HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-27 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
c/o Office of the Corporation Counsel, 101 Aupuni Street,
Suite 325, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 –10:00 a.m.
Department of Liquor Control Conference Room
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
CALL TO ORDER
MS. WONG:
I’d like to call the meeting to order. It’s 10:01 a.m.
Present: Excused:
Kenneth Armour Kathy Garson Marilyn Nicholson
Glen Matsuda Shanell Sarsuelo
Eileen O’Hara Emarie Carvalho
Patricia Provalenko Sandy Arriola
Gloria Wong
Bill Takaba, ex-officio
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
MS. WONG:
Any comments from the public? No public attending.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 8, 2011):
MS. WONG:
Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes?
MOTION: MS. O’HARA:
So moved.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Second.
MS. WONG:
Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.
ACTION ON MOTION: All: Aye.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR RANDY KUROHARA ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS (AGRICULTURAL AND ENERGY):
MS. WONG:
We’d like to adjust the agenda today. The Mayor is not here yet. He’s on
Item 4 so Mr. Randy Kurohara is here from Research and Development. I’d like to ask
Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
him to step forward. According to the agenda, it says questions and answer session
with Research and Development Director Randy Kurohara on the consolidation of
boards and commissions (Ag and Energy). Although that’s the primary topic, I think
there are other topics that we might want to bring up. Let’s address first the
consolidation of Agriculture and Energy. First, is there anything that you would like to
say first or just go into that?
MR. KUROHARA:
Actually, no I think I would like to address that one question
because I think someone from our Agricultural Advisory Commission was here at the
last meeting. So, I’m not sure if there’s any, like some kind of confusion or whatever,
but I want to just make itclear that, can I address the question?
MS. WONG:
Yes please.
MR. KUROHARA:
Basically, so the question is, would there be any cost savings or
does it make sense to combine these to make one commission, ag and energy
commission. I guess my answer would be no. And the reason for that is that while both
commissions are sort of tasked with sustainability goal in mind whether it’s agriculture or
energy, the expertise level of these people is quite unique. So, there are very distinct
challenges within the agricultural community as well as the energy community. There’s
very distinct opportunities in both as well. For instance, let’s say with Agriculture, when
you look at who is on the commission, we chose that based on, because it’s such a
broad industry, based on theirexpertise level. So we have someone who represents
the cut flower exporting market. We have someone on there that’s sort of a vegetable
farmer. We have someone on there that specializes in forestry. We have someone
there that specializes in water. So there’s like a diverse group of people of which
specific knowledge based on experience and expertise that make up each of the
commissions. Same with Energy. Someone there specializes more from the like say
the hydrogen, or geothermal perspective. There’s someone on there that works for
HELCO so they represent sort of like the utility mind set. Someone onthere that I think
comes from more of the renewable solar photovoltaic type of expertise. So you have
these again, both commissions have highly specialized people that sit on the
commission. And to try and combine them and mix them up in a way where you try to
come up with recommendations to the mayor specific to energy or agriculture, I think it
might almost water down what the recommendations, the weight that it carries because
again, you’re not having the right group of people making these recommendations. So
again, let’s say when it comes to agriculture, some of the things that they look at include
land, water, marketing, transportation, invasive species, research, bio-fuels, export
flowers and plants, vegetables, fruits, grass fed beef, ranching and that kind of stuff,
organic farming, orchard crops, inspections, value added and things of that nature.
That’s sort of the issues that they address. In energy, it’s solar, wind, hydro,
geothermal, deep sea energy conversion, hydrogen development, land use, legislative
issues, education efforts, transportations, fleet management, electric cars, PUC issues.
The only place where they kind of crossover maybe like bio-fuels, maybe in terms of
land use. There might be similar types of things that may come up. But outside of that,
they’re very distinct, separate as far as their agenda, as far as what they’re tasked to
do. Hopefully that answers your question. What I did suggest is having them meet less
often. So, again, if we go to maybe once every other month, that would cut down on
some of the expenses in terms of travel cost, mileage and little food that we do put out
2
during the meetings. And also our staff time and staff work. But again, that’s my
answer to the question if they could be combined.
MR. MATSUDA:
Currently, how many times do they meet? Do they meet once a
month?
MR. KUROHARA:
Once a month. We still honor once a month.
MS. O’HARA:
Both?
MR. KUROHARA:
Both of them. But we’re kind of at the stage where it might turn to
once every other month soon. So, that’s kind of like self-imposed cause we want that
as well from our department stand point. But we got to a point where we’ve made a
bunch of recommendations to the mayor and then from there, there’s some
reassignment of some more work that needs to be done within the recommendations
that have been put forth. But it could possibly go to every other month. Yes?
MS. O’HARA:
When you say recommendations have been put forth, we did hear from
someone from the Ag committee, and they’re working on a comprehensive ag plan for
the Big Island?
MR. KUROHARA:
Yes.
MS. O’HARA:
So what is the work product for the Energy Commission?
MR. KUROHARA:
What they were tasked to do was to put forth recommendations to
the mayor in terms of transforming energy on this island to a more renewable,
sustainable, and the mayor’s task to them was by, well, I guess the state has an
initiative right now by 2030, we need to be by a certain level. The mayor wanted to do
something, a bench mark sort of a shorter five year goal. So what they did was they
looked over the last energy recommendations that was done by outside, a group study
that was done. Had a bunch of recommendations that were made back a few years.
So they looked at all of those and they kind of evaluated and ranked it and also thought
of others. And then they kind of got it into sort of a maybe a top 10 or top 20 list which
they put forth to the mayor just before the end of the year. One of those was to update
this, to actually do what they feel is a real comprehensive energy plan for this island
which is something that the mayor is looking at funding during this next current year’s
budget, next year’s budget. So that’s one of the recommendations put forth. But there
was a bunch that was put forth.
MS. O’HARA:
So will the commission actually be doing the study?
MR. KUROHARA:
You would hire someone to do something like that.
MS. WONG:
When this was first presented, the idea of combining those two
commissions, I didn’t quite see the link and I was surprised about it. So I’ve been
researching and hearing Pomeroy from the last meeting and hearing the rationale, it
seems interesting to me and now makes sense to me. And I think Eileen, you were the
one that brought it up initially.
3
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah, I did.
MS. WONG:
So could you talk more about that.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah, more about it in terms of what you said earlier about the expertise
that is embodied in the two commissions as they’ve been appointed is an important
piece. And I think our recommendation would not be to dismantle the current
commissions, but upon next appointment which I guess is three years hence, to
consider combining at that point and pick expertise in both fields. That would be the
recommendation.
MS. WONG:
Excuse me. Since the mayor is now here, if we could adjust and if you
could
MR. KUROHARA:
In other words, I have to step down. No problem.
DISCUSSION, AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH MAYOR WILLIAM P.
KENOI REGARDING HIS SUGGESTIONS TO PROMOTE ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY
AND IMPROVED SERVICE IN THE TRANSACTION OF THE PUBLIC BUSINESS IN
THE COUNTY:
MS. WONG:
Thank you Randy. Thank you for coming, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR KENOI:
Thank you very much. First of all, before I begin, I just want to thank
everybody for your service on this commission, Cost of Government Commission. You
have a lot of people saying, hey, you know, Mr. Mayor, what about this commission?
What are you doing about that commission? How come you don’t have more people
who participate? But to have our residents give up their time, devote your concentration
and effort and energy to helping government, helping our community, helping the
county. I just want to say thank you. You know we have a Reapportionment
Commission just seated who will spend many hours just like all of you have over many
months. Had to seat the Charter Commission, right, these two commissions you get
once every decade. Two Planning Commissions, Liquor Commission, Water
Commission, not to mention a community development plan and steering committee
and action committee, in Kona, South Kohala, North Kohala, Hamakua, Ka‘u, Puna. So
there’s a lot of good people in this wonderful community giving of their time, including
yourselves. I just want to say thank you very much for the work you do. Very important
work. Why? I’m sure the Cost of Government Commission, 10 years ago, eight years
ago, six years ago, would look very different than the Cost of Government Commission
today. I always go and talk to people, I say, you know, between 2000 and 2008, The
County of Hawai‘i government had one deficit year. One year where there was a deficit.
So from 2000 and 2008, every year, there was a surplus in county government. The
only year that there was a deficit was in 2002, post 9-11. That makes perfect sense.
You know the state had a $315 million deficit. County had a $7.4 million deficit. 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, all surplus years. So government grew. Government
expanded. And of course to meet the growing demands of the community. Population
grow. We have to cover a 4,028 square mile island. I remind people, sit with other
mayors,they tell me how big is your island? My island is bigger than the State of
4
Rhode Island and Delaware. It’s the same size as the State of Connecticut. They say
really? I said really. So, we take limited services and try to deliver the services to small
rural communities spread out of a large geographical area and there’s going to be other
costs and challenges. So, when I take office, 2008, December, the County of Hawai‘i’s
first year, we had a $38.1 million deficit. This fiscal year a $44.8 million deficit. Next
year $38.8. That’s $121 million. Mind you I just came back from Honolulu this morning.
I have to go back tonight. Why? That’s the last week of the Legislative session. Once
again the state is talking about taking the county Transient Accommodation Tax, the
TAT. That’s $18 million a year to the county. And if we were unsuccessful these last
two years, you add$36 million on top of the $82.9, not counting the $38.8 next year.
That’s $118 million down. You know, it’s no fault of anybody. You know, you never
hear myself or this administration ever make an excuse, ever point a finger or ever
blame anybody for this situation we find ourselves in. It is what it is. Our job is to
reduce the size and the cost of government year in and year out. It’s the bottom line.
We cannot continue to just raise revenue or ask people to pay more on services, for the
services they receive. So what do we do? When I took office, the county budget was
$403 million. Now the budget we submitted on March 1 was $366 million. That’s a
9.2% decrease from when we took office. So every year we’ve cut in spite of the rising
cost of healthcare. For example last year healthcare for 2600 employees increased
23%. Gloria, healthcare, that’s just something you cannot control. But 23%? That’s
phenomenal. You know, you budget 10, you budget 13% and then EUTF comes back
with 23. The year before, same thing. You budget, you give your best estimate. You
do a strategic analysis and you get blindsided. Higher fuel costs adds across to
everything we do. But in spite of all of that we’ve been able to reduce both the size and
cost of government. I’m very proud of that. When I first took office, the only staff we
furloughed was myself and my executive staff, asked everybody to take a five percent
cut. This past year, all county government employees took a 9.23% cut –a savings of
$7 million to the county, two day a month furloughs.
This next budget, of course you guys are aware collective bargaining continues to be
negotiated. How it works is this employee representatives, county deals with four–
HGEA, UPW, SHOPPO AND Fire, HFFA. On our employers side, we have four mayors
and the governor. The governor has four votes, each mayor has one vote. Those are
the votes needed, a majority is needed to move collective bargaining forward to one,
pass the proposal across the table. A proposal cannot even be passed over unless
there is some agreement between the employer bodies. Because we don’t have any
final agreement, my budget, all we did was again, furlough myself and my executive
staff. So we’ve done that all three years. I just feel that should be done through
leadership. My first year in office we asked the Salary Commission, freeze all step
movements. Our executive, nobody gets a step movement, because it’s not a
promotion, it’s just steps. You have Step A, B, C, D, E, F, G for different salary ranges,
SR-10, SR-12. We froze all of that. No step movements. So, my budget, just in the
mayor’s office, in three years, when I took office in 2008, the mayor’s office budget was
$2.2 million. The mayor’s office budget today is $1.3 million. It’s a 40% reduction. It’s
not talk. That’s what has to happen. There’s just no way around that. In addition to
reducing the cost of government, we have to reduce the size of government. And these
are all unprecedented steps. You go back look at the budget, you’ve never seen three
decreasing years in county government. And that’s going to continue. It’s going to
5
have to. We also cut positions. We cut 55 positions the first year. We cut 70 this past
year, this current year for 125, two years.
Submitted my budget on March 1,we cut another 100. That person has 225 positions
cut in the County of Hawai‘i. In addition, the number has moved because we just took
in a Fire recruit class. But we’ve actually, in addition to cutting 225 positions that saves
$7.1 million over two years, we also have reduced by the body count of county
government by 121 warm bodies through attrition, meaning when somebody retired,
when somebody was terminated, somebody transferred. If Eileen retired, we had not
a
filled the position for example, as an example. When somebody leaves for reason,
illustration, we try not to fill the position if we can. But you know, people say, you just
got to freeze government. That’s impossible. Impossible. You cannot administer a
government that provides 24-hour service across 4,028 square miles to 185,000 people
by freezing. You have something as small as the recreation position was proposed cut
that,for Paauilo. They can go Honokaa. You can go Laupahoehoe. No you cannot.
You cut that one position, they provide youth services and daily senior services. So you
eliminate services for seniors and children in an entire community if you don’t fill that
one position. That’s irresponsible of county government. A wastewater position –
people flush their toilets 24 hours a day. We lose a wastewater treatment operator, we
got to fill the wastewater treatment operator. You take a position like Real Property
Taxes for example. Finance Department will come in and say, hey we need a Real
Property Tax appraiser, we have to keep up with our appraisals. You might get a $10
million property appraised at $100. You talk about me notwalking in an office and try to
not fire somebody. I’d say everybody hold you in the office –no let the Mayor go to the
Finance Department. What the hell is going on over here? But the leadership requires
one, sacrifice –leadership by example and two, hiring good people, trusting good
people. You know no more inaudible. You have Warren Lee running Public Works.
One of the more challenging departments in all of county government. Proud to have
the president of HELCO. Worked 20 years. Understands management, cost cutting,
private industry. Randy Kurohara -Research and Development. Under Research and
Development is tourism, agriculture and energy. Three critical initiatives to the quality of
life to Hawai‘i Island. Randy is a small business owner in economic development. You
should have somebody who’s challenged, paying taxes, having the employees,
understanding the sacrifices that private business and private enterprise makes. He’s
not a lifelong bureaucrat. It’s the first time working for government. But that’s the guy I
want overseeing economic development in the community. He’s the president of the
Japanese Chamber of Commerce. He’s the head of a rotary. That’s the kind of people,
you know its fresh eyes. So we try to hire the best.
And I was at the APEC security summit a couple of months ago. The guess keynote
speaker was the CEO of 45,000 employee company. And I was just telling him, I have
2,600 employees. What’s your key to effective leadership and management, BASF,
subsidiary, 45,000 employees. He goes, I try to pick people and entrust them with an
assumption of competence. Because the contrary is micromanagement. And
micromanagement leads to ineffective leadership and management, and a stifling of
innovation and creativity. Ultimately we can cut cost, we can raise revenue, but the
measurement of public services, what do you do for the people? What do we get done?
