Laserfiche WebLink
GOEAC-73 Page 4 September 16, 2025 <br />Member Inaba then moved to postpone Bill No. 64, as amended to Draft 2, until the September 16, <br />2025, meeting. Member Kierkiewicz seconded the motion. All present voted in favor of the motion <br />with Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder absent. <br />Governmental Operations and External Affairs Meeting of September 16, 2025 <br />Member Inaba said that there was no additional proposed language provided by professional <br />engineers that he was able to meet with, and they were in continued opposition. Member Inaba <br />said that the concerns were around safety, even though other counties in the State have removed <br />this requirement. He said he believes that this measure has been talked through at length already. <br />Member Onishi said after further thought around the responsibilities of the Director of the <br />Department of Public Works and the Director of the Department of Environmental Management, <br />he believes they should be the same. He said that he will be in support of this bill and added that <br />he will be suggesting amendments, including removing the requirement for the Deputy Director's <br />qualifications and removing the timeline that the Mayor has for appointing someone to this <br />position. <br />Member Hustace asked Acting Director Neil Azevedo to discuss the process that the Director <br />goes through in reviewing and approving plans that have been stamped by engineers. Acting <br />Director Azevedo said that they review and approve the plans stamped by the engineers, and the <br />only time they sign is during the routing of contracts. <br />Member Kierkiewicz spoke in support of the bill and pointed out that the Department of Public <br />Works is still functioning, despite the current Acting Director not being licensed. She brought up <br />prior examples of road projects that she believed went over time and over budget, despite being <br />managed by professional engineers. <br />Member Kimball countered that it is important to consider the many ways that public projects can <br />go over budget and timing, which may or may not have anything to do with a professional <br />engineer being involved. She said that the flip side of that argument is to consider how much <br />longer or how much more projects may cost, or what the cost may be to public health and safety if <br />a professional engineer hadn't been involved. She summarized that her concerns are still related <br />to the ability of a Director who doesn't have a license to override a safety decision made by an <br />engineer, which may impact the public negatively. <br />Member Galimba stated that it's not personal, it's about policy. She said that she believes our <br />County will be better served by having a professional engineer in this position in the long term. <br />Member Hustace said that he believes there is still opportunity for consideration of the salary as <br />well as longevity of the position to make it more appealing. <br />Chair Kagiwada repeated that one of the main reasons the Administration has had difficulty in <br />filling this position is because it doesn't pay enough, and she is hoping that the Salary <br />GOEAC ReportNo. 73 <br />