to circulate the amendments first so if you choose
to testify you would know what the amendments are. Is your amendment
circulated?
Mr. Bynum: I ... I think they're doing it right now.
COUNCIL MEETING -46- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Yukimura:
BC, Videographer:
Is the amendment circulating now?
It's being circulated.
Check your mike.
Council Chair Furfaro: Now that the amendment is being circulated,
Mr. Bynum, the floor recognizes you.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah, this amendment really is kind of a
housekeeping item prepared by staff related to the amount of time since this bill
was first introduced. We no longer need funding for the same time period, so this
adjusts the various amounts with the total being $66,866 as opposed to $90,211
because by the time this passes that's what'll be needed for the remainder of the
fiscal year.
Council Chair. Furfaro: I've just been informed that the auditor is on his
way, so I would prefer that I go into a recess until he gets here.
Ms. Yukimura: But we can move it to the (inaudible).
Council Chair Furfaro: But I need a recess for the next item as well, so.
Ms. Yukimura: Oh, okay, all right, let's...
Council Chair Furfaro: Let's take a recess for five minutes, please.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 11:46 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:54 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: We're back from recess and I see that the auditor is
here. So Mr. Kawakami, the ... oh, there's ... I'm sorry, these three amendments
weren't yours. It's...
Mr. Kawakami: I'm not introducing any.
Council Chair Furfaro: Yup, got it. We have circulated three amendments
and I'd like to go through all of them, recognizing a sequence of Mr. Bynum to speak
first, Councilwoman Yukimura to speak second, and Nadine Nakamura to speak
third. But before I do that and the auditor is here, is there anything that you would
like to say, sir, before we begin looking at these amendments one at a time? No?
Okay. So we left it with Mr. Bynum, who actually, in his amendment, reconciled
the actual period ... the period of the payroll that's left in this year to reflect the net
difference, bringing the bill down from $90,000 to $66,866. That's how I see it.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah, this is just addressing the time frame, but it
leaves the auditor's request intact..:
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Bynum: ... in terms of personnel.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so no changes on the personnel, but in fact
referencing the time remaining in the year and the amounts on a monthly
reconciliation. So, we could... did we have a motion introducing your amendment?
COUNCIL MEETING -47-
Mr. Nakamura: No.
Council Chair Furfaro: We did not. Okay. I...
Mr. Bynum: So moved.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, fine.
Mr. Rapozo: Second.
January 26, 2011
Mr. Bynum moved to amend Bill No. 2385, as shown in the floor amendment
attached hereto (Attachment No. 2), seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro: . Thank you. And now I'll open that up for some
discussion, Mr. Bynum's amendment. Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair, I was thinking maybe it might be an
easier format if we just go over the three amendments and decide which one we
really want introduced because otherwise we're going to have to amend an amended
and it gets kind of complicated?
Council Chair Furfaro: Well, I understand, but I want us all to remember
this moment in time and history of the council that we're going to deal with several
amendments at the same time. I have no problem doing it, but make sure that
we're all in agreement of doing it that way. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I think the problem arises is you can only discuss
the amendment when it's moved onto the floor, and you cannot move three
amendments at the same time. So if you want to have a discussion on the matter,
my suggestion is have the discussion and then appropriately make that amendment
as you see fit. But we're not able to discuss a specific or particular amendment until
it's moved to the floor. And right now we have Mr. Bynum's on the floor and that is
the amendment that we can discuss.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, I'm going to ask... recognize Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Just a procedural question. If this amendment
passed, it would amend the bill. If a subsequent amendment passed, it would make
this one moot, right? We can just handle each one...
Council Chair Furfaro: I would take it that's the way it is. I just wanted to
point out the reality of what we're doing here so procedurally six months from now
we understand that we modified this (inaudible). Councilwoman Yukimura. You're
correct, Mr. Bynum, that's how I interpret it as well. Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, a first . point of inquiry, I don't quite
understand what you said about making it moot.
Mr. Bynum: If we amend this ... if we pass this amendment, then
it changes the dollar amounts and leaves the staffing intact. If a subsequent
amendment passed, it would supersede this one...
Ms. Yukimura: No.
COUNCIL MEETING -48- January 26, 2011
Mr. Bynum: ...because it ... the subsequent amendment amends
the bill in its entirety. I think...
Ms. Yukimura: No, it amends the bill as... oh... oh, okay, okay,
excuse me, thank you. So ... it amends the bill in its entirety and then if there's a
subsequent amendment, the figures change on the amended bill, though, and
then... so the amendments have to change, I think.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, let me recognize mister...
Ms. Yukimura: But ... but...
Council Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Ms. Yukimura: I can solve that though by ... why don't we just have
the bill ... the... excuse me, Councilmember Bynum's motion and the second so we'll
discuss his motion and as part of the discussion, we can discuss alternatives, and
then if we decide... if it seems like we're going one way or the other, we can have
it... that motion withdrawn.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: That is what I proposed. I suggested that we have
the discussion during the discussion and then you can craft your amendment based
on what you think is going to happen. You know, the other thing is... the other way
is you would have to amend the amendment, which gets messy.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. Rapozo: It gets rough for the staff. So I mean I would
suggest we have the discussion on Mr. Bynum's amendment and at that point you'll
know by the discussion whether or not an amendment should be prepared.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so the floor recognizes Mr. Bynum to talk
about his amendment.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, I support the amendment as it stands. It
adjusts the time frame. I support honoring the request from the auditor to provide
the staffing level that he's requested.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Any other discussion at this point?
Ms. Yukimura: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Go right ahead, councilwoman.
Ms. Yukimura: Councilmember Nakamura and I had a very good
discussion with the auditor's office and appreciate very much their ... what
their... and I appreciate what... the work that they're proposing and that they're
doing. We ... I did have some questions about their original proposal, which was for
four people rather than five, and their initial framework, which showed that
compared to the other counties we were comparable. But with the addition of five, I
think that might change a bit and I don't know if we've looked at monetary figures
because the first three people are fairly highly paid professionals. So... and I think
there was some research that Councilmember Nakamura can explain where we're
showing that a lot of the ... the clerical part is being done by some of the personnel in
COUNCIL MEETING -49- January 26, 2011
the council services office. So, the question for me was whether... and also in
speaking to the auditor, the county auditor, if we were to go to a four - person office,
he would prefer and he explained well why he would prefer an audit analyst as
compared to the support technician. So I'm thinking that in the beginning part of
this program, we know that a support technician will eventually be needed, but that
some policy judgments or budget judgments have been made and that has to
correlate with some of the program proposals. And I know the auditor is very
enthusiastic and I support the vision of having some really good audits done in this
county, but we also have to be cognizant of budget and other things. So, you know,
starting with a few core program audits and then doing that well, showing us,
building credibility and trust, and then expanding the program is the way I would
see a beginning office could best work. So ... so my proposal is to take out the
technician. And you'll see that Councilmember Nakamura's proposal is for a part -
time 20 -hour week technician. And I actually could go with either knowing that at
some point we will need a technician. But the question is when and how do you
build given the overhead that you have every. office, (inaudible) small office has to
Took at —and starting with a modest program and building up. And so that's... that's
the thought process I've been going through as I've been looking at the request and
also the formulation of the office.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. In doing some research about the
positions requested, I learned that the office of council services expanded a position
here and that our staff does personnel, purchasing, healthcare changes, travel
requests for the office of the auditor. So a lot of the sort of higher level assistance to
the office is being provided. So the pure clerical position is what's missing or what's
the gap. And so my... in talking to the auditor's office, it just... and in looking at
their workload that it was ... for me it's hard to justify fulltime staff at this point in
time. We have, you know, not seen ... you know we've seen the financial report, but
none of... we haven't seen any of their completed performance audits and so forth.
So, I just wanted to get them started, but have them make the justification for a
fulltime position when there's enough work for that person to fulfill. So, that's my
request. My amendment is to have a half -time clerical at this point in time.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Thank you. I'll just share with the group
that one of the challenges we have is a ... we have not received an amended version
from the auditor's department of the parameters of their work. In fact, what we're
dealing with at this moment is kind of copying the City & County of Honolulu. And
I think, you know, that's fine for awhile. You can... you know, you can take it on
and say okay in areas that are ... we're not really clear on on the parameters, we'll do
a template of the City & County of Honolulu. I would like to see that get done with
the clerical support as quickly as possible. And we also have duties that are still
handled here and I want to get them out of our office, and they deal with everything
from payroll record keeping that probably should not be in our hands but in the
hands of some clerical support in their office. We need to get that turned over in a
routine as soon as possible, but at the same time I can recognize that when there's
purchasing `that' needs to be done, ultimately we have the authority 'thr"ough 'the
Chair to do the purchasing process for the dotted line to the audit department. And
I think there's a lot of things that need to be set in operating standards that a
clerical person could support from coming out of the chute here and in our evolution,
you might say, to having policies, procedures, and standards typed, adopted, and in
our hands. And so I think there's an urgency to get that done. So I guess I'm
leaning towards Mr. Bynum's amendment. Mr. Rapozo.
COUNCIL MEETING -50- January 26, 2011
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ... you know I too met with
the auditor and his staff and I, prior to the meeting, wasn't aware that they had
already been involved in several active audits and this council is actually putting
quite a bit of parameters, if you will, or requests to them to get some of the items,
much as you've just described, Mr. Chair, and I agree with you that some of that
requirements that we're putting on much... for example, the operations plan or their
manual, you know, I look to that being done relatively soon. I did have an
opportunity to read a draft audit report in a draft and that audit is still in... still
being conducted. I was very impressed with the auditor's report. It was very clear.
I thought it touched on many of the areas that, you know, an investigator would
look at, so I was quite pleased with that. Now they have several audits or
pre- audits going on at the same time. I do agree that they should be staffed with a
support person. I mean I think if we expect them to comply with our requests, we
need to give them the tools that they're requesting.
Now having said that, this amendment from Mr. Bynum is for a five -month
period. They'll be up in front of us in a couple of months for budget and this is
just... I'm going to be supporting the amendment by Mr. Bynum. But I'm also
going to be sending a message to the auditor's office that when you come up for
budget, definitely need to justify the positions that you have requested and I expect,
and I think the Chair made that point quite clear, that your operating manual,
whether it's going to be Honolulu... City & County of Honolulu's operations manual.
I did get a chance to look at that, it's quite intense, it is quite intensive, so be it. I
mean it's... it's... obviously... it works, so. My message is just that when you come
back for budget, make sure that we have some tangibles that we can review and ... to
continue the funding going into the next budget year.
And I am under ... I have been told that these positions are not civil service.
Therefore, you know, whoever gets hired needs to be aware that it's ... the positions
and their employment is contingent on funding and that at the next budget, there's
a possibility that that funding source may not be available. And that really lies in
the ability of your office to convince this body that those positions are still needed.
It's relatively... the difference in the amendments is a relatively small amount of
money when you look at the total big picture. So, I'm willing to go along with that
at this point; however... and we'll talk again, but I do expect some justification of the
continuance of the funding of these positions at the budget hearings. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Chang, I'm sorry, Mr. Chang, then
Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chair. I had stated last week on the
floor that I was intending to support the county auditor's request in full. I will be
supporting the amendment brought up by Councilmember Bynum. However, I
would like to say that I really appreciate the amendments by both Councilmembers
Yukimura and Nakamura, and I would like to commend Councilmember
Nakamura. I never really thought about a part -time position, which I think is a
very, very interesting idea. But at this given time, as I discussed a week agog that,
you know, it's a brand new office. There's no footprint. You know, we're starting
brand new from scratch. And I think as the years come by, then there'll be a
playbook and a guide how do you star... set up a county auditor's office. So I'm going
to support it in full and as Councilmember Rapozo had stated, this is for five
months and when we come down into the budget times, there's going to be some
obvious questions and reports that we want to follow up on. So I do intend to
support the floor amendment introduced by Councilmember Bynum. Thank you
very much.
COUNCIL MEETING -51- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, we are back in session, but we are allowed to
go around twice. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Kawakami, it'd be his first
time. Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, you know, I just want
to remind everyone too that the reason why we're here today contemplating the
budget for the county auditor is because the voters decided that they wanted this
department and this position. ,And, you know, just as a subtle note to the charter
commission, I think for future reference, when we are deciding to put things on the
ballot, we should put a cost that's going to be associated with that initiative so that
the voters can have a true picture as to what they're voting on because some people
are surprised that the bill for this department is starting to rack up quite a bit of
resources from our county coffers. And I ask them, did you vote yes on this ballot
initiative? And the answer is usually in the affirmative. Then I say, well, you
know, you're the reason why we're here today, so be careful what you ask for. But
nonetheless, we are in uncharted waters because this is a brand new department
and we have a brand new position, and I was one of seven councilmembers that
hired this individual that's now heading this department. And when we decided to
hire this individual, we put a level of trust that his integrity and his professionalism
would provide us some source of understanding that his proposals that he's setting
forth in front of our council would be why we hired him in the first place. That
being said, I have never worked in an auditor's office and I'm basing my decision on
some of the information that he's provided us and so it's going to be a support for
Councilmember Bynum's amendment, but at the same token I want to say that my
support for Councilmember Bynum's amendment does not mean that the two other
amendments that are going to be presented in front of us are in any way wrong
because in my opinion, there is no right or wrong in this decision making. It's just
different perspectives as to what it takes to actually get him up and going. And I'd
like to mirror the sentiments from Councilmember Rapozo that come budget time
we expect to see a lot more tangibles and a lot more benchmarks being met if we
provide him these additional resources. And the only question I would have is if we
approve this amendment from Councilmember Bynum, and I'd like to hear it from
the auditor, if he'd be able to hit his objectives to achieve his mission and to be able
to provide us with what we're asking for. And that would be a question for the
auditor to answer because I would not like to see us approve this and have us come
back and see additional requests from his office at this time.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. If the members would allow me to suspend
the rules to have the auditor come up. The rules are suspended. I believe you
heard some of the commentary.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
ERNESTO G. PASION, County Auditor: Good morning, Councilmembers,
Ernie Pasion, county auditor, for the record.
Council Chair Furfaro: At this point I want to make sure you understand
that the original "bill was for the additional $90,211.00 to fund these positions for
the remainder of the year. Time has lapsed, as much as 60 days. Mr. Bynum's
amendment, which we're dealing with now, adjusts and reconciles the period of time
left to the payroll dollars associated that ... with an amendment for $66,866. And
then I would like to ask Mr. Kawakami if you need to have his questions rephrased
for you?
Mr. Kawakami: Yeah, maybe yeah? If I may, Mr. Chair?
COUNCIL MEETING -52- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: The floor is yours.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Pasion. My
question is very easy. The proposal in front of us, the amendment from
Councilmember Bynum, suggests that we adjust the amount that you're asking for
to follow the timeline that we're on right now and it basically reduces it by two
months. Now, I'm here asking you that this $66,866.00 that we'd be providing your
office, is that going to be enough for you to fulfill the mission and the goals and
objectives that your office and yourself have set for the office of the auditor?
Mr. Pasion: Yes, it will definitely be a big help to ... for us to do
our mission for the department to provide the necessary audit reports for the ... for
the county.
Mr. Kawakami: Okay. Should we anticipate any future... and this
may be an unfair question, if it is, sorry. Should we be anticipating that you'll be
coming to us in the near future for any additional positions for your office at this
time?
Mr. Pasion: No.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: I do want to pose ... I reviewed the audit's draft
budget earlier in the week and I just want to ask, because we have to input his draft
budget in preparation for the upcoming budget, have you circulated that draft?
Mr. Pasion: Not yet, Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Pasion: I have made an appointment with one of your staff
for us to input it into the system because they need it by the 28th. And as I
mentioned to some of the councilmembers that I'll be providing a copy of the draft
that I presented to you because you requested that I provide a copy of the draft to
the members of the body.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. So you haven't done that yet, but you will be
doing that.
Mr. Pasion: Yes, Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: You know, we got a couple odd carryover things
here that people need to understand. For example, when we get to the point that
we're dragging into the budget, we have all these deadlines sitting out there like
March... March... no, May 7th the budget has to be presented to the council and so
on. But you know, as I look at the history of that, you know, that's a carryover item
which was pre -TAT allocation and it was a deadline for the state to actually allocate
us our share of the money from the general fund. But, you know, we don't get an
allocation from the general fund now, so we end up compressing our time from
May 7 to an approval of June 30 based on old process, and it is ... you know, it
compresses us because we have to have an operating budget by July 1. But we're
kind of functioning off of old rules. And you know, that's an item that... since we
don't get an allocation from the state anymore from the general fund, their general
fund, you know, we should really vi... revisit that so there's some continuity in the
COUNCIL MEETING -53- January 26, 2011
way we plan and we use staffing and so forth and not compress everything in its
final form. But I just want to thank you for taking my suggestion. Meet with the
individual councilmembers, review your draft budget because by this Friday, I
believe, we're still carrying one of those old dates, the draft is expected to be
inputted into information technology's...