When I talk to my department heads, tell them you know, if I was a CEO for a company,
and we had to answer the shareholders and the community, there would be one bottom
6
line. It would be profit or loss. You can tell me all you want about empowering the
community and your employees,outreach and education, social capitol. But what
matters is did you or didn’t you make money? And with public service, our bottom line
is did we or didn’t we help people? Did we or didn’t we provide critical programs and
services? Did we or didn’t we get that project done on time and on budget? And in all
of those three areas, I feel in spite of the budgetary challenges, in spite of the challenge
ineconomic environment, I’m very proud of those initiatives.
For example, we just opened up the West Hawai‘i Civic Center. Beautiful community
and civic center. $50.5 million. Largest public project in the history of the county.
Broke ground January, 2009, on taking office, instructed everybody this project comes
inon time. This project comes in on budget. No if, but, ands. We’ve had a couple of
healthy, spirited conversations with multiple parties along the way. That project came in
on time,on budget. West Hawai‘i Emergency Shelter, the first emergency shelter built
in West Hawai‘i, on time, within budget. Carol Ignacio said she waited 20 years for that.
She said she had black hair when the project started.
But I’m honored and privileged to serve. Born and raised on this island. I raised my
three beautiful children here, coach here, teach here. I’m going to die here. It’s not a
job, it’s a stepping stone to somewhere else. It’s an honor and a privilege, and I want to
recognize that gift of leadership that I’ve been presented with for a short period of time.
Are we getting it done?
We secured $115 million to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA.
The State of Hawai‘i got $125 million for road and infrastructure. Of the $125 million,
$46million or 38% came to Hawai‘i Island. I’m very proud of the advocacy. $11 million
went for Hamakua road and bridge repair. $35 million to the Ane Keohokalole Hwy. in
Kona. All the mayor’s laughed at me and said, Billy, this is use it or loose it funds. You
have to plan, design, engineer, NEPA level EA 106 classification, a road in Kona? You
know you’re going to hit burials. I said I know I’m going to hit burials. They said you’re
never going to build a road. 40 years they haven’t built a road in Kona. We got it done
in 12 months. Plan, design, engineer, NEPA level EA 106 classification, burial council
approval even when we hit iwi kupuna and burials because we went and we talked to
everybody ahead of time. We didn’t act like it was a surprise. We asked everybody and
the kupuna or the ahupuaa, what do we do when we hit a iwi kupuna? And that project
is moving. People in Hilo go, why the big deal about Ane Keohokalole Highway? What
is that? I said, try imagine Hilo without Kilauea or Kinoole. That’s the Ane Keohokalole.
Cause all you’ve got is Mamalahoa and Queen Kaahumanu. Then you got Kaiminani,
Hinalani and Palani. That’s like having only Haihai, Mohouli and Waianuenue, and
Kanoelehua and Komohana, nothing else. Imagine getting around Hilo. That’s why the
frustration in Kona. But that’s projects that are moving. Projects that are happening.
And it’s key. You know a lot of times we talking about budget, and I can rattle off the
numbers because I memorized them, you know, because we sit constantly. That’s why
it’s amazing. I sit with the smartest people I can find on this island for minimum of six
months. Almost every week, where’re we at? What’s the tax appraisal? What can we
cut? What’s the program? We restrict all hiring. You have to go through an
expenditure review committee to buy something or to travel. We have a personnel
review committee before you’re allowed to hire or fill a position. I have a whole list in
here. I can go through all the cuts we’ve made and really bore you and tell you piece by
7
piece what we’ve cut along the way. Just this past year we cut consulting contracts by
48%, just the past year for save a total of $6 million. We cut overtime spending by 18%
for an additional savings of $2 million. Virtually eliminated out of state travel, reduced
our golf subsidies, halt buying new equipment, eliminating funding, park ranger
program, reduce soil conservation district, cut out the police cadet program, reduce
funding for Humane Society Animal Control program, reduce hours at solid waste
transfer stations, cancel the VA vehicle purchase, cut mileage payments, delay
replacement of computers, cut advertising budget, cut software, defer or eliminate
employee training, cut Corporation Counsel’s law clerks, expert witnesses and
depositions. We’ll get sued in a little while. Better to be lucky than good sometimes.
It’s a constant review. And yet I hand a budget over, and I get a press conference, and
somebody found $17 million. Really? How did that miracle happen? How do you find
$17 million? And I still haven’t received a single memo, a single letter, a single specific
proposal suggesting how we can amend and cut the budget. It’s been out there for a
couple of months. So, our job is to make sure that we’re fulfilling our responsibilities by
getting stuff done. Getting projects done on time on budget. No excuses. Not, oh
we’re short staffed. We’ve cut spending, we cut delayed equipment purchases. We got
to do it on time on budget. No excuses allowed. We’re not allowed to make excuses,
neither are you. Look when we had Hurricane Felicia. We had an 8.8 earthquake in
Chile last year that had a tsunami bearing down on us for over 12 hours. And an
earthquake in Japan last month. All of you should be so proud of your entire county
response team. When I got an earthquake in Chile, I was coming back from a talk at
Waimea New Hope. Talked to the youth group out there. Crossed the singing bridge at
9:30 p.m. I look on my phone, Quince Mento. I know I get a call from Quince Mento at
9:30 p.m., it’s not a quick call. I just pick up. I go, what’s up Quince? He goes
8.8 earthquake in Chile. I’ll be right there. Cut out, go straight to the EOC. I walk in,
not two minutes later Chief Harry Kubojiri comes in, t-shirt, jeans. Darryl Oliveira walks
in, our Fire Chief. No need to make a call. Our emergency operation center fills up.
Why? Because every employee is told. Every leadership position, the entire cabinet,
when something happens, don’t call or check if you’re needed. Don’t clog up the phone
lines. Get down there. If you’re not needed, we’ll send you home. But report. And you
can see the entire state, and other states are still filling in, making calls. Our entire EOC
is ready to go. Parks and Recreation evacuated every shoreline and park on this island.
We flew helicopters in, evacuated people in Waipio and Waimanu. Public Works filled
up every truck, every equipment, not just for the response, but for the recovery if
needed. Police and Fire.
When I first took office, my first month people said we had the first island wide tsunami
exercise. And I was criticized. Why are you inconveniencing the public? Why are you
generating overtime? What? Why? Because at 42 years old, I’ve never seen a
tsunami. The last one was in 1960. What, we don’t expect one? You know, when we
see one in Samoa, we see the gulf get hit every year, Florida get hit. We’re sitting in the
middle of the ocean. But what that did was we put all of our personnel on the street and
when it really did happen, everybody knew where they were supposed to be.
Everybody knew what they were supposed to be doing. And it was phenomenal.
Because people know what to do, there is a calmness to our response. And it was
disaster preparedness, disaster response, disaster recovery. I’m not sure we’ll always
be so lucky. We’ve been very, very blessed for a long period of time. But I do know
that everybody is prepared. And it’s easy to say, why don’t you just cut overtime? Well
8
what would we do then, you know in this response. When it hit Kona, I was there the
next day, my entire team in Kona and we had Public Works work overtime to put that
road back together in a day. I was so proud. Mike McCartney was there from HGEA.
He had the chairman of HGEA board, Brock inaudible with him, and he came up, he
said, Mr. Mayor, you should be very proud. I’ve never seen such committed
government workers. He said he walked up to him and said, how long is it going to take
for you guys to do the road? And it’s all ripped up. Machines ripping up Alii Drive.
They go, oh, one day. He laughs, he goes, no for real kind, how long is it going take
you? One week, two weeks? They all looked at him and said, one day. The Mayor just
talked to us, and he said we need to get it done in one day. So, we’re going to work
overtime and get it done today. I mean, so you know, everybody, it’s easy to say,
government this, workers that, but there’s a lot of good people out there doing a lot of
good work in the community. Can we do better? Absolutely. And I don’t mind sitting
here saying county government is cut as far as it can be cut, cost and size has been
reduced as far as we possibly can be, absolutely not. But also remember the other
balancing of that is providing key, critical programs and services. We’ve maintained
services. We haven’t cut a single senior program because I believe our kupuna have
earned every program they receive. They put their life into this community and it would
be shameful of us. It’s like reneging on a promise. Children’sprograms –that’s penny
wise palm foolish, you know to cut a program that keeps a kid engaged in the positive
recreational, educational, drug free activity and provide what alternative? Drugs, gangs,
violence? That’s foolish of us to do something like that. I’m not going to cut Police,
Fire, Civil Defense. We have, when we fail to respond in a timely manner to an
emergency that results in a death,Corporation Counsel, as talented as Kathy and those
other attorneys are, they’re not going to save us from that liability.
You know, trying to cover an island, that’s why when I, another example, real quick that
advocating for resources for our island, and they tell me, we’re going to give $5 million
to each of the neighbor island counties for their bus system. What? $5 million, you
mean we all get the same? Kauai, Maui –with all due respect to my dear friends on
Kauai and Maui, I could take Kauai and drop it in Kau and you couldn’t find them. Maui
is the same size as Hamakua. It’s one council district. We get the same amount?
That’s impossible. Thankfully, Hawai‘i Island has received more in rural transit funds
from Senator Inouye and the federal government than any other neighbor island in the
history of the State of Hawai‘i. Why? Because quality of life issues, transportation.
When do you think we’re going to have four lanes in Hamakua? Notin my lifetime.
Where are you going to put those other two lanes? We have a hard time widening
Queen Kaahumanu, and that’s flat lava on the ground. It’s crazy. No more one bridge,
no more one tunnel. What about South Kona? Where are you going to put four lanes
over there? We have a cliff and we have a mountain. So given that reality, and given
the fact that people live in one area where they can afford and work in another.
Unfortunately our employment urban centers aren’t where most people can afford. 83%
of our resort development is in South Kohala. But people who work there cannot afford
to live there. Where do they live? Oceanview, South Kona, Ka‘u, Puna, Hilo, Hamakua.
So people are constantly on our roads. We’re going to have intolerable congestion
unless we create a safe, efficient, timely transit system that allows people to get out of
their cars and into a transit system. And this year we’re getting two hydrogen buses
and have the first hydrogen beginnings of a renewable energy transit system. That’s
the future. So, that’s cost of government just in a nutshell. But government cannot
9
continue to have a conversation leadership about cutting programs and services and
raising taxes and revenues. All you hear at the State Leg is what are we going to cut
and what we’re going to raise. But this year there’s no taxes. People say, oh yeah, but
you’re deferring GASB 45. Absolutely. State has never made that inaudible. We made
it for four years in a row. Cause we’ve honored it. Are we deferring retirement
benefits? Absolutely not. We’re paying $28.8 million in this year’s budget to meet all of
our health care and retirement pension obligations. That’s an additional voluntary
payment. If we don’t want to defer that then please by all means come up with an
alternative. I don’t believe raising taxes in a third year of the great recession is very
smart. So, without revenue and without budget cuts, that’s a deficit conversation.
We’ve got to start talking about our assets. How we grow our economy. What are the
assets we have? We have two international airports, two deep draft harbors. We’ve got
land to feed ourselves, the energy to power ourselves. What are the assets we have?
We have a $1.3 billion telescope coming in that will create a new scientific technology
sector. We’re 32% renewable right now with geothermal, solar, and wind. Potential
ocean thermal energy. We have a partnership with Japan, Kumujima Island. We’re
trying to encourage further OPEC development. We want to maximize our geothermal
energy. We have a geothermal work group chaired by Richard Ha. And we know that
we have a drill in West Hawai‘i. And if we can hit geothermal in West Hawai‘i, it
changes the quality of life for all of us in spite of the rising fuel costs. You know, Water
is the largest user of the electrical grid, County of Hawai‘i. It’s the largest user within the
County of Hawai‘i –Department of Water Supply. The water is free, but you have to
pay for the electricity to get from where it is to where you need it. But if you can get
renewable energy, increase our base line, Jim Kauahikaua at Hawai‘i Volcano National
Park said you’re sitting on 500,000 years of geothermal. We’ve got to invest in that.
Got to stop talking about it. And that costs money. And we have to encourage and
incentivize that investment.
Government cannot continue to put out dollars to provide services. We have to create
public/private partnerships. So when I think about the College of Pharmacy, Dean John
Pezzuto came here four years ago, no campus. Dean John Pezzuto came from a third
rank college of pharmacy in the country, Purdue. He comes over here, people tell him,
you’re crazy, what are you doing going? Do you have a campus? No. Do you have a
building? Do you have a school? No. I’m going to start one. Takes 90 students his
first year. Took 90 students the past four years. Graduates his first class this May.
Can have accreditation team right here, right now. That’s 360 students, 50 of the top
researchers faculty came here in Hilo, generating $50 to 70 million a year, just the
School of Pharmacy. The only College of Pharmacy in the Pacific basin. Starting
salary for one of those students, $104,000, $106,000 a year starting. And we have the
capacity to take 48 of those graduates a year. I mean that’s capacity building. They
said that, you know since I’m thinking astronomy, renewable energy, higher education,
got an initiative right now, the head coming from Washington, D.C. broadband
technology. That is with Senator Daniel K. Inouye, has committed to us to allow us to
st
provide the infrastructure so that our kids, our community can be part of this 21century
knowledge based economy that we’re transforming to. Wecannot continue to be
dependent on tourism structure on our islands and military spending. It’s a boom and
bust cycle. But with higher education and renewable energy, and science and
technology, and broadband technology, the chairman of the Federal Communication
Commission, Julius Genachowski, was here on island to come around to show the
10
geographic challenges we have. We have to give our kids the tools to succeed in the
future. Government has to be more efficient.
Permitting process for one example. We came in and we said, hey, unconscionable
that in a difficult economy people are ready to go to work. Financing is in place, but
they’re waiting for the permit. They’re waiting six months to a year. So if somebody is
not working because of global economic forces beyond our control, cannot help. But if
somebody not working because of inefficiencies in county government, that’s
unacceptable. So the employees got together, had a team together, Planning, Public
Works, Environmental Management, Fire. Department of Health came over because
they are part of the permitting process. No jurisdiction authority over them, but they
agreed to be part of the process. And what they do is once a week, everybody sits in
the same room. Because what wewere hearing was it goes to Planning. It takes
maybe about five minutes for a review. Goes to Environmental Management, five to
seven minutes. Goes to Public Works, seven to ten. Goes to Fire, three to five. Goes
to Department of Health, five to ten. But it takes six to eight weeks to get to you, four to
six weeks to get to you, another four to six to get to you. Maybe six to eight to you. And
then if it gets bounced at any point, you’re back at square one. It was exasperating to
people. And it’s not just contractors, engineers, planners, mom and pops, aunty, uncles
coming up, trying to build a garage. Trying to build an addition for the kids coming
home. And it’s just exasperating. So, to Bobby and Warren and all of the department
heads involved, they took the six to twelve month process, started it in November, now
it’s one month, down to one month. Everybody sit down one time. Common sense.
