Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 1999-10-27MEETING OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1999 ALPHABETICAL INDEX Subject Page numbers Adjournment 62 Administration/Administrative Branch 5, 12, 18, 49 Attendance 1 Board of Appeals 43, 44, 46, 47 Board of Ethics 42, 44, 45, 46 Boards and Commissions 29, 44, 46, 47 Budget 59 Call to Order 1 Citizens Advocate 44 Civil Defense 40 Civil Service Commission 47 Communications 5 Corporation Counsel 32, 34, 38, 42 County Charter Articles/Chapters 1, 2, 27, 28, 29 Article I, Section 1-1 1, 2 Section 8-2 29 Section 8-3 28 Section 8-4 27 County Council 26, 30, 39, 40, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60 At -large 51, 55 Six -Three 55 Single member districts 30, 51, 55 Terms 56 • County/Council Manager 51, 52, 53, 55 Department of Environment 15, 22, 25, 60 Election Deadlines 5 Emergency Services 40, 42 Emergency Chief 42 Encumbrance 3, 4 Finance Department 44 Financial Status Report 5 Fire Department 40, 41, 42 Fire Chief 42 General Fund 14, 21, 26, 27, 28 Geographical limits on the Island of Hawaii 1, 2 Hawaiian Home Lands 2, 3 Initiative and Referendum 5 Legislative Branch 18 Liquor Commission 47 Managing Director 50, 52, 53, 54 Qualifications 54 Mayor 32, 39, 44, 49, 52, 53, 54, 59 Meetings 60, 61 Regular 61 Special 61 Minutes New Business Office of Information Practices' Statute 4 1 35 • Parks and Recreation 44 Permitting Division 23, 41, 43, 48 Planning Commission 46, 47 Planning Department 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 Director 44, 47 Police Commission 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 Police Department Administrative Review Board Police Chief 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46 34, 37 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 Prosecuting Attorney 39, 40, 44, 46 Public Hearings 30 Public Safety Department 40, 41, 42 Public Works Commission 7, 9 Public Works Department 5, 7, 8, 12, 19, 22, 25, 26, 41, 48, 49, 50, 58, 60 Chief Engineer 49, 50 Sanitation Department 19 Sewer Commission 12, 17, 23 Sewer Department 6, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 Solid Waste 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 58, 59, 60 State of Hawaii Constitution 3 Statements from the Public 1 Subdivision Code 48, 49 Unfinished Business 2, 5, 32, 48 • Wastewater Commission 21 Wastewater Division 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 57, 58, 59, 60 Water Commission 5, 10, 11, 29 Water Fund 27 Water Supply Department 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 48, 50, 57, 58, 60 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Meeting of October 27, 1999 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine„ G. Martin, J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel Chris Yuen Absent: E. Alonzo, S. Bess, K. Balog, D. Kurozawa And 5 members of the public in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m. RAY: The October 27th Special Meeting of the 1999-2000 County Charter Commission is called to order. Present at this time; myself John Ray, Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice Chair; Marni Herkes; Sue Irvine; George Martin; John Santangelo; and Gary Yoshiyama, and we're expecting a couple of other folks momentarily. Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. We have two folks signed up, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. If anybody else wants to speak on anything on the agenda, you can. First, Patrick, you want to come up and introduce yourself. KAHAWA'OLA'A: We can come up there together because it's basically the same. RAY: That's fine. And try to speak into the mike. It's not for hearing you; it's because we record all this stuff, doing verbatim minutes. KAHAWA'OLA'A: I'd like to say good afternoon to the members of the Charter Commission. It gives me pleasure to be here for the fact I see, on your New Business, which is a general review of the Charter. I think that was not available at that particular time on your agenda items, obviously, as you were going through it, I don't think you had a subject matter of a general review, but when we saw this, it compelled us to be here based in the Charter. And being that you were convened to review the Charter, myself, as a Native Hawaiian, has had great conflicts within this Charter, that I need to bring forward to this body who is going to make recommendations on how the Charter is to be revised, if any, or things that's going to happen. I specifically would like to direct all of you to ARTICLE I, Section 1-1. The geographical limits on the Island of Hawaii, and all of the islands within these shores thereof, and the waters adjacent thereto, shall be the County of Hawaii. That, in itself, causes conflicts with myself as a 1 • Native Hawaiian, and it is inconsistent with the Federal and State laws, based on the Admissions Act compact, that in 1959, an agreement made between the State of Hawaii and the United States of America. Section 4 of the Admissions Act clearly states that the encumbrance on the premise known as Hawaiian home lands shall not be increased without the consent of the United States. It is clear by this definition of the geographical limits of the County of Hawaii, thereby your powers under this Charter shall be - it's the whole island. Obviously, on this island, there are some conflicts because on this island, it's my understanding, as a Native Hawaiian born on the homestead, that this island has the greatest acreage of Hawaiian home lands, and this here tells me that the County's Charter, their law book, says that all of these identified in the geographical limits is the 187,000 acres of Hawaiian home lands that are on this island, and that's why I'm here before this Charter Commission. For you to take consideration that there is, as far as the Native Hawaiian is concerned, and as far as the Admissions Act of the Federal State compact, that there is a violation. There is also a prohibition that, without this fundamental document called the Consent of the United States, this county would obviously be operating in violation of those State and Federal laws that the Admissions Act, Section 4, was created during 1959 at statehood, to avoid. And this is what I need this Charter Commission - I do realize the hard work that all of you have been doing through reports to the news media, that the involvement that all of you are trying to make this a better place to live, however, no consideration was ever given, and again I'd like to go back to the Native Hawaiians. Let me remind • you, it's not the Native Hawaiians that are special. It was Congress that created the lands that made us special, and on this island, there happens to be 187,000 acres of that special land that this geographical identification, or definition, within the County Charter tells us Native Hawaiians totally different. However, in our dealings with the County, with those people that are within your Charter, that are basically all here on your agenda today in Unfinished Business, we've, as Native Hawaiians, have had conflicting ways to do, how it's done; Hawaiian's, like, you can do this or you don't have to do that; maybe we can do this, maybe you guys can do that. And that is totally contrary to the Charter, which specifically states - So my presence here today is to let the body know that great consideration should be taken by this body, whose only job, my understanding, every ten years or twenty years that comes about, when they review the Charter, is to make those adjustments or correct inequities that are within the Charter, and that is absolutely why I'm here. To let you know that there are inequities and there are remedies that can be brought forth in the Charter Amendment, which no one has taken that opportunity to - it's not that we haven't given the County an opportunity to do that, but no one has taken us seriously, and have decided to come forward and express it through their document, their law book, that governs everything that happens within the geographical limitations of this Charter and of this County of Hawaii. So, unless the County Charter Commission is prepared to tell me that, yes indeed, the County ARTICLE I, Section 1-1 is correct, and that the County now has powers and authority over these lands that I've identified as Hawaiian home lands, and this County, indeed, has the right, and the authority,, and the jurisdiction, to • • manage those lands in conformity with the State and Federal law of the Admissions Act compact, Section 4, then I'm prepared to go otherwise. Other than that, that's my purpose for being here to express that to this body. JIM: Hello. I'd just like to say a few words and that's to kind of enforce, and would like this body to take consideration in the Admission Act, Section 4 concerning the encumbrance authorized to manage Hawaiian home lands, and I'd just like to say that we find that is, the County, itself, enforcing, we believe, illegal based on the Section of increasing of encumbrance because we deal with the County attorneys and prosecutors, and we're into Federal Courts, and just a (indiscernible) to you that they even admit that they don't have the documents that allow them to operate and manage the encumbrance. I'd like you to have special attention in that. And then, of course, your State of Hawaii Constitution - we'd like you to look at ARTICLE 12, Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3, which clearly identified about the encumbrance increased. Thank you very much for your time, and if it's possible, you could notify us, and give a letter of your decision about the Admission Act and Constitution, and the past violations we believe the Charter has done, by actions of the State offices and County offices. So please address us. Thank you. RAY: Thank you. Any questions for these gentlemen? Ms. Irvine, yes? IRVINE: I guess I did have a question. I'm not real familiar with the Acts that you're quoting. I know you folks are much more knowledgeable about that. If we were to somehow exempt Hawaiian home lands from the County of Hawaii, would this not create quite a problem for infrastructure and that sort of thing at this time? JIM: I don't know about the concerns because I'm hearing concerns of the County and the concerns of the Native Hawaiians. That's what I'm hearing from you, because of the laws that it has made. My suggestions to this Board, and to the County, the only one that can resolve that question is the State and the Federal government because of their compact