Mr. Pasion: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: ...worksheet process, so. And that might be
something in the future that we want to look into. Any more questions? Yes, go
right ahead.
Ms. Yukimura: The other side to personnel is outside
auditors... contracting with outside auditors. So as a follow -up to councilmember
Kawakami's question, is it your intention to basically do the audits in -house with
the personnel you have and not come forward with a lot of requests for a budget for
outside auditor... contractor other than the financial audit, which we know will be
an outside contractor?
Mr. Pasion: Vice Chair, that is a very interesting question
you're asking me because if you go to the yellow book, it tells us that if we don't
have the inside expertise, we gotta go to the outside. It would be not good for the
county for us to do stuff that we are not capable of doing, okay? So that's the reason
why. The yellow book is the one that guides us. If we don't have the proper
expertise, you know, then we have to go to the outside. For example, we have an
audit going on right now. It's CIP Projects, the Kaiakea Fire Station as well as the
roads maintenance. I'm not an engineer, you know, I mean we're not engineers. So,
we got to go to the outside and bring in consultants. So those we have to go out and
ask money from the council for us to be able to ... to hire, you know, to hire them and
then provide us their expertise for us to complete our ... but the audits will be done
by us. But we need them to provide us with technical information.
Ms. Yukimura: I'm not talking about specialized expertise that you
need to do in the audits. I'm talking about outside auditor contracts, where you're
hiring auditors.
Mr. Pasion: Okay, we intend to do all in -house and getting
outside expert to help us. The only, like you said, the only outside auditors that
would be coming in is because per charter is for the financial audit, which is the
CAFR.
Ms. Yukimura: And I excluded that.
Mr. Pasion: Yeah, so.
Ms. Yukimura: So...
Mr. Pasion: ' "'So, "the answer to your question is -yes, we'll be
doing in -house for everything.
Ms. Yukimura: - In terms of the basic programmatic audit functions
or the auditing, you will be doing in- house.
Mr. Pasion: Yes.
COUNCIL MEETING -54- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura: And you have staffed yourselves with that basic
premise knowing that you have to get some outside specialized expertise in
engineering, for example. I'm not talking about that.
Mr. Pasion: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: But you're not going to come to us for more
program auditing capacity from outside auditors?
Mr. Pasion: Yeah, that's correct. You know, we will be doing
them in- house. We won't be coming here and ask for complete total audit by
outsiders except for the CAFR and the Single Audit.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, all right, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. No more questions from this body?
And you know, I gave ... the public had a chance to speak earlier, am I correct? I
want to make sure... did I or did I not? Because if I did, I won't allow other
speakers. If I didn't, I will' suspend the rules and ask for other speakers. Can
somebody tell me what I did here?
Mr. Bynum: I don't remember. I don't think so. I think...
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, thank you. Well, I'm going to take the safe
rule. The safe rule is is there anybody who wants to speak on this item?
Mr. Mickens, we'll come to you.
GLENN MICKENS: Thank you again, Jay, for the record Glenn
Mickens. Just very briefly, from where I understand this, Ernie's budget was cut
$90,000.00. He was asking for it to get his office up and running. And thus his
request for the money bill 2385. I think I'm correct, but correct me if I'm wrong. He
was hired in September of '09. So along with his support group, we have been
paying money that we aren't getting absolute results from because he's not up and
running. So since you guys all showed confidence in hiring Ernie as your auditor,
why not honor his request for this money bill and let him do his job? That's my only
statement, okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Let me just add something to that for you...
Mr. Mickens: Sure.
Council Chair Furfaro: ... Mr. Mickens. We are planning to look at a way
to rain... reinstate his staff, but I'll go over it again. The auditor's department is
required to submit to us a budget for the year in the year.
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: And il. sets certain goals and four or five major
projects that he is to do. In his planning, like anyone that is operating a budget,
you plan your mission and you submit a budget. They match. The funds are there
to do the action. As we get going forward, we need to have an adopted standard
practice of what the parameters are for the Kauai County audit department. We
don't have that. But currently he is doing audits. I want to make... don't confuse
the two.
Mr. Mickens: Right.
COUNCIL MEETING - 55 - January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: He is doing audits.
Mr. Mickens: Yeah.
Council Chair Furfaro: But we need to know what those parameters are
because we assume that the standards are already in place the way we do business.
And as you saw from earlier today, when it came to an SMA minor, there's room for
improvement. So he has to think in terms of operational procedures, not just
financial procedures, operational standards that when we go to check on something
like an SMA, these departments have a plan on how it's done. He can come back
and operationally say to us is there's a standard in that practice that's lacking, put
it on the target list, establish a standard, so that we know. When we submit a
project release, it's got all the details done because it's an adopted practice. So it's
not just about finding financial pieces, it's also about making recommendations to
this body about standard operating practices. We are using the book from the City
& County of Honolulu right now. That is the standard operating practices of the
county. He needs to adopt that, get it presented to this council and we'll have a
much better time going forward next year. And I think, you know, we need to know
that that's going to be completed in six months or so, but do not perceive that he's
not doing audits now.
Mr. Mickens: No, no, no, I understand from what Ernie said.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Mickens: But the only reason Ernie's here, right, for that
2385 is because it was cut, which he had no knowledge of or he had no hand in.
When they cut the $90,000.00, isn't that why he's back here to ask you for that
money to get those positions in his office?
Council Chair Furfaro: For the remainder of the year.
Mr. Mickens: Yeah.
Council Chair Furfaro: As I pointed out to you, he has already presented to
me his draft budget:
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: No changes.
Mr. Mickens: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: Get it into the system. Talk to the other
councilmembers and then we'll have a budget review.
Mr. Mickens: Except as you `pointed out, it's less now and as
Ernie pointed out, right, it's less now than the $90,000.00 since we're not in the
same (inaudible).
Council Chair Furfaro: Yeah, because time and motion has...
Mr. Mickens: Sure.
Council Chair Furfaro: ...cut into his original projections.
COUNCIL MEETING -56- January 26, 2011
Mr. Mickens:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Sure. Thank you, Jay.
Come right up.
DEBRA KEKAUALUA: Hi again, Council, for the record I'm Debra
Kekaualua. Are we talking about a clerical position here? Is this...
Council Chair Furfaro: I can tell you this. We are talking about the
amendment that's on the table right now. We are talking about giving him, for the
remainder of the year, $66,866.00 to make sure that he gets the summary of three
positions, benefits, and so forth.
Ms. Kekaualua: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: The other amendments that the other members
talked about were amendments that haven't been introduced yet, but they are (1) to
remove the clerical position, another one possibly looking at a half - position, and
Mr. Bynum's amendment says give him all of the staffing associated with that
fulltime position for the balance of the year. Just ... how we would want to say is
reconcile how many months are left in the year.
Ms. Kekaualua: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: So, we don't have an active amendment on the floor
for a half -time position or no clerical position. It's only in discussion.
Ms. Kekaualua: Okay, my thought would be that as you folks sit
here with obviously all these folks around you, it seems like there's a one -to -one
clerical to back you folks up in doing what you're doing and although there's the
time factor of this moneys that are being appropriated for this purpose, I think that
you should give this man a fulltime clerical position so that he can do what he needs
to do, and make the balance balance for the amount of time that there is no clerical
involved. But it's ... I would think it would be absolutely mandatory that the clerical
would be able to push forward anything or you know, get her done, get the job done
with a fulltime position open for clerical so that in a combination of all the workers,
they ... you can ... they can present whatever they need to ... to you folks. And I'm just
thinking that as a standard of practice that a fulltime clerical should be delivered to
this ... this new department.
Council Chair Furfaro: Well, if you follow Mr. Bynum's amend...
Ms. Kekaualua: Or as it comes about.
Council Chair Furfaro: No, if you follow Mr. Bynum's amendment, you'll
see from some of our comments, we support his amendment...
Ms. Kekaualua: - Oh, okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: ...which establishes that person as a fulltime
person.
Ms. Kekaualua: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: I hope I answered your question.
COUNCIL MEETING -57- January 26, 2011
Ms. Kekaualua:
Yeah, you did, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: The other amendments are not actually on the
table yet.
Ms. Kekaualua: All right, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, thank you. Ken, come right up.
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and members of the commission... council, my
name is Ken Taylor. I am in support of Tim's...
Council Chair Furfaro: Tim's amendment?
Mr. Taylor: ... amendment to this resolution and I sat here and
listened and appreciate the Chair's explanation to Glenn as to some of the things
that are needed. But with a new department, a department that was voted on by
the public, I think there has to be some leeway in getting this thing up and running.
But you talked about what the procedures would be, but as I understand it, the
yellow book, for the lack of anything else right now, are the procedures that would
be followed by... until something else is done. But... and the question in my mind is
why do ... why would we ... if the yellow book, and I haven't read the yellow book and,
but it's my understanding that it's the standard in which auditors operate, why
would we spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel when the yellow book seems to
be the standard of the auditing community? And so adopting is as the procedure
seems the logical thing to do and get on with auditing the activities of the county.
So I, again, support Tim's amendment and I hope ... I'm really disappointed in the
other amendments that have been circulated at least. I don't think it's right for you
folks to get into ... I mean he came forward with a budget earlier last year and it
was... some deductions made on that because of the economics of the county's
activity. He's now trying to get that back up to where he originally had projected
his needs. And I really think that you have an obligation to the voters to give him
what he's asked for so he can move on with his program. This will be reviewed in a
few months when the new budget activities start taking place, so. I think it's sinful,
the amount of time that he and his staff has had to even sit here and go through
this. I don't know how many hours they've been here in total, but over the last few
months, there's been an awful lot of time wasted in trying to get this resolved and
probably almost the amount of money that we're talking about here has been
wasted with him having to go through these processes, so. Maybe he should do an
audit on the activities here at the county council. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: I appreciate your comments, Ken, but I do want to
tell you a couple things that you make assumptions about, you have to be very
cautious with. When we voted on the auditor's office, there were three people in the
budget knowing that we had to modify the scope of what we wanted to be done and
that it is presented to this body with some accountable funds. The yellow book is
there, but every county has modified their yellow book expectations based on the
audit manual. And right now we're using the City & County of Honolulu's manual.
I think it should reflect the County of Kauai. And that what's in that manual are
the standards that not only we're going to say we're going to complete, but we're
actually going to have a business plan that gets us to those items. And that's what I
am saying when I'm supporting these pieces because we need that in place. We
don't need to be operating off the Maui audit book or the City & County of Honolulu
and so forth. And we are getting there, but when that first budget was made, it
only had three people in it. It went through this discussion. Now how big of a scope
we want to change will relate to how many more people we need to add to that and
COUNCIL MEETING -58- January 26, 2011
that is our responsibility. That's the council's responsibility and if we need to, by
emergency, deviate from going outside of there, he's required to come back with a
resolution and a money bill because maybe he didn't have roads in this year and so
forth, but all of a sudden we decided the roads item is something that needs to be
addressed right now, he has to come back with a resolution and a money bill. But
we want a good starting point for him and I would say this is a process we have to
go through because it's a new department and we have issues in there that not all of
us understand, including myself, but we certainly want to establish the parameters.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to call the meeting
back to order because we're coming up on lunch. Lonnie, right after you testify we
will go to lunch.
LONNIE SYKOS: For the public record, I'm Lonnie Sykos. Thank
you, Mr. Bynum, and I'm ... up here to support your amendment to this bill. For me,
the county auditor presents the only opportunity for the public to measure the
efficiency and the quality of government operations and it's also the only
mechanism that the public has to effect beneficial changes. And so the auditor is
important because unlike all the rest of the county services, this is the one
department that can actually make us money, right? He does it by saving us
money. We were unaudited for decades. We were essentially unaudited forever and
so for those of us in private business, if this was our business, we would be trying to
figure out how to get ourselves completely audited as fast as possible. I fully
support the auditor having the staff service that they need. I would think that
there's an opportunity for the county within the re ... whatever ... which ... the
separations required by law to get personnel, you know, vacation, health benefits,
all that HR stuff in one set of staff and then allow the staff that we're talking about
now funding for the auditor to be focused on not the function of the office just like
all offices have their function, but the actual work of the auditing department. And
so they wouldn't be dealing with vacations and that type of stuff. That would be
from the general services pool. And without having this staff, how can we expect
him to generate all the paperwork that we're asking him for. I mean, yes, the
yellow book controls things, but I completely understand Chair Furfaro's
explanation that we need a plan and a master plan drawn up and I don't see how
that can be done efficiently without them having the staff services that they need.
And so, it's a conundrum, but I believe that the more that we spend, efficiently and
productively on the auditor's department, the greater the return we'll get through
savings in the near future. You know I... my viewpoint actually is give them as
much services as required to get the main areas audited and our cost savings made.
Then in the future we may not need as much auditing staff. But right now, we need
to save money and this is the only mechanism that we have to do so. So I'm
speaking not only in support of this today, but in the future to think about the value
of freeing the professionals up by supplying the support services. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Lonnie, I'm going to pose a little summary for you
that I think we all need to realize and then we'll go to lunch. First of all, the
charter amendment to establish an audit department came from the council.
Mr. Sykos:
Correct.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. It wasn't initiated by the administration or
the charter review commission. It came from the council. Secondly, we do see in
the beginning there's some initial cost run -ups because we also have in the charter
COUNCIL MEETING -59- January 26, 2011
that once we get to a point that we're significantly comfortable about our internal
controls, we have the option to actually save money from going to an outside auditor
every year. The charter allows us to go every other year to an outside auditor. But
we have to have a realm of satisfaction that there's controls in place. And the fact
that, you know, we're discussing this reinstitution of some staffing, you should
know that the old procedure is the budget came to us after it went through an
administrative review.
Mr. Sykos: Correct.
Council Chair Furfaro: We've changed that this year, as I was speaking.
The auditor's budget, because they have a dotted line to us, is now being reviewed
by all the councilmembers before it gets inputted. So we know what it looked. like
before and so we probably will know what the version looks like when it comes back
to us. So I just wanted to share that with you. And on that note, we need to take a
lunch break. We still got a full agenda. Your concerns and comments are much
appreciated.
Mr. Sykos: We appreciate your explanations and providing
clarity because these are complex issues. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, sir. I'm just going to call the meeting
back to order so we can go to lunch, okay.
The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: We need to take a break and we'll be back at
1:45 p.m. Thank you.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 12:43 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 1:56 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, we're back from lunch. BC, you're fine over
there?
BC; Videographer: Yeah.
Council Chair Furfaro: And I just want to remind everybody we're on the
floor amendment when we left and mister ... to the auditor, I'm sure you were ... were
you up here and I had the rules suspended?
Ms. Yukimura: No, there was public...
Council Chair Furfaro: And then we had Mr. Mickens give us testimony,
we had Mr. Taylor give us testimony, and so I'll ask the question... and we also had
from yourself, I'm sorry:
Mr. Bynum: Debra.
Council Chair Furfaro: Debra... Debra gave us testimony. Is there
anymore testimony? Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order and Mr. Bynum, is
there anything, after hearing the testimony, that you want to add to that or...
Mr. Bynum: No, I'll save any comments for the main motion
(inaudible).
COUNCIL MEETING -60- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, but no more on your amendment?
Mr. Bynum: No.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, very good. So, I guess at this point we could
see if there is a motion and second to approve Mr. Bynum's amendment? That
already exists. So miss... Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I really appreciated the
discussion and the input from the public. I think the votes are clear in favor of
Councilmember Bynum's amendment. I'd just like to say a few words, so I won't be
introducing my amendment.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: And, I think, Councilmember Nakamura as well.