Never cost a lot of money. Now we’re going to overlay it with a software system. That
is going to cost money. But what that does is creates transparency in the system. So if
you apply after me, I don’t get my permit before you because you see, everybody can
see who is getting what, who is applying, when, what’s sitting on whose desk. Where is
the backlog being created. What do we need to do to improve our efficiency? So, it’s
not just reducing the size and cost of government, it’s improving our efficiency as well.
And we’re open to all suggestions. I sit and talk story with everybody. I get good ideas
on the soccer field, with my kids when I’m at the soccer field. I hear it at church on the
way to the car, get it in the aisles at the supermarket. People share ideas with me
surfing at Honolii. As long as the waves small, I listen. But if it’s big, I tell them, can we
talk about this later. But that’s the Big Island, right? I mean, we don’t have all the
answers. A lot of the answers come from people who see things in a clearer way.
Sometimes when you fill in the potholes, you forget to see the whole street, right? The
whole road, the whole map of the island. So, we’re very open to suggestions. We’ve
always been. The more input we get, the more ideas we get, the more creative and
innovative ideas we get, I think a better government ultimately we’ll all have. So, that’s
kind of the big picture of the challenges we’re confronting, the decisions we’ve made
and the fact that we will continue to reduce government. But I think we’re very proud
that we continue to get projects done, and we’ll continue to serve the community well.
That’s our job. But always room for improvement, lots of improvement.
MS. WONG:
Mr. Mayor, sounds like you folks, the county administration has been
looking at every dollar savings, every efficiency. And we, the Cost of Government are
tasked to do the same. I guess one of the questions we’ve had, I’ve had, is, is this Cost
11
of Government Commission necessary? I know it’s by Charter, but is it necessary
considering you folks are doing the job?
MAYOR KENOI:
Yeah. I think it’s a good thing. When you get good people who are
able, for example, as a trial attorney, I would test my cases on a security guard at my
apartment building, my friend down the hall. And he would airbrush cars. I sit with
other attorneys, right? You brainstorm with attorneys, ready for trial, then go down the
hall and, Bruce. Hey Bruce, can I ask you about my case? These are the facts. This is
what my witness is going to say, this is what they’re witness is going to say. What you
think? Can go? I would be asking myself what about that? Then I’d be like,yeah.
Thanks. I would go back and then run down, check with my security guard –let me
practice my case on you. And I tell people how would I be wondering to myself if I was
sitting there on jury. What happened to that person? How come they didn’t come
testify? But so what I’m saying is the professionals have a skill set, and they’re paid to
work really hard. But sometimes people who aren’t vested, you know in decision
making, I try to encourage honesty and promise not to shoot the messenger who gave
me the message that a good friend is an honest friend. That my best employee is one
who is not afraid to tell the truth. People got to speak truth to power. I think it’s critical
in leadership. And not everybody does that. I go to congressman in DC instead. I seen
people BS the boss repeatedly. So, when you ask the question is the Cost of
Government Commission necessary? I think it is. I’ve never called any of you on the
side. Never done that with any commission. Planning, Police, Fire, Liquor. I don’t
communicate with my commission. I just appoint them. Even like Reapportionment
Commission, I, you read the paper, oh, look Kenoi trying to run this, run that, and every
council person vote 9-0 on every name, like good people. I’m not appointing just
anybody. You appoint people who care and willing to serve. And so, I think it’s great.
I’m eagerly awaiting recommendations and suggestions because I guarantee there are
going to be stuff in there, Madam Vice Chair, that I’m going, oh, how come we didn’t
take care of that. Look at the permitting process, that thing’s been going on for
decades. People been frustrated. Eh, how come we don’t all go the same road, one
time, once a week, take care of that. All of a sudden, the whole system transformed.
So, I’m curious. People have come up with great suggestions. And I think sometimes
we have our limitations.
MS. WONG:
So you put in your budget over several months which finalizes about June
or so. And we come up with our recommendations and present it to you. Our term is up
in June, so by the time we get our recommendations to you, your budget is already
done. Your programs are already set in place. And your term is, since you’ve started in
2008, your term will end in 2012. So there’s not a whole lot of time to implement any
recommendations, but your intent is to
MAYOR KENOI:
Bill, when do we start working on the budget?
MR. TAKABA:
September is the actual kick off, but we start talking
MAYOR KENOI:
The minute we finish, we’re looking already.
MR. TAKABA:
We’re projecting for the following year.
12
MAYOR KENOI:
I mean that’s the reason. So when you hear somebody say, eh,I got
it and this is what we’re going to be like, come on. Stop shouting and yelling. It’s not
accurate but you never hear me go, not, that’s not true. Cause that’s just unproductive
energy. I don’t go around and engage in bickering in public and use the media. It’s just
time to work. But that’s what I mean. So, we’re constantly, and throughout the year
people are coming in because we have restrictions at every step. So people get denied
and then they circle around the committee, right? Eh, Mr. Mayor, can you –and I say,
okay, you can state your case, but it’s got to be persuasive and compelling, cause the
price of leadership is no. I have to tell people no. Remember asking me and
Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, sitting next to him, I said, hey, what’s the most important
thing about being mayor? He said, you have to learn how to tell your friends no. That’s
absolutely true. I have to learn how to tell my staff. You can see them hunch their
shoulders and their head because they come in and it’s important, and to them it’s the
most important. But I see things a little differently. I see everything. And I say cannot.
I have a tough request. I have requests from this office and this office. An amended
budget staff would be so easy to say yes to. But it’s troubling because it’s additional
cost. And everything, me and Bill had this conversation the other day, in fact I was at
the Legislature fighting for the TAT yesterday. I got to go back. So they were all
bemoaning, what about 10 years ago when you could just give money, you know, you
could say yes, that the senators would attack him, but Bill told me, whoa, it doesn’t end.
But what we knew in year one was we knew it was going be tough for three years. Our
budget cost cut, you know people like, payroll lag, like we just came up with that. We
had that from day one. We knew that we could save $6 million by implementing a
payroll lag. The governor did it. All three other counties did it, but you can only do it
one time. It’s a one shot deal. So I held that for three years. But this is the year you
have to use it. This is that year -$6 million. Furlough every employee for two days, you
save $7 million. One payroll lag, $6 mil. Of course I’m going to use that now. But we
knew, that’s right, at every stop, all our decisions, ask Bill, every year the county
previous would do just annual budgets. This year we look at the budget, we look at
Real Property Tax, appraisals, we do a best guesstimate and we work with that
guesstimate till we get final numbers. But my first year, I said, ehguys, I want a two
year budget. As we working this year, I want next year’s numbers. And unbelievably,
pretty close. You know, they said 40, came 44.8. I know one time we were going up to
50 cause was plummeting and shallow. But you know, I said when we were doing this
44.8 balancing, we looked ahead and they said 40. It came out 38.8. So we’ve been,
when we make a decision on this budget, we’re already looking at the year ahead to
make sure that we’re not making short sighted decisions that cost us later. And we
make a revenue adjustment like last year, right, I had to raise the, adjust the property
tax rates. You’re 44.8. You cannot cut 44.8. It’s 23 million, but was revenue mutual.
And I said you should have took GASB last year. You shouldn’t have raised that. We
would have $60 mil in the whole this year. How you get out of that one? So, knowing
next year, last year going be tough, this year, hey, you have to make the tough decision.
So it’s a residential class, the second homeowner, the homeowner exemption, I get 5.55
per thousand. We didn’t touch the homeowners. Business, commercial, industrial,
10cents per thousand in valuation last year. But I mean if your property drop, it goes
up 10 cents per thousand and it’s what a dollar for 10? $10.00 for 100. $100 per million
in property. That’s what went up. But that’s what you had to do. You have to do that
because if you don’t address your revenue in year two of a three down cycle, year three
you’re smashed. Like 38.8, you add 23 to that, it’s 60 million, unless everybody suffers.
13
And we’re not trying to do that. Yeah, you can slash this, slash that. We could, but
people going scream. Right? We’re going tocut the golf, we’re going tocut that off. I
like see someone cut um. I like see. It’s AJA, all the seniors golfing. You’re going to
cut that? I like see that. I give a lot of talks here. Tomorrow I’mgoing do the Youth
Leadership Conference. I love the kids. That’s my kuleana, my personal passion. I just
feel like a lucky kid who got lucky. Grew up here, lot of people cared, steered me, I
always try to go talk to kids. 28% vote. Those golfers, AJA seniors, it’s got to come in
about 94, 96. Try cut the band. I never say cut the band, do away with the band. I said
why are we paying somebody $60,000 to lead the band who files for overtime. I mean
no disrespect. I love the culture arts too. I walking in the Merrie Monarch parade last
year, they yell, Mayor Kenoi, save the band. Wow, you know, I played the baritone,
Waiakeawaena. I love music. My kids go Kamehameha, they sing, they in chorus.
Even Ms. Depes, who is the chorus teacher at Kamehameha wrote a letter. Wow,
what’s with her? But I yelled back, when you dial 911, you want the policeman, the
fireman or the trombone come through the front door? And they were quiet on the
parade. I wasn’t trying to be facetious. But I have to sit here and make these decisions,
right? But nobody wants to cut in their program. But I have to do it, right? That’s my
job. That’s why the people elected me to make those tough calls.
MS. WONG:
And we’re trying to cut.
MAYOR KENOI:
But see, you guys just be the Cost of Government Commission and
do that. You know what, I’ll provide the cover. I not going say the Cost of Government
Commission did it. You never hear me say that. I’ve never done that. Never blame.
To me that’s weak leadership. Right? To go that’s the council, that’s the legislature
didn’t pass, or the governor didn’t release the money. I’ve never seen excuse, blame or
finger pointing ever solve a problem or lead to a productive result in the history of
civilization. I’ve never seen that happen. I see other people engaging in it consistently
and repeatedly, but that’s their choice. I just don’t engage in it cause nothing good
comes of it. You create ill will and hard feelings and the next time you have to work with
that person, how are they going to work with you? But, bottom line is whatever you
guys come up with, going be good stuff. I know where you’re going. It’s not one show.
It’s not for nothing.
MS. WONG:
We’re doing this out of our heart.
MAYOR KENOI:
Yeah, from the heart. That’s why I’m here to, sorry for, even today, I
was like, I have to come to this. But because you’re doing it out of your heart, and
you’re all busy, you all have family and commitments. You put your heart and soul into
something when you give, when you serve, you want that to be meaningful. And you
want that to be honored. I certainly don’t want to disrespect or minimize that effort.
Cause I going see you guys shopping, walking down the hall, right? In the church, at
school. We live in the same community. There’s a certain accountability that comes
with that. And we want to make it meaningful. I’m looking for good ideas. You guys not
scared. You guys can tell, eh, you guys should do this. Or you guys should do that.
Some going be feasible and practical and short term. Some might be a little longer
term. Might not happen right away. But government of tomorrow not going look like
government of yesterday. Government is going to be very different going forward. We
have to recognize that. We have to create more opportunities for public/private
14
partnerships. Collective bargaining and procurement presents certain challenges, but
not insurmountable. We have been very fortunate for a long period of time in Hawai‘i
because government has been providing a lot of resources to the community,
disproportionately so,if you look at the federal dollars we receive. But we need to be
very cognizant that Washington D.C. is 435 Congressman and 100 U.S. Senators.
535people, powerful, influential advocating for their constituents. Hawai‘i has four.
When our dear beloved senior senators, both 86 years of age retire, Maize Hirono is our
senior congress person. She’s ranked 364 out of 435 and in the minority. Colleen
Hanabusa is probably 435 or thereabouts. That’s our seniority. Whoever takes the
senate seats, what I’m saying is we’re going from battling California, Texas, Florida,
New York for resources to battling the federated states of Micronesia, Guam and
American Samoa for resources. That’s going to be a very different world that we have
to recognize and be prepared for. We’re not going to get a largest, you know, we’re not
going to get $10 million from the senator and we have a inaudible $20 million, 50, 100
million provides direct appropriation over $450 million a year. What’s going to happen
to that? That’s why I think APEC presents a great opportunity for us to pull back and
Randy is working very diligentlyon it, on the Asian Pacific Rim, our partnership
investment. Why even fly to Washington D.C. right, years from now. Who is going to
help you there? What kind of support you’re going to get? But our friends from around
the rim, when we talk about renewable energy, when we talk about science and
technology for our children. When we talk about creating a new economy, a 24 century
knowledge based economy. Those are where our resources are going to come from.
What do we need to have the quality of life in our community? You need three things.
To create a thriving, vibrant economy that allows our working families to raise healthy,
safe children. That’s all we need. It’s that simple. You need people, you need ideas,
and you need capital. We’ve got the people. We’ve got the ideas. Where is the capital
coming from? That’s going to be the question. But I’mnot going tobs you or any of
you. I asked Bill all the time, how’s it going? You get some stuff? You get some
updates? You get some ideas? Because we want good ideas and not political. Not
like you do something. Eh, that was my idea. Whatever. Congratulations. Put your
name on a trophy you like. Who cares whose idea that is. As long as it’s a good one
that works and helps the people. That’s all that matters.
MS. WONG:
We have the draft in the works and since we have you here, very glad to
have you here, we have your ear at this point and I’d like to open it up to the
commissioners so that they can ask you a question or make any statements.
MAYOR KENOI:
Sure, and I’ll make short answers. That was broad, big rush kind.
This time will be more short kind. Go ahead, anybody? Any questions on anything?
MR. ARMOUR:
One of the things we looked at is not only cutting cost of government
but increasing revenues that are due to the county. What are you doing in bringing
back like some of the things that were brought up about tax bills and property not being
appraised property? You got the agricultural exemption and they don’t deserve it. The
other thing was the tipping fees, landfills?
MAYOR KENOI:
I met with Dora Beck yesterday. We’re talking about, she wants to
restructure the entire –oh, I should talk to the department head first. Eh, your job gone.