they made of federalism, and those laws are governed. And as we understand it, through many cases, that the courts lack jurisdiction on federalism based on the compact of legislation, so therefore, I believe your County Council, at one time, went to Congress and tried to address that issue. But again, I think you need to look at the Constitution, ARTICLE 1, Section 10. It clearly tells you it takes two parties to eliminate, or remake, or re-amend the federalism compact on Section 4. And so the question to that, it's not ours, and it's not the Department of Hawaiian Homes, and it's not the County, because they're all under the County Charter. The Commissioners, Hawaiian Home Commission Act, it's all under the provisions, so those provisions are created by bodies of government to government, and that's the legislation of the United States and the State of Hawaii and it's people, so it takes a referendum to do that. That's all I can suggest, ma'am. RAY: Any other questions? Mr. Yuen, did this issue come up in the last Charter review? I don't mean to catch you off guard. I know you don't have total recall, close to it, but - YUEN: the things we did. RAY: Mr. Yuen was the attorney for the last Charter Commission as well, so I was asking if this came up at the last Charter review, if he remembers. I'm amazed at how little recall I do have when I go back and look at JIM: Oh, I see. Okay. YUEN: I know it's not something that was discussed. All I can say about that is that the fact that this County consists of this island is a matter of State law, and it dates from the early 1900's that the County of Hawaii encompasses this island. RAY: JIM: RAY: Anyway, we'll look into it. May I address that? Sure. JIM: It also states, what you just mentioned, it was carried over by the Admission Act, but I would like you to look at the Admission Act, Section 15. It clearly identified that the encumbrance on that Act is forbidden by the State legislation because of the compact, and I would like you to address that. Thank you. RAY: Okay. Thank you for coming in. Nice to see you, Patrick. That concludes our Statements from the Public. We did have a communication that Mr. Pranke would be attending but he can testify when and if he shows up. Number IV. Minutes Approval. The minutes of October 13t" that were distributed. Do I have a motion to approve? HIGASHI: So moved. RAY: Second? YOSHIYAMA: Second. RAY: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? 4 • COMMISSIONERS: Aye. RAY: Minutes approved. Financial Status Report: It's unchanged since the last report we made. Communications. This is in your packet you received today. There's a memorandum from the County Clerk in regard to Election Deadlines; a copy of a newspaper article from Publisher Jim Wilson, Tribune -Herald; an article that I had copied from the American City and County Magazine; ACLU Guidelines from Mr. Coco Pierson, that he furnished us with; and a copy of the exhaustive minutes from our marathon session in Waimea, which I'm sure you'll enjoy reading over the next week or so. Additionally, we did pass out, at the start of the meeting, a couple of written communications from our attorney, Mr. Yuen, in regard to items that came up at the last meeting, as well as I want to thank Sue Irvine for the research she did in regard to some of the same issues, Initiative and Referendum, and so, anyway, we can all read that and digest it, and we'll agendize it for future discussion. Moving on to Unfinished Business. A, B, and C, the Department of Water Supply, Water Commission, and Public Works. All are agendized to really encompass one • major issue, and this is a verbal recommendation, initiative, that was put forth by the Administration, in late spring of this year. The idea of transferring the Division of, or possibly some of the functions of, the County Wastewater Division, which is under the Public Works Department to the Department of Water Supply, and to look into how partially, or in whole, that relationship might work. I know that the Water Department and the Water Commission have been spending a lot of time discussing that, and they're both here, as well as the head of the Wastewater Division from Public Works, Mr. Peter Boucher. So, I don't know how you want to handle this, who wants to come up first. We have testimony in writing from Mr. Pavao, so you want to lead in with that? You want to bring anybody else up to table, that's fine. Please introduce yourself and speak into the microphone so we can get all this recorded. PAVAO: Good afternoon. My name is Milton Pavao. I'm Manager for the Department of Water Supply. With me, here today, is our Water Commission Chairman, Mr. John Souza; my Deputy Manager, Mr. Quirino Antonio; and our Finance Division Head, Richard Tsunoda. So, if you have questions, they can be directed to them, as well. I'm here today to speak against the proposed Charter Amendment that would transfer the Wastewater Division to the Department of Water Supply. As Chairman Ray said, I have submitted two separate documents. One is a letter and one is a list of pros and cons. While it's not my intent to read either one of them, I'd like to kind of highlight some of the things that I think should be mentioned. When we first saw the proposed Charter Amendment, the reasons given were that this would make enforceable sewer billing, and would make possible, initiatives for the use of recycled water, for appropriate purposes. On the issue of enforceable sewer billings, we have been meeting with the Sewer Department for about two years now, to accomplish just this, and we're at a point where we have a common understanding of what we'll do and how we'll help the Sewer Department. Right now, because of the computer system that we have in place, we cannot physically include sewer billings on our bill. As you notice, those that do get our billing, it's a postcard, and that postcard doesn't have enough fields to put sewer billing on, and not enough fields to even get a total for that. So what we've done, maybe about a year ago, we started a process of getting a new financial management system. The hardware came in about two weeks ago, so we're in the process of setting it up so our Accounting people can get some training on the financial management system. With that financial management system, we assured the Sewer Department that we would take on their sewer billings, and we would use the leverage of our discontinuation of water to enforce sewer billings, so that process is already in place. It's not something that's not there. It's something we agreed. We met with Mr. Boucher and his staff many, many times, and we're real close to it. The only thing that's stopping us is having the financial management system completed and in place. Then the other thing; the initiative for use of recycled water for appropriate purposes. I don't know of any system on the island, other than the private system, and the system at the Kona old airport, that is presently using recycled water. I know a lot of the private hotels do it, but as far as the County, it's only at the old Kailua airport. And we've talked to Sewer too, and if ever a point in time where they need assistance, we certainly will assist. The thing is, though, bear in mind, our charge is to deliver domestic water. This recycled water will not be for consumption. It will probably be for irrigation; something that the State is talking about a lot nowadays. So that, kind of, addresses the two reasons given why the transfer should be made, and I think those two reasons are well addressed already. Also, if you look on my letter, there's a whole bunch of financial information, and I won't go over it. You can read the figures for yourself, but the basic thing is that the Sewer Department is in some financial problem because of EPA mandates, whereby the system has to be funded from the users, otherwise it will be a violation. There's all kinds of stuff, and if you looked at the Council meetings, Mr. Boucher made very good presentations on what should be done, and how it should be done. There is a definite problem with the Sewer Department, and the problem is, in my opinion, there's so much facilities with so few customers. Any utility that has facilities with few customers are going to suffer. That's how it is. And if you expect 5,000 people to pay the realistic rate, to pay for the facilities, the cost would be outrageous. So there is a definite problem. But the problem shouldn't be transferred to somebody else. The problem should be fixed, not transferred, and this is what this proposal is trying to do is 6 transfer the problem to the Department of Water Supply that has consistently been able to finance it's operations and CIP projects. Coming to projects, we are also mandated by EPA. We have EPA mandates regarding Safe Drinking Water Act, water quality, water chemistry. Our estimate, in the next 5 years, is to spend $25 million, of which we don't have right now, so our engineering staff and our lab people are looking at avenues to get monies to do these mandates. If we are to make the system compliant, which we have every intent to do, and seek monies, it'll be really hard to take over a Sewer Department that also has different types of EPA mandates that requires funding also. It'II just make it absolutely impossible. We have a hard time as it is already. I'm sure, like Sewer Department, they're bombarded with EPA mandates coming down almost every week. And it seems apparent and logical that Sewer Department will continue to have a financial problem and our objection is that we should not have their financial problem when we have financial concerns of our own, although, as I said earlier, we are still able to operate, maintain and do CIP projects. Over the years, CIP projects has dwindled because of the lagging economy. We don't have enough facility charge coming in. Our consumption base, instead of following a straight line projected four years ago, has kind of flat lined, so we have some financial concerns too. We have 34,000 customers. Of those 34,000 customers, 5,000 are sewer customers also, and I find it real inequitable that 34,000 water customers should participate to • make the Sewer Department operational. I think that's not a good use of funds. It should be separated. But then again, from an accounting point of view, if the merger should occur, our accounting section will have a hard time, in fact, they'll have a nightmare trying to keep these two separate because of the way the billings would come in. One suggestion that we'd like