So I just want to say a few words. You know, when people voted for the auditor's
office, I would guess that they imagined one person in the office and maybe a
secretary, and Councilmember Kawakami's point about attaching some cost to the
offices or to the proposed amendments is a good one. And I think the auditors have
educated us that that scenario really was ... is ... wasn't a realistic one. So instead of
an office, you know, one auditor with a staff person and, you know, $150,000 or
$200,000 budget, we're looking at five people and a budget of six hund ... well, let's
see about $700,000. And if you include the financial audit, it's over a million
dollars. So, I just want the public to know that my questioning and trying to do
homework is not to not support the goal of the auditor. I support that
wholeheartedly, but I think I'm trying to apply the standard that the auditor is
applying to other departments, which is what is the most cost effective way of
achieving your goal. And so, you know, we have three professionals with salaries
ranging from $75,000 to $115,000 approximately. And so the fourth person could
have been a clerk, but the choice was to ask for not just a clerk, but also another
legal analyst, which I respect. But I think it's also related to the program that is
put forth and I think a smaller program showing good concrete results, indeed
savings that might offset some of the cost, would be a good way to go and then add
staff as you go along. So that was my way of looking at this issue. And, you know,
we could just wait a couple more months for the budget and then a couple more
months after that to the beginning of the new fiscal year and add staff then when
we've done all our research, but it appears that the will of the majority is otherwise.
And to show my support, I will vote for the amendment as well.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to
speak on the amendment? Go right ahead, Councilwoman Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. I just want to kind of echo the
sentiments of Councilmember Yukimura that, you know, in the original charter
amendment there was a position for an analyst and a clerk that was to be
trai s orred over to the office of the county auditor. And there was a so in July of
last year a budget of over a million dollars for the auditor's office. And every
department director makes choices on how they choose to spend their personnel
funds and apparently choices were made not to include a clerk with a million dollar
budget. So, that's why, you know, questions have been raised and I've raised some
concerns, and I also respect the will of the majority and I will be pulling back my
amendment.
COUNCIL MEETING -61- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you for that comment. Any other
comments?
Mr. Rapozo: Just... thank you and I know it was alluded to
earlier by a couple of councilmembers about the charter amendments. That, you
know, not long ago we were here with the parks department. You know the charter
amendment was out, the people voted, and they felt that the County of Kauai
needed a separate parks department. And that department continues to grow and
grow, and you know, unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity as the legislative
body or as the overseers of the budget to discount what the people want when it
comes to a charter amendment. In the case of parks, I remember when we got their
first budget proposal. It was incredible and you could see that there was an
inherent duplication of service that could have been done prior in two separate
departments ... I mean in one department. Now with two departments, you had
some duplication and that's the... and that's the problem when you deal with a
charter amendment. I know for the public it's very, very ... it's a very good power to
have where you can actually do this through a charter amendment, but the public
has to understand that once the charter passes, it's the obligation of the legislators
to enact the legislation to meet those goals. And I wasn't here in the last term, but
Mr. Pasion was hired as the auditor. And much like the parks director in the past,
he provided his list of what he needed, but that auditor and that parks director and
so forth, will be accountable going forward as far as the positions that's being
requested, so. I just wanted to make that point that, you know, this is not a ... it
wasn't done by the council or the administration. This was by the people, and we
have that obligation to the people to carry out the direction. And you know many
people will say we gotta run government like a business. This is an example of
where if in fact we ran government like a business, we wouldn't ... I think most
business people would not do it, with the duplication that this causes. It wouldn't
be a wise business decision. But this is a government decision, this is a decision
that is being carried out based on the will of the people, so. Just ... I just wanted to
make sure the public understood that when we create these new departments, there
is a cost involved. So, thank you very much.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak before
I recognize Councilwoman Yukimura again? Mr. Chang, did you want to speak?
Mr. Chang: I'll say a (inaudible).
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Chang: Yeah, you know, at this particular point, we're all
going to support the bill and we wish you well, Ernie, and again, in five months
there's going to be a lot of questions and accountability and you were asked a little
bit earlier, are you going to come back and ask for more money, but you're set.
You're ready, set, go. So you know, I think the last speaker before we hit the ... our
lunch break, Lonnie Sykos, pretty much recapped everything. The auditor is here
to, you know, hopefully 'save us some money and show that we are all fiscally
responsible. So I= wish you well and I wish your staff well, and I hope you can get'
your staff together and we can move forward and I guess we won't hear from you for
awhile, so I just want to say good luck. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Kawakami, did you have anything?
Councilwoman Yukimura, I'll recognize you a second time before I speak. Go right
ahead.
COUNCIL MEETING -62- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that most
of our county departments have been voted for by the people. I mean they're in the
charter and so there's not a distinction between the auditor and the other
departments. Now, and all the ... everyone has a noble goal. I mean parks is to
provide important park services and the auditor is to make sure that we are doing
things cost effectively. But we can't just ... it's not the role of the council to say just
because you have a noble goal you can ... you know, whatever you bring forward
we're going to approve. I mean part of our job is to make sure that it's being done
cost effectively, to ask questions and to support good work, you know. So I think
that's part of our role here.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Bynum, did you have anything
else before I speak?
Mr. Bynum: I was going to save it for the main motion.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, when we get to the main motion and I too
will save my commentary to the main motion. We are voting now on the
amendment as introduced and is somebody going to call the roll here or... Okay,
we're going to do a voice vote on the amendment submitted by Mr. Bynum, and as I
understand it right now, the two previous amendments that have not been
introduced but were discussed will not be surfacing on the table. So all of those in
favor of Mr. Bynum's amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Councilmembers:
Council Chair Furfaro
motion...
Ms. Nakamura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Nakamura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Nakamura:
Aye.
Thank you very much. Now we'll go, to the main
Those opposed? You didn't ask.
No, I'll ask if there's anyone who wants to oppose?
Aye...
Okay, we have a 6 -1 vote.
... or nay, nay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay and we will record it as such on the
amendment. Now we'll go to the main item.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair? Could I have that also recorded as a no
vote and then I'll vote yes on the main motion?
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so we have a change of vote and we now have
a 5 -2 count with Nakamura and Yukimura voting no on Mr. Bynum's amendment.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2385, as shown in the floor amendment
attached hereto (Attachment No. 2) was then put, and carried by a 5 -2 vote
( Councilmembers Nakamura and Yukimura voting no).
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, now we shall go to the main motion as
amended and I will give the floor to Mr. Bynum first.
COUNCIL MEETING -63- January 26, 2011
Mr. Bynum: Thank you very much. I appreciate the dialogue
and discussion that came here. It's very clear that this council takes its job very
seriously and I'm honored to be part of it. The... as mister ... you know as Mel
pointed out, this was a charter amendment that created the auditor's office.
Mr. Rapozo, long before I was on the council, was ... you know, called for a
performance audit, particularly of public works, and ... but the charter amendment
proposal came from the council. I believe Mr. Furfaro was one of the ... was the main
motivator behind that. It passed overwhelmingly in the public when put before
them and all of Mr. Rapozo's comments are correct. When we do an endeavor, it
costs money. You know, the budget for the auditor's office is substantial.
Government costs a lot. But I'll just point out that just in the last couple of years on
workplace violence and other misconduct in the workplace has cost the county over
$2 million in settlements. That's just one example of the many things that I think
our auditor will address and I have every confidence that the investment that we're
making in the auditor's office will pay lots of savings. Mr. Lykos (sic) does give
compelling testimony. He said the savings, you know ... the revenues are going to
come from savings and I think that's correct.
The ... in ... when the auditors were created, initially there was a three- or
four - person budget entertained. Mr. Pasion and his staff take their job very
seriously and they brought Marion Higa here to explain quite eloquently what were
the standards it takes to take up a ... to set up a legally appropriate and credible
office. They made an argument for an additional position that I thought was
compelling. And they initially forego (sic) the budget analyst and clerk that they
originally envisioned because of the economic times and because their budget was
modified by the mayor during review. And they chose, at the time, not to ask the
council for additional funds at that time. But they're not getting a slow start. They
didn't come into this and get formed and say well, we'll just do one or two audits
this year. They're really hitting the ground running in my view.
They presented their audit plan to the council in June 28, 2010. I just want
to go over a few things really quickly. The audit of the county's capital project
planning and implementation (CIP), our big expenditures that we make on projects
every year and they're going to look at that by focusing on two issues, one being
road maintenance and Kaiakea Fire Station, which was, you know, when they
initiated this audit, a big CIP Project that was underway. And I'm sure
Mr. Mickens is thrilled that they're looking at the road maintenance because it's
something he's testified on for what ... the last 20 years. And so, they're also looking
at ... you know the Council Chair today said we got to examine our budget and our
time frames because it hasn't changed over the years and their audit ... one of their
audits is the budget practices and budget monitoring, which I really applaud.
They're auditing the county's fuel cost consumption and management. They're
auditing the cost control commission's energy conservation recommendations.
Earlier this week we appointed new members to the cost control commission and
unanimously the council said how much they appreciated the work of the cost
control commission. The auditor apparently made the judgment that said well let's
see... if we ... you know, -does . the administration follow through.. with the
recommendations that are made by these commissions that we also invest time and
money in because we created an auditor's posi...I mean a boards and commissions
position. They're looking at whether a partial hiring freeze and furloughs really
gave us the spending... savings that were anticipated or advertised. And this is one
that I know a lot of people are interested in, a review and assessment of issues
regarding the enforcement of planning permit conditions. Anybody's been a long-
term county watcher knows that we have these conditions in our permits that
sometimes go unfilled for years and they're conditions that would benefit the public.
COUNCIL MEETING -64- January 26, 2011
I think the planning department has improved on that, but it's an area that audit
makes sense. You know, this isn't the first year. This has hit the ground running.
So... and there are more. I'm not going to go through the whole list.
But you know, I applaud the initiative that the auditor is taking, and
anytime you start something new, there's going to be a period of time where there's
a lot of negotiation about how you do it, what you should do it, how things should
happen. There's going to be resistance. Some of you, and I've talked about it
recently, you've heard this acronym about form, storm, norm, conform. Anytime
you do something new, there's going to be a period of time of storming where there's
disagreements about the proper procedures and policies or budget or whatever. And
I think we're in that process with the auditor right now. But from that storming
comes norms, you know, comes policy standards, understandings about what are
standards of practice. You know the auditor has a yellow book to follow and I think
wisely has reached out to City & County, Big Island, and the state auditor to not re-
create the wheel, and I think we will have our own manual, our own version that's
appropriate for Kauai, but in the meantime, the auditor has done that.
One of the first things he did was bring the Kilauea Gym audit, which had
been sitting in ... on a shelf somewhere for two or three years. You know, imagine
the first performance audit that we actually do, the people at public works go
through all the questioning and aren't given the results. I mean, what's the point of
an audit if you don't give the auditee the response so they know where they can
make improvements and that was, you know, within... seemed like days of the
auditor being confirmed, we finally had the Kilauea Gym audit that some of us were
saying well, where is that audit. So I think this makes sense that we're having this
discussion in this... going through this process. But I think that ... and we just got a
quarterly update on these audits and some of them will be coming here soon. So I
don't think, Mr. Chang, it'll be a long time before we see the auditor again because
they're going to present this work product. I wanted to support their staff request
to make sure that, as other members have said, that we have high expectations of
this office. We have high expectations of the quality of the work that we will get
and I didn't want to be put in a position to say well, my work is late or it's not as
good as it would be because you guys didn't give me the resources that I need to do
the job properly. So, I'm ... I think one of the most exciting things happening in the
County of Kauai in the last two years is the formation of this auditing department
and the potential that it has that's yet unrealized. Thank you very much. That was
probably longer than five minutes.
Council Chair Furfaro: And it probably strayed a little bit from the subject
of staffing and performance, but I let you have that freedom.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: But the item in front of us is about money for
appropriately staffing the audit and I ... I won't revisit some of those items, but
thank you for that commentary. Is there anyone else on the council here that would
like to speak on this item? If not, then I will go ahead and say we have some
scheduling items that we need to address going forward. We have some deadlines
that we need from the auditor's department. We need to give them the appropriate
staffing. But the question will be, in the budget session, what is the appropriate
staffing. You know we want to practice here the Hawaiian value of Kino`ole, to do
things as flawless as we can. So I want to make sure that practicing the way we
perform our audit is based on having some parameters set up and I want the
auditor's department... that is the reason I'm supporting this staffing change, the
clerical help. I want us to get to a point that we can lay out, as Councilwoman
COUNCIL MEETING 65 - January 26, 2011
Yukimura said, some noble goals. But we will also hold the audit department
responsible for reviewing, I want to point that out, $152 million operating
department, $101 million CIP Plan, a $60 million CIP plan for the water
department (inaudible). So when we now talk about operating functions inside of a
$250 million range, spending 0.5% to make sure we're getting the best product for
the best results using the right staffing to get us to that outcome is extremely
important. So I will be supporting this bill as amended and I will call for a vote
now, if I may, Mr. Clerk.
The motion to adopt Bill No. 2385, as amended to Bill No. 2385, Draft 1, and
that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Rapozo, TOTAL — 6,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST PASSAGE: Nakamura TOTAL 1,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Six ayes, one no.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. We will go on to the next
item on our agenda, please.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for approval is Bill No. 2387:
Bill No. 2387 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 -706, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($1,571,001.00 -
County 800 Mhz radio system P25 compliance upgrade): Mr. Rapozo moved to adopt
Bill No. 2387 on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor
for his approval, seconded by Mr. Yukimura.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that
would like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll call the meeting back to order
and I'll have some discussion from members. Mr. Kawakami, did you...
Mr. Kawakami: No.
Council Chair Furfaro: No? Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I just want to highlight that this is a very,
very important project because it's about the emergency communication support for
all of our emergency responders, both in regular times and in natural disaster. And
I_coammend the various agencies that are working together to update our system
and make sure that it's in the best possiblo `working order to... for long -term to serve
our community.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, this
will be a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk.
The motion to adopt Bill No. 2387 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:
COUNCIL MEETING -66- ' January 26, 2011
FOR PASSAGE: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Shall we go to the next item, please.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for second reading is Bill No. 2389:
Bill No. 2389 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND MAKING THE
APPROPRIATE TEXT CHANGES AS IT RELATES TO FURLOUGHS
($2,328,554.00)
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. On that note, I'm going to ask if we can
take a 5- minute recess in case there's any opportunity to revisit some of the
numbers for the members. So, we're going to take a 5- minute recess. Thank you.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 2:21 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 2:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: We're back in session.
Mr. Nakamura: Council Chair, at this time we're on page seven of
the council's agenda on Bill No. 2389, an ordinance amending ordinance no.
B- 2010 -705, relating to the Operating Budget of the County of Kauai for the fiscal
year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. This relates to appropriations in the
various funds and making appropriate text changes as it relates to furloughs in the
amount of $2,328,554.00.
Mr. Bynum moved to adopt Bill No. 2389 on second and final reading, and
that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr. Rapozo.
Council Chair Furfaro: We have a second. Thank you. I believe we have
someone here from the prosecutor's office. I will ... one moment if you can, Jake,
because we have an amendment to introduce and I want you to be able to speak on
that as well, so.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I move to amend as
circulated.
Ms. Yukimura: Second.
Mr. Kawakami moved to amend Bill No. 2389, as shown in the floor
amendment attached hereto (Attachment No. 3), seconded by Ms. Yukimura.
COUNCIL MEETING -67- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro
amendment as circulated on
Would you make copies,
amendment, at the podium?
Thank you, thank you. Okay, we have an
this particular item. The rules are suspended. Jake.
staff, for people that want ... be interested in the
Have a seat.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
JACOB DELAPLANE, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Thank you,
Mr. Chair, for the record Jake DelaPlane, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, here
at the prosecutor's office. I came today to sort of clarify what we talked about at the
last meeting. I know Shay testified a week ago regarding the amendment to this
bill and a couple of numbers were thrown out and I just wanted to make sure that
we were all clear on what exactly it is we're asking for and what the proposed
amendment actually proposes. So, for those of you that have a copy of the
amendment, each line of the amendment, so under salaries, FICA, so forth, what
the amendment, is our understanding, proposed to do as originally drafted, not as
amended; but as originally drafted was to reinstate the budget for our office in a
forward looking way for the next six months. So looking forward, put our office's
budget back to what it should have been for the next six months. It was not looking
backwards at what the furloughs had done as far as taking away from our office.
What we looked at and what we had testified to over the past couple of council
meetings is we spoke about the problems, the particular problems that the furlough
caused: increasing our caseload, increasing our backlog because of the loss of
support staff. So what we had asked the council to do was to consider this
amendment in order to provide funding for our office to address the backlog. So
what we did is we looked at what had been taken away from our office in terms of
our budget over the last six months and we're simply asking for that money back to
use for salaries to attack the problems caused by the furlough. So that's... that's
where the number comes in and if you add up the line, it comes out to $203,910 and
that's the amount that we're asking for.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, have you seen the amendment as circulated?
Mr. DelaPlane: I have.
Council Chair Furfaro: (Inaudible) by request? Okay.
Mr. DelaPlane: I have.