The mayor said you guys history. Actually, restructure, we had a HR. What we do is so
15
you’re not doing it in a non-threatening way is have HR way come in and they do an
asset map of the department. And that’s when we’re looking at revenue generating
tools. And in Solid Waste and in Wastewater, we have a huge unpaid or outstanding
collectible we need to regulate at least to be collected. And we haven’t done a very
good job of collecting those sewer fees and tipping fees. So we’re restructuring our
administrative, Department of Environmental Management, to provide, nothire more
people to do it, but take existing personnel, reallocate them and dedicate a larger group
of existing personnel to focus on just collecting uncollected revenues. So, we just met
yesterday to follow through on that. But that’s going to come with a larger restructuring
of that department because of, it’s not a bad, structural and institutional challenges that
have been there. And Eileen, you know that it exists there that isn’t, I’m not going to
blame a department head or past mayor or existing personnel, it just is. So what, but I
cannot just continue to go, eh, you guys are you going to do something about it? You
have to change. I’ve got to come in and not break it, but I don’t want to say, it sounds
so negative, restructure. It’s going to be an aggressive restructuring of Environmental
Management to focus on, and let people know going forward there is going to be more
accountability. We have to. There’s a challenge. You know, Solid Waste tipping, you
no like guys start dumping. You know you have commercial haulers. It’s a big island,
right?
You have Saddle Road. I have a friend who goes up there, one of my staff. That’s
what he does with kids on weekends. He lives up there. He go up and every time he
said he clean. The next week people dumping washers in gulches and it’s just
abominable behavior. How you do that to this island? But to your question, we’re
focused on that.
Property tax appraisal. I know the quick challenge when I ask Finance people, ehBill,
how come we not holding these guys inaudible, you have to go three years of unpaid
before the county can act. Like, if you don’t pay your property tax this year, I cannot
come in and tag you. You don’t pay them next year, I cannot tag you yet. You have to
wait three years unpaid before we can implement forfeiture proceedings or go to a tax
sale to get our revenue back. So, real property tax appraisals, I can assure all of you
here, that there’s going to be a thorough review of our property tax appraisal. We
cannot have properties not being properly assessed. That’s loss revenues. That
means you either cut a program or service or somebody else pays. Both of which
shouldn’t happen when it’s our own efficiencies or oversight that causes the lack of
revenue. So, we’re accountable and we have to step up to that. We’re trying to be
aggressive about it. That’s a good thing about challenging economy. Bill told me, he
said you got a couple of positives with the down budget. He said, one, is you’re
probably smarter about the budget than anybody. Bill has been in county government
for 32 years. But because it’s so tough, you’re forced to look at every piece of it all the
time. He said you’re probably more knowledgeable about this budget than probably
most people. He said that’s a good. Number two, it’s because it’s so tough of an
environment, you can make changes that people would be unwilling or unable to make
in another time. So when it’s tough, you can make changes, make cuts, make
adjustments that at another time people would be –no way. So, there’s opportunities
and the challenges is what I’m saying, I guess. Sorry Ken, I promised one short
answer. Politician right?
16
MS. O’HARA:
No, I appreciate that. I appreciate your overview of all of the cost saving
measures that you’ve attempted to do and have succeeded in. And as a commission,
Ken pointed, we wanted to look at more than just cost savings cause we know that
you’re doing a really good job at trying to cut those costs. But also to look at the
revenue enhancement side. And as you pointed out, property taxes and it’s not just the
structure, it’s actually the enforcement thereof. The homeowner’s exemption which is
widely abused, that sort of thing. Some of our recommendations, and this also includes
your comment about Department of Environmental Management restructuring, excellent
idea. It was just kind of thrown together initially, and without great oversight. So it does
need the restructuring. But the implementation of technology in that department would
greatly enhance its efficiency.
MR. KENOI:
It’s a great point. It’s true.
MS. O’HARA:
The scale house situation is one of technology.
MR. KENOI:
My office is that way. Like I’ll have a note, clipped to a piece paper. Billy
could you review this, and once couple of people sign it, I get it, somebody in the office
going,can you just like scan, Laserfiche. You know, why is that? And I just laugh
cause that’s true. It’s simple implementation of existing technology,not Buck Rogers
stuff. It’s existing technology the efficiency would just skyrocket.
MS. O’HARA:
Well, in that case, it would change things.
MR. KENOI:
Can I ask you something? You trigger something, I don’t want to lose it. I
would want to ask the commission for those recommendations. Go get them you guys.
It’s not, because you guys see it how we don’t see it because you don’t have that
political pressures. You just say it. You see revenue that needs to be enforcement,
glaring examples or various areas for potential of abuse that need to really be focused
on, I’d appreciate that. It would be helpful to go,you know, it’s not just me. To provide
cover, not to be just pure politics but provide cover for people in decision making. A
body, a legislative body. But Cost of Government Commission came up with this. It
makes sense. It behooves us to follow through and see if, and implement it. Instead of
guys going ooh, I don’t want to touch that. People are going to yell, right? Any time you
go for somebody abusing it, it’s going to be somebody who not abusing it who would,
you know what I mean, go whoa, it’s unfair. It’s like the person who like go fishing at the
beach park overnight. He did that since he was a small kid. He abide by the rules. He
parked his car, he clean up his rubbish. But you get the guy who drink, you know the
other group that drink, broke bottles, make a mess. You have to lock the park. Lock
the gate. Nobody allowed. And then the guy, like how come I’m being punished for
that? I’m not broking bottles. Sorry sir. To maintain safety and security and cleanliness
of this area, nobody can go after 8:00 p.m. Fishermen go crazy. Every impact of trying
to curb abuse is going to have some unintended impact. And sometimes those voices
overpower the change that needs to be implemented. But having a body saying I’m
impartial, nonpolitical body say, this has to be changed. That’s helpful. Like the gas
tax. Nobody like touch it. We pay 8.8 cents a gallon, tax for Hawai‘i County. How
much roads do we have now? Honolulu is like 13, 15 cents.
MR. TAKABA:
Just today I think they were talking about 20 cents.
17
MR. KENOI:
You talk about enhancements, right, pay for our transits. Pay for our
roads. But if something is that glaring, that’s a call on us in government. You guys,
Hawai‘i County is getting only 8 cents a gallon. Other counties getting 15, 18, 20 cents
a gallon? So what’s the problem. We have to drive farther. We have to put more gas.
I’m not trying to hurt nobody, but what I’m saying is if you guys see examples of
revenue,equity, fairness, then no scared, throw it in.
MS. O’HARA:
We will.
MR. KENOI:
Yeah. That’s going to be helpful. But you got me thinking, yeah, we have
to do better enforcement, collections. We have to do a better job.
MS. O’HARA:
So in that line, we may be making some recommendations to not create
necessarily new positions, maybe one or two in grant writing because that would bring
in a lot of revenues that we’re missing, but an enforcement department that incorporates
all the different enforcement elements of the different departments that we have now.
MR. KENOI:
In one place?
MS. O’HARA:
In one place to streamline. You know you have the situation where a
building inspector goes out and cites a problem but then they have to call in Planning
Department, you know so all these different people have go out and visit the same site.
If it could be consolidated it would be much more efficient.
MR. KENOI:
Yeah. That’s a good idea. We were tossing that around one time.
People get
MR. TAKABA:
Scott gave a presentation. He presented that.
MR. KENOI:
Oh, he did. Scott, yeah. Compliance office. He’s on it. He went all over,
and he jumped over heads. Hey, hey, hold on Scott. He kind of like, why you holding
me back for. You cannot go jumping over all your department heads. But he’s intent
was good and his thoughts are good. I was trying to get Mitch Roth from the
Prosecutors, hey Mitch, why don’t you come. We’re talking like an Ombudsman. You
know that same person, like because that came with the permitting like zoning
inspection. You have a case, a challenge, you know the kind of call, Planning send
their guy, write him up, he get mad, how come nothing happen, and he call the building,
zoning, Public Works, they go, he calling me F that nobody helping me. I sent Hunter,
go down and just mad cause all these different people coming and nobody, I mean it’s
an extreme case. But if you had one office, one group, cause then I think people
wouldn’t feel like they’re being bounced all over the place. And somebody would have
some institutional memory of the complaint. People just feel like they getting the
runaround from government. That should be a good recommendation. That gives us
some reason to, and like you said, maybe not hire but
MS. O’HARA:
Not necessarily
18
MR. KENOI:
Pinch from different departments and bring people in and consolidate and
that would be cool. I think people would feel good. And then you can log in one central
place calls coming in. Like even now we have an Office of Information. It was Office of
Information and Complaints. I remember when I worked for Harry, I always walked
under that sign. That’s just inviting people to yell. Not that we want them but we named
it Office of Information and Assistance. We’re here to help. So we took it from Office of
Information and Complaints to Office of Information and Assistance. But even then if
somebody comes in, aloha, and they route it the respective department. I mean cc’d,
everybody sees it, but they come in to the Mayor’s Office and then they get sent to the
respective department to respond. And they follow up. We track, get numbers but it is
still amulti-agency complex referral system instead of go here and come right back here
and then talk to you. Somebody would come in, speak to a caseworker if you will, who
would follow up with their issue, concern, and come right back to him. I think that would
be more rewarding and meaningful.
MS. WONG:
Anyone? I think we’re good.
MR. KENOI:
Gloria, Glen, Ken, Eileen, Patricia, thank you, really. The least I can do. I
know it’s words, but I really mean that when I say mahalo. I volunteer, my wife, I know
how hard it is sometimes. I know you have to drag yourself here, give up other
commitments to get somewhere, and not a hassle, but it can be challenging. And there
is a cost to it, maybe not monetary, but a cost of your time, your effort, your sacrifice. I
just want to say thank you. It means a lot. I think that’s why our island is such an
unbelievable, special place to live. People care here. I talk to people all the time.
What is it about this island? Is it the beauty, is it the uniqueness? No, it’s the people.
Because people help each other. You can argue with your neighbor, but your kids don’t
have a ride to school, they’ll come by and pick them up, take them school. Everybody
helps each other here. And we all live with that value. My Angelina, she said very
simply, when you learn, teach. When you get, give. And I think that’s how we live. And
I think that’s what makes it so special. So in spite of not having, maybe being the
wealthiest county, having the most programs and services, I think this isone of the
greatest communities to call home. I’m proud to call this place home. And as tough as
it is, it might get tougher. But I know we’ll get through it all, and we’ll be okay on the
other end as long as we keep our values in tack. Cause you cannot put a price on that.
Thanks you guys. I look forward to your final recommendation. And give me three I can
implement right away. Thanks you guys.
EVERYONE:
Thank you.
MS. WONG:
Randy could you come down. Thank you everyone for your patience in
this. And Bobby, we’ll call you up in another hour or so. I’m trying to remember where
we were –I have renewable and sustainable –do you remember where we were?
MR. KUROHARA:
Basically, I just gave my answer to the question. Was that it?
MS. WONG:
I think we were talking about the validity of putting those two together, Ag
and Energy.
19
MS. O’HARA:
It’s just that our thought had been a recommendation for future
commission not the current commissions because we would not want to see it
restructured.
MR. KUROHARA:
I think what might be better because if you had like say nine
members, and like this commission, how it functions, you don’t get everybody in there
all the time. But if you were to have only five out of your nine commissioners present at
a meeting, let’s say four of them were your ag sector, one was energy, but you’re
discussing an energy issue, it would really be hard. I really feel like you need two
commissions. What might be better is just every other month so that we’re getting the
right people, the right group of experts there at the same time. But maybe meet less
often and maybe task them with things to do in between these meetings.
MS. WONG:
One of the things that also came up with Pomeroy’s presentation at the
last meeting was talking about two positions instead of just one position, changing the
subject here. Dayday is currently the person in the office and she’s mostly ag.
MR. KUROHARA:
She is the ag specialist, yes.
MS. WONG:
But she touches upon other topics if it’s related to ag. Ms. Pomeroy
talked about maybe two positions or two and a half positions to address ag.
MR. KUROHARA:
You’re talking about hiring more people? You know that’s been
brought up and that’s the debate right now. If it is that important, why aren’t we
providing more staff and more resources towards these programs? On side you’re
trying to save cost. So like in every department we really are running thin right now with
the staff that we have. And we try to do our part in trying to limit, and I think if you look
through our records, that we’re probably one of the few departments that has probably
hardly any if any, overtime. But these staff guys, they work really hard. They’re out
because they have to work the community. It’s a distinctly different type of role that we
play, not really in an office every day. They’re doing both. They’re out meeting with
stakeholders and the community, business people, with different organizations. So their
schedules are quite more like a director’s type schedule. They’re always meeting with
people after hours if need be so they use sort of a flex schedule. And they are working
very hard. One thing that I do see coming from the private sector is that the staff works
really hard. They really do. I can only speak for our department about what I see, but I
think they do work very hard. They are very efficient at what they do. And our role is to
facilitate within these industries. We’re not really necessarily intended to be the
economic driver of an industry, but we’re there to support, to facilitate, to bring groups
together to find solutions. Things of that nature. But if the question is, would adding
more staff help? Possibly. So there are ways that you could increase the resources
without necessarily having to hire more people. You could contract. There’s a lot of
other entities out there that would be doing somewhat similar functions. Within our
department, what we try to do too, is we’ve kind of shuffled people around to have them
support a busy program. So, our busy programs are agriculture and energy, tourism.
So we try to use some of the staff that were focusedon other areas before like the
CDPs. We use to help out with having to organize the communities for those so we
took some of that staff since that’s pretty much done, and they’re supporting some of
the specialists that are really busy right now. So, we’ve kind of shifted those people
20
over to support the programs that have a lot going on right now. So, we’re kind of doing
those things. We really are. The area, when you talk about technology side, that would
really help. Because they do go to a lot of meetings. There is that having to attend
meeting, having to go here and having to go there, which if you could have more
capabilities via video conferencing, that helps. We’ve use a lot of our teleconferencing.
We’ve done a lot of that. So a lot of our meetings now we try to stay, if it’s available and
you can teleconference, we do that. But the video conferencing is really hard to do.
Not many people have that capability so therefore some of the times some of our staff
are traveling to meetings. So, that’s one way that that can save a inaudible -if you can
incorporate that and technology.
MS. O’HARA:
When you say that video conferencing isn’t widely available, you’re
talking more the private sector? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. KUROHARA:
I think so yes. Depending on the different organizations that are
calling the meetings. If there is more public availability ofvideo conferencing centers,
then you could possibly save. Cause you have meetings in Kona and guys from Hilo
don’t have to go to Kona. Same way if you fly to Oahu, if it’s available.
MS. O’HARA:
I just have one follow up question. When we were first discussing, I was
asking you about the recommendation by the energy commission to do an islandwide
energy plan update. And you said that would be contracted out? But didn’t the
agricultural commission do their own report?