to make, and I don't know if this would be appropriate at this time, but I would vision the more efficient thing to do, instead of merging Sewer with Water Supply, would be to consider merging Sewer with Wastewater, removing them from Public Works, sitting up a Commission similar to our Commission, that can set rates without the political pressures that a Council would have. And I think that would be the greatest step, the first step. At some point in time in the future, maybe it's a good idea, in the future, to merge Sewer with Water, when Sewer is stable. Right now they're not stable. You're going to take an agency not stable, and you're going to take an agency that is stable, and the combination is going to be one agency that's not stable. I don't know how to say it, except left alone, we're operating efficiently. Put us together and you might diminish that efficiency, and then not only 5,000 people suffer, 34,000 people would suffer because that's the amount of customers we have. Now, looking at our pros and cons. I know this is a one-sided thing. It was written by us so it has to be one-sided, right, but we try to think about the pros too, and as I mention on the pros section, there are some common things that we do, but it's counteracted by the fact that it's different and unique. For example, we have a micro lab that we test 153 samples every month. Sewer Department needs a lab too. Can you imagine testing sewer samples and water samples at the same lab? The possibility for cross -contamination would be great. You would still need to maintain two labs. It can't be done in one lab. It's just not a good thing. We are certified by the Board of Health based on certain conditions, and it's just not a good idea to combine testing of sewer and water in the same lab. Again, the Sewer Department is subsidized by the County. If the expectation is for us to subsidize what the County does now, then we just can't. We won't have monies for projects. We won't have monies for a lot of things. It's just not a good idea. I won't go over any more of the pros and cons because I don't want to read it. You can read it for yourself, but I certainly will answer any questions that you may have. RAY: I'd like to get Public Works up. Jiro, I don't know if you or Peter, but 1'd like you folks to respond, to be part of this discussion, and then we can ask both of you questions. The first thing, I'm sure, we're all most interested in is are we on the same page, or not, or where are we in this process. Either you or Peter, or both. SUMADA: First, let me apologize to the Commission for being a little late and missing some of Mr. Pavao's testimony. I think Peter Boucher has prepared, kind of, our pros and cons, and I reviewed it a little bit, and it appears to be fairly objective, but in broad terms, and I think we can present that later. Overall, I guess, the main thrust of what we're trying to do, as far as this initiative boils down to me, in my mind, and Mr. Boucher has additional information, basically four main objectives, and for us, I guess we view it as a major advantage of combining the two different agencies of Wastewater and Water Supply. First of all, as Mr. Pavao has indicated, we are having difficulty collecting delinquent fees. Our total accounts receivable is about $1.4 million. That's even the ones that are monthly coming up, our total accounts receivable. RAY: Jiro, I don't want to interrupt you, but you did miss some of Mr. Pavao's initial testimony, but he did lead in with the billing segment, and what you guys are working on, so I'm sure we're really interested in what your thoughts are on that, as far as addressing that particular issue. The billing, in other words, what they presently have in the works and how they might be able to help. SUMADA: I think the coordinated, or having a joint billing system, is more efficient, if that's what Mr. Pavao eluded to, but I also feel, that by combining the two agencies, with the ability to actually have a, for a lack of a better term, hammer that could encourage people to pay their wastewater bill. You know, right now it's like we're throwing marshmallows, maybe, at people to get them to pay, which is, basically, we're 8 eating it. RAY: Okay. Mr. Pavao addressed that specifically. Could you speak to that, Milton, because I think that's an issue we clearly need to understand, is what leverage, in your mind, could the Department of Water Supply provide, in terms of this billing process, because you mentioned that explicitly. PAVAO: Yes, I have. As I said, we've been meeting for the last two years. A most recent meeting, and I have to read this from here because I don't remember it, but our most recent meeting with Mr. Boucher and his staff was on August 17th of this year, 1999. At that meeting, we confirmed our willingness to cooperate, to do the billing, providing our financial management system is completed, as I discussed earlier. And we also looking at the leverage of our ability to discontinue water service as an incentive to pay the sewer bill. And both Mr. Boucher and I agreed, to do that we need to have some revisions to our rules and regulations because our rules and regulations are specific as to when we can shut off water and when we can't. So, we would have to insert someplace in our rules, that non-payment of sewer billing would be cause for discontinuance of service, and Mr. Boucher and I agreed on that, that that's something workable. So as far as, in Mr. Sumada's words, the hammer, the hammer is there without the transfer. • RAY: Okay, so we're trying to identify all this. Jiro. SUMADA: For me, I'd like to say that I guess I'm willing to believe it when I see it. But I appreciate Mr. Pavao's cooperation in that regard. I think that by combining the two agencies, you will have it, and I think without it, that if it's actually done, I mean, I think even collecting Water Supply's delinquent accounts, I don't know how many opportunities they have to shut people's water off, but in any case, that was one of the initial ones, and if we worked it out, as something that can be done with or without the merger, that's terrific. For me, I guess I'd be more comfortable knowing it would take place because the two agencies were combined. But anyway, that was one. The other - I'll run through them quickly. RAY: Sure. No, no, take your time. SUMADA: And I think, maybe, we can have the Commissioners ask questions. The second one is looking at water as a total resources, from the initial production and development, all the way to its ultimate use and then re -use, and to govern the wastewater and treat it as a commodity, as a product that could be resold or sold for re -use. It takes the resource water from its start to finish. And to have one body that governs that for consistency, equity, whatever, I think there's some inherent advantages in that. Also, and I don't know if it was mentioned, but in regard to having a Commission that oversees issues such as structuring rates, and it does take the politics out of it, that the Commissioners can respond to the needs of the agency, as • opposed to allowing the Council to be influenced or lobbied by different groups or special interests. I think having a separate Commission that could be responsible for that would be advantageous, and again, in keeping it over with this umbrella type of oversight, to taking the resource from the inception to its actual end use, I think, there's some advantages. And I think there can be some cost reduction in operations. That's the final advantage. When I explained this initially to some people in the Water Supply, there's two ways you can do a merger. You can basically take the two separate agencies, keep its same structure and just put a new person in charge that governs over both, or pick one of the existing heads and put them in charge over both. That's one way to do a merger. Another way of doing a merger is to totally integrate similar or like functions to where you can eliminate any duplication, such as in the laboratory function, or testing, clerical function, or administration. Those type of operations could be streamlined and some cost reduction could be achieved, so it's kind of like how do you envision the merger taking place. If both sides are so entrenched into I want to keep only my operation because that's how it's traditionally been handled, and they've got mechanics, but their mechanics not going to work on our stuff, so we've got to have our own mechanics. Well, there's similar systems, or efficiencies that could be achieved, I think, if you look outside of that and try to integrate, and if you were just to create something from scratch, there could be possibly cost reductions achieved that way. • The other thing 1'd like to say, in addition to those, there are municipalities in the mainland that have gone through this. We're not inventing the wheel here. In some of the research that I've done, even within the Water Association, there are different studies that have been done. I just haven't had a chance to get a hold of them to know whether they have achieved any of these cost reductions, or other advantages that were initially presented. I think it's healthy to even look at this, for the Commission to consider this possibly, and I'm sure there will be other spin offs or other issues that we can address, but anyway, Chairman Ray, that's basically all I wanted to present. RAY: Now, Mr. Souza, would you like to say anything on behalf of the Water Commission? I'd like to ask you directly, if the Water Commission concurs with Mr. Pavao's recommendations, or letter, or representations. I know you folks have been discussing this at the Commission level, so I'd like to get that on the record, how you feel about this. SOUZA: Thank you. Yes, we did discuss, and Commissioners do concur with the staff in the discussions that took place. The consensus is that they should remain separate. RAY: In terms of the billing, did you discuss that? SOUZA: Yes, and the Water Department will be able to accommodate in 10 • the very near future. RAY: In terms of any additional Commission responsibilities, did you folks discuss that? SOUZA: Additional responsibilities? RAY: In regard to if you were to look at Wastewater or, I just wondered if you discussed that dynamic. I mean, obviously, the rate structure is the major issue here. SOUZA: I believe there would still be more to discuss should that take place. There are many things, yes, that we are not familiar with as far as the sewers go. RAY: I'd like to open this up