Council Chair Furfaro: So I want to make sure that we all understand
what we have. Were there copies of the amendment made available to you
gentlemen? You have it? Okay. So if we can follow this by request, the sum of the
original furlough bill was $2,328,000.00. There is a worksheet attached to the
amendment so that we can understand. Your written request came in at a number
that has actually been adjusted somewhat here because there was money in the
ending furlough bill to the tune of $69,500; FICA was $5,320; $10,430 and $16,685
was already in the furlough bill.
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes.
Council Chair Furfaro: I want to make it very clear and I want to say it in
this sense that nothing in this bill is about being retroactive. That is not what this
is about. This is about going forward and the reality is your caseload is as such that
we want to approach this by making certain adjustments. Those adjustments are
made for six months add up to $101,000.00. That $101,000 is now in the
amendment. It is addressed in moving the bill from $2,328,554 to $2,430,000. So
COUNCIL MEETING -68- January 26, 2011
there's only a $101,000.00 adjustment because this bill is about going forward. It's
an item that we're looking at from the backload of cases that you have. But under
no circumstances is any of this retro. This furlough bill doesn't address
retroactivity.
I also want to point out that there is a different way to approach this and
that would have been with a new money bill to address the backlog. But this
amendment is on the table as such. Are you clear on what we're doing here?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes, we're clear and the figure that I threw out
before the $203,910, that just ... that represents the total adjustment that we were
requesting for our office. So it's that number that you just stated, the $101,965
doubled.
Council Chair Furfaro: All the numbers really only reconcile it. So Jake,
I'm going to recognize Mr. Bynum, but I want to make sure we understand, none of
this furlough bill addresses anything that's retroactive.
Mr. DelaPlane: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Mr. Chair, before we get into a dialogue about this
money, may I talk to the county attorney.
Council Chair Furfaro: So do you want to recess to talk to the county
attorney?
Mr. Bynum: No, no, I have ques ... I raised this last week when
we were here, that procedurally I don't know if it's appropriate or the right way to
address this is through this... amending this bill or whether it should be a separate
money bill. I'd like to ask the county attorney those kinds of questions, if I can.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so that's similar along the way I just
expressed that there's another way to address this through a separate money bill.
Mr. Bynum: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: So you want the county attorney up here or do you
want to have a recess to speak with him?
Mr. Bynum: No, I'd like him up here, with your permission.
Council Chair Furfaro: Jake, Jake, if you would be willing to give up your
seat...
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Council Chair Furfaro: ... for the moment.
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you.
Mr. Bynum: If that's acceptable to the Chair and the body.
COUNCIL MEETING -69- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: That's fine. I'm fine with that. I know you just got
back from Honolulu, Mr. Castillo.
ALFRED B. CASTILLO, County Attorney: Good afternoon, Chair,
councilmembers, I'm glad I have very capable staff to take my place in my absence
and I thank them very much.
Council Chair Furfaro: So just before I give the floor to Mr. Bynum, as I
summarized this, this bill is not about addressing any retroactive pay. This
amendment is dealing with the backlog as presented to us, and on that note, I will
turn the floor over to Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: The ... yeah, I just have a couple of questions and
last week I expressed a concern about whether this bill was appropriate to amend
because my understanding, this bill is designed to restore the funding for furlough,
to end furloughs going forward. And, you know, the numbers here are exactly what
was removed from the budget previously, but without going into that, I certainly
haven't had the time I would like to analyze this need and the things that I heard
last week about why there's a need for new funds. And, you know, typically this
would be in a money bill that we would have time to do that analysis, have public
hearing, and so I don't know that it's appropriate to use this bill to amend ... to
address this need from the prosecutor's office.
Mr. Castillo: Yes...
Mr. Bynum: I'd like your guidance on that.
Mr. Castillo: Councilmember Bynum, thank you for the
question. First of all, I'd like to premise my response to you with a little bit of
background, you know. I was with the prosecutor's office since 1980 until 1996. So
I understand fully well the challenges of the prosecutor's office and the presentation
that was presented. Being the county attorney, my duty is to protect the integrity
of this council. And what I had opined ... I was asked to opine earlier regarding the
legality of what was being proposed. The... and I ... to me I see that your question
basically touches upon two things, the appropriateness...I mean three maybe.
Whether or not the mechanics of how this amendment... whether or not the
mechanics of this amendment would be in violation of any law and three, I think
what I'm hearing is that you want justification much more than what I believe was
presented in terms of a letter. I don't know what was presented to the council.
First and foremost is ... is the mechanics of the proposal. It is my legal opinion that
the purpose of the bill is to terminate the furlough and to fund the appropriate... to
fund the termination of the furlough, simple as that. It is my opinion as far as what
is being introduced, whether or not you say it's not retroactive or it is or it's moving
forward, what's happening is it is a major tweaking of the purpose and the intent of
the ending of furloughs and funding the furloughs. The reason why I say that is
because no matter what, you know, they're using the exact same amount and they
.want to use from the past going forward. The concern that I have (1) it is whatever
you ... you may call it what you may, but to me effect it ... what it does is it affects a
motion for reconsideration on a particular issue that was passed some months ago,
that time for a reconsideration and in particular for the prosecutor's office.
Even ... no matter how you carve it out, it's basically, and I read the letter, it
basically challenges the wisdom of the ordinance being passed in the first place.
Secondly is ... you know the question that was posed to me is whether or not a
new money bill appropriated for the purpose that the prosecutor requests, would
that be a clean way and I say absolutely. Because the prosecutor in itself, they are
COUNCIL MEETING -70- January 26, 2011
unlike the other departments, okay. To me the prosecutor's office is distinguishable
and can be reconciled with the other departments. To open the door and—to open
the door by using the framework of this furlough bill... if you use this avenue, you
will open the door for other departments, including my department, to come in and
justify or try to justify ... I'm not saying that we're going to have it, but it will open
the door for that purpose. That, as it may, you know that's my legal opinion on this
matter. There are other legal reasons why we have opined that the bill should be
handled another way, and if you want it in writing later on we can do that for you.
Council Chair Furfaro: I look forward to that in writing.
Mr. Castillo: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: Please send us an opinion. Councilwoman
Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: So, county attorney, the ... what you're saying is
that the amendment here would better be enacted through a separate bill rather
than an amendment to this furlough bill because it's not aligned with the actual
purpose of the furlough bill.
Mr.. Castillo: That's right and it would be cleaner. From a legal
standpoint, it would be much cleaner.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Al. I'll be sending over that question.
Mr. Rapozo has a question for you.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. Al, I just ... I'm reading the text on the
bill and... as well as the amendment, but on the original bill itself and I'm trying to
figure out which part, I think ... you know because we talk about the intent and the
purpose and I'm just trying to figure out, in your opinion, what on the original
bill... the text on the original bill that would not allow for the request that was made
and for the amendment that's being introduced because it's a pretty broad ... the text
on the bill is pretty broad and it's not specific as to anything other than as it relates
to furloughs.
Mr. Castillo: I understand. You know I understand if you
can ... you can read into ... because the text of the bill is broad, but the whole purpose
and intent of the bill is to terminate furloughs and to fund the termination. What
has been ... what I've been reading, I do have a January 19 letter from the
prosecutor's office and in there it also shows... furthers the intent of their proposal.
I read that, I look at the amendment, I listen to what has been said, and even if you
say not going forward, you know, this has nothing to do with regard to the
appropriateness or the justification of the money that is being requested. To me, it's
basically the mechanics of ..the legal mechanics of what is being asked within the
framework of this particular bill.
Mr. Rapozo: And that's why I'm asking as far as the existing
bill, what in this existing bill, in your opinion, would not allow for the amendment?
Mr. Castillo: Because you're re ... you're ... the ... it's be ... this
furlough bill is being used to restore what was lost, and ... rather than ... because
even if you say no, you're increasing the money and you're looking... you're actually
looking back. Because they're saying this bill is money what was lost,
we ... these ... the furlough, we suffered x, y and z because of the furlough, and
therefore, we want this money. Everything is being tied in with the furlough. It
COUNCIL MEETING -71- January 26, 2011
would be more appropriate to say because of the ... on a separate bill, because of
what we have endured, these are the things that happened to us. This is the money
that we need. And legally that would be a better place for this council.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Any more questions of the county attorney before I
ask him some questions? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Just a clarification. My question was at the
moment about the proper mechanism as opposed to the merits of whether the
(inaudible) increased funding. You know like, I guess we'll go to that step if
necessary. But I felt that it would be more appropriate in a money bill that went
through a process, so you kind of answered my question.
Mr. Castillo: Yes, I'm worried about the legal process and right
now that is the concern that the county attorney's office has.
Mr. Bynum: And I guess I just wanted to say I'm not making
any judgment at this time about whether it's appropriate to give additional funds to
the prosecutor's office. That's a separate question.
Mr. Castillo: And I am not making any judgment on the merit of
the request also.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Castillo, I'm going to ask if there's any more
questions of you from the group because the one I'm going to ask might make you
uncomfortable, so. Does anybody have any more questions of the county attorney?
No, fine. Listen, I really find it interesting for us to get 'a lecture about
appropriateness. The reality is the mayor ended the furloughs with a letter to the
employees of the county. The process is to get that bill approved by us first. All of
us want to end furloughs because (1) it's the right thing to do. Secondly, we have a
commitment to our employees and obviously the reality is that's the purse strings of
our responsibility. But furloughs have.ended and I assume with furloughs ending,
there's this period of time where money is available through the finance department
to cover those days. But there was a risk there too. And that risk was if this body
voted 3 -4 not to end it until we actually voted on the money. But there is, in my
opinion, somewhat of a standard we all have to apply because you're my attorney as
well.
On the flip side, I intend to end this and if your legal counsel to me is it has
to be entered in a separate bill, because I don't want to find myself with some of the
facts that haven't come up here, a 608 case backlog. No one understands what's
happening with the state court system and so forth. So I see it as a sense of
urgency. Al, I just have to tell you and I will introduce a separate money bill and
I've asked the clerk, for the first reading would be February 9, a public hearing
could come up about March 9, a committee hearing on the 16, and a second reading
on the 28 ` And now-we're taking the same risk as the mayor did because we're
going to say to the prosecutor, use what you have in your balance fund and get us
caught up. That's what this is about. This isn't about retroactive and so forth. But
this is your recommendation, so I understand. I just wanted to have a level playing
field here. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.
Mr. Castillo: And Council Chair, I fully recognize that and
appreciate that because if I were to come up here and give you an opinion based on
my personal feelings, because financially ending furloughs would be in my personal
COUNCIL MEETING -72- January 26, 2011
benefit, in my opinion that I have given the council is adverse to my financial well-
being. So that is, you know, I have to be ... I have to give you my best legal opinion
based on our research and what we know of the law. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: And if you recall when the mayor issued his press
release, I pushed to say hey, look make sure there's a section in that press release
that says these funds are still subject to the council's approval. So at that note, I'm
thinking if we come back with a money bill as recommended by your office, we can
get a first reading on the 9th of February, which is only two weeks away. I want to
send also the message here to the gentleman Jake from the county prosecutor's
office that, you know, it's not like there isn't money in the kitty right now and you
need to get caught up. You need to... But I will, based on advice from my attorney,
introduce this as a separate bill and the amount is going to be half of what was in
the prosecutor's office request because the mayor did make up for a portion of it in
this first furlough bill. I've said what I needed to say. Thank you very much.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Jake, you can come back up.
Mr. DelaPlane: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your comments and I
have a few of my own, and you touched upon this idea, but the essential mood of
moving forward and ending furloughs, the discussion up until this point has just
been let's end furloughs period. Let's end furloughs and move forward. That's not
examining the past. It's not examining what happened with the furloughs, what
happened to our office, what happened to public safety as a result of the furloughs.
I think the county has a responsibility at this point and an obligation to end the
furloughs. I think there's no question about that. But I think there's the...
Council Chair Furfaro: First of all I want to make sure since you just
said... This council is in support of ending furloughs.
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely, I understand that.
Council Chair Furfaro: But this council is also in support of finding a way
to get the prosecutor's office in a position that they can do their job.
Mr. DelaPlane:. Right and it's our position that the county not only
has the responsibility and obligation to end the furloughs, but also to end the
furloughs responsibly. And what that entails is looking at the harm caused, looking
at the budget for the entire fiscal year, which is what this amendment covers is the
entire fiscal year not just six months looking forward, but the actual text of the
budget covers the entire fiscal year. So looking at that in its entirety and deciding
what the appropriate adjustments to the budget of each individual office should be
and I believe that our office has presented plenty of testimony and plenty of
evidence to show what that appropriate adjustment to our budget would be.
Council Chair Furfaro: Well, I appreciate your coia ents, but I also... You
know I have a management background. I shouldn't have to reconcile the money
bill to point out that some of that was already included in this bill that's why I'm
coming back with the one - hundred and one thousand, different from the two
thirty -nine, but I also want to say that we'll be calling you because this is an
additional money bill of which we're going to have some need for more justification
as to getting yourselves current and so forth. And I ... I want to make sure you
understand, we vote on the money bill unamended today. There is some money in
there. It was considered by the administration. But I'm more talking about
COUNCIL MEETING -73- January 26, 2011
standards today. If I'm going to get a lecture about appropriate procedure, I have
no problem lecturing back. The appropriate procedure is to get our approval first
before we go out and end these things.
Please note, it is extremely important that the credibility of this body be in
line with the legal department and be supportive where we possibly can with the
mayor's office. But you cannot do for one - for -one and just, you know, kind of not
overlook it when we want to fix something and we understand your plight. So I will
be giving you a schedule that you can share with Iseri - Carvalho as to my approach
and I'm going to have to find somebody to introduce this by request, but to fix it and
give you the appropriate tools. I mean, I'm still worried about the courts being
closed. You know, we're going to give you money, does that mean we're going to
have more time to prepare if the court's not open, the state ... you know, I don't
know. But I don't want any reflection on this council that we didn't put our best
foot forward to support your department.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure and...
Council Chair Furfaro: Are there any questions of the prosecutor's office?
If not, is there anyone in the public that would like to testify? No. Thank you. I'll
call the meeting back to order. Jake, let me have someone from our staff give this to
you —the sequence of dates. Okay, we're back in discussion, Mr. Rapozo, then
Mr. Bynum, then Councilwoman Yukimura.
There being no further questions for the prosecutor's office, the meeting was called
back to order, and proceeded as follows:
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know and I appreciate
the county attorney's opinion. I still ... I guess I would respectfully disagree. You
know, we've been through enough bills and amendments in my time on the council
that it was always my understanding that if there was a significant change in the
title or in the purpose that, in fact, a new bill would have to be drafted. This bill, as
I've stated in my questions to the attorney, in my opinion, is broad. You know the
prosecutor's office, whether it was Ms. Iseri - Carvalho or Jake, showed up here at
first reading, public hearing, committee meeting, and today at the final reading.
Any of these other departments could have shown up as well. They chose not to for
whatever reason. My point is that if you look at the title and you look at Section 1
and you look at the text, nothing in this text and nothing in this bill as it's
presented and the amendment that's on the floor right now leads anyone to believe
that you cannot be discussing anything that's outside of the furloughs. This bill
allows us to discuss what's in the furloughs, if it has anything in relation to the
furloughs, and that's what this was. And again, we had a first reading, we had a
public hearing, we had the committee meeting, and like you said, Mr. Chair, time is
of the essence. I mean and I understand Mr. Castillo was a former prosecutor. I
was a former employee there as well and I've seen the backlog a lot more recent
than Mr. Castillo has ... was there. So I can tell you that this is a matter that's of
quite importance.
Now, back to the legality, the fact that Mr. Castillo said that he's concerned
about the legality, I guess I'm interested in what legal law or what process have we
violated or will we violate? I don't ... I haven't heard that. Sunshine Law is not
appropriate. I mean that's ... this is not a violation of the Sunshine Law as the text
is quite clear. It's a money bill to revise the surplus and appropriations estimated
in the various funds and making the appropriate text changes as it relates to
furloughs. It doesn't say as it relates to "ending" furloughs. It doesn't say anything
like that, as it relates to furloughs. So in my opinion, and I hope that we get to vote
COUNCIL MEETING -74- January 26, 2011
on the amendment. You know I kind of sense that, you know, the suggestion will be
made to get a new money bill, I'd like to see this amendment voted on because I
don't think we violate anything and that's in just my honest opinion. There is
nothing here that tells me that we couldn't discuss the request that was made and
in fact the amendment that was just introduced by Mr. Kawakami. So having said
that, I'm asking, Mr. Chair, that after this discussion that we call for the question
on the amendment and if it fails, it fails, and then we can move on to having
another bill drafted. But I fully intend to support this amendment as introduced by
Mr. Kawakami. Thank you.
floor.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, the amendment as introduced is still on the
Mr. Rapozo: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: It hasn't been withdrawn. Perhaps I'm sharing
with you, you know, a fallback position if necessary. But I can call the county
attorney up again if you'd like?