MR. KUROHARA:
It’s not the commission, but they reviewed onethat was done by the
Kohala Center.
MS. O’HARA:
Oh, that’s right. Done by the Kohala Center.
MR. KUROHARA:
So that was recently introduced to the County Council. It’s going
through that process right now of being adopted.
MS. O’HARA:
So something similar with the energy side
MR. KUROHARA:
Yes. What the other one lacked was a more definite cost and
timetable for the thing. So what we want to do is update that energy plan to include
which ones, and what kind of cost is associated with that, and sort of a definite timeline
on when these should happen.
MS. WONG:
One of the topics that came up again with Pomeroy at the last meeting
was their number one priority was ag lands, which then moves into Bobby Jean’s area.
But that also involves your area, so if we could, if you don’t mind, I’ll call Bobby Jean up
at the same time because the topics were overlapping. If you could stay for a little bit
more.
MR. KUROHARA:
I have to be someplace at 12.
MS. WONG:
Okay.
21
DISCUSSION, AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH PLANNING
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD-TODD REGARDING
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN THE COST OF GOVERNMENT’S MARCH 2, 2011
LETTER, IMPACT FEES, FAIR SHARE, AND PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAM:
MS. WONG:
Bobby Jean’s agenda item is number 6. And we may have other
questions for you.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Pay as you throw program?
MS. WONG:
For some reason, I don’t think that’s in your area, but that’s in the agenda
so we’ll see.
MR. KUROHARA:
No. It’s not.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I have a draft thing in the back that I thought kind of got
misplaced too. Because under, maybe I have the wrong draft, but under Planning, it
says – Base the fuel reimbursement for the Police Department personnel on actual
mileage –so I think that the draft that was attached to the version I had was in the
wrong place.
MS. WONG:
And we have your letter, response.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
On ag lands, I was just at the Ag Commission meeting, and I’m
going back to their next meeting, but we were talking about as Randy is trying to get a
budget item for a study to basically assess what type of resources we have. The
biggest problem with IAL is one, it’s a state mandate. And for me, this is an issue that I
frequently have over what occurs in county government is that the public comes and
asks us for services that I personally, not wearing my Planning Department hat, but I
personally look at and go, that’ssupposed to be a state function. The state has a
Department of Agriculture. State has the mandate to do important ag lands. The
constitutional provision that says you’re not supposed to kick and punt these obligations
to the county without funding. The constitution says you can’t do an unfunded mandate.
However it’s done all the time. And the public just looks at the fact that something is not
getting done. They don’t look at, the state is supposed to do it or the state is supposed
to fund it. So we have an ag commission that’s going, why is nothing happening. And
so I ask why is nothing happening? I’m going because the state appropriated a total of
$70,000 for important ag lands for the entire state to do a study. All $70,000 was given
to Kauai. Kauai looked at it and said that’s not enough money. They kicked in
$250,000 from Kauai’s budget. And even with that money, they’re not doing the entire
island for the IAL because they said that they couldn’t do an adequate study and plan
for the entire island. Randy is asking for some money and it’s going to be more kind of
an inventory of what kinds of resources we already have. Like soil conversation people
have done maps identifying what you can grow at a particular elevation with existing
rainfall. What you can grow in certain areas if you’ve got an irrigation system. And
what those maps don’t take into account is other things like you can have soil, you can
have sun, you can have water, but if you’ve got wind you can’t grow in some areas.
And so there are all those kinds of factors that he’s hoping to identify.
22
MR. KUROHARA:
There are two pieces that are going out. One right now we’re going
to contract out for our base line study of what crops are we currently growing, how much
and where. What are we bringing in? What are we buying in? What do we import in, in
regards to food? And that way then we can determine if we have these lands, and
you’re bringing in, you know, so if sustainability is the goal, we have abetter framework
in which to look at the IAL piece. But what Bobby Jean brought up in one of her earlier
meetings when we were meeting on this was we really need to know how to really
frame it because there are some many different angles when you look at IAL. What is
the motive behind it? Is the goal food security? Food and viral security? Food and
energy security? You know,so depending on how you look at it, you could be targeting
the wrong lands. So really, we need to understand that better before we go spend a
few million dollars trying to do this piece. Not a few million, but it might cost
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
And there’s a disconnect between what the mandate I think
was, which was basicallygeared more towards soil analysis. If you look at the state
law, it’s mainly geared towards trying to protect those lands that are of a higher quality
soil from being taken out of agricultural into urban. Because other lands where you
don’t need the soil, you know, if it’s a greenhouse crop, if it’s something that you’re
growing on raised beds or something like that, then it isn’t soil, and you can do that just
about anywhere. But the real disconnect in terms of what some people are looking for,
and the analysis has to be given. You can have land that you think is great for
agriculture, but if it’s going to cost you $20 million to put the infrastructure in, in order to
be able to grow anything on that land, then you’ve parsed it out of any economically
viable return on investment. So, that’s maybe not the discussion that we should have
here, but we’re moving on that, try to look at it in the absence of state funding.
MR. KUROHARA:
We are addressing that. So the question is,are the important ag
land piece we are working to move forward on it as much as we can absent the state
funds.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Cause it ain’t going to come down from the state.
MS. O’HARA:
On that piece, I like the way you’re thinking about that. Perhaps it may
help to just distance yourself from the IAL concept entirely because what you’re talking
about is what is much more needed. It is about food and energy security. And a lot of
the lands that we call marginal ag lands at this point in time can be very useful in
providing that security, especially when the biocrop inaudible. So maybe it needs to be
framed different than what the state mandate is, which as Bobby pointed out is basically
about soil fertility and what’s the highest classification of soils versus what is the best
use of our ag lands. I like the way you’re thinking about that.
MS. WONG:
Any other comments?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I did have one comment just because the mayor mentioned it
and it’s been in the papers. That parcel of land in Kona, it got rezoned to Open so it’s
not commercial. And so the reporter when they called me, didn’t mention what parcel of
land they were talking about. If they’d identified the parcel, I would have told them that
that parcel is almost in it’s entirety an archeological preserve where we’re going to have
an interpretive center. But it’s not going to be used at commercial purposes and it’s part
23
of the mitigation for the Ane Keohokalole Highway. And so that is probably a great
extent as to why it was reclassified at $100 because it’s going to be basically run as a
non-profit and it’s for archeological preserve. Which is why you always have to be
careful about what you say to newspapers.
MS. GARSON:
Can we get back to the agenda. I need to focus you back.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I went off message.
MS. WONG:
Yes, and I was just about to pull you back in. Back to the March 2 letter.
MR. KUROHARA:
Are you done with me then? Is there any more questions in regard
to ag and energy commissions? I think that’s what I’m here to address.
MS. WONG:
Any further on that? I think we’re good on that. I covered all of my
questions.
MR. KUROHARA:
Anything else for R&D in general?
MS. WONG:
None. Thank you.
MR. KUROHARA:
Thank you very much.
MS. WONG:
To clarify, Bobby, you said the department isn’t sure whether the
recommendations of the steering committee or the action committee or both?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Yes.
MS. WONG:
And your response is yes. Either/or or both. Initially, our subcommittee,
after meeting with you, I think it was October last year, we took it to consider terminating
the action committee. And then we came and just discussion, we talked about, what
about deleting both of them. And then well, if we’re going to delete both of them why
not consider each individually. So your answer was, your question was clarified, and
your answerswere very detailed.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I tried to address both situations.
MS. WONG:
Yeah, very well. And I got the impression at that initial meeting that it was
a very financially significant deal if we terminated the action committees. And now in
reading this, it seems like
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
We’ve scaled it back. We eliminated all the contracts because
the action committee used to operate with hiring a recorder to take the minutes. And we
used to hire community liaisons to do a lot of the leg work. We cancelled all of those
contracts or rather as contracts came to a close, we did not hire. And we’re in the
process of converting. So what we’re doing is trying to get the action committee
members to be responsible for taking the minutes and producing the minutes. We’re
basically taking what was a big cost item, cause it was running us about $25,000 per
action committee in the past to do this. So we’ve cut that cost out and we’re asking the
24
committees to take on more of that responsibility. And then in the interim, what we’ve
been doing is looking at meetings every other month in order to scale back a little bit. At
this point, there isn’t much cost savings in eliminating them because we’ve already cut
all of that back and we didn’t put anything in the budget to continue any on of the
contractual services. It does cost us sometimes a little bit in overtime. We’ve been
asking the committees and the staff to either flex. So I’ve got some of them that are
using flex time to accommodate the meetings in the evenings. And then we’ve been
asking the committees to try and move the meetings up during the daytime so that I
could reduce overtime. So, basically because of the financial situation, we’ve
eliminated most of the cost attached to those committees just by shifting the work either
for the committee or trying to do more of it in-house.
MS. WONG:
So a budget in the amount of $400,000 for each action committee?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
No. The $400,000 was for the steering committees and
development of the CDP. And most of that money is in consultant contracts. That’s
Ka‘u and Hamakua. Those are the steering committees. The action committees,
previously we used to fund them at about $25,000 per action committee. So for four
action committees you’re looking at about $100,000. We’ve cut that out of the budget
entirely. And talked to staff and so we’ve done flex. We’re doing alternate months if
there isn’t much. We haven’t been able to that with Kona and that’s because Kona had
additional studies that were already funded and paid for. One is to come up with village
design, guidelines which would be kind of a model for smart code used throughout the
island. And another is a financing study because the Kona CDP calls for $800 million in
infrastructure to be built in Kona. So the big question is how are you going to pay for
that? We have a financing plan and basically they’re evaluating that and because we’re
evaluating that, it requires that that committee meet every month. And it does take up
more time. What we’re now finding sometimes is it’s very difficult to achieve a quorum
because we’re constantly loosing committees and have to get more people. And you’re
competing with other boards and commissions. Maybe, I don’t know whether we’re not
doing as effective a job of getting the word out or just that the pool of people who can
commit that amount of time starts getting limited because it does require a lot of time
and a lot of work and a lot of reading. I think that what we have right now we can
sustain. If down the road, the county decides they want to do more CDP under the
current County Code, every CDP that you created creates an action committee after
you adopt the CDP. So perspectively the theory is if you did a CDP just for Downtown
Hilo, then that would have its own action committee. If you did a CDP for smaller areas
like if you wanted to do one for Keaukaha/Panaewa, then that would create its own
action committee. And at some point, it just has more committees, I think than we can
sustain, which is why the last one we argued for larger areas rather than doing smaller
CDPs. And we have no money in the budget to do one in Hilo. Hilo hasn’t had a
community development plan in something like 33 years. But there just wasn’t any
money in the budget to plan for that.
MS. O’HARA:
You’re talking about the inaudible
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Well the Hamakua one includes rural South Hilo, so basically
from the Haulalani Place is, that little stream, Pukihai. From Pukuihai towards Honokaa
is the Hamakua CDP. So it’s rural South Hilo, North Hilo and Hamakua. It’s called
25
Hamakua but it’s actually all of that area. But for the area of Hilo that’s from Pukihai all
the way out to where you hit Puna, there’s no CDP. And the last Hilo CDP that was
done was back in, 33 years ago, so it was like 1967 or something like that, was the last
time it was done. So that becomes an issue whenever we’re doing rezoning because
people grumble. But during that period of time we have updated the General Plan. And
the General Plan has addressed some of those issues. And we’re coming up on
General Plan again shortly.
MS. O’HARA:
And I have a question about that. I haven’t read the code related to the
action committees, but the CDPs move forward as input to the General Plan. And then
the General Plan is adopted. And then we begin the process over again. It’s a ten year
process. So how long are those initial action committees supposed to be sustained.
Because it would seem like over time they would lose effectiveness.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Well under the County Code, they’re there forever. You create
the steering committee to adopt the CDP. Once the CDP is adopted by the County
Council, then you create an action committee. The purpose of the action committee is
supposed to implement or help implement the CDP. What’s happening is frequently the
discussion at the council is they would like to turn the action committees into mini
planning commissions. They would like everything run through the action committees
including, in some areas, we have a real tug and pull because they want to review
subdivision applications. Not just rezoning, they want variance applications. They want
all of that to come through them. And I’m saying that I can’t do that. I don’t have the
staff or the time to meet deadlines. I already have two Planning Commissions that I
take stuff to. The next time we do the General Plan is probably going to take me twice
as long to get a General Plan through the commissions as it did the last time when it
was done. And that’s because we have one commission that met two times a month. I
now have two commissions that meet once a month but they’re both required to review
the General Plan. So what might have taken six months to a year the last round could
take 12 months to two years to get through the Planning Commission’s cause each of
them only meets once a month. Or in order to get it through quickly, I have to double
the meetings. So, I just think that there were some things when you create boards and
commissions that they didn’t think through in terms of how do you efficiently do a big
document. Cause I notice some of your recommendations about getting the zoning
code updated every ten years rather than piecemeal. I was on the County Council
when we did the last zoning code. And we also tried to do the subdivision code. And
what I find happens is that things, in a two year election cycle, it’s very difficult to get a
large document through unless the mentality is, don’t examine it, just adopt it and then
we’ll fix it later. But if you don’t have that and what happens is things like zoning codes
and subdivision codes, you don’t get that kind of a vote.People want to examine what
the road standards are. People want to examine what the variances are, etc., etc. We
never got the subdivision code through the County Council. And so I have a list of
fixers, and we are currently starting to try and come up with a number of amendments
that we’re going to be introducing, because our fear is that if we did something that’s
comprehensive, I can’t get it through the County Council in any relevant period of time
before you hit an election. And then you have new members on the council and they
want you to start from scratch. That’s what happened to the General Plan the last time.
Because every time we had an election, the new guys wanted us to start from scratch.
We could have been 18 months into the process, and the newly elected guy said no, I
26
wasn’t here for that. I want it to start all over again. And that’s the biggest problem
we’ve had in any substantive comprehensive amendments to the code. And that’s just
my zoning code, not the whole county code.
MS. O’HARA:
On the topic of the steering committees and action committees, I’m still
not clear as to longevity of the action committee. It’s an ongoing process. And your
community development plan has to be redone every 10-20 years, whatever the length
of time. And as Bobby pointed out, she’s loosing members. And this is going to happen
over time. It’s an exciting process initially for the steering committee. They generally
get very involved and stay involved. The action committee takes it on and after a year
or two, especially with the decline in staff resources that are made available. It puts
more work into the public’s hands to keep these committees going. And you’re going to
lose interest. So, I’m just looking at the sustainability of that process over time.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I think some of that will shake out as we go down this road.