for discussion, so Milton, if you could come back up to the table. PAVAO: Can I make a few comments? RAY: want to say. Oh, sure, yes. And then also, Peter, if you've got anything you BOUCHER: I've got a summary of some pros and cons. Maybe I should put them out on the table too. PAVAO: I'd like to just make a few comments. What Mr. Sumada listed as pros, if you look on my pros and cons, it's also listed as pros. I recognize those facts that Mr. Sumada well explained, and they are pros condition, very good for everybody. However, our feeling is that the cons greatly outweighs the pros. As far as the billing, and Mr. Sumada will believe it when he sees it, and I hope you get to see it soon. But, Honolulu does the same thing. Honolulu Board of Water Supply does the billing for the Sewer Department, and I've checked with people in the actual billing section on Oahu, and they said it seems to be working great whereby they bill for the Sewer Department, and they use their leverage of water shut off as an incentive, and it is working great, and they have no problems with it. I think they have some sort of arrangement where the Sewer Department pays the Board of Water Supply to do that function for them. Mr. Sumada mentioned total resources, the whole gamut of the water industry. The thing that needs to be realized, and looked at, is the department is in a business of providing domestic water. Our function is domestic water. We do provide irrigation water where we have water available, and we do that at the risk of domestic users, especially during droughts. You know we have a hard time during droughts. So, whether or not it's better to have one entity take the whole gamut, or to have people 11 • specialize in a certain thing, that's something you need to decide because each comes with its own rules, regulations and mandates from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The other comment was to have it run like a Commission, the Water Supply, which I personally think is the efficient way to do it. But there's nothing precluding the Sewer Department to pursue that angle. Instead of making a drastic transfer, go into an enterprise type system where they can have their own Commission that can set their own rates. You don't need to combine Wastewater with Water to do that. You can do that, as something you want to do, or you can pursue it. And then you'll have a body of Commissioners without any political concerns that can set realistic rates. But, at this point in time, with 5,000 people, I don't think there's anybody that's going to set a realistic rate for those 5,000 people to pay for the operations because that realistic rate is going to be absurd, so something has to be done. I can't read the rest of my writing so I'II stop. RAY: Peter, do you want to make some comments? Mr. Boucher, from the Wastewater Division. BOUCHER: I made some copies of this. Good afternoon. From the Wastewater Division's perspective, I've assembled a list of advantages and • disadvantages, and for the most part, my advantages and disadvantages, likewise, also closely track Milton's. Well, first of all, I think one of the fundamental reasons even the Administration is pushing this forward is because of just all the services being provided by the Department of Public Works is expanded, and it's just quite a big plate to handle by the Chief Engineer and the Deputy, and part of that responsibility may want to be divided off. Beyond that, it's correct. Milton and I have been discussing, for a long time, the possibilities of combining the billing, and also using the water shut off as an option. And I think it is workable. It's a matter of going through the steps and getting there. Just running down the list of my other advantages here. Potential cross training of employees: Employees could have dual licenses and if that's the case, there could be some advantages to staffing on a seven day schedule. Right now, it's a problem. And again, with the shared laboratory and facilities: That goes to Jiro's issue about potentially there could be some efficiency savings here. RAY: In regard to Mr. Pavao's comments that that would be somewhat of a burden to share laboratory expenses, do you know if when the City and County combined, at some point, did they have shared laboratory? Do we know anything about that? They combined and then separated again. I just wondered. 12 • BOUCHER: Presumably, they were together for several years, so I have to imagine they shared facilities. But when I talk about sharing laboratory facilities, I don't necessarily mean that we'd have one lab worker working here, testing wastewater and another working here, testing potable water. We still have our own lab here that the vast majority of all our testing would be done at. It's just you have some obscure tests that need to be performed and it has certain specialized equipment, particularly as time goes on and EPA comes down with more and more requirements, these tests become really obscure and require very expensive equipment. So I think that's what I'm really, kind of, referring to is some of the more specialized testing and we only have one chemist. If our chemist, for some reason, gets in an automobile accident, or for some other reason, is going to be out long term, we're in trouble right now. If we were combined, well, perhaps somebody from Water could shift over and help out a while. That sort of sharing is what I'm more referring to. RAY: Is it totally unrealistic, if the departments are separate, to have shared laboratory functions? Private laboratories are contracted out, aren't they, to do certain things? In other words, if you're still a separate division, whichever way it would go, is there a reason why your laboratory, or their laboratory, couldn't perform tests on - BOUCHER: Each other. RAY: I'm just trying to understand that. PAVAO: May I make a comment? Laboratories that we contract with in the mainland, because they're commercial laboratories, they're divided into separate areas. Our laboratory, here, is geared only for the testing of domestic water. Now, if we were to look at testing sewerage, we may need to isolate an area to do so. It's not saying we can't do it, but we're not geared to do those types of tests now, the way we operate, because the entire lab is opened and geared only for domestic water testing. RAY: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead, Peter. BOUCHER: Beyond that, the recyclable water distribution, I think, has been touched on already. Increasingly, we're moving toward re -use, particularly in Kona, and as I start the planning for it right now, which we've been doing for the last few years, I'm rapidly discovering this is a whole new animal. This water distribution is quite different than wastewater collection and treatment, and there would, certainly, be a benefit there. Although, looking from Milton's perspective, perhaps some agreement could be worked out there also, whereas we handed the water over to them at our plant boundary and then they become responsible for distribution of some sort. Irregardless, I put here 'paradigm of the water cycle management'. Again, Jiro talked about it. The whole concept of what we're doing is looking at it as a whole water. We're treating it from coming up out of the ground, taking it, using it, and ultimately re -using, and disposing of it. Can be thought about in a holistic fashion, in one respect. And last, but 13 certainly not least, I put 'reducing the politics in decision making' which, as many of you are aware, is a concern. It's often very difficult to accomplish even some basic things. Witness the recent attempts to get the sewer exemption for private extensions passed through Council. Had every reason in the world to remove the exemption but the decision wasn't taken. Disadvantages, again, echoing Milton, while the chance may be slight, there is always the opportunity for cross -contamination. We have some seriously hazardous materials, if you will, and from an interest of trying to maintain the integrity of his system, I can certainly understand his concerns in that regard. The more serious issues, getting down to the Witty gritty, is what do we do with the debt load of all our capital facilities. Milton kind of talked about this. I think he is of the understanding that our operations are subsidized by the General Fund, when currently they are not. We are strictly on Sewer User Fees as of this year, although we may be going in for an increase in rates because the administrative portion of that was eliminated last year. But we feel our operations are funded by the sewer fees. However, the debt load is not, and that's not insignificant. I don't know the total amount, but I would suspect it's in the millions of dollars annually, to pay down the debt load, and that comes from the General Fund, which, basically, is everybody, and the concept behind that is everybody's reaping the benefits of the wastewater system so therefore, • that's a way for the public, in general, to be paying. Now how that would get shifted to Water Supply, I have no idea how the heck we would do that, and the ownership of the assets. Milton's right, there's no way I could imagine the sewer fees could be raised enough to pay down the debt load on that. We might be talking about doubling the sewer fees, so their only option would, essentially, be to raise the water fees, Or, I suppose, the other alternative is to leave the debt service with the County now, and future capital improvements could be funded as you go. But that is certainly a problem and it requires some real study. Similarly, responsibility for previous agreements, in particular, grant conditions that the County entered into for construction of our, primarily the Hilo, Kealakehe and Pepeekeo Plants. We'd now be asking the Department of Water Supply, a semi- autonomous agency, to be responsible for those grant conditions. Is that fair? I don't know. That's a tough one, also. For the record, in preparation for this meeting, I did put a post -it on various e-mail boards for the Water Environment Federation, the American Waterworks Association, and, I forget the name of it, but it had something to do with County government, Association of County Governments, or whatever, and I asked what other agencies' experiences had been. If anybody could shed any light about the advantages and disadvantages of merging these utilities, and I only got about five or six responses, and basically, they were all positive, for what it's worth, with the exception of one, who 14 • stated