Mr. Rapozo: No, that's fine.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. Mr. Bynum, you're next.
Mr. Bynum: Well, yeah, I think we need to do things according
to the process I'm used to here. I'd prefer a new bill. I'm not going to vote for this
amendment. However, if this amendment is going to go forward, then I'll have
some additional questions for the prosecutor's office.
Council Chair Furfaro: I appreciate your comment about following things
according to process. But the furloughs have already ended and we haven't even
voted. That's my point.
Mr. Bynum: I'd...
Council Chair Furfaro: That's a double standard as far as I'm concerned,
Mel
Mr. Bynum: Yeah, I can ... I don't disagree, Mr. Chair, and I'll
hold my comments regarding this.
Council Chair Furfaro: That's fine and I appreciate that because I just
want us to do the right thing for our people for the right reason and for the right
process. And so, Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think your point is very well
taken that process needs to be followed by all departments and all parts of the
county, and I know that actually Councilmember Bynum had a furlough bill
prepared long before furloughs were ended because he had looked at the timetable
and knew that if we had to end it by a certain time, we had to introduce a bill by a
certain time. So...
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Yukimura:
Council Chair Furfaro
But it never got introduced.
I understand that.
Okay.
COUNCIL MEETING -75- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura
Council Chair Furfaro:
(inaudible).
Ms. Yukimura:
reasons that I won't go into.
Council Chair Furfaro:
Yes.
Let's make sure we ... it never got introduced, so
I know. It never got introduced for a variety of
Okay.
Ms. Yukimura: But I mainly wanted to say I totally agree with
your point. As far, however, as Councilmember Rapozo's point, if his point holds,
then we should be able to introduce the issues about lifeguards as well because they
are related to furloughs too and if we're going to just take the general topic of
relating to furloughs, then to me the issue of the lifeguards is appropriate for this
and I have not introduced an amendment out of respect for process. So, I think the
appropriate thing to do, following the attorney... county attorney's advice, would be
to withdraw the motion and to withdraw the second and to have a separate bill
introduced.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, I appreciate your comment, but, you know
the individual that is introducing this bill is at my request. I've shared my
commentary. The bill is still on the table. Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: I just want to say I didn't hear Mr. Castillo say he
suggested we. withdraw the motion. He did not say that.
Ms. Yukimura: Oh, I'm just as...
Mr. Rapozo: No, I mean, you know, he didn't say that. His
suggestion was that we go the route of a new bill, but his suggestion wasn't that we
withdraw the motion, which is what you just said. And what I want to do, I want to
see the amendment voted on. And it's real simple, if you think we should go with
the new bill, then you vote no. If you think that we can move forward, then you
vote yes, but I don't want to withdraw the motion because I think the motion was
made, I think the discussion is being held, and I think a vote needs to be taken.
Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Yukimura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Ms. Nakamura:
Councilwoman Yukimura.
Oh, I think I'll defer to Councilmember Nakamura.
Oh, my mike, okay.
I have a question for the first deputy.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, we'll suspend the rules.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Nakamura: I'm sorry. (Inaudible).
Council Chair Furfaro: And you're welcome to come up. Councilmember
Nakamura will address a question to you.
COUNCIL MEETING -76- January 26, 2011
Ms. Nakamura: Since we have this amendment on the floor, what I
wanted to do was ask you some questions about the use of the additional
$101,955.00. Let's see. The question is what will these ... you said that it'd be used
for salaries. So will this be used for overtime?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes and that's what I meant by salaries. The
intent of our office, as you know I think this was brought up at the last meeting, we
have a line item in our budget for overtime. That amount is $2500.00 for the entire
fiscal year.
Ms. Nakamura: $2500.
Mr. DelaPlane: $2500.00... $2,500.00. That amount would not
begin to even touch the amount of overtime that would be required to address the
problems that were caused by the furloughs.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay.
Mr. DelaPlane: Now, the way that we calculated what would be
needed, the easiest way we could look to do that was what was taken away from us,
what work was lost, and... what work was lost by the furloughs and how that work
was represented by the amount in salaries that was taken away.
Ms. Nakamura: Do you foresee these funds being used for your
nine... is it nine staff attorneys?
Mr. DelaPlane: We actually have 12 %2 attorneys, one is half - time.
Those are not all county funded positions. Some of those are partially county
funded, some of those are grant funded. But essentially what we're looking at is
using that $101,000.00 for staff members. So whether that would be actual staff
members... non - attorney staff or attorneys, it would only be directed at addressing
the problems caused by the furloughs. We're not talking about retroactive raises or
paying people for work they didn't do.
Ms. Nakamura: So it was mentioned earlier that you have a backlog
of 608 cases. Is that correct?
Mr. DelaPlane: I don't have the exact number in front of me. That
was... it was...
(Inaudible.)
Mr. DelaPlane: Six hundred and four, I believe, is what was
written testimony that was presented to the council and that represents almost
double of what it was before the furloughs were implemented.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay, so typically you have a backlog of about
400 cases.
Mr. DelaPlane: I don't know that there's a good way to say what
the typical backlog would be. I can only tell you what it is as of the day that we
submitted the testimony. We shoot for not having a backlog at all and if everything
were working properly, we would be essentially swimming instead of treading
water.
COUNCIL MEETING -77- January 26, 2011
Ms. Nakamura: Okay and if these funds are restored and if this
amendment passes, what do you think the impact will be for your office. What do
you ... where do you hope to be at the end of the fiscal year?
Mr. DelaPlane: We hope to put a significant, I guess, bite into the
backlog that has been created. I mean, that's what we're looking to do is to undo
the harm that was done by the furloughs, nothing more, nothing less. If we can get
to an even better position than we were before the furloughs, that would be
fantastic. That would be the ideal situation.
Ms. Nakamura: Is that possible with the state furloughs affecting
the judiciary?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes, it is because our screening... the number that I
gave is our cases pending screening and the reason that we gave that number is
because it's the best descriptor of the problems that the furloughs caused,
essentially how the files are stacking up on the table. That's what that number
represents. There are other numbers that we could probably come up with, but that
was the most easily accessible number that we could show, hey, this is exactly how
the furloughs affected us, and it's representative of the larger problem. The courts
being closed and the state furloughs, those certainly have an effect on our output,
but our cases pending screening, what that is is those are cases that are sitting in
our office waiting to be processed through our normal process, which involves both
staff and attorneys.
Ms. Nakamura: And my final question, are your ... is your staff
willing to work that overtime, which is pretty significant...
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: ...in order to get back up to speed?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes, we've had multiple discussions with our
employees and we have a great dedicated staff at our office, and we would be able to
have people put in the additional time necessary to combat this problem.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Mr. Chang.
Mr. Chang: Yeah, Mr. DelaPlane, just to refresh our memories,
of the 604 or so cases backlogged, can you describe that again? I think you... is this
the worser (sic) of the cases, like you ... the more misdemeanor or the more petty
that's already taken care of?
Mr. DelaPlane: No, this represents serious, mainly felony cases and
I'm not going to say exclusively felony cases because there may. be other domestic
violence type cases that do require screening. But yes, we're not talking about
something like tra£..petty traffic citations or something like that. We're talking
about crimes that have been committed; there are victims involved. We're not
counting traffic, and that, I guess, is essentially (inaudible) I can answer that.
Mr. Chang: Thank you, thank you for (inaudible).
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
COUNCIL MEETING -78- January 26, 2011
Mr. Bynum: Good afternoon. You know what last year's
county ... what the budget was for the prosecutor's office last year?
Mr. DelaPlane: I don't have that in front of me right now.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, it was $2,310,000. Do you know at the end of
the year what the variance was?
Mr. DelaPlane: I do not.
Mr. Bynum: Okay, so at the end of the... according to our
financial audit, at the end of last year the prosecutor's office did not spend $621,000
of that $2.3 million... $612,000, I'm sorry, 21. Do you know what... on your salary
line items at the end of the first six months of the fiscal year, do you know how
much variance there is in that item?
Mr. DelaPlane: I don't know what the variance is, but... in relation
to your question, all that we've prepared for and the numbers that we've presented
are all relating to the furloughs. Now we're not trying to talk about what our
budget was when it was submitted to the council originally or anything like that.
All we're trying to address is the ... the fiscal impact on our office caused by the
furloughs and...
Mr. Bynum: My point is that...
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Mr. Bynum: ...you can ... my point is that there may be money in
your budget right now that you can use for overtime because you haven't spent it in
the first six months. And so we receive those reports, right, budget versus actual.
And so if we were going to go forward with this discussion, I'd want to see those
reports because last year there was $621,000 that was not spent. So if you
have... say you have $20,000 or $50,000 that's not spent, you know, according to
budget and it looks like you're building a variance, department heads have the
option to use that money for overtime, right, as I understand it? Somebody will
correct me if I'm wrong. And so, you know, when I said earlier that I haven't had
time to do the analysis about what the need is, you answered one of my earlier
questions. I was going to ask you is it just coincidental that the amount you need to
address this backlog is the exact same as the budget cut, you know, to the penny?
You know you would think you would do an analysis, but you actually answered
that pretty well. It's like hey, we figured a good starting point is the hours we've
lost, but of course, you know, at time and a half it wouldn't make up the hours you
lost, right?
Mr. DelaPlane: True.
Mr. Bynum: And so, you know, I'm not making a judgment.
about whether the prosecutor's office needs these funds in order to address a serious
issue. I'm just saying that I'm concerned that this isn't the proper mechanism to do
it and even if it isn't I haven't had the time to do the analysis that I'm required,
doing my due diligence to know if that truly is necessary or if there are other
options.
You know were defendants set free from custody inappropriately because of
furloughs?
COUNCIL MEETING -79- January 26, 2011
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely.
Mr. Bynum: And why didn't the prosecutor's office come here a
long time ago and say hey, we're letting criminals go out in the community. You
know, I had this question from the beginning. It was just like wow, that's a pretty
bold and strong claim. Cases were unnecessarily dismissed.
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely.
Mr. Bynum: Did that actually happen?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: You know, I would think it would be the
prosecutor's job to see that that doesn't happen and that if it requires overtime or it
requires an emergency allocation or it requires a bill and if that happened during
the first six months and there's a big budget variance, right, that overtime wasn't
used to avoid defendants being set free from custody, I'm going to be uncomfortable
with that. When I heard that statement, I was like what? Are you kidding me?
You let felons go in the community because of furloughs? Wait a minute? Where
was the red flag much sooner than right now? So, anyway, those are some of the
questions I would have going forward and if we go the mechanism of a new bill,
gives you a heads -up.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure and I appreciate your comments and they
mainly relate to the office's budget as a whole and how it looks for the entire fiscal
year. And again, like you said, whether there's a variance or not, these are issues
that we're going to be addressing with our 2011 fiscal year budget, when that's
submitted to the council. Again, that's not something that we intended at all to
address during these proceedings. We wanted to talk about the problems caused by
the furloughs.
Now your statements about were felons let free and were cases dismissed.
Absolutely they were. Absolutely they were. And they were directed to the
furloughs, but it was not because we were sitting idly by on our hands, saying oh,
well, the furloughs are happening, we can't do our job, oh, let's just wait until it
comes before council so that we can come in and whine about it. That's not what
we're doing. That's not what this is. That's not what this whole proceeding has
been about. What this proceeding has been about is taking an objective look at
what the furloughs have caused and what we can do to responsibly move forward
and that's what I'm here testifying to today. That's what I've testified to before.
That's what Shaylene has been here to testify about each time that she's been here.
Now, the... and I don't know if I want to call it an accusation, but saying that
the prosecutor's office hasn't done everything that it can to keep these things from
happening, that's just a completely inaccurate statement. We've been working
hard; we've been working long hours around the clock to try to tread water, like I
said earlier. We are trying to keep up with a judicial system that's furloughed, with
our own office staff that was furloughed and doing the best that we can, and we did
that throughout the furlough period. And many of our staff went above and beyond
the call of duty in order to do that so that more felons weren't released and more
cases weren't dismissed. All I can testify to is what happened and I can draw a
conclusion as to what caused that and that's what I've done here today. That's what
I've done in the past and that's what Shaylene's done throughout these proceedings.
COUNCIL MEETING -80- January 26, 2011
Mr. Bynum: I hear your answer and I won't ... I don't believe I
made any accusation. I asked a question and that's a logical question that
somebody would ask. And ... what I will say is if that were the case, I would have
expected to hear... much sooner than now because it's on public record that I
opposed furloughs. I made a motion at budget to restore one day, to limit it as a
compromise and unfortunately it didn't go. You know, I think furloughs impacted
county services all over the place and I don't think they saved much money, right, if
any ... it may have cost. We'll find out in the long run. But, you know, I ... you know
I heard loud and clear felons were let go into our community because of furloughs.
That's a powerful statement and you know, I would have ... yeah. The prosecutor's
office could have come here anytime and said hey, this is happening, right? You
know I was ... I didn't know ... I mean I think our sense as the council was that public
safety was going to be left out of this. So, you know, I can go on and on about my
concerns about how it played out and what had played out, but something as critical
as that... I can tell you that the landfill accepted all of the trash that had to get.
They compacted it all and they paid a whole bunch of overtime to do it. And, you
know, if they needed to come to us and ask for more money, they would. But they
didn't close the doors, right? So, yeah, you know I'm interested in following this
discussion if we go the route that I hope we do with a new money bill and ... but
those are some preliminary thoughts.
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely and just to briefly respond to that, I'm
not going to belabor the point, but I think a lot of what you brought up about why
the prosecutor's office wouldn't have been here sooner and why we wouldn't have
been just yelling and screaming the whole time is ... the whole original point of the
furloughs is that there's no money. There's no money, we have to furlough county
employees. I mean that's what was presented to the whole county. That's why we
implemented furloughs supposedly is that the money wasn't available. We didn't
find out until recently that in fact the money was available as evidenced by the fact
that we can now end furloughs and move forward. It wouldn't have made sense to
come forward with our hand out for money that wasn't there and it was represented
to us and every other county agency that the money was not there and that's why
furloughs were appropriate.
Mr. Bynum: Well, I just need to respond to that because during
budget I put the charts on the screen. I showed what the county's fiscal position
was. I made the argument that there was money, that it was a political decision,
not a fiscal decision, you know, so I mean I think that the message was out there.
Our financial statements are public record, right? And, you know, that's why I
questioned furloughs to begin with.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, on that note I need to tell you we need to
have a tape change. Jake, we're going to...
BC, Videographer: (Inaudible.)
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, so we got 12 minutes. We have more time.
than I thought. Okay. Mr. Kawakami.
Mr. Kawakami: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and you know, even though
I introduced this by request, I do believe in it wholeheartedly and you know, I'm not
sure... Well, let me start off with some humor. I think what the problem is is we
got too many attorneys in this room trying to ... trying to interpret this thing and too
many wanna -be attorneys that are trying to read too much into this. But if we
break it down simply, I believe that it achieves the goal that's stated in the original
bill because the language is broad and this does relate to furloughs. And I'm not
COUNCIL MEETING -81- January 26, 2011
sure how many of us at this table have actually been to one of our beach parks or
been in the shadows or witnessed some of the night life that's going on Kauai, but
there is definitely a problem. And so this statement that were felons let go because
of furloughs should not come to us as a surprise because you know one of the
running jokes is that everybody knows who the criminals are, and we see them
every time. We run on the bike path past, you know, the sub - station and you see
them lurking around. So there's definitely a problem. Folks, this... this is an
elected official that's running an office. And we just had, you know, our county
auditor come up earlier and request that he needs this to fulfill his job and his
mission, and we have an elected official coming before us with a strong case and not
just a strong case, but this is a matter of public safety, health and wellness. And so,
you know, if we just break it down simply, the money they're requesting is to
address a backlog of cases. Now do I want to be responsible for standing in the way
of the prosecuting attorney addressing a backlog of cases? Definitely not. That
being said, I'm ready to support this and that's all I got to say. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, thank you. Jake, I want to tell that
although Mr. Bynum got the audit, last week I shared the number, the payroll
portion that you came in under budget was $493,000. The summary in the audit is
all expenses associated with your de... But funny thing with budgets, that's not a
number you can carry over and when I shared that last time, it was basically saying
even with that shortfall, we still had a goal of 300 cases to get caught up with. So I
would say that, you know, there is certainly a need to make sure that you have the
full support of the council body. Whatever the outcome is on this amendment, you
know, I do plan to come back with a separate money bill if that's the appropriate
way and the way we should look at that is simply a backlog of 600 cases, it means
you're asking for roughly about $520 per case to get it closed. That's what it'll cost
us to get us to that point. So, if there...