This is relatively new for the community, even for the county. But I think maybe some of
the discussion has to be on what exactly the role is because many of themview
themselves as trying to be more like a mini planning commission. I’ve tried to focus
them this year and say, hey, you have a plan, what do you need to implement your plan.
So please identify CIP projects or specific actions that should be taken. If you identified
a road that you wanted or you identified that you need parks, where would you like the
parks? Can you narrow that down? Can you identify how much money that would
take? And should there be a CIP appropriation. Should there be at least some kind of
study. And I’ve been trying to shift them from, I want to review that subdivision
application to, we have a plan that says roads, infrastructure, etc. What do you need to
get the roads and infrastructure in your community? So, it’s an ongoing conversation in
trying to shift where I personally think the focus should be in terms of actually trying to
implement the plan as opposed to getting hung up on every single application that
comes through my department.
MS. WONG:
So, the bottom line on the question of eliminating either the steering
committee or the action committee or both, your answer is no.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
At this current time, I don’t see a significant cost savings
because what I would do is I would reassign staff. It would mean that I would then take
the staff that’s doing that and I would start moving them more on subdivision
amendments and zoning code amendments where we’re just not getting to the work.
MS. WONG:
But then wouldn’t that be the reason for eliminating the action committee
so you could reassign the staff?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I live in a political reality. And the political reality is that there is
far more public interest and advocacy for the action committees than there is for
revamping the subdivision code or the zoning code. And part of that reality is, is that
government and even the Planning Department is not just a dollars and cents operation.
A lot of it is the whole concept of the consent of the governed and the public trust. And
as much of a headache as I personally view the action committees, as much as I
personally think I can function effectively without them, I think the level of public distrust
and disconnect, the sense that I was trying to hide something from the public, that I was
27
trying to get around the community or get around the plans, would be such a negative
consequence of eliminating that any savings I had financially, any better allocation of
resources to some of these things that I think we need to do, I think would, when I’m
balancing stuff, I think it would be so much more negative because of the public
perception. People really are invested in this process. They feel like it gives them more
input and it makes them a little transparent that they’ve got more of a say in what
occurs. And so, the bottom line when I ended up looking at it wasn’t a bottom line
decision. It really became about what kind of service and what kind of connection do
you have with the public, what kind of interaction. And so as much of a humbug as it is,
I think in terms of public feeling like they’re getting services or public feeling like they’re
getting the means to provide input to government that it’s very valuable. And I can’t
weigh that in, in terms of just the employee cost orthe contract cost. So, I just think that
you have to weigh that too in terms of whether you keep something. I mean ultimately
you keep it just because it provides that additional interface.
MS. WONG:
Thank you for that explanation cause that clarifies for me why I wasn’t
quite connecting on it. But what if the commission recommended that there be a
reprioritization so that functionally we recommended that there be a reassignment of
staff for the priority of overhauling the subdivision code and zoning code?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Well, I thought one way of possibly approaching it as saying if
you’ve adopted a CDP, and you have a steering committee, that you have the action
committee operate for a two year period or a three period after the adoption of the CDP,
and they have a specific role. Because once you’re past that, you really should be
focusing on General Plan, which is much broader. Because the General Plan has to be
done every 10 years. And we’ve said that CDPs have to done every 10 years, which I
don’t know if they’re bumping up against each other, so I’ve thought that one way to
address it perhaps is to have atime period. Just like Cost of Government exists for a
year. And redistricting has a specific purpose and they exist for a year. Maybe there
should be a time limit on them so that we can then refocus resources to the General
Plan, to the zoning code and other stuff unless you’re going to give me more staff. I
looked at where the growth in my department has been. The growth in my department
has primarily been in the long range planning and it’s primarily been for staff to do
CDPs. It hasn’t been in permitting. It hasn’t been in the guys that process rezoning and
special use permits. It’s primarily been, the bulk of the growth in my department has
been what we call, long range planning. And it’s mainly been the CDPs. And I just
don’t see the economy changing enough so that I can get more staff. So maybe in time.
MS. O’HARA:
You know, it does make a lot of sense to me as well because of the
process.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
And maybe we’d also concentrate the focus of the action
committee. It’s like hey, you have so much here, and you’ve got to come up with
specific recommendations. Some of them see themselves as oh, this is an opportunity
to rewrite the CDP. Here’s the CDP, what do you need to implement it? Do you need
money for this road? Do you need planning for this road? Do you need the county to
be designating where this is going to occur? Do you need specific intersections? If this
was an issue in Puna, do these intersections, should the county be giving some
assistance to the state with the intersection? That kind of recommendation. And if they
28
knew they had to do a window in which they had to produce a report to me, on what
actions I have to take, maybe it edto get ready for the General Plan and the zoning and
other stuff. And then the next round when you appoint a steering committee, and then
here’s the other thing, why should I have a steering committee and then an action
committee? If you’re going to appoint a steering committee to create the CDP, maybe
those guys should be the action committee because what I’m finding now, I go to the
council meeting and one of the council members adopt a recommendation that came
from the action committee. And the council member wants to haul in all the guys that
were on the steering committee because she wants to know if the steering committee’s
vision is different than the action committees. And I kind of like, steering committee
doesn’t exist as an entity anymore. And so at least the council members seem to think
that there was a disconnect between the people who would help create the plan and the
people who that were doing the implementation. And so maybe, and that would save us
having to go through the vetting process and the reappointment process, and all of that,
and then we’d have some continuity between the people who helped create the CDP
and the people who come up with the action for it.
MS. WONG:
So that is to say to terminate the action committee
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
But have the steering committee continue and have them
serve for a period to create to plan and then X number of years pass adoption in order
to implement.
MS. O’HARA:
It’s like a four year commitment or something.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Yeah. Four or five years.
MS. O’HARA:
A year and a half to two years to do the plan.
MS. WONG:
Any other comments, questions, specifically on this topic? None.
Looking at our time, are you 12:30?
MS. PROVALENKO:
I can be here till one.
MS. O’HARA:
I remember why we put together these two odd things, impact fees and
pay as you throw. And it relates to a conversation that I had with Bobby Jean earlier.
And that was when we were talking in your office about putting a specific element into
the real property tax bill to cover all infrastructure islandwide and could we not do
something similar for the solid waste issue. Or would you rather consider pay as you
throw.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
The pay as you throw, the argument against pay as you throw
has always been that if you institute a pay as you throw, people will just dump
everywhere.
MS. O’HARA:
They already do.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
And then also the issue of collection of pay as you throw, so
one idea has been that you pre-sell bags. And you can only dump in the presold bags.
29
Because the problem with collection is you’ve got to have the facilities at the transfer
station to collect the money. The problem that we have at the scales at the landfill is,
we weigh it, and then we send you a bill. We don’t have a mechanism for guys to come
in with a charge card and pay before they get to dump. And that’s for the commercial
stuff. So I’ve always said that we need to get to the point where you pay. You want to
dump here, you need a line of credit or you have to be prepared to pay cash or
something like that. Because otherwise you’re always chasing them after the fact.
Guys go belly up, you can’t find the money. On pay as you throw, the argument has
been guys will dump. So, I had said why can’t you have a specific item, whether, I’m
not sure what the issue would be, where it’s assessed on the real property tax bill, so
that every TMK on the island has to pay $25. You come up with your number in terms
of what you think, what you need in order to pay for your residential population. What
you’ve got right now is the commercial guys pay for commercial rubbish. But the
residents are not paying a fee. It comes out of the General Fund. So there’s a
disconnect between what it costs them and the cost of doing this. But every time we’ve
looked at fee collection, it’s just been the concern over dumping. Maybe you have
some line item in the real property taxes and everybody has to pay a fee for solid waste.
I think there are some legal issues there because real property taxes are based on
value. And so the question is whether you’re going to have state authority to add a fee
to that tax. But I was always looking at something you can actually collect. Cause
Wastewater, the problem was that you can’t shut the water off. Water Supply, when
you owe them money on your water bill, they send you a little notice, saying we’re going
to cut your water off. So you want your water, you run down there and you pay it.
When you’re on the sewer, there is no mechanism to shut you off, to shut you down. So
you can continue to pay your water bill and have your water and still be flushing your
toilet and not pay your sewer fee. So that’s always been the problem with collecting -
that there was no hammer in theory. On landfills you can cut off the commercial guys
from coming in. But the residential component, a question is are you going to have it
paid out of real property taxes or are you going to have some kind of a fee? And if
you’re going to have a fee, how do you implement a fee that doesn’t end up making a
lot of guys just dump. Cause right now when it’s free, and you’re not seeing not a dime
come out of your pocket to go to the landfill, guys are still dumping everywhere. And so
the concern is that if you had to pay a fee at the transfer station, the amount of dumping
will just double, triple, quadruple. And then you end up paying for it anyway because
we end up having to go to cleanups and take it in and pay to landfill it. So, I’ve always
thought that it had to be something like a fee that’s collected through real property taxes
because there is a hammer. Eventually you lose your property if you don’t pay that bill.
It’s either that or you have to go with the percentage, and that, Finance is definitely
opposed to it because you lose your flexibility inI managing your budget.
MS. O’HARA:
Percentage of what?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Percentage of your collections for a particular –it’s like you
have 2% for open space. And the problem is that when you look at this year when
we’re facing a real tight budget, and you allocate 2% for the open space, that $4 million
or $3.6 million, whatever it is that you can’t use it on other expenses. And that’s the
danger of having fixed amounts in the budget. When you’re in a crunch, you lose that
flexibility of adjusting. And it’s fine in times of plenty. But in times of, when you’re really
looking at,can you produce services, having fixed percentages in the real property
30
collections for specific services becomes very difficult for the Finance Department. And
part of that is because our biggest segment I think of our cost are salaries and wages.
There’s only so much you can cut before you start having to cut back on services.
Impact fees –Wrong time and I don’t like it because it’s half of what I collect under fair
share. And the idea that you’re going to collect more through it or faster through it, it
means that I will collect some fees in Puna and Ka‘u, but it will cut in half of what I
collect in Kona. Because Kona is mainly new development. So, you pass the impact
fee at the proposed rate of $6,000, it immediately cuts my fair share assessment
against Palamanui by 50%. Kaloko Makai is going to be coming in to reclassify land. If
they came in we would access them at $12,000 under fair share. If they come in under
the impact fee as proposed by the council, they would be assessed at $6,000 per unit.
That’s my main opposition right now is that the area that I have the fastest growth which
is Kona occurring, that under the impact fee, it reduces our collections by 50%. And so
the reality is there is no political will to adopt an impact fee at 100% at the $12,000. And
that’s because every time somebody pulls a building permit for a house in Hawaiian
Paradise Park and they say, before you can get your building permit, you’ve got to
cough up $12,000 to the county before you build your house. What you’re going to hear
happen is guys are going to continue to build houses without permits in Ocean View
and other remote areas because they’re not going to have the $12,000 extra, cause
they haven’t factored that in. We’re not talking about a development. We’re talking
about aguy who bought a lot. He gets enough money to build a house and then you tell
him $6,000. Even $6,000 before he can get the building permit is real tough for guys.
And so the other problem I have is unless you’ve identified specific projects that you’re
going to expand that money on, are you even going to expand it in six years and at the
end of the six years I have to return it to people with interest. One of the other issues
with the assessments is just that in this economy right now I think where most of the
construction is occurring is in single family residences rather than big developments.
You impose the impact fee, then you basically are going to shut down some of that.
And somebody builds a house, we wouldn’t collect some revenue off the value of that
house. If the impact fee becomes an impediment than it’s just vacant land or illegal
structures which then I have to go and enforce. It is hell on wheels. We were going to
basically allow guys to come in and make their homes legal if you built without a
building permit. That’s easier said than done because you put your drywall up, well part
of the permit is we have to inspect the electrical. We have to inspect the plumbing. So
you have to rip off the drywall in order to get that inspection done. You also need to get
either an architect or an engineer to sign off on those plans after the fact. And so
anything that I view as resulting in more illegal structures,to me is just creating a huge
problem that we will have to deal with later. So, I view this impact fee as a problem. I
think that fair share is legally defensible and it does hit the new developments and it hits
them in the area that are most rapidly growing, which is Kona. So, I’m kind of happy
with the system as it is. I have people who’ve paid fair share but in theory, they’ve paid
like partial. And if the impact fee is passed, then I have to reassess what they owe.
And so they’re telling me that I don’t have to reimburse money if under the new scenario
they’ve now overpaid. But if they’ve only paid a portion, then I have to reassess, and
then they’ll not pay me anything more. And the problem is, is that in the Puna area
where there’s a tremendous demand for services, I think that it will make it harder.
We’re actually getting better at collecting as people build out we’re already starting to
use some of that money. But what people don’t understand is you don’t collect until
31
people actually build. It’s not rezoning the property that triggers somebody paying the
fair share. It’s when they actually pull building permits or subdivide the land. And on
impact fees you’re not going to collect it any sooner. You’re going to collect it when
they pull a building permit. And so that’s one of the myths of the impact fees that you
will collect this money in Kona. People look at all of these assessments and say, oh
they didn’t pay this, they didn’t pay this. And that’s because the land is still vacant.
They haven’t built the road, they haven’t put in a house, they haven’t put in anything.
They don’t pay until they pull the building permit. So there is a misperception that
passing the impact fee will suddenly collect more money in Kona. You will collect in
Puna, you will collect in Ka‘u. I question whether you can expand some of those fees
like roads. There aren’t that many county roads in Puna. So if you’re collecting per
roads, the only way you could expand it is by working PEMAR. And the entire cost of
PEMAR, if you’re going from Nanawale to Hilo is $180 million. I just don’t know that
we’re going to have the $180 whether it’s federal or county. I think the best thing you
could do is spend money to figure out the alignment and try to prevent development
along the alignment. But as to actually getting it built anytime soon, no. But at least if
you have an alignment, then you can try and prevent development. I’m just saying that I
just don’t think this is the right time for impact fees.
MS. O’HARA:
Question –the fair share contribution system that we currently have, you
said you felt it was legally defensible, one of the drawbacks is that the funds collect to
district and can only be expanded in that district.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Well that would be true of impact fees too. You could only use
them. You have to have a rational nexus, you have to have a connection between the
impact, the exaction you collect and where you expand it. And we had this sole
discussion because Council member Yagong wanted to take money we collected in
Kona and spend it in Honokaa, and we said, no, you can’t. It’s got to be spent in Kona.
I think that that doesn’t change whether it’s impact fee or whether it’s a fair share.