that we should be careful because, in their opinion, the EPA, during the grant times, when they're funding facilities through grant monies, one of their goals was to avoid water and wastewater combining, and they would write these conditions in, or somehow they're included in the conditions. I wasn't able to find those conditions, and I spoke to DOH, and they were not familiar with that, but it's really kind of hard to track those conditions down because they often reference various Federal regulations, which then refer to other Federal regulations, so there may be some catch there, but that's a possibility that may be a problem. But yes, most people seemed to think it was a good match, for whatever it's worth. RAY: Was there any input in regard to a Department of Environment, the model of wastewater and solid waste, that seems to be popular to some degree? BOUCHER: I didn't really, specifically ask that question. One of the agencies did have all their utilities combined, including the electric and all. They thought it was very efficient but, no, I didn't ask, at least on the internet, that. Although with this paper I wrote, I did try to quickly come up with a few advantages and disadvantages to that option because that question does continue to pop up. Milton presents it. I've thought of it, also. As far as advantages of joining wastewater and solid waste, there can be limited advantages, in as far as handling waste products such as the sludge, if we ever did get to some sort of a large scale composting operation to divert serious portions of our solid waste stream. Having our sludge be part of that process would certainly be helpful, so there's something to be said about thinking of them in the same light. Also, with the FOG, Fats, Oils and Grease, Maui County has a mechanism. Part of it is turned into diesel fuel, and part of it is processed, then helped to use to heat, and it's used in the composting process also. RAY: Do you know, their departments aren't combined, are they? BOUCHER: No, they are not. And, I guess, the idea's is, if we're talking about the paradigm of the water cycle being the overall view, looking at it, maybe the view from this one is looking at it as this is environmental management, whatever advantages there are to that. There's something to be said for trying to have a society conceptualize in it's mind what we're trying to do with this. It's not a sewer system where we're just trying to get rid of stuff and hide it somehow, or bury the waste in a landfill and get rid of it, moving more to treating it as resources and trying to re -use as much as possible, and I guess, it's more a psychological benefit than anything. And a disadvantage to that, and I think the major one, would be probably a de facto tax increase because unlike the Wastewater Division, Solid Waste is heavily subsidized by the General Fund, so if they were to stand alone, the tipping fees would have to be raised very substantially. The whole system would have to be changed. Likewise, anytime you're forming a new department, I think, administration costs would be increased also. If it was joined with Water Supply, perhaps the administration costs 15 • would stay the same, but I think, if you were going to join with Solid Waste, they would probably increase. RAY: All right, so we're going to open it up for discussion now. I guess, Milton, if you could come up to the table. PAVAO: If I may, just one point. Mr. Boucher made mention that many states has combined water, sewer, electricity, and that's true. And it's like the way we feel with EPA. EPA sends down mandates without looking at the uniqueness of our state, and more so, this island. This island is so unique that it doesn't follow the regular pattern of any other place. I'll give you an example. We're responsible for the entire island's water supply, yet we have 24 separate systems, that's not connected, because the island was derived from plantation camps, and these camps are spread throughout the island. So, we're far different than the so called mainland cities, and by the way, the Oahu Board of Water Supply did attempt a merger with Wastewater, I don't know how many years back, and not to contradict Mr. Boucher, but it didn't even last six months, and it has to do, I'm sure, with the uniqueness of the place we live. We have systems so far apart that there's no practical way we could connect them with a pipeline because it would cost millions. So, you've got to recognize the uniqueness that we have. Even with the sewer system, there's camps so small that you're not going to put a sewer system. It's just the way the island is. We're unique, and that • uniqueness should be recognized when something like this is proposed. RAY: Questions? George. MARTIN: Yes, I've got one comment, actually a question/comment. Jiro, it's directed toward you. With your concern for billing, if we, the Commission, were to put forth a proposal to the general public that, in fact, Water would take up the billing, not merge, but just the billing fact, and again, I've dealt with Mr. Pavao in the past, and I know he's a man of his word. I've got no problem with that, but he won't always be in this position, so I can understand what you're saying, that when he does go, the next manager may not have the same ideas and agree upon certain issues, so if we were to put that in the Charter some place, that yes, in fact, the billing were to be undertaken, and I don't even know if we have the ability to do that, but would that suffice your concern? SUMADA: I think that would address, probably, the major impetus for that, of why we're proposing this, but there are other benefits that could be achieved. MARTIN: Sure, I can see and I can hear that. SUMADA: But I think, yes, to answer your question. 16 • MARTIN: The second one is, from what I'm hearing, the politics, and everybody knows it's not good to lay that billing responsibility with that body because everybody wants to get re-elected so they're not going to raise the prices, so a Commission would possibly be in order. But if a Commission were to be brought forth, now it's back to you, Milton, would you still be willing to undertake the billing, no matter what the cost would be set forth. In other words, with what you're saying, and I think that would be the only mechanism that I see to have people pay is, okay, you don't pay this bill, your water's going to get turned off. It's going to make people think. But, if the prices were to start going up because a Commission were to set it, and it has to be realistic to cut the cost and bring costs into a reasonable ballpark, would you still be willing to help? PAVAO: Let me understand the question first. You're saying that if the Sewer Department had a Commission, would we still do the billing? MARTIN: Would you be willing to help? PAVAO: Yes, definitely. We already gave our word that we would. We would do the billing and we'd see what kind changes and modifications to our rules and regs are necessary to enforce the billing. • MARTIN: Okay, one last question, I guess, then, and I'll pass it on. As far as costs to do the billing, would you be willing to assume that, or would you charge Wastewater, which has no money at this point? PAVAO: That was discussed between Mr. Boucher and I, and we had left that kind of open, but the discussion was to, at some point in time, come up with some equitable reimbursement for our labor. MARTIN: RAY: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Santangelo. SANTANGELO: Just a quick observation, you guys. I have a sense that you've been talking to the Council so much that you're treating us the same way, and we're totally different. Number one, I don't think it's our job to get involved in a domestic, and there's a part of this, because I was involved in it before, that is kind of a domestic. We're about good government, and it's not to convince us on all these little details, and alts we're going to do is put things before the public. And you put something before the public that guarantees we're going to get a rate hike, because you took it out of their hands, and I don't know that you're going to look at something getting passed. So, we're looking at better government. So, I go back to these pros and cons. Now, one of the things I'll take, that say, is on my side, is while I was in government, I took a lot of 17 time to study solid waste and wastewater. I took a couple of trips to the mainland and went to some of the bigger ones in the United States, and I found that, generally speaking, the Waste Department was separate from a delivery system. In fact, more often, it seems appropriate to me to combine solid waste and wastewater, and in terms of government, maybe that's what we should be looking at. So, I have one question, but mainly I just want to get that across. For the rest of the Commissioners too, what are we supposed to be involved here, and I think a lot of the discussion has to do with stuff that shouldn't be things that we're considering. Just basically, it's good to put it forward, so it comes down to that. In all honesty, with your experience, or Peter's, or yours, Milton, how often, or how prudent is it to take a water delivery system, that one is a consumable versus a waste, and combine those? And again, looking at our solid waste, and our wastewater, and possibly combining that and enterprising it. I heard you say, from five e-mails, again, figures don't lie, but sometimes we get carried away with the figures, that you had a pretty good percentage of those respondents that this was okay. I found it quite different but I'd like to get your opinion, and that's all I have to ask. PAVAO: The only occurrence I know is what I heard about the Oahu Water Supply, where they made an attempt. They spent, I think, about a year trying to study the thing; they tried it and it didn't last, and that's the only thing I know of. But, I'm sure on the mainland, and as 1 said, this state is unique to the mainland, so a lot of things in • the mainland should not be followed here because we are unique, but in the mainland, I know there's wastewater and water companies combined. But my only knowledge here is what was attempted at Oahu, which eventually just went back to how it was. SANTANGELO: And I guess my last comment to both of you, unless you have a comment there, is that I'd really caution us to get involved in what is, to me, very obviously Administrative and Legislative problems. You know, we really are more at the behest of the public than we are at the behest of government, but