2006-07-06 Cost of Government Commission Minutes

Home

12. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Garson brought up that at the COGC's May 4, 2006, meeting, when she was not present, there was discussion on the wastewater and sewer connection costs, and it was suggested they explore financial assistance for people who had difficulty affording the hook -up. She said there already is a sewer connection loan program that was created for this purpose, so they may not want to put this on their list of recommendations. She will make copies or e -mail them the section of the Hawaii County Code (Article V, Section 21 -37) that discusses the sewer connection loan program. She knew the program existed because she once filed an enforcement action against a woman who refused to hook up. The woman's home was the first in line in this area, and no one else could hook up until she did. The woman eventually got an attorney to help her, and the case was resolved. The Commission took a break from 10:45 a.m. to 10:50 a.m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order. Motion: The Chair asked if there was any motion to accept and file the Department of Environmental Management's response, Communication No. 2006 -38. Ms. Stremski so moved, and Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. Discussion: There was discussion on the proper procedure to follow in motions to accept and file communications, and whether motions for recommendations could be made while the motion to accept and file the communication was on the table. Ms. Garson said that if someone has an idea while discussing a communication, it could be voted on, and then they could eventually vote on filing the communication at the end of the discussion. The Chair suggested they accept and file the communication first, and then discuss motions for recommendations afterwards. Ms. Garson said it would be a little backwards, but they could look at the communication, make recommendations, and then move to file the communication. Or, the current motion could be withdrawn, everyone can look at the communication, and someone can make a motion based on the communication. Motion Withdrawn: Ms. Stremski moved to withdraw her motion, and Ms. Provalenko withdrew her second of the motion. Ms. Garson said that for departments which the COGC has already spoken to, they might want to j of their recommendations down. However, if they have not spoken to a department yet, they may not be at the stage where they want to make recommendations. They could, however, narrow the scope of topics down so they are prepared with questions to ask departments based upon their letters. She could e -mail the departments about specifically what the COGC wants to talk to them about. The Chair told the commissioners to quickly review the communication for discussion or recommendations. 31