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: ... are no more questions of you, we're going to...
Ms. Yukimura: I have some questions.
Council Chair Furfaro: Go ahead.
Ms. Yukimura: We talked earlier off the record in terms of how you
would be paying your salary to attorneys for work done because you don't normally
pay overtime to salaried employees and wondered if you might share your thoughts
about how you're going to do that.
Mr. DelaPlane: There have been several discussions about how we
would address the issue of having attorneys come in for extra time and put even
more extra time in than they're already putting in. I can tell you our attorneys
don't leave at 4:30 p.m. and they come in well before 7:45 in the morning. So in
terms of overtime, they already are working overtime. And to ask our attorneys to
come in and work even more than they're doing now, which is already more' than
what the normal workday would be, we've talked about and we've started the
process of asking an opinion as to whether we can in fact pay them overtime in the
sense that overtime is traditionally given, whether there's some mechanism for us
to do that. And the alternative, we've spoken about a temporary salary adjustment
to serve as a sort of overtime, but again those are things that we would ask the
county attorney's office, other appropriate county agencies whether that's even
COUNCIL MEETING -82- January 26, 2011
possible. But we're trying to do what's fair. We're not trying to give anyone a
windfall here. Our attorneys work very hard and they're actually paid probably
lower than many of the prosecutors across the neighbor islands.
Ms. Yukimura: So one way you can do that is just raise the salary
of your deputies?
Mr. DelaPlane: And again, these are just preliminary talks and I'm
not ... I'm not saying that this is what the solution would be. It's something that's
been discussed in lieu of overtime because if overtime is not available, we're trying
to figure out what sort of incentive we can provide our employees to come in, work
the extra hours, and get rid of this backlog that's just drowning us.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, okay. But it is a bit worrisome that you
haven't figured out how you're going to spend your salary moneys.
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes, and again that's... it's more of a... a mechanism
that we're looking at. We're trying to figure out what the appropriate mechanism
would be. We already know that overtime for staff is in place. We know that for a
fact, but the issue is...
Ms. Yukimura: Not for your exempt.
Mr. DelaPlane: Not for our exempt and again, we're exploring what
our options would be for those individuals, but the ... the money that is in the
amendment now would be used only for salaries.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I did want to make that clear...
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Ms. Yukimura: ...that you folks are committed to use it for nothing
else but salaries.
Mr. DelaPlane: No, we're not talking about purchases for our office.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay.
Mr. DelaPlane: We're not talking about anything else. We're
talking about paying the workers to do the work.
Ms. Yukimura: But if you do decide to raise the salaries of your
attorneys, then you are committing the county to a long range increase and I'm not
sure how you did this, but if you created other positions from salary savings of
certain positions, then it starts getting pretty hairy for the—in terms of the long -
range budget.
Mr. DelaPlane: Right and we're not looking long -range. This
amendment is not long range. It's asking to undo the harm that was done by the
furloughs, and any adjustment that would be made to a salary, and again this is all
theoretical, and I'm bringing this up just as one of the ways that we could do this
would only be temporary. So any salary adjustment for an attorney to do extra
work, that would be a temporary adjustment...
Ms. Yukimura: Yeah.
COUNCIL MEETING
Mr. DelaPlane:
normal pay.
Sm
January 26, 2011
...just like overtime is a temporary adjustment to
Ms. Yukimura: But you're asking us to appropriate money for a
theoretical plan that hasn't been worked out or thought through.
Mr. DelaPlane: No, there... there... it's not a theoretical plan. The
mechanism to pay the attorneys the money that... as an incentive or as overtime,
the mechanism to do that we haven't quite figured that out and we're asking the
other county agencies exactly what we can do, but we have to have the money
approved in order to do that. Now, the vast majority of the money under this bill
would be used to pay the support staff to come in, the support staff who were
furloughed who weren't there to do the work that needed to be done and that's
essentially what we're asking for. These other things are things that I'm throwing
out there as possibilities, but they're not necessarily going to be the final course of
action.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, then could you present to us proportionate
salary breakdown in terms of what your salaried staff is and what your supporting
staff is that does qualify for overtime?
Mr. DelaPlane: I don't have that information and I could provide
that, but again, a lot of the issues, these ancillary issues that keep coming up are
issues that we're absolutely going to address with our 2011 fiscal year budget.
What we're asking for now is money to undo the harm and I think that we've more
than presented a case for that.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, would you please present us the information?
Council Chair Furfaro: You know I'm going to... excuse me, councilwoman,
I'm going to say that we need to take this break. Could you please sum up?
Ms. Yukimura: Okay.
Council Chair Furfaro: If not, we're off the tape, so, and if you don't mind,
B.C., how long do you need to get this...
B.C.: (Inaudible.)
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. We're on recess for a tape change.
There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 3:41 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:44 p.m.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, we're back in session. You know I want to
tell you I'ri getting close.to saying.
g...
BC, Videographer: Check your mike, Jay.
Council Chair Furfaro: I'm getting close to saying we're going to need to
call for the vote on this amendment here. Jake, are there any more questions of
you? We ended with Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: I'm not finished.
COUNCIL MEETING -84- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Let me finish.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Please, I've said this before. Let me finish ... we
ended with Councilwoman Yukimura having the floor. She still has it, okay, but I
do want to get close to wrapping up this discussion. You have the floor.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you very much. So I was asking
whether you could provide us with that information.
Mr. DelaPlane: It would be something that we could provide. I
can't provide it today because I don't...
Ms. Yukimura: Of course.
Mr. DelaPlane: I wasn't prepared to present...
Ms. Yukimura: Of course.
Mr. DelaPlane: ... our entire budget to the council today.
Ms. Yukimura: Of course.
Mr. DelaPlane: But it is something that we could provide, yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, if ..I mean if the chair's going to be
introducing a bill, there's time for that information.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Okay and then you said your goal
would be to be where you were before the furloughs. So, where is that? How do
you ... where is that by indicator numbers maybe? You said cases pending screening
as your best indicator. So where was that before the furloughs?
Mr. DelaPlane: And again I think Mr. Chang had the exact
number. It was in the 300s, 330...
Mr. Chang: (Inaudible.)
Mr. DelaPlane: What we were before the initial furloughs and I
apologize for not having the information in front of me, but the cases pending
screening before furloughs were implemented were approximately 330. That's the
number that I recall.
Ms. Yukimura: So that would be your goal at the end... by the end
of the fiscal year be at that level rather than your 604^ -
Mr. DelaPlane: At a very minimum, that would be our goal.
Ms. Yukimura: Right.
Mr. DelaPlane: It would be our hope that we could move beyond
that and have even fewer cases pending.
COUNCIL MEETING -85- January 26, 2011
Ms. Yukimura: Right, well, I... kudos to you for wanting to even get
lower, but I just wanted to know what, in your mind, was the ... would be your goal.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Now, you said that it was because of the loss
of support staff that you had the backlog?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: So it wasn't that much an issue of attorney time?
It was more your support staff that does... and so you would be using this extra
$100,000 to pay for overtime for your support staff primarily?
Mr. DelaPlane: Yes, it would be primarily for our support staff, but
there would be attorney involvement that was needed. With every case that's
processed through our office, it has to go through a series of steps that involve
support staff and eventually it comes out with the attorney. Do you need a
moment? Okay. The main goal that we're asking for here is to ask for what was
taken away from us in order to fix the problems caused by the furloughs. The way
that we're going to do that is increase our production through paying our support
staff overtime. Now in order to process the work that the support staff puts through
in that extra effort, there has to be attorney involvement. There just has to be.
With caseloads already maxed out per attorney, there's going to be no other way
than to have attorneys work even more extra time than they're doing now. So that's
why I mentioned the possibility of some of that money, not all of that money, but
some of that money gong to attorneys in order to process this backlog.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, now you are aware that to date there's
1.466819, so that's $1,466,819.00 in your budget, which is more than half of the
year's budget that was allocated.
Mr. DelaPlane: Again, I don't ... I wasn't prepared today to talk
about our entire operating budget, so if that's the number and they've passed this to
me here, I assume that number is correct. I wouldn't necessarily dispute that, but I
haven't had time to truly analyze our entire budget for the whole year.
Ms. Yukimura: Right, but the point is that you may have moneys
within that, especially if you had a variance, a leftover of $600,000 last year, that
you might actually have that $100,000 in your budget right now.
Mr. DelaPlane: Our variance last year really has no bearing on
what our variance would be right now or what our variance will be at the end of this
fiscal year because our staffing fluctuates, how the different items in our budget are
expended, so that number, that $416,000 number, I'm not sure that it has any real
bearing on...
Ms. Yukimura:
Mr. DelaPlane:
numbers here, I know, but...
You "mean the 1.4?
No, you said the variance.
Council Chair Furfaro: One moment.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
I'm confusing the
COUNCIL MEETING -86- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro: Let me unconfuse the number here.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: You spend $142,000.00 a month in your budget for
the period of what will be approximately nine additional months to report. So if
you're at your current trend, you will spend over a million dollars of the number
that Councilwoman Yukimura has mentioned, okay?
Mr. DelaPlane: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: So we're talking in terms of a trend report.
Mr. DelaPlane: Right.
Council Chair Furfaro: Although that money shows now as not being
spent, to get us to the end of June 30, you have this period of time where you have
months yet to come. And may I also point out, although we think in a calendar
mine that those months yet to spend are only seven, the reality is we only have a
financial for the month up through November. So those numbers have not shown
yet. So, I just ... just want to say, you ... you have a trend that isn't reported and
you're spending about $142,000 a month.
Mr. DelaPlane: Thank ;you, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo, I'll still let her have the floor. Go
ahead, councilwoman.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, so you don't know at this point whether you
have actual moneys possibly within the accounts in your budget.
Mr. DelaPlane: I can tell you that our budget is extremely tight
and looking at it from a wholistic approach, looking at it for the rest of the year, we
determined that the money that we're asking for throughout this amendment is
appropriate and that we need it in order to address the problems caused by the
furloughs. That's the best answer I can give you at this point.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, they're basically an assertion and so I was just
trying to understand the reasoning and rationale, how you got to the assertion.
Mr. DelaPlane: Sure.
Ms. Yukimura: So that's why I was asking my questions.
Mr. DelaPlane: And again, and I think I've stated it plainly several
times that the way that we came up with this and I think it's logical is looking at
what was taken away, looking at the harm that was caused, and deciding what we
needed to do to move forward responsPoly. And I think taking this money that was
taken away from us and allowing us to use that for overtime in order to address the
backlog, I think that's completely appropriate and I don't think it's in any way
outside the bounds of what is envisioned by our budget for the entire fiscal year.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay and I will recognize Mr. Rapozo.
COUNCIL MEETING -87- January 26, 2011
Mr. Rapozo: Just real quick, Jake, I apologize for having you
have to go through all this questioning. I mean, you're here for the amendment.
You're not here to present your budget. You're not even the prosecuting attorney.
So, for that I apologize because I think it's unfair.
Last year, you didn't have all your attorneys staffed in that office. This year
you have. The cost to run that office this year is going to be different than last year.
So to use last year's excess funds is ... it's irrelevant because it's a new year. There's
unappropri ... or unencumbered expenses in your office. Certain payments that you
gotta pay for the use of the RMS system, for the NCIC system, that doesn't reflect
because it's not a monthly payment. So I mean there's a lot of variables here and
it's real easy to just ... just drill you. The bottom line is you're asking for an
adjustment in the bill to address some overtime that you feel ... your boss feels that
you need to use to bring you back up to speed, as far as the workflow, the backlog.
Is that correct?
Mr. DelaPlane: That's absolutely correct.
Mr. Rapozo: You know I am actually... I'll save my comments for
the comments, but it's frustrating to watch this. I mean, you're not prepared for
that. You weren't asked to be prepared for that. You're here to describe what you
want to use these funds for and I think you've done it maybe five or even six times
today. I just want you to know I, you know, I appreciate your answers and your
responses. It's real simple. If you agree you vote yes, if you disagree you vote no.
But I think this questioning, Mr. Chair, is going well off the amendment number
one, well off the amendment.
Council Chair Furfaro: I do believe, Mr. Rapozo, you heard my caution
before we took that last break.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. So that... that's ... I just wanted to
clarify that your staffing today, is it the same as it was last year?
Mr. DelaPlane: No, it is not.
Mr. Rapozo: And if ..I don't know if you even know this, but, you
know, how many attorneys did you have in your office last year?
Mr. DelaPlane: The number fluctuated, so it wasn't the same
throughout the whole year.
Mr. Rapozo: As I remember, at one time it was five or six.
Mr. DelaPlane: Absolutely.
Mr. Rapozo: And a half because...
Mr. DelaPlane: It was as low as six and then it went up to, I think,
around nine, but it fluctuates basically.
Mr. Rapozo: Right and today you have 12 %2, 12 attorneys, 12 %2
minus an average of 7, that leaves you about 5. Five times an average salary of
about 80 or 90 grand, that's about six or seven hundred thousand dollars. I mean,
let's just be fair here. I mean it's a different year. It's a different budget and you
know, please, you know, I can understand and maybe it's because I know what that
COUNCIL MEETING -88- January 26, 2011
office goes through. But the reality is is you're here to address the furlough issue,
not your operating budget, and that's what I think we need to get back on is the
amendment that's actually on the floor. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay as I said before we get to the break, I intend
to call for the vote. I did point some cautions out. I want to remind everybody the
$493,000 in payroll that you save is so, but it went back in the kitty. It's not sitting
out there somewhere else. It's in the kitty that we're asking. The fact of the matter
is the $69,520.00 that I reconciled in this requested bill is your actual raw payroll.
The other items like FICA, the retirement contribution, other PT &E is identified
here and you do have some money in the furlough bill as it is right now. We ... I
have clearly stated my position that, you know, we want to be supportive and I
want to tell you one of the things I have heard from your department is the passion
to get us caught up, the passion to get us back on track. Now, at the end of the
year, we may have money left over. I certainly need to say that goes back into some
reserve. But if it's there, spend it. If this amendment fails, I will certainly support
or ask somebody to introduce a money bill as the other option. So may I call for the
vote on the amendment.
There being no further questions, the meeting was called back to order.
Ms. Yukimura: If I could... discussion, if you're coming back to
order, Mr. Chair?
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, I'll allow each councilmember time to make a
point before I call for the vote. We'll start with you, councilwoman.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank
Councilmember Rapozo for answering the questions that I asked. I don't' think
they were illegitimate questions. They ... I think it's very appropriate to look at
what's existing in the budget and to see if there is some moneys already there. But
I didn't know the information that I should have known, perhaps. I don't know how
I would have known it except that there was somebody who used to work in the
prosecutor's office who could explain the difference in this year's budget from last
year's budget. So, thank you very much. Those answers were very useful.
Council Chair Furfaro: May I add to that? You cannot compare this year's
budget to last year's budget. The year ended. You have to compare last year's
actuals with this year's forecast. That's the comparison. How much did we
accomplish on those actions? We still had a backlog. So, you gotta be really careful
when you're comparing those apples and apples. It's what did we spend what we
got for, what are we forecasting we're going to have, and you know, how much
would be left at the end of the year? Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: As we started this discussion, the analysis of
whether there's a need for additional funds to address the backlog is a separate
issue. We kind of made a small foyer into that, but, you know, to me it's the
mechanism that our county attorney has said he's uncomfortable with and we have
another mechanism. I don't think the questions we asked of the deputy prosecutor
were unfair. My question was do you know what this year's variance is, budget
versus actual, right now. I've gotten that since then because it's available and I
think if he comes up here and asks us for additional funds, he should know the
current status of his budget versus actual, not last year, but for this year. And an
analysis of whether... so you know, in the salary line item, there is $94,000.00 in the
first six, months that was unexpended. Now, there might ... that may get expended
because they've hired new people, but we would expect them to know that. But part
COUNCIL MEETING -89- January 26, 2011
of our due diligence is asking those questions. So I don't think the questions are
unfair. I think that's the kind of questions we ask when somebody asks us to give
them additional funds. But my vote against this amendment is about having the
proper mechanism as outlined by the county attorney.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anybody else wishes to speak before I
call for the vote? Okay, we have an amendment. Is this a roll call vote?