MS. O’HARA:
Well, the point I was getting to is we’ve had very little fair share
contribution development in South Hilo, North Hilo. And although the area isn’t maybe
physically growing at a rate it’s going to bring in money, all the surrounding areas are
and they demand services from the larger Hilo area. We need more infrastructure and
we’re seeing that happen with increased traffic and lots of other things. So, I remember
in our discussion you pointed out that what maybe more favorable is to include just a
very small percentage on the property tax bill that is islandwide infrastructure fund
versus the regional infrastructure fund.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
There are all different ways of looking at it. I think we do the
same thing with fuel tax. We take a certain amount and we assign it by district based
on the miles of county roads in a district. And then we take some of the money and we
do it for islandwide projects recognizing that you live in Hilo but you’re driving through
Hamakua and Waimea to get to Kona. And so that some of that fuel tax money that
paying at the pump is not just being, the need for improvements is not just where you’re
necessarily buying the gas. So, we do that there. I think the problem has always been
on the percentage. When we were having that conversation it was just, how do you
fund infrastructure? Do you set a certain amount? I think the problem has always been
that when we’re in an economic downturn like we are right now, you can see the whole
32
argument over the bond float, right, whether you float it down when you can get low
prices or do you add that to the ongoing, the debt of the county? And I think you’ve
always had a council that wants a little bit more control over that rather than fixed
percentage. But a fixed percentage, I think, would at least direct that a certain amount is
spent. But you also have to have political will to go over and above. Cause if what
you’re collecting now, if your vision is that you need more than what you’re collecting
right now, then that requires the council to add on. So, I had looked at one idea. In
Kailua-Kona we did, under state authorizing legislation, we did a business improvement
district. And this doesn’t address all the islandwide stuff. But I thought that maybe
there should be state enabling legislation for something like subdivision improvement
districts where the county collects the money. It’s kind of a CF community facilities, but
you’ve a little more flexibility and it’s not necessarily new infrastructure. It could be
maintenance of existing infrastructure, but the county would collect the money and then
you’d have a citizens group like you have with Kailua-Kona that administers and
determines how that money is expanded. The reaction I’ve had from people in the
public when I talk, what a flack that is. The perception that I’m already paying taxes,
and this is a personal note, this is not as Planning Director. I don’t pay enough taxes.
I’m in the homeowner’s class. When I bought my home in 1989, my real property taxes
were about $650. And that’s because the assessment on my home at that time was
$8.50 per thousand. I bought my house at $87,000 and you get your $40,000
deduction. It was about $650. I have been paying less than $500 a year for the last
couple of years on the same house that’s worth considerably more 20 years later. So,
I’m paying less today than I paid 20 years ago. And yet in 20 years the cost of
government services has not remained static and it has not gone down. And so,on my
street, other than the two homes that are rental properties that we’re paying significantly
more maybe because they were rentals and didn’t get any of the homeowner
exemptions. Everybody else on my street was paying less in real property taxes then
me because they qualified for the $100 minimum. So, we’re talking about 18 homes.
Two homes were paying in the neighborhood of $2,000 a year in taxes. I was paying
around $500, and just about everybody else was paying $100. And I’m going, you’re
not paying for services. The firefighters coming and checking the fire hydrant in front of
my house or the police responding to a call in my neighborhood, it’s worth more than
$100 a year. I’m saying this as an individual, not as a Planning Director, as a taxpayer.
I should be paying more. I’m willing to pay more. Homeowners exemptions, you have
an exemption on the value of the land, you also have a three percent cap on valuation.
I don’t think you need all of that. If you want the three percent cap, than maybe you
don’t need some of those others. You can’t continue to pay, if I’m paying less than I
paid 20 years ago for taxes. And that’s true for just about everybody on my street.
MS. O’HARA:
Well, thank you for that. When the mayor came in one of his first
comments was we can’t continue to raise fees to the public. And I think he was
referring primarily to property taxes. Yet, I agree with you. The house I live in with
homeowner’s exemption, I’m paying well under $1,000, I’m not sure the exact number.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
My position is not the mayor’s position.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah, I know it isn’t, but if you were to take the same house, he’d
pointed out that the Big Island is the size of Connecticut. If he were to take that same
house and place it in Connecticut, it would have about the same value, market value.
33
But I would be paying $3,000, $4,000 in taxes because that is kind of common for a
house this size in other neighborhoods across the U.S.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
But you pay for schools. There are some differences.
MS. O’HARA:
There are some differences, but the bottom line is we are not paying our
full share when we extend the homeowners credit and all the other credits, as you
pointed out, which helps keep our property taxes extremely low. We aren’t really
collecting for the services needed and the services that are demanded are demanded
by the homeowners, not those necessarily who own the vacant lots. So, there seems to
be a disparity here that needs to be remedied. And I don’t know that it would actually
result in so much as an increase of rates. But if we make the whole system more
equitable, I think we could collect more taxes without truly increasing the rates
significantly.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
Well, we’re looking at fees, we’re looking at transferring costs
like we’re in the process of drafting, right now you pay a fee for processing applications
from the department. What we want to do is shift the cost of advertising. If it’s an SMA
application, I want the applicant to have to pay for the notice in the paper. So we’re
looking at shifting. And those are not general population, that’s someone who is going
to gain and benefit from the application so in those circumstances I think it’s fair to raise
the fee or shift the cost from real property taxes which are paid by everybody to the
applicant. So we’re looking at a few fixes. It doesn’t generate lots of revenue, but it will
make a small difference in my budget. I think if I get all of this in place, I might save like
$20,000 a year or something like that. So, we’re looking at things like that.
MS. WONG:
Any other questions or comments from the commissioners? Any question
from you, Bobby, or statements?
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
I would get rid of the provision in the Charter that says you
have to doan audit every four years of every program because it’s kind of meaningless.
Not even the state tries to do that. Instead you should identify what programs you want
to have an audit done of and set up a schedule. It’s also never defined what exactly is a
program because you’re not going to terminate a department. And since we give mostly
direct services there aren’t really a lot of programs that, the purpose of the program
audit was to determine whether you would fund something or not. I don’t know that
there’s ever been a program that we’ve ever cut in the county. That’s because we
provide the direct services and so I question whether you need to do those types of
audits. I think you should be more concerned about whether we’re managing the
money property and whether we have the bookkeeping.
MS. O’HARA:
So those audits, those are done internally though.
MS. LEITHEAD-TODD:
The division that does those audits, before the guys who were
in the auditors did combination of audits as well as provide services to the county
council. And now you’ve created a whole new division there that just does that.
MS. WONG:
Kathy, did you have a comment?
34
MS. GARSON:
No. Just looking at our agenda.
MS. LEITHEAD TODD:
Kathy just wants to get out of here.
MS. GARSON:
No, no, no. I just didn’t want you to get into a whole other area.
MS. WONG:
Thank you very much for coming and providing all the information.
MS. LEITHEAD TODD:
Congratulations on your personal best.
MS. WONG:
I’d like to have a five minute break.
BREAK: 12:25-12:30.
CORRESPONDENCE:
MS. WONG:
Meeting back to order. Moving on to agenda item number 7,
Correspondence. We have three letters from Darryl Oliveira, Bobby Jean Leithead
Todd and William Brilhante, Jr. Is there a motion to file?
MOTION: MS. O’HARA:
Move to file.
MR. MATSUDA:
Second.
MS. WONG:
All those in favor, aye.
ACTION ON MOTION: ALL: Aye.
MS. WONG:
Any discussion on these comments?
MS. O’HARA:
We already discussed B with Bobby Jean.
MS. WONG:
Would we like to discuss, can we discuss the letter from Bill Brilhante?
MS. GARSON:
Okay. So you did a motion to accept and file. And then a motion was
seconded. Then you discussed and then you voted. But right now you just filed them
all. So do you want to undo your file and then just keep it? If you want to now discuss –
undo what you just did. Because you should move to accept and file and that’s second,
and then you discuss. But you voted.
MS. WONG:
Oh, I see. So we want to undo the voting.
MS. O’HARA:
Or do we need a second motion?
MR. MATSUDA:
I withdraw my second.
MS. WONG:
We could bring it up into the discussion regarding items to be added. Can
we discuss it there?
35
MS. GARSON:
Well, actually the thing is, you have the discussion on the consolidation
of boards and commissions so you have the two, the Darryl Oliveira letter and, I mean
all of these items are also in 12 anyway so you can discuss the ideas there.
REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES:
MS. WONG:
Moving on the item 8, Reports from subcommittees.
MR. MATSUDA:
No report.
MS. WONG:
Did we have a discussion here? No. Second committee, Revenue
Enhancement and Collections.
MS. PROVALENKO:
No report.
MS. WONG:
Third. Technology Recommendations and Adoption.
MS. O’HARA:
No report.
MS. GARSON:
Shall we just go ahead and eliminate these reports from
subcommittees? At this point, I think we are all acting as a full commission. So we’ll
just take item 8 off the next agenda and basically you’re disbanning the committee since
it’s done what it was set up to do.
MS. O’HARA:
That’s good.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED
IN DRAFT REPORT FORMAT OF DRAFT REPORT:
MS. WONG:
So that we’ll send out as revised.
MS. GARSON:
And let me just comment because our staff had a difficult time in
organizing what happened. Because what happened was you adopted the outline and
then Marilyn had her suggestions, but she was working off of the old agenda. So we
were not sure of the headings because Marilyn had made some changes to the topic.
So just as an example on page 7, if you look at b, well, actually it’s aalso. In the outline
if I’m not mistaken, it says Compensation Package as a heading for that item. On the
previous agenda, it was Review of the complete compensation package for employees.
And so we were not sure if you were changing that to compensation package or if you
were leaving that. And what happened was Marilyn had changed the language of some
of the other items. So we just put them both in there. That’s why it looks the way it
does. Does that make sense?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes.
MS. GARSON:
So at some point, I assume you’d want to choose. It’s redundant but
we put it in there to let you choose how, what you wanted it to be.
36
MS. WONG:
And since Marilyn is not here, should we wait till she returns and get her
input or do we even need to do that? Just leave it as is?
MR. MATSUDA:
No, let’s just change it to review of the complete compensation
package for employees and delete compensation package.
MR. ARMOUR:
There’s more than just one.
MR. MATSUDA:
Oh really. That’s right. I think we should wait till she comes back.
That’s a good idea.
MS. O’HARA:
I’d prefer to wait until Marilyn is back.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAFT OF “ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY
THE COUNTY” PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER WONG:
MS. WONG:
Moving to item number 10.
MS. GARSON:
So you’re not discussing anything in that draft?
MS. WONG:
Of the previously recommended until Marilyn comes back. 10 is
Discussion regarding draft of essential services provided by the county provided by me.
I have a comment on that. There was a portion that I thought I had included and I
guess I didn’t. Page 5 it would be. At the bottom of the page what I had intended on
doing was to add from the Charter, what it says that the commission, our commission is
supposed to be doing. And that is: To study and investigate the organizations and
methods of operations of all departments, commissions, boards, offices and other
instrumentalities of all branches of the county government and determine what changes
if any may be desirable to accomplish the policy set forth. That’s in the Charter, page
13, number 2. And that’s to focus on what we have been attempting to do to look at that
although we were looking at other revenue enhancement as well, and other aspects.
But that’s what we were charged to do so I wanted to make sure that was in my section.
MS. O’HARA:
Where in this would you insert that?
MS. WONG:
Right at the bottom after –We understand that this is the policy of the
county. Actually I wrote, as set forth by Charter the COGC set forth to study and
investigate, and then all the rest of that sentence. Is that agreeable to the members?
MS. CARVALHO:
So that’s going to be after number 4 like its own paragraph?
MR. MATSUDA:
Another paragraph.
MS. WONG:
Yes.
MS. CARVALHO:
Okay.
MS. WONG:
Any other comments about what was submitted, my portion was
submitted? Is it too much? Is it enough?
37
MS. O’HARA:
It’s a lot of good information, Gloria. To me, the way it’s formatted is a
little disjointed and I’d like it to flow better. I haven’t had time to play with it.
MS. WONG:
But you will?
MS. O’HARA:
I’ll try. And it may now just as it’s listed. I mean it’s good to have
listings, but somehow pull it together a little better because it could easily get ignored in
its current format and I think it’s real important stuff.
MS. WONG:
And I honed it down from what it was before. And then I think what looks
like a lot of space is where the County of Hawai‘i is organized as follows. And it just
seems to be, I was trying to compare what is the normal and what we do, and it doesn’t
visually pan out.
MS. O’HARA:
It might be a graphic would be better in this case. I don’t know. I could
play around with it.
MS. WONG:
But you’ll look at it.
MS. O’HARA:
Under Miscellaneous you have also debt service, and then above you
have debt services a single item on page 5 at the top.
MS. WONG:
Yes. I noticed that. This came from Bill Takaba, so I didn’t revise it, and I
had intended on asking him during the meeting. There were a couple of things I was
intending on asking him and he’s not here today so I can either email him or ask him at
the next meeting.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah. Other should be defined or left out.
MS. WONG:
I’ll email him and clarify it. Anything else in that section?
DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT:
MS. WONG:
Agenda item 11. I think maybe some of the things that were discussed
today could be added, but we’d have to perhaps bring that to the next meeting to make
those statements. One of the things that I’d like to pose, I don’t know where to pose it,
but it seems like, maybe I’m just missing it, but we didn’t address the Green Team. And
I think that’s an important area. I don’t know where we put it but I’d like something
noted in our recommendations to enhance or acknowledge the Green Team’s efforts.
And then Bobby Jean, today, talked about deleting the audit of every program.
MS. O’HARA:
Every four years.
MS. WONG:
Right. She said instead someone should just select programs to be
audited instead of every program.
MS. O’HARA:
And that’s in the Charter?
38
MS. GARSON:
Was she talking about the Legislative Auditor? Then it’s in the Charter.
MS. O’HARA:
It’s in the Charter? Has it been there, I mean that’s not a change?
MS. GARSON: .
I don’t think so. I’ll lookSo, what we can do is, rather than discussing
those items since they are new items, what we can do is under item 11 for your next
agenda, we can put two items there and hence acknowledge Green team, deleting audit
of all programs every four years. And then you can discuss it at the next one and
decide if you want move those forward. All right?
MS. O’HARA:
Sounds great.
MR. MATSUDA:
Okay.
MS. O’HARA:
I mean, we did have a presentation from the Green Team early on.
MS. GARSON:
So, we enhance,acknowledge, you want to call it something else?
MS. O’HARA:
I think we just wanted to discuss how to support their recommendations
that are cost savings.
MS. WONG:
We recommend support.
MS. O’HARA:
Wesupport recommendations of the Green Team. It’s going to be
something of that nature.
