|
where he recommended denial of the claim. He alluded to these issues as well. So, I just wanted
<br />to bring it to your attention. You know, we're looking at the practical effect. If the Commission
<br />is desirous of you know having the community move forward with the study, you know,
<br />engaging in a study, your desirous, you identify the beneficial effects of having such a study,
<br />then what I'd sure hate to happen is that this approval moves forward, and at the end of the day,
<br />nothing really happens because of the legal, you know, defects within the actual claim.
<br />I think you know, the desire of the Commission is to have this move forward and let's get this
<br />going, and if that's the case, I just wanted to raise those issues, so that being said, my
<br />recommendation would be to remand the claim back to the Planning Department, have the
<br />Planning Department work with the Applicant to address these two specific areas. Maybe an
<br />amendment or redrafting that portion of the claim. Resubmitting it to the claims adjuster after
<br />the corrections are made, and moving forward from there. And, I'm not sure if the Planning
<br />Director has anything else to add. I hope I was able to articulate you know those concerns
<br />clearly.
<br />KANUHA: Members of the Commission, the issue that we're raising are primarily procedural,
<br />and not, you know, we're not in opposition to the Commission's desire to go ahead and issue this
<br />particular claim. We just want to make sure that procedurally, that it's, that it's all in place. I
<br />believe both Corporation Counsels will validate that in lieu of a specific claim with damages, this
<br />particular aspect and also some of the other claims that were issued for proposals by the Mayor
<br />are not those kinds of specific claims which you know once validated could be paid. But these
<br />are claims for studies, contractual work, that all need to fall under the procurement requirement
<br />of the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii.
<br />BRILHANTE: That's correct, Director. This actual claim is not, like the Director was the
<br />saying, for a specific injury, related to a specific injury. It's more analogous to Section 3, which
<br />is a claim for a community approved mitigation project. This would fall under that component.
<br />MOSES: Commissioners, any questions?
<br />HEAUKULANL I have some questions.
<br />MOSES: Yes, Commissioner Heaukulani.
<br />HEAUKULANL Bill, thank you for that, and I understand the issues with procurement laws, but
<br />how is this different from when we funded, I don't know, what was the phrase? Meta -study or
<br />study of a study. How is this different than, than when we funded that one?
<br />BRILHANTE: My understanding, and my review of the, the application that came in from the
<br />Mayor's office regarding funding the study for the meta -data was that the RFP process for that
<br />one, or the, the final entity who would conduct the study wasn't specifically identified, so an
<br />RFP process was initiated by the County, the Finance Department, in conjunction with the
<br />Mayor's office, and there was a competitive proposal, a notice for you know submission of bids
<br />was provided to everybody and a review committee was established, and a particular entity was,
<br />4
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />
|