Mr. Rapozo: I would ask for a roll call, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Yukimura: Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Yes, councilwoman.
Ms. Yukimura: I just want to say that I'm going to be voting no on
this amendment and it's not on the merits of the amendment, but on the process.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay. So we are going to ask ... I'm going to ask for
a roll call vote on this amendment as introduced by request to Mr. Kawakami.
The motion to amend Bill No. 2389, as shown in the floor amendment
attached hereto (Attachment No. 3), was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 5,
Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: Bynum, Yukimura TOTAL — 2,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Five ayes.
Council Chair Furfaro: That amendment passes, 5 -2, is that correct?
Mr. Nakamura: Five ayes, two noes.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. Let's go to the main motion.
Mr. Nakamura: We're back on Bill No. 2389 as amended. Roll call,
Council Chair?
Council Chair Furfaro: Roll call, please.
Mr. Rapozo: We can have some discussion real quick?
Council Chair Furfaro: Oh, we can have some discussion if you'd like. This
actually is the... as amended, the entire furlough bill.
Mr. Rapozo: I Thank you. I just want to say that, you know, this
is ... and understanding your earlier comments about the process as far as the
notices going out before the council's passing of the bill, I thought was premature,
although you know I think a lot of people are grateful. A lot of people suffered
during these times. A lot of families suffered because of the two days that they
were furloughed. You know I think a lot of the higher end jobs in this county and in
the state can probably handle the two months a day... two days a month furlough,
but when you're talking about... Councilmember Chang and I were looking at a pay
scale of $27,000.00 a year, after you take out the taxes and the all of the medical,
and then what le ... you know, it's hurtful. And whether or not the furlough
COUNCIL MEETING _90- January 26, 2011
should've or shouldn't have happened, that's not the issue today. The issue is we're
making it right. And I intend to support this 100% because I think it needs to be
done.
As far as the amendment, you know, I mean I was ... this is an attempt to stop
the bleeding. I mean I think, you know, public safety... it's a shame for public
safety, it's a shame for the judiciary, anything that ties into public health and safety
to be furloughed, in addition to education, I think is a crime and I don't think we
should even entertain that. And I'm hoping that if we ever get into a position like
that, we'll never furlough public safety again.. And it causes a problem that is
difficult to fix and that's what we're doing today. We're stopping the bleeding. You
know, public safety is in my opinion and that's because I'm the... not because I'm the
public safety chair, it's because I live here and I want to be safe. And if you look at
all the crimes that are going on today, you know, we gotta address it, we gotta pay
close attention, and I really appreciate this council passing that amendment.
You know, the testim... the first testimony of... that came in on the
amendment was in December 15. December 15 was when. we first received
testimony and today is January 26. So there was a lot of time for individual
councilmembers to seek out information if they had any questions. It's been over a
month. And I think, you know, to ask the questions today on the day of passage is
probably not the most efficient way to do it. If you had questions, you know, you
had a month or over a month to get those questions answered.
So, you know I just, you know, this is a ... it's a good day in a sense. Our
employees know today that they will not have to worry about furloughs going
forward. The funding is there and they can focus back on what's important to them,
their family and their livelihoods, and not worry about really are we going to have a
furlough and so it's a happy day for me. And I'm looking forward to a great year
and hopefully most of the families that were affected by the furloughs will be able to
pull themselves out and get back on track. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Rapozo. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: Yeah this... these comments are about the furlough
bill. We already had the discussion about the prosecutor's office. Of course I intend
to support this bill. The... and so just to give some history, I never thought
furloughs were a good idea from day one. You know, there's no question that we're
in difficult economic times. County revenues are down, right? We're ... but our ... this
council and the administration have moved... and moved pretty early in that process
to reduce spending by dollar - funding numerous positions in the county by doing a
hiring freeze. Those two things, I believe, are pretty effective at saving money.
Reducing travel budgets, reducing, you know... deferring spending, you know, on
equipment for a few years, which you can get away with for a few years, but
eventually comes back to bite. And so we already had reduced our spending
significantly and adjusted. And when furloughs came up, when the economy
turned, I looked at the conservative financial picture that this ...council and the
county administration have all agreed on to have a conservative financial 'pictF s °e
and said boy, we're in good shape to weather this storm, good thing we acted
conservatively, good thing we kept somewhat high reserves. But then when
furloughs came up and we said oh, we don't have the money, as the deputy
prosecutor said that the message went out, we have to do this because we don't have
the money. That was not true. It never was. And that's why I opposed furloughs,
besides the fact that I don't think that they are an efficient way for government to
save money.
COUNCIL MEETING _91- January 26, 2011
During the budget process;, and any of those people who watched this
(inaudible), we were not allowed to have any discussion about furloughs, about the
impact on services, about... and then there was no attempt, in my mind, from the
administration even if you're going to do furloughs, to tailor them in a way that
didn't impact services. I believe and my memory was that this council was very
clear that we wanted public safety off the table when it came to furloughs. That
would have meant, in my mind, no cuts to the office of the prosecuting attorney, the
police, the fire, and our frontline public safety workers. But indeed, those offices did
get cuts, despite our assurances, and we never had an opportunity at budget to
discuss the details; okay. We closed neighborhood centers on Fridays. Why couldn't
we have closed them on Tuesday, when they weren't already reserved for baby
luaus and other things, right?
And perhaps the most dramatic inappropriateness comes from public safety,
no question. And I questioned earlier the comments of saying we actually set
criminals free. That's news to me and I think that's pretty appalling, you know.
But furloughs were not a good idea. As we came into this budget process, as
Ms. Yukimura said and I wasn't going to bring this up, I prepared a bill in October
to meet the timeline, to have it fully done and completed by December 15 so we
could end furloughs and actually have encumbered the funds. That's the way you
do business. You don't spend money that's not encumbered.
You know the administration strongly encouraged me to not put that bill
forward on the agenda with the promise that it's okay, we can do it another way.
But I think the Chair is correct in saying this isn't the way we should normally do
business. We shouldn't spend funds with the assurance that this council's' going to
come to a unanimous agreement or a majority agreement to fund that something in
the future. And I learned a lot in the last six months about the budget process and
things that are not that transparent that need to be more transparent, even to the
people who are primarily responsible for the budget under our charter. That's why I
applaud the county auditor auditing the budget process. The Chair made comments
today that we have timelines that are ... have historic reasons that jam us up and
don't allow us to do the kind of diligence we need. You know, I... as I said the
discussion ... I don't think this was the proper bill to address some of those issues.
Those issues need to be addressed, but there's a different way to do it. But I accept
the will of the majority and I intend to vote to end furloughs and I'm thrilled that
they are ended. And I could go on and on about their impact on the private sector,
you know, but I've kind of said you know, let's not go over and lament this and do a
lot of I- told - you -so's because our competent auditor is going to look at these impacts
and it will come back and it will do what Councilmember Rapozo said, which I agree
with, is it'd give us the information to know that this isn't a place we probably want
to go in the future regardless of how difficult the economic times are. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Anybody else would like to speak on this item
before I do? Councilwoman Yukimura.
-Ms. "Yukimura: Yes, I think it's very clear that furloughs have hurt
our families and our community and unnecessarily, so. So it is a very good day that
we're bringing it all to an end.
Council Chair Furfaro: (Inaudible) I will also share with the fact that we're
about ready to vote to end furloughs. I want to point out that this body is the unit
that put the proviso in the budget that said December 15 required the
administration to reconcile for us the impact from the furloughs, how much more
overtime did we incur, what kind of workload did we fall behind, you know, what is
COUNCIL MEETING -92- January 26, 2011
our process on permits, and. those particular things. Did we fall behind in six
months? So we gave them an opportunity, but we conditioned it in the budget.
That's why we're at where we're at right now. I have to say that idea was
everybody's at the council at the time, putting those conditions in there, but what
we're doing today is not about retroactive. What we're doing today is about ending
furloughs going forward and making some reasonable adjustments as to how we get
caught up in the area, especially public safety by providing this money and I want
to thank, Jake. Basically the passion is there on that message.
I want to also remind us that Jake, we're expecting every department to
spend what we allocate to them and that, you know, overtime is in their control and
so forth to get it done. But live within your budget. Some of the reasons we find
ourselves having unspent our budget and adding to what this surplus is, is because
unspent in the period for the period comes back into this fund. And for us to go
forward, we are going to need a reserve policy. Kauai County, Maui County has
what is often referred to as this reserve or surplus. But you know the City &
County of Honolulu and the Big Island are not in the same place that we have
because we've had this exchange of ideas and we have a little bit of a payoff here for
our people, for our county with the ending of furloughs and let's hope these
memories stay long with us when it comes to right- sizing county government.
There are 51 positions in the county that are currently funded with only holding a
dollar. You know, maybe that's a better approach. So, on that note, I want to say to
the county attorney, I'm sorry you're the only one in the administration that's here
today for the actual discussion about ending furloughs and I was very sincere about
my comments, but at the same time, I want to say I recognize your role in keeping
us in line. So on that note, we're going to do a roll call vote, please.
The motion to adopt Bill No. 2389, as amended to Bill No. 2389, Draft 1, and
that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, ]
AGAINST ADOPTION: None
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING:
RECUSED & NOT VOTING:
Mr. Nakamura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
(Applause.)
Council Chair Furfaro:
Mr. Bynum:
Council Chair Furfaro:
urfaro
TOTAL — 0,
None TOTAL — 0,
None TOTAL — 0.
Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, it's unanimous, furloughs are ended.
Thank you everyone.
Now it's official.
Yes, now it's official.
Ms. Yukimura: The mayor has to sign the bill.
Council Chair Furfaro: I hope we'll send it over as quickly as possible.
Mr. Nakamura: We're on page seven of the council's agenda, bill for
second reading, Bill No. 2390:
COUNCIL MEETING -93- January 26, 2011
Bill No. 2390 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($575,000.00 - Kaua i
Bus services expansion): Ms. Yukimura moved to adopt Bill No. 2390 on second and
final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by
Mr. Chang.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Anyone from the audience that would
like to ... Mr. Mickens, followed by Ken.
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
GLENN MICKENS: For the record Glenn Mickens. It's been a long day.
This won't be long. I'm going to read my short statement for the record and for the
viewing public.
I know that this bill will unanimously pass, which I approve. But I once
again ask this council to seriously explore the use of taxis in conjunction with our
bus system and find out how the Big Island has free buses. I won't repeat the
positive reasons I gave in my previous testimonies for this taxi service, but I do
hope, as Tim said, it will be investigated.
At the previous committee meeting, JoAnn said that I should do more
research on the subject. With all due respect, I gave you a factual report from
Debbie... Debra that was here —She couldn't stay. She had to leave, but she's been
here all day waiting to testify, which I'm sorry she had to leave —that experienced
this system working and if more research is needed, I feel it's the job of this council
to do it and not the public.
For the people who need the door -to -door service, if buses cannot provide or
for those who need to travel in inclement weather, this is a win -win situation. Fuel
and maintenance costs should be another huge factor to consider by using taxis
along with our buses to save money. And again, Debra ... I asked her to come down
to testify. She may send her written testimony. She may send it to all you
councilmembers because, you know, she's been there, she's done it. I think it's
important to find out from her exactly what the procedure was. For
she... she... what she indicated to me that it was in conjunction. They had the free
bus and the taxi contract on the Big Island was in conjunction with each other. I
think you bought your pass from the bus service for the taxi thing. But the point
was that it did work. You don't have to sit there, wait... call up 24 hours in advance
to get the bus to come and pick you up. Pick the phone up, she said, and they come
and get you. So anyway, I think it should definitely be investigated. Thank you
very much, Jay.
Council. Chair Furfaro: Are there any _questions of Glenn? If_ not, ..thank
you, Glenn.
Council Chair Furfaro: Ken?
KEN TAYLOR: Chair and members of the council, my name is Ken
Taylor. I'm in support of Bill No. 2390, but I did want to clarify something. In
watching the replay of the public comment... hearing, I made a statement that by a
family being able to eliminate one automobile, that they would be able to save
$50,000.00. What I should have said was that they could save about $8,000.00 a
COUNCIL MEETING -94- January 26, 2011
year and that would give them money if they so choose to consider buying a house to
cover about $50,000.00 additional in mortgage. And I just wanted to set the record
straight because I realized when I watched the replay of that meeting that I had
misrepresented some numbers and so I knew the numbers, I just didn't get them
out. So I stand in complete support of this and I'm looking forward to the next step
to go a little further with the bus service. Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank. you, Ken. Are there any questions of Ken?
Ken, thank you for clarifying the record. Is there anymore testimony from the
audience? If not, I'll call the meeting back to order.
There being no one else wishing to testify, the meeting was called back to order., and
proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: We had a motion and a second?
Mr. Nakamura: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Is there any dialogue amongst councilmembers?
Mr. Bynum, we'll start with you.
Mr. Byra.um: I just wanted to say how pleased I am that we are
passing this... presumably passing this bill today that expands bus service into
nights and weekends. During the budget process we had moving and dramatic
testimony from a wide range of people in the community supporting the bus and we
had that repeated during this period of time where we received more testimony, and
certainly on this than anything else. Today when I came, on the desk ... when we
came here today was a new pieced testimony from clients at a psychosocial rehab
program on Kauai, signed by 17 clients, virtually all of which are dependent on the
bus for, you know, to get around. A big percentage of our community cannot drive
because of financial reasons, because of physical issues, and are dependent on the
bus. In just a couple of sentences here, if the bus ran on Sundays we could go
shopping at Wal -Mart or Lihu`e''Big Save more easily. We could visit our friends
and we could go to church. It'd be nice if we were able to be full participants in the
community with expanded bus service. We ... if we ... if it goes until night, we can
actually go somewhere at night or get ... we can get to where we need to go at night.
And you know that's why I think this was the important next, expansion for the
bus, not the last. And you know, early on when we talked about where the next
expansion of the bus should go, I heard a lot of discussion about cost benefit
analysis, and so I don't want to hear a few months from now somebody say yeah,
well that bus runs at 9 o'clock at night, but there's only eight people on it, right? I
know that. I. know that we're not going to have full buses in this expanded
schedule. But a big significant portion of our community in the words that I've used
and that are being used by these participants in this program will be able to be full
participants in the community. I've said for the last year that this is a social justice
issue. It's our responsibility to meet the needs of the people in our community,
particularly as those numbers are growing as economic times are difficult.
And just as an aside, thanks for that correction, Ken, because I knew where
you were coming from when you testified. When you said $50,000, I'm like whoa;
whoa. I know because I think most of us are in denial of what the cost of a czar is:
Between insurance and gas and ...it's huge. And families... more and more families
are choosing to be one -car families when they can and it's giving them more
disposable income and helping our economy and making it easier to live . and
improving the quality of their life. So, I think...I'm thrilled. Thank you for letting
me make those comments.
COUNCIL MEETING -95- January 26, 2011
Council Chair Furfaro:
Yes. Any other members? Nadine, go right ahead.
Ms. Nakamura: I wanted to just make one recommendation and I'm
not sure if a formal recommendation is needed, but to send the testimony that we've
received from the public to the office of transportation. I think ... we received a lot of
good recommendations about bus locations, amenities, services and I think it would
be helpful to forward all of them officially to the transportation office for their
follow -up and... review and follow -up.
Council Chair Furfaro: That's an excellent idea and I would certainly ask
perhaps that cover letter could come from both you and Councilwoman Yukimura
since many of these items with planning and transportation and energy kind of...I
would ask the two of you to go ahead on behalf of the council, send that
communication and that copies. Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that's a wonderful
idea and actually we have already done that.
Council Chair Furfaro: Oh great, I'm behind the teapot as it is.
Ms. Yukimura: Because as... as Councilmember Nakamura has
said, there were some really specific and good suggestions from people who
obviously use the bus a lot and therefore, you know, were grounded suggestions.
They weren't just theoretical or fantasy ideas. They were really specific ways in
which we could improve the bus. And some of them were long range suggestions
which we asked that it would be poured into the long range planning process that's
coming up. But thank you for that idea.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: And, if I may, I just want to say that
Council Chair Furfaro: You still have the floor.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. In passing the previous bill, we are
ending a bad thing and in passing this bill before us ... pending before us, we are
extending a good thing by expanding the bus system. And it will be ... it's very
significant because it'll be supporting residents in their daily lives and visitors also
as they enjoy our island. It's providing an affordable transportation alternative as
oil and gas prices rise. And so it's helping to reduce the cost of living and increase
the quality of our lives and I really appreciate the public's participation, the
administration's initiative, and our agency's good work in making the bus system
run day to day. Thank you
Council Chair Furfaro:
Thank you. Gentleman?