MS. WONG:
And I think agenda item number 12 actually is a sub item of 11 because
we’re clarifying now and we discussed how we would want to add it into consolidation of
boards and commissions. It seems, am I going out of turn?
MS. GARSON:
So are you now on 12?
MS. WONG:
Which we’ll go back into 11 eventually. I think I’d like to put the results of
what we talked about in 12 to be added into the recommendations
MS. GARSON:
Yeah. But you’re actually fine. 12 is there so you can discuss it all
today and do whatever you want with it today. That’s why it’s different. That’s why it’s
separately agendized. You’ve talked about it. If you wanted to formulate a
recommendation today on those things, you can as long as you place it in the draft
report.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSOLIDATIN OF BOARD AND COMMISSIONS:
MS. WONG:
Okay. Let’s address that right now. Number 1, Consolidation of Boards
and Commissions. Agricultural and Energy Commission. It seems that the
recommendation from R&D was not to combine those two. Do we want to agree with
that and not make that as a recommendation? Now that I’ve watched DVDs and sort of
read the minutes on this, I kind of see where that can go. Not where it is now, but
39
where that can go of combining it. I’d be supportive of furthering that thought. But
maybe it’s just too early.
MS. O’HARA:
I would see furthering it. Especially if, this is why I kept questioning
what the committees were doing in terms of function. If they’re simply identifying areas
that need further study, recommending these studies be done, and then the county
department R&D goes out and contracts for these studies, I would see their role as
being more limited than a group of expertise that comes together, a group of experts
who come together to actually conduct those studies. In which case it’s more a chance
it. So if they’re at that level of making broad stroke recommendations, then I would go
with the recommendation to consolidate at the next appointment, which will be three
years hence or whenever.
MS. WONG:
What do you folks think about that? If not, we’re the voices that say,
forward this.
MR. ARMOUR:
I don’t know. I don’t see where it would benefit being combined.
MS. WONG:
You don’t see?
MR. ARMOUR:
No.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I agree with him too.
MS. WONG:
So far, two to two.
MR. MATSUDA:
As far as the combination, he expressed himself very well. And I’m
not sure who is going to make the decision but if they can meet every other month, I
have no idea what their agenda is like,but that would be good. That would be good and
that will be some cost savings.
MS. O’HARA:
Is that not going to be a general recommendation review for all boards
and commissions?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes, it is going to be a general recommendation. Correct.
MS. WONG:
I was watching on channel 53,where I think it was being presented to the
County Council. I just caught the last part of it, but there was a presentation by
someone that came from the mainland and Richard Ha was, and this is related to this.
Richard Ha was part of this group of people talking about energy and agriculture,and
talking to the county and how this could be the state of the art for the nation, a model
program. And I thought, what timing that this comes, the program. And they talked
about how this could be really supportive of energy throughout the state,based on
agriculture. And people like me would not have a clue about that. How exciting that
could be.
MS. O’HARA:
You know, there’s great overlapping. And I still think that you could
have one commission and appoint appropriate expertise to one commission to cover
both topics especially given the nature of the work that the commissions are doing.
40
MR. ARMOUR:
If it were in a different environment it would make sense because like
in Holland they have mutual greenhouses that actually produce energy based on the
heat and then put it down on a heat sink and then the turn it around and put it back into
the grid. And that type of thing you’re talking multi million dollar greenhouses in order to
do this.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I just don’t think it’s the time. I think it’s too early. Even if you’re
looking three years. Especially if you’re going to a meeting once every other month. I
just don’t think it’s a great time.
MS. WONG:
So, it’s at three to two. Are you saying not now?
MR. MATSUDA:
Not now.
MS. WONG:
Okay. Then we’ll pass on that. Police Commission and Fire Board of
Appeals. It seems like the recommendation through the letter is no. Shall we say no to
that on consolidation? Fire Board of Appeals and Fire Commission? That’s what was
addressed on the letter. Fire Board of Appeals and Fire Commission. The letter said,
we recommending not on that. Do we want to agree with that? No consolidation. And
Committee on Aging and Committee on People With Disabilities?
MS. CARVALHO:
That’s on there because Allan Parker wrote a letter, and at that time
that wasn’t under consolidation, so on his letter, he was also against it. It was
communication 2011-3.
MS. WONG:
So, we’re not moving forward at this time any consolidation of boards and
commissions. Is that correct?
MS. O’HARA:
Sounds right.
MS. WONG:
Termination of Board/Commission. A is Cost of Government
Commission. Let’s move to B first. All Community Development Plan Action
Committees and all Community Development Plan Steering Committees. So action and
steering committee. It seems that Bobby Jean was saying today keeping the steering
committee and perhaps extending the steering committee or leaving both alone
because it’s phasing itself out.
MS. O’HARA:
I think the recommendation she made that made the most sense was to
combine the steering and action committees. The steering committees then convened,
appointed a year or two before they finish the plan. They do the plan, and then they
have a 10 year, another two years to make sure that the plan, that the steps are taken
for implementation. And because these really are supposed to be more short term then
they’re designated currently by Charter because it starts with the CDP, then you go to
the revision to the General Plan. It’s a 10-year process. So, we just created an action
committee that it goes on forever without a termination. It really doesn’t make any
sense to me. It would be very hard to sustain and it takes resources from the Planning
Department that could be directed elsewhere on work that needs to be done. I like that
final recommendation she came up with.
41
MS. WONG:
She didn’t really say to, didn’t she say to –the steering committee
extended and delete the action committee.
MS. O’HARA:
Right. That’s what I said.
MS. WONG:
I thought you were saying to continue the action committee.
MS. O’HARA:
No. Set a term for them so it looks like a four-year appointment.
MS. PROVALENKO:
So there’s actions on both sides.
MS. O’HARA:
And you develop the plan and then for a couple of years thereafter you
identify the steps that’s going to get you there.
MS. WONG:
So, we’re agreeing that overall agreeing on that?
MS. O’HARA:
Yes.
MS. GARSON:
Can someone please articulate exactly what the recommendation is.
MS. O’HARA:
The recommendation is to eliminate both the steering committees and
action committees and create one CDP support committee that conducts the activities
currently conducted by steering committees and follows through with implementation
recommendations for the first two years after the plan is adopted.
MS. WONG:
That’s going into the Items to be added?
MS. GARSON:
So, what we’ll do is we’ll actually place that in the draft report and then
it’s in the draft report for you to refine and discuss.
MS. O’HARA:
That’s almost like a department specific recommendation than a general
boards and commission.
MS. GARSON:
So we’ll go ahead. So you want us to put it under Planning Department
and a department specific recommendation?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes.
MS. WONG:
We may change our minds later. And then the Cost of Government
Commission.
MS. O’HARA:
Well, personally I’m uncomfortable recommending the termination of the
Cost of Government Commission as it diminishes the value of our report.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I agree.
MS. WONG:
So, out of this agenda item 12, the only one that we’re moving forward is
the 2b or not 2b.2b.
42
MS. GARSON:
Okay. So what you’re going to do, you’re not really moving it forward,
you’re moving it into your draft report, and at this point, is the commission done
discussing consolidation of boards and commissions? Shall we eliminate now that
agenda item for the future? So, it becomes, you can discuss the CDP thing in part of
the draft report. We’re not going to have a separate item for consolidation.
ALL:
Yes.
MS. WONG:
Any other accessory comments on consolidation of boards and
commissions? Other ideas? None. Moving on to number 13.
MS. O’HARA:
Just a minute, we do have a general recommendation on boards and
commissions about meeting less often and
MS. CARVALHO:
That’s in the draft.
MS. O’HARA:
So that’s already in the draft? Okay.
DISCUSSION ON IMPACT FEES AND FAIR SHARE:
MS. WONG:
Discussion on impact fees and fair share.
MS. O’HARA:
Well, to summarize what I believe Bobby Jean was saying is she does
not support the current impact fee ordinance in its current format because ultimately she
will receive less than under the existing fair share system. One of the recognized
problems with either of these systems is that it is regional and receipt of fees does not
occur until there is actual development on the ground.A building permit would trigger in
either case, where the subdivision process in the fair share. So, you don’t receive
monies up front in either situation. An alternative might be to create a percentage fund
under the property taxes that the county currently collects like we do with the open
space fund. It’s two percent. And that would be for an islandwide infrastructure fund.
So the monies they collected is not specific to a particular region. It’s where it’s needed.
And at this point, that could be done without increasing the pie, meaning without
increasing the tax base. It could just mean allocating a percentage to an infrastructure
fund. My concern as a citizen on this island is we’re falling behind significantly on
development of the infrastructure that we need to support the growth of this island. It’s
exactly 20 years our population has more than doubled, or doubled. And I think we will
find in another 20 years that we’re very short of what we need to support the population
we have at that point in time. So my concern is we don’t have enough funds coming in
for capital improvement projects. It’s a recommendation to consider.
MS. WONG:
Comments from the commission? Succinctly, what are we saying? I’m
not sure what you’re recommending.
MS. O’HARA:
A percentage of the property tax.
MS. WONG:
A percentage of the property tax. Okay.
43
MS. O’HARA:
Be set aside for capital improvement projects, what you would call an
infrastructure fund. And it would not be regional as the fair share program currently is.
MR. MATSUDA:
So we’re not deleting these impact fees and fair share?
MS. O’HARA:
We’re not deleting them. But, impact fee is an ordinance before the
council currently. Fair share is already in place. And it wouldn’t affect the existing fair
share contribution fund.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Are you suggesting an additional percent?
MS. O’HARA:
Yes. An additional percentage fund to collect islandwide capital
improvement monies. As the fair share system works, it’s in the regions in which the
development occurs. Same with impact fees. So right now with very few developments
in South Hilo, you’re not getting any money in that fund. And yet there’s a need for
infrastructure development.
MS. WONG:
How long of a process would it take to put something to put something
like that in place? Do you know? Just a decision?
MS. O’HARA:
No.
MS. WONG:
Wouldn’t it take a long process?
MS. O’HARA:
What would the process be for something like that, Kathy?
MS. WONG:
Seems like it would have go to council, a Charter.
MS. O’HARA:
Is it a Charter amendment? Is it a Code amendment? How would that
be done?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Or is it by vote? Because the two percent, didn’t we have to vote
on it?
MS. O’HARA:
Well that went through a citizens petition.
MS. GARSON:
Right. But it’s the mandatory set aside. If you’re going to do it that
way, my assumption would be that it would be a Charter amendment. And if you want
to mandate that a certain percentage of property tax be set aside for something. It
would be nice if you could have this conversation when Mr. Takaba was present
because I’m sure that he would know and have an idea.
MS. WONG:
Shall we wait until the next meeting?
MS. GARSON:
But you’re not talking about impact fees and fair share, so do you want
to have an agenda item that says discussion of setting aside a percentage of property
taxes for CIP?
MS. WONG:
I think we want to look at it as a comparison or
44
MS. GARSON:
As a comparison of impact fees and fair share, and this.
MS. WONG:
To keeping that on the agenda and adding to it.
DISCUSSION ON E-WASTE AND PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAMS:
MS. WONG:
Moving on to 14, Discussion on e-waste and pay as you throw programs.
We were sent the information from Paul. Read that. Watched dvd on that too. I’m
ordering everything from Netflix about documentaries on energy and agriculture and
energy. I actually found these sessions and I found information on it. It’s fairly
interesting. And e-waste –bad stuff.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah. Did you watch, if you’re watching videos, the one that was
produced by Recycle Hawaii? Malama i ka Aina.
MS. WONG:
No.
MS. O’HARA:
Well I struggled with the illegal dumping. I have a copy. I’ll try to
remember to bring it to the next meeting. But it counters something that I hear all the
time from our county officials which is that if we were to charge for dumping waste that
we would experience greater illegal dumping. And I think we would, but it would be very
short term because it’s a behavioral issue. It’s not about the money. If you were to
watch this video, that point is made by kupuna that are interviewed in this video. That
it’s really a behavioral issue. I think once you become accustomed to be receiving
something for free, there is going to be that initial reaction. But these are not free
services. There’s a big cost involved in not properly disposing of our waste. So, I think
very shortly, with time and education that that initial problem would dissipate very
quickly. We would still have the illegal dumping that we have unfortunately that’s a long
term education situation. And it needs to be worked on continuously. So I’d personally
disagree with that. I think that it could be a successful pay as you throw system. But
what Bobby Jean was pointing out is there is no collection mechanism right now. We
don’t have our transfer stations. We don’t go through a toll booth. They’re not guarded.
Well, they’re guarded by a security guard service that is not even county. So there’s no
way that you could do a collection mechanism as it’s set up currently to collect money
on site. So the idea of having a preprinted bag or something that is provided to
residents, but it’s got to be convenient. People are not going to do anything that isn’t
convenient. So, there are challenges to implementing a pay as you throw system here.
I still feel that it needs to be looked at. Again the other option is what I recommended
with the infrastructure fund is to have the fee attached to your property tax bill, whether
it’s a set fee of $25 a household or whether it’s a percentage. It covers that residential
waste which we currently do not cover at all. We collect tip fees on commercial waste
only at the landfill. And for some reason, we have this assumption that that’s going to
cover the residential waste on this island. And we, as an island, our percentage is 60%
residential and 40% commercial. In most places its higher commercial and less
residential, but with us, we don’t have a lot of commercial. So, the system doesn’t make
sense in the way it’s financially structured right now. So, those are kind of the options.
It’s a pay as you throw at the gate or it’s a you purchase bags in advance or somehow
45
acquire these bags and you pay for those and then you dump your garbage in those, or
you tack on something to the property tax for residential.
MS. WONG:
Shall we hold this on the agenda for next time when Bill is here as well?
MS. O’HARA:
Sure.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I do have to go.
MS. WONG:
Okay.I’m very conscious of that. We can hold off agenda item 15 till the
next meeting as well.
MS. GARSON:
I’m going to remove 15A because it was discussion about
subcommittees.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE MEETING DATES:
MS. WONG:
Okay. Discussion regarding future meeting dates. We’ll leave it as is for
now.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA:
MS. WONG:
Items to be placed on the next agenda. Anything additional other than
what we said? Everyone will be here for the next meeting which is May 13?
th
MS. O’HARA:
May 13, Friday the 13.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
MS. WONG:
Announcement. Any other comments before we move towards the
announcement? The next meeting of the Cost of Government Commission will be held
on Friday, May 13, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., at the Liquor Control Conference Room, Hilo
Lagoon Centre, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, HI 96720.
ADJOURNMENT:
MS. WONG:
Meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Arriola
46