the Chairman has wanted us to take a look at the problems you're facing, and see how we can address them. Thank. you, Mr. Chair. PAVAO: If I may make one comment. You asked about what we thought, and for the people, and I agree with you a 100%, and in my mind, there is no doubt that we can serve our consumers more efficiently without the Sewer Department being transferred. I really believe that, and that's the entire interpretation from our department. We value the customers we have. We try to do the best job possible, and we feel, the way we are, we would be able to serve them the most efficiently we possibly can. SANTANGELO: Sure. And the problem that we're dealing with with wastewater, in my opinion, again because I have a background, a little bit here - 18 HERKES: Only your opinion, though. SANTANGELO: Only in my opinion - HERKES: That's right. SANTANGELO: Is that it is an environmental issue, and it does involve everybody, and we keep taking it some place where I don't know that it should go. But again, a lot of it is administrative and stuff, and I'm just wondering how much we're supposed to deal with here, but thank you. RAY: Marni. HERKES: A couple of things. One, I would hate to think that my medical laboratory, when it's testing blood from forty different people, couldn't separate them, so I really think that's a specious argument. I mean, there are a lot of blood samples in a medical laboratory, and they're all kept separate. I think you can do the same thing with drinking water and sewer water. But, I'm glad you brought up the client because I keep thinking of this from a client standpoint, rather than from the Department of Water Supply, the Department of Public Works, or the Department of Sanitation, or those kinds of things. I'm your client, and I see the water over here, and I see the • wastewater over here, and the sewer's over here, and I think that's an inefficient way, from my viewpoint, to operate. I appreciate Mr. Sumada's comments about total resource management, and I think that is what we ought to be looking at. We ought to be looking at a department that manages our resources, that manages them in the best way possible. I would like a Department of Water Supply that said, oh, drinking water is over here, car washing water is over here, irrigation water is over here. And I think it's an inefficient - And you're right, we're unique, We're probably the most inefficient state in almost everything we do, but I think we can learn some efficiencies from some of those mainland people, and we can also save a lot of money. And it's important to us to save money right now, and be more efficient. So, I'd appreciate your really looking at combining the water resource department, and maybe sanitation, or maybe environmental should be in there somewhere, but 1 think that's a major concern, to be able to preserve our drinking water, is to use other water resources. Thank you. RAY: Just one comment in terms of overall resource management. Of course, I mean, there are a number of components that are also separate, and Milton brought up. Of course, agriculture water, and private water systems comprise, what would you say, what percentage of water usage on the island? PAVAO: I believe about 20-25%. RAY: So, you're talking about a pretty complex problem here. 19 • HERKES: Yes, I understand. Yes. HIGASHI: I just had one question. Supposing you come to an agreement on handling the billing, what - RAY: My understanding, there already is an agreement. HIGASHI: No, they're working on an agreement. RAY: Okay. HIGASHI: I don't think they have it down in writing. RAY: Okay. HIGASHI: Once we have that agreement, what form would it lay before everybody? Would it require an ordinance, so that the Commission could decide we just want to cancel the thing? I mean, what's the next step once we have an agreement? How do we keep it enforced? PAVAO: Well, first of all, in absence of an actual agreement, we have it in writing that we will cooperate and do the billing, so it's a done deal. We agreed many months ago that we'll do it. I think the only thing that needs to be changed, as far as ordinance, is our rules and regulations because the rules and regulations of our department specifies when, how and where we can discontinue water, and right now, there is no provision for non-payment of sewer billing. HIGASHI: No, no, I understand that, Milton. I understand. PAVAO: That's probably the thing that we have to change immediately. HIGASHI: All I'm saying is, once you have an agreement, I mean, something that should be iron clad without one party just changing his mind. Right now, you have the opportunity of putting it in the Charter. In absence of that, is there a strategy as how to keep this agreement in force without just saying the Commission changes its mind? PAVAO: Yes, well, I don't have any strategy in mind, but I assure you, when the time comes, we certainly will take a look at what Oahu has in place, with their Sewer Department, because, as I said, they do provide that service to the Sewer Department, and we'll kind of look at what Oahu has in forms of agreement, then see if we could make that agreement fit our situation. HIGASHI: Would you say that, from listening to the discussion, that your 20 agreement is within reach within a couple of months, to solidifying that agreement? PAVAO: Well, the agreement itself, if you're talking about a written agreement, we haven't even discussed that. If you're talking about our ability to do it, that's about 12 to 18 months down the road, because as I mentioned earlier, our financial management system hardware just arrived. We still need the training, and maybe Richard can explain it better than I can, but it's 13 modules that needs to be put in, needs to be trained, before we can be fully functional. HIGASHI: All I was interested in, Milton, is that because this Commission will exist, doing research and fact finding for the next five, six months then, if we are satisfied that there is an agreement in principal, or something is solid, and it's nothing that we have to worry about, then as far as most of us will be concerned, I would be satisfied that the concern was alleviated. PAVAO: Okay, I understand. You want something in place, an actual executed agreement. HIGASHI: satisfied then. Yes, like Jiro was saying, seeing is believing, or maybe we'd be • PAVAO: Okay, we have no problems doing that because, as I mentioned earlier, we agreed to do it quite some time ago. • HIGASHI: RAY: You have an agreement in principal, so (indiscernible). Jiro, did you have a comment? SUMADA: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, I'm kind of slow, and I'm thinking to Commissioner Martin's comment, and I think whichever way the Charter Commission decides to present this, on the ballot or not, I don't know how, or what rules need to be established so that, say the Commission doesn't go with the merger option, that at a minimum, that you folks consider that there be a Commission over the Wastewater Division, by itself. I don't know if that's possible or if that requires a Charter Amendment also, to address this rate fee thing. And the reason I say that is the last cycle that Mr. Boucher went through to get the fee adjusted, it took, I think, a couple of years, if not more. Three years, Peter? Two or three years? BOUCHER: Yes, I believe so. SUMADA: And it carried over into different Councils, which was especially difficult. And in the meantime, General Funding was carrying the Toad, so there's a need for that. And again, in my slow process of thinking, in line with what 21 Commissioner Herkes was saying about total resource management from the start to the finish, I think there's also concern for the amount of wastewater that isn't re -used, we're injecting it into the ground in some places. And, there's also concern about contamination of drinking water. And there's also concern about monitoring, or enforcing rules about cesspools, and that impact it has on ground water and drinking water, and that type of thing. So, there is some implications that it does make sense to look at it in that regard. But, in any case, I appreciate Commissioner Higashi's statement that agreement would be nice, not that we don't trust Mr. Pavao. We certainly do. Under his leadership, we were very impressed with his operation. I think that, even when I was in the private sector, the Department of Water Supply has enjoyed that reputation, and I think that, although Mr. Pavao feels that taking on wastewater would inhibit, or what can I say? I tend to look at it more that he can improve, or expand, his leadership role to improve, not only his department, but also another agency that has challenges. RAY: Thank you, Jiro. Let's just go around. Sue, do you have anything? MARTIN: I just wanted to say one fast one before she gets into it. One quick one, if I may, Mr. Chair, on what Roland said about get an agreement in writing. And whatever changes need to be made, if, in fact, it does take a move in any County agency, do it. Put it in place, and it will make our decision a lot easier. RAY: Well, we may not have that power. MARTIN: They do. RAY: No, they don't. We could be talking about an ordinance out of the Council, so, we don't have the power to implement that. But anyway, go ahead. IRVINE: Thank you for coming, and I guess I can certainly understand why the Water Department likes their pristine, clean environment and just supplying water isn't terribly controversial on this island, although, sometimes, I guess. But, I think we really do need to look on water as a commodity, and the re -use of wastewater, and there's a bill problem, obviously, with sewers. I don't blame you for not wanting to take it on, but the fact that a few people are supporting the entire system, which is for the benefit of us all, keeping our water clean, and whatnot, we need to have, kind of, a global look at this. I think Honolulu, if they only kept their department together for six months, or a year, really must not have thought much about it before they went into some kind of a combination, or they wouldn't have had that quick a divorce. The other thing that's been mentioned is this Environmental Department, the possibility of putting sewers with solid waste. Now, my impression also is that solid waste is kind of a shambles, and that we're now giving Public Works more work right 22 now, with the Department of Permitting, and maybe, we need to spin all three of these off into some wonderful semi -autonomous agency that you can oversee, and clean up all