No.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay, fine, I do also want to say that really,
this ... you should watch for it in the next budget, will become a number in the
budget of $1,150,000.00 for the year because this is a portion here. But I want to
also say probably our next step, and I've had some discussion with Vice Chair
Yukimura on this, is to begin revisiting our sustainability plan so that we can come
COUNCIL MEETING -96- January 26, 2011
back because a further expansion of the bus is actually tied to some strategic
thinking that's in that plan. So that'll probably be our next step maybe in about
three months, so.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Furfaro: On that, Mr. Clerk.
The motion to adopt Bill No. 2390, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor
for his approval was then put, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: . Terrific.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for second reading on page seven of the
council's agenda is Bill No. 2391:
Bill No. 2391 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 -705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($200, 000.00 — Kaua i
Visitors Bureau): Mr. Chang moved to adopt Bill No. 2391 on second and final
reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Ms.
Yukimura, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL - 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, next item.
Mr. Nakamura: Next bill for second reading is Bill No. 2392:
Bill No. 2392 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE
NO. B- 2010 7705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF
THE COUNTY OF KAUA`I,- STATE OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND
APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($325,000.00 —
County Auditor): Ms. Yukimura moved to adopt Bill No. 2392 on second and final
reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr.
Chang, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING -97- January 26, 2011
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Okay and then we'll go to 2393?
Mr. Nakamura: On page eight of the council's agenda, last bill for
second reading is Bill No. 2393:
Bill No. 2393 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY AUDITOR TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF A CONTRACT AUDITOR
AND APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR A CONTRACT AUDITOR FROM
APPROPRIATIONS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND FOR MORE THAN ONE
FISCAL YEAR: Ms. Yukimura moved to adopt Bill No. 2393 on second and final
reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr.
Bynum, and carried by the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Bynum, Chang, Kawakami, Nakamura, Rapozo, TOTAL — 7,
Yukimura, Furfaro
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Mr. Nakamura: Seven ayes, Mr. Chair.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you. Are we at the point we need to call up
the county attorney?
There being no objection, the rules were suspended.
ALFRED B. CASTILLO, County Attorney: Council chair, Councilmembers,
good afternoon, Al Castillo, County Attorney. The matters for your consideration
are ES -475, ES -478, and ES -479:
ES -475 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. sections 92 -4, 92- 5(a)(2), (4) and (8),
and Kauai County Charter §3.07(E), the purposes of this executive session are to
consider the evaluation of officers and /or employees where consideration of matters
affecting privacy will be involved, salary consideration, and associated matters.
This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties,
privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate
to this agenda item.
ES -478 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. sections 92 -4 and 92- 5(a).(4), and
Kauai County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of this executive session is to
provide Council with a briefing and request for authority for partial settlement of
claim, filed against the County by Shane N. Matias on June 2, 2010, 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 -98- January 26, 2011
ES -479 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. sections 92 -4 and 92- 5(a)(4), and
Kauai County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of this executive session is to
consult with Council regarding legal issues concerning January 18, 2011 letter from
County Auditor to Council, 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.
The meeting was called backorder, and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you, county attorney. May I have a motion
to go into executive session on these three.
Mr. Rapozo: So moved.
Ms. Yukimura: Second.
Council Chair Furfaro: Thank you and there's a second. Any discussion?
None. All those in favor, say aye.
Councilmember:
Mr. Rapozo moved
Ms. Yukimura, and una
Council Chair Furfaro:
Mr. Nakamura:
Council Chair Furfaro:
Aye.
to convene in executive session, seconded by
nimously carried.
Mr. Clerk, I believe this ends our public meeting.
Yes.
We're in recess.
There being no objection, the Chair recessed the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:13 p.m., and proceeded as follows:
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
PETER A. NAKAMURA
County Clerk
/wa
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
January 26, 2011
FLOOR AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -35, RELATING TO ENTERING INTO A SISTER -
CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF LAOAG, PROVINCE OF
ILOCOS NORTE, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILLIPPINES
INTRODUCED BY: DEREK S. K. KAWAKAMI, COUNCIL MEMBER
AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -35 IN ITS ENTIRETY AS FOLLOWS:
"RESOLUTION INVITING THE [MUNICIPALITY OF LAOAG] CITY OF LAOAG,
PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
TO ENTER INTO A SISTER -CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WHEREAS, the law of the State of Hawaii authorizes its counties to enter into
sister -city relationships to further the ties of friendship, understanding, and goodwill
between cities; and
WHEREAS, a sister -city relationship enables and promotes the exchange of cultural
exhibits, educational programs, visits by citizens groups, and the acknowledgment and
sharing of common bonds; and
WHEREAS, a large segment of Kaua`i's population are descendants of Philippine
emigrants who came to the Island of Kauai over one hundred years ago to work on sugar
plantations and are valued contributing members of our community; and
WHEREAS, the [Municipality of Laoag] City of Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte,
Republic of the Philippines, has expressed a desire to enter into a sister -city relationship
with the County of Kauai, based upon the common history and heritage which its citizens
share with descendants of immigrants who currently reside on the Garden Island; and
WHEREAS, the County of Kauai is pleased and honored to establish a sister -city
relationship with the [Municipality of Laoag] City of Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte,
Republic of the Philippines; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF
HAWAII, that the County of Kauai accept the invitation of the [Municipality of Laoag]
City of Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte, Republic of the Philippines, to enter into a sister -
city relationship with the County of Kauai.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr., Mayor of the County
of Kauai, and Jay Furfaro, Chairman of the Kauai County Council, are hereby authorized
to take such action as is necessary to effect this affiliation in the name of the County of
Kauai.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the
Honorable Michael Farinas, Mayor, [Municipality of Laoag] City of Laoag, Province of
Ilocos Norte, Republic of the Philippines; and Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr. "
(New material to be added is underscored. Material to be deleted is bracketed.)
(VACS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS\FA 1 -26 -2011 JAY — sister city- Laoag.doc)
Yv1�VtG� h� .¢, i-v ►2e,� o�+^ P� °v►^ Pl - 35 A 04v) , a&, 0 6y I W4*
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
(January 26, 2011)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Introduced by: Tim Bynum
Bill No. 2385, Relating to the County Auditor
Amend Bill No. 2385 in its entirety as follows:
"SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sec. 19.07B of the Charter of the County of
Kauai, as amended, Ordinance No. B- 2010 -705, as amended, relating to the
Operating Budget of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, for the fiscal year
July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, be hereby amended as follows:
The sum of [$90,211] $66,866 is hereby appropriated and added to the
items designated as follows:
Office of the County Auditor
001- 0203 - 511.01 -01 Regular Salaries [(7 months)] (5 months) [$50,827.00]
36,305.00
Program Audit Analyst V $ 59,376.00/year
Program Support Technician $ 27,756.00/year
001 - 0203 - 511.05 -01 Social Security Contribution [$4,065.00]
$2,904.00
001- 0203 - 511.05 -02 Health Fund Contribution [$6,098.00]
$4,356.00
001- 0203 - 511.05 -03 Retirement Contribution [$7,970.00]
$5,693.00
001- 0203 - 511.05 -12 Other Post - Employment Benefits [$12,751.00]
9,108.00
001 - 0203 - 511.61 -02 Other supplies $6,000.00
2 Computers and accessories $3,000 each
[001- 0203 - 511.61.61 -03] Controlled assets $1,500.00
001 - 0203 - 511.61 -03 2 Desks $500.00 /each
2 Chairs $250.00 /each
001 - 0203 - 511.62 -01 Other small equipment $1,000.00
2 Telephones, $500 each
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V: \CS OFFICE FILES \AMENDMENTS \2010 -12 term \2386 FA.doc /jft
hG� h 1 ?/V�_ ►� 2 39 GLj JCt N, e�Qo'�jl 1 !Y�t,
.,
ATTACHMENT N0. 3
(January 26, 2011)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2389, Relating to Furloughs
Infrodu ced by: Derek Kawakami (By Request)
Amend Bill No. 2389 in its entirety as follows:
"SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sec. 19.10A and 19.07B of the
Charter of the County of Kauai, as amended, Ord. No. B- 2010 -705, relating to the
Operating Budget of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, for the fiscal year July
1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, be hereby amended as follows:
The sum of [$2,328,554.00,] $2,430,509.00, by revising the surplus and
appropriations estimated in the following funds, be and is hereby appropriated for
the following purpose or purposes:
General Fund
Appropriation Title Salaries FICA Ret. Contri. OPEB
Salaries, Office of the Mayor
$33,965.00
$2,600.00
$5,095.00
$8,155.00
Salaries, Equal Access
$2,620.00
$205.00
$395.00
$630.00
Salaries, Boards & Commission
$17,100.00
$1,310.00
$2,565.00
$4,105.00
Salaries, Council Services
$74,495.00
$5,700.00
$11,175.00
$17,880.00
Salaries, Elections
$9,715.00
$745.00
$1,460.00
$2,335.00
Salaries, County Auditor
$12,690.00
$975.00
$1,905.00
$3,050.00
Salaries, County Attorney
$52,835.00
$4,045.00
$7,930.00
$12,680.00
[$69,520.00]
[$5,320.00]
[$10,430.00]
[$16,685.00]
Salaries, Prosecuting Attorney
$139,040.00
$10,640.00
$20,860.00
$33,370.00
Salaries, Finance Admin.
$16,710.00
$1,280.00
$2,510.00
$4,015.00
Salaries, Finance Accounting
$32,520.00
$2,490.00
$4,880.00
$7,810.00
Salaries, IT
$39,615.00
$3,030.00
$5,945.00
$9,510.00
Salaries, Treasury
$7,140.00
$550.00
$1,075.00
$1,715.00
Salaries, Driver Licenses
$11,435.00
$875.00
$1,720.00
$2,750.00
Salaries, Motor Vehicles
$11,440.00
$880.00
$1,725.00
$2,755.00
Salaries, RP Assessment
$38,565.00
$2,950.00
$5,785.00
$9,255.00
Salaries, RP Collections
$10,345.00
$795.00
$1,555.00
$2,485.00
Salaries, Purchasing
$18,738.00
$1,435.00
$2,815.00
$4,500.00
Salaries, Risk Management
$3,135.00
$245.00
$475.00
$755.00
Salaries, Personnel Services
$26,035.00
$1,995.00
$3,910.00
$6,250.00
Salaries, Planning Department
$59,880.00
$4,585.00
$8,985.00
$14,375.00
Salaries, Economic Dev.
$17,810.00
$1,365.00
$2,675.00
$4,280.00
Salaries, Police
$44,920.00
$3,440.00
$6,740.00
$10,780.00
Salaries, Fire Administration
$15,120.00
$1,160.00
$2,270.00
$3,630.00
Salaries, Civil Defense
$11,068.00
$850.00
$1,665.00
$2,660.00
Salaries, Public Works Admin.
$28,125.00
$2,155.00
$4,220.00
$6,750.00
Salaries, Public Works Fiscal
$10,295.00
$790.00
$1,550.00
$2,475.00
Salaries, Engineering
$39,975.00
$3,060.00
$6,000.00
$9,600.00
Salaries, Inspections
$51,765.00
$3,960.00
$7,770.00
$12,425.00
i
ry►et� t'Y��v� - -h (3)11 Po,
r
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Salaries, Repair & Maint.
$51,775.00
$3,965.00
$7,770.00
$12,430.00
Salaries, Janitorial
$36,255.00
$2,775.00
$5,440.00
$8,705.00
Salaries, Parks Administration
$14,035.00
$1,075.00
$2,105.00
$3,370.00
Salaries, Parks Fiscal
$21,980.00
$1,685.00
$3,300.00
$5,275.00
Salaries, Planning & Dev.
-- $9,480.00
$730.00
$1,425.00
$2,275.00
.Salaries, Recreation
$37,930.00
$2,905.00
$5,690.00
$9,105.00
Salaries, Parks Maintenance
$80,750.00
$6,180.00
$12,115.00
$19,380.00
Salaries, Beautification
$24,745.00,
$1,895.00
$3,715.00
$5,945.00
Salaries, Stadiums
$6,395.00
$495.00
$965.00
$1,540.00
Salaries, Convention Hall
$6,658.00
$515.00
$1,000.00
$1,600.00
Salaries, Elderly Affairs
$23,480.00
$1,800.00
$3,525.00
$5,635.00
Salaries, Housing Agency
$25,667.00
$1,970.00
$3,855.00
$6,165.00
Salaries, Transportation Admin
$11,790.00
$905.00
$1,770.00
$2,830.00
Salaries, Trans. Operation
$22,348.00
$1,710.00
$3,355.00
$5,365.00
[$1,140,864.00] [$87,395.00] [$171,255.00] [$273,915.00] [$1,673,429.00]
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE $1,210,384.00 $92,715.00 $181,685.00 $290,600.00 $1,775.384.00
[$1,673,429.00]
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM GENERAL FUND SURPLUS $1,775,384.00
Highway Fund
$22,030.00
$1,685.00
$3,300.00
$5,285.00
Salaries, Highway Admin.
$10,115.00
$775.00
$1,520.00
$2,430.00
Salaries, Hanapepe Baseyard
$48,090.00
$3,680.00
$7,215.00
$11,540.00
Salaries, Kapa'a.Baseyard
$51,815.00
$3,965.00
$7,770.00
$12,435.00
Salaries, Hanalei Baseyard
$25,995.00
$1,990.00
$3,900.00
$6,240.00
Salaries, Signs & Roads Marking
$9,410.00
$720.00
$1,410.00
$2,260.00
Salaries, Auto Maintenance
$48,520.00
$3,710.00
$7,280.00
$16,645.00
TOTAL HIGHWAY FUND EXPENDITURE
$193,945.00
$14,840.00
$29,095.00
$51,550.00 $289,430.00
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM HIGHWAY FUND SURPLUS
$289,430.00
Liquor Fund
Salaries, Liquor
$22,030.00
$1,685.00
$3,300.00
$5,285.00
TOTAL LIQUOR FUND EXPENDITURE
$22,030.00
$1,685.00
$3,300.00
$5,285.00 $32,300.00
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM LIQUOR FUND
SURPLUS
$32,300.00
Solid Waste Fund
Salaries, Solid Waste Disposal
$64,310.00
$4,920.00
$9,645.00
$15,435.00
Salaries, Solid Waste Collection
$39,680.00
$3,035.00
$5,955.00
$9,525.00
Salaries, Solid Waste Recycling
$3,610.00
$280.00
$540.00
$865.00
TOTAL SOLID WASTE FUND EXPENDITURE
$107,600.00
$8,235.00
$16,140.00
$25,825.00 $157,800.00
REVENUE- CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL FUND SURPLUS
Housing & Comm. Dev. Fund
$157,800.00
Salaries, Housing & Comm. Dev. $5,645.00 $435.00 $850.00 $1,355.00
TOTAL HOUSING & COMM. DEV. FUND EXPENDITURE $8,285.00
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM HOUSING & COMM. DEV. FUND SURPLUS $8,285.00
Sewer Fund
Salaries, Sewer $75,640.00 $5,785.00 $11,345.00 $18,155.00
TOTAL SEWER FUND EXPENDITURE $110,925.00
REVENUE - CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL FUND SURPLUS $110,925.00
2
Golf Fund
Salaries, Golf Course $35,465.00 $2,715.00
TOTAL GOLF FUND EXPENDITURE
REVENUE - CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL FUND SURPLUS
Kalepa Housing Fund
�SaTaries, Kalepa Housing $1,485.00 $115.00
TOTAL KALEPA HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURE
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM KALEPA HOUSING FUND SURPLUS
Paanau Housing Fund
Salaries, Paanau Housing $1,485.00 $115.00
TOTAL PAANAU HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURE
REVENUE - APPROPRIATION FROM PAANAU HOUSING FUND SURPLUS
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
$5,320.00 $8,515.00
$225.00 $360.00
$225.00 $360.00
$52,015.00
$52,015.00
$2,185.00
$2,185.00
$2,185.00
$2,185.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS $1,584,159.00 $121,320.00 $237,755.00 $385,320.00 $2,430,509.00
SECTION 2. Any reference in the Text of Ordinance No. B- 2010 -705,
relating to furloughs upon the approval and effective date of this Ordinance shall be
deleted.
SECTION 3. Furloughs are hereby repealed upon the approval and
effective ' date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. The Director of Finance shall make the appropriate
revisions to the Operating Budget upon the approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2011 upon
its approval."
(Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material to be added is underscored.)
V: \CS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS \2010 -12 term \2389 FA.doe /jft
3