our recycling problems. SANTANGELO: Jiro's the guy. HERKES: No, we're going to give it to Milton. IRVINE: Is there any comment? Anybody can comment on that one. RAY: Mr. Pavao, you in shock? PAVAO: I'm in shock. I guess the only thing I want to say is I have no interest in getting bigger. I just want to stay efficient. IRVINE: Yes, but you want to stay clean too, and the business of providing these other services aren't clean. Can you imagine somebody volunteering to be on the Sewer Commission? RAY: Ms. Herkes, did you have another comment? HERKES: Yes, I did. If we bundle these together - If we bundled wastewater, drinking water, and well, several things; we could do solid waste, a whole bunch of stuff together, I would be in favor of taking that five million out of the pot, and putting it over here, and not taking it in with all of these things, and we could do that. We can put the five million that Sewers is in the hole over here, and not bring it into your department. They can collect one and a half million, so - how much is it? ?: More than five million. HERKES: Okay, well, however much it is, we can take it out of the picture. That doesn't have to go with the transfer. I think there are other things we can do with it, so I'd like you to look at that, and the fact that Sewers has a million and a half that they haven't collected, that is a possibility. But, I think, also, when you look at Honolulu's management of their water system, they're running out of drinking water, and they will tell you that, so I would not look at them as a very exemplary management system in any way, so I. just wanted to put that in the pipeline, that that's not a management system that I'd look at. But I really like the global perspective of looking at it all at once. PAVAO: Just a comment. In all fairness to the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, they try to operate a very efficient system. The fact that they're running out of water is not their fault. It's population and the capacity of the aquifer. I know the 23 • people at Honolulu Board of Water Supply, and they're probably the hardest working people I know. They try to do the best for everybody. The fact that they're running out of water is not their fault. HERKES: that. Thank you. l don't agree, but thank you. I would have expected IRVINE: Maybe we could work out a system and start selling water to them if we have so much here, and then your department will just make enough money to pay off the debt for Sewers. PAVAO: RAY: Good idea. Good idea. Okay, let's get back on track here. Other comments? SANTANGELO: Jiro, when you said you're injecting this back into the ground, where are you injecting this? Just general location. At 500 foot, 10,000 foot? SUMADA: Well, in Kona we are. HERKES: Below the IUC? RAY: It's Kealakehe. SUMADA: At Kealakehe, the treatment plant. SANTANGELO: Okay, and what quality water are you injecting? SUMADA: I think it's R2. SANTANGELO: R2? So, R1 is what? SUMADA: R1 is at a quality that it can be re -used. SANTANGELO: Potable. SUMADA: No, it's not potable, but it can be used for irrigation, like on golf courses or in agricultural purposes with some restrictions. SANTANGELO: There is none that can be recycled in potable, but isn't there a scientific point at which we call it potable? Now, here's the thing, again, 1 went through a whole bunch of this stuff. It's beyond me, and that's why I say, we've got to look at what's really our purview, but in most large municipalities, you don't put the two together. 24 • HERKES: Most? I didn't know that. Most is not - SANTANGELO: The same reason you have your bathroom elsewhere in your house and your dining room sits next to your kitchen. It's just two different things. The point is that we have to look at the practicality of it all, so again, I don't even think this should be discussed here, but we're on it. You start recycling water. You have a lot of trouble recycling water except for during drought periods in Hilo. I mean, let's just get real. And then you've got to haul it up a mountain. They're just two different problems. I go back to environmental, and again that's why I say it's administrative. Frankly, in my opinion, and I said so when I was on the Council, the expense of taking care of this waste should be an expense to the entire county because we all enjoy the environmental impact of sewering, but this county, and the administrative part of this county, and the people have yet to decide whether we're going to sewer or not. You have a lot of problems in that area, and I really, realty caution us to even get involved. Again, I think it's at the family feud stage, and it really shouldn't be here. Billing's different. SUMADA: Mr. Chairman, may I respond? RAY: Sure. • SUMADA: Commissioner, I don't know all the history behind how the Charter was established, but in my view, our island, at one point in time , was of a size that required government to be not as complex as it needed to be, so that we could combine all the different agencies that are within Public Works. At one point in time, wastewater and solid waste were not major issues. Before EPA came about with their big role in the nation, those divisions within the Public Works were not major issues, or major concerns. But now,because of Federal requirements and the mandates we have to face, they are, and we have to deal with them. So, I think it's like a normal evolution that we're going through now, that from a functional standpoint, and Peter touched on it too, is it practical to have the diverse number of divisions within Public Works under one chief, or one agency head, and are there different mechanisms to separate it out to become more efficient, and to be more responsive to the public needs? • SANTANGELO: I don't argue that point. That's a really good point, and you're exactly right. In most municipalities, solid waste and wastewater are not part of Public Works. They're their own environmental division, but putting it in a semi- autonomous agency that can barely - I mean, we don't have problems with water on this island. We have problem with money getting to it. Milton happens to be a friend, and he did good things for our community and other peoples' community, but if anybody can be criticized, it's Water, for not getting enough water. We need to drill more wells, hook more into it, and they can't. Taking this, because it doesn't belong with Public 25 Works, and I agree, and moving it somewhere where we take it completely out of any ability to subsidize it, or to help it, from the General Fund, and putting it in something that's totally self-contained. Gee, I really wonder if that's wise. SUMADA: In response to those comments, Commissioner, I think it's just a matter of perspective. You feel very strongly about what you just said, and having water stay in the mode they're in, however, if you want it to be, it can be combined. It's just a matter of perspective, and when you talk about treating water as a resource, on this side of the island, maybe there isn't a great concern, but on the other side of the island, you know, there is a great need, or rather it can be sold as a commodity as opposed to selling clean water to irrigate a golf course. SANTANGELO: Sure, and Jiro, again, I didn't want to get into the argument. RAY: John, let Jiro finish. SANTANGELO: I'm not arguing with him. SUMADA: So, I think it's just a matter of perspective and I don't know how the Charter will evolve, but our government, or our organization needs to, and we're going through the normal process, I think, of growth. SANTANGELO: I agree. And as far as wastewater, when there's a need for it, generally, free enterprise will come in and combine, and work that out. Again, I got into a part of it I said I shouldn't, and I did it anyway, so thanks. RAY: Any more questions? Gary. YOSHIYAMA: Couple of questions. I need a perspective here. Do your two departments work together on different kinds of projects? Have you in the past, are you currently working on some today? Could you give us some examples? PAVAO: The time that we would work with Sewer is, like, anytime that we would work with HELCO, The Gas Company, whatever. When we propose a project, we contact Sewer Department to ensure that their facilities are not going to be interrupted by the construction of our facilities. So, in that sense, we do coordinate planning and construction projects. YOSHIYAMA: In looking at the Charter, is there anything preventing a shifting of wastewater to the Water Department at this time, other than ordinance, getting the County Council? SUMADA: I would say not since the Public Works section of the Charter is 26 very vague. YOSHIYAMA: Okay, thank you. I had another question but it's off of this subject, so I'II just wait. RAY: Okay. Any other questions for these gentlemen? Okay, we're going to take a five minute break. Oh, excuse me. HIGASHI: It's not on the sewer and combination of water, but is there any changes in the Charter that you'd like to see other than what's there now? I see you have a water fund. PAVAO: That's just pretty much to correct what's being done now, I think. I have no other concerns about our section of the Charter, other than the combination of HIGASHI: Do you know when that section was put in? Section 8-4 on Water Fund, or for what reason that was put in? PAVAO: I'm sorry I don't have the Charter with me. HIGASHI: It said there'll be a separate water fund which shall be utilized only for water purposes. PAVAO: Yes, there is a separate water fund. What we do is, we deposit our funds with the County Treasurer and it maintains in a special fund, and that's basically - HIGASHI: that right? Was that put in to be very specific that that's only for water use? Is PAVAO: Correct. As a matter of fact, it goes on further to say that any State appropriations or Federal grants also go into that fund, and that fund is for the sole purpose of maintaining, operating CIP water systems. HIGASHI: So you have a separate fund. You have a General Fund and you have a water fund? PAVAO: No, no, no. That water fund that you referred to is the fund managed by the Treasurer. We submit our funds to them. They keep it in a separate fund, and they invest it like they would invest their funds, but it's a separate fund. HIGASHI: I see. So, Department of Water Supply's fund, is that - 27 • PAVAO: Correct. HIGASHI: So, it's not co -mingled with the General Fund? PAVAO: No, it's not. It's entirely separate. HIGASHI: My other question was to follow up with the Commission, if they had recommended any changes. RAY: Yes, I'd like to do that as well, but any more questions for these gentlemen right now? What we're going to do is I want to take a short break and then get the Police in here so they can go home, and then, if you want to stick around, I think we are going to talk about this more among ourselves, and just kind of see where we stand on this. IRVINE: John, I did have one more question. I hate to hold us up, but you've been talking about how Water is just a drinking water department, but it talks about a Department of Water Supply in the Charter, and it doesn't say anything just about drinking water. Is that just, in fact, what you've become, and why Sewers weren't put there in the first place? • PAVAO: Traditionally, as far as 1 know, the Department of Water Supply has maintained, and concentrated, their efforts 100% on providing good, clean, dependable, quality water. That's been, kind of, pushed to us more and more by all the EPA mandates that come down regarding quality water. EPA does not send the Department of Water Supply sewer mandates, or any other type of mandates. Everything we have pertains to the Safe Drinking Water Act and it's amendments. • HERKES: John, I looked up waterworks, as to what that actually means, in the dictionary, and it's a system where reservoirs, channels, mains, pumping and purifying equipment by which a water supply is obtained and distributed. So that doesn't restrict itself to drinking water either. RAY: Okay. Sure, well, let Gary ask a question. YOSHIYAMA: I had a question on Section 8-3, Manager and Deputy. It doesn't speak to wastewater. So, you want to hold off on that, John, until later? RAY: Yes. YOSHIYAMA: Okay. RAY: Okay. All right. So any more questions for these gentlemen now 28 • before we bring up the subject of Water Commission? Okay, any comments or questions in regard to Section 8-2, Water Commission? Roland. HIGASHI: I just had a question for Mr. Souza, if they had discussed any changes? If they're satisfied with what's there, that's fine with me. SOUZA: discussed. Yesterday, at our meeting, we were satisfied with what was RAY: Could you come up, please, to the mike. I've got a question when everybody else is finished. Other questions for Mr. Souza? RAY: I'm sorry, could you repeat your answer so it gets recorded in regard to what discussion you had at the Commission meeting? Did you guys have any recommendations for changes? SOUZA: The pros and cons that we submitted to you today? RAY: No, just in terms of Roland's questions. SOUZA: Could you restate your question? HIGASHI: My question was, pursuant to the Charter, did the Commission recommend any changes that they seemed - that needed to be had? SOUZA: RAY: No. Marni. HERKES: My question is, we've heard from lots of Boards and Commissions that they have difficulty getting residents to serve on them. Do you have any problem getting people to serve on the Water Commission? SOUZA: I think that question should be addressed to the Mayor. HERKES: I want to know, from the Commission Chairman, if you have a full Commission at this time. SOUZA: Yes, we do. HERKES: Have you had a full Commission since you've been on it? SOUZA: Most of the time, yes. 29 HERKES: Okay, thank you. RAY: Other questions for Mr. Souza? I have a question. In regard to the nine members, and the geographical areas they represent, the way it's stated in the Charter now, versus the single member district representation; has that ever come up, or do you have any opinion on that? SOUZA: I believe, probably, it was maybe about two years, there was some discussion, and we thought that it was fine the way it is. RAY: SOUZA: Because just having been on the Council, and gone through - I believe you were still on the Council when - RAY: I guess, the way it's written now, that the membership shall be representative of the general geographic areas of Puna, Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua, and Hilo, it's very possible to have a pretty strong majority of the Commission from East Hawaii, under this present language. And, of course, being a West Hawaii resident, I'm interested in having it more tied to the Council districts, and whatever, just to make it more equitable. It seems to me, also having been a little bit involved in water issues, that there are areas of pretty significant concern in all the geographical areas, or whatever. But, you folks haven't discussed that? SOUZA: No, not too deeply. RAY: Do you have any reason to believe that if we were to recommend that, that that would cause any problems in terms of getting representation to serve on the - I know that's a hard question to answer. In other words, if we pegged it to the Council districts, in other words. One thing with these Boards and Commissions, it's awfully confusing for the public, and we're trying to establish some kind of consistency in terms of why is one this way, and why is another the other way, or whatever. So, if there's not a reason to keep it the way it is, I personally, would be in favor of the nine Commissioners tied to the Council districts. Do you have any comment on that? SOUZA: No, I think that'd be okay too, but I can't speak for the rest of the Commissioners. RAY: Sure, I understand, and just so you understand the process, we're just trying to come up with some preliminary ideas that we take straw votes on, what we're interested in, and once we do that, then we send everything out again for comment to all the departments, the Commissions, whatever, as well as go out for public hearings around the island. So, this is just really, sort of, the first pass to develop a preliminary package, so anything we come up with, you'll have plenty of 30 chance to discuss and have input on, and whatever. Okay? SOUZA: Thank you. RAY: Let's take a - TSUNODA: May I (indiscernible). RAY: Yes sir, sure. TSUNODA: Again, it's very brief comments, but I know Peter said that the Division operated in the black in 1998, and looking at doing so this year, I mean the year just ended. But, the previous six years, prior to '98, there was a deficit of $3.2 million in operating the Division. On top of that - RAY: Per year or over six years? TSUNODA: Over six years. It fluctuated, but six years, continued losses totaling $3.2 million. Outstanding debt service, as of June '98, I don't have the '99 figures, it's probably gone down a little bit, but it was in access of $38 million, so it's a substantial amount. So what you see is a disproportionate amount of expense to sewer customers, so how we'd handle that from one department -one rate design, would be a very big challenge, because of the disproportionate expense to customer ratio. That's all I had to say. RAY: Do you have any comment on dealing with the complexity of EPA regulations in regard to something like this? TSUNODA: I leave that to my manager, operational people, to address that part. RAY: Okay. BOUCHER: May I make just one more comment? RAY: Sure. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be able to stay for the rest of your meeting, so I kind of wanted - There was one issue I didn't bring up in my memo, and it occurred to me while we were sitting here. We have been negotiating with the Department of Health, as part of statewide effort to reduce duplication of services between the State and the County, for the County to take over the management of the individual wastewater systems program, that is managing all the cesspools, septic tanks, and private systems. Just another issue for you to throw into the pot. That would be a 31 • substantial expansion of our current responsibilities. It's also another potential source of revenue, but that's another piece of the puzzle that should be considered as you discuss this. RAY: Since you brought that up. I was at a State meeting last week, and I asked Mr. Tulang about that, and he represented that there was a pretty wide divergence of - BOUCHER: The dollars. BOUCHER: The budgets to handle that. In other words, what the County would be reimbursed, or however that would work, to take over that, and they were pretty far apart as far as the State vs. the County, so do you have any sense of if that's going to move forward, or how big of an impasse that is? BOUCHER: The Mayor has expressed interest in it and certainly, the State has always traditionally been very interested in it, and this is their best opportunity to date, to try and transfer that responsibility. I think there would be a certain measure of efficiency gained by this. Probably the reason for the difference in the cost, is we don't necessarily feel like the State is operating the program properly. They don't inspect the systems. There's not as much follow-up. So, if we were to take it over, we're just kind of insisting we want to do the job properly. As far as can we work it out, that's really, kind of, up to the Mayor in many respects, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for him. But when both parties feel that it's in the general interest, you'd think there's probably a middle ground. RAY: Yes, this is a little bit off the point, but I just wanted to take advantage since you were here. Okay, thanks. Let's take a five minute break and then we'll come back and deal with the Police and Corp Counsel. RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 4:45 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 4:52 p.m. RAY: Let's reconvene our meeting. On the agenda for Unfinished Business, we have the Police Department, Police Commission, and Corporation Counsel agendized to discuss some items that have come up in the past. Unfortunately, the Police Commission representative is not here, and Chairwoman Scheele, who I think we need to get here at some point, is out of state, but anyway, I chatted with her department. If you folks could come up, Deputy Chief Correa and Mr. Wurdeman, and I don't know what else people might want to discuss, a lot of stuff is kind of Police Commission 32 • related, but since we do have these folks here, and since Mr. Wurdeman did make a recommendation for us somewhat earlier., could you go over that in terms of the duties and functions of the Police Commission, and we could have some sort of a dialogue on that. • • WURDEMAN: One of the functions of the Police Commission is to investigate and rule on complaints made against individual officers, and 1 think this is a good idea, but in practice, some things have developed that have made it not work as well as it should. First, I think the average citizen who feels wronged by a police officer, and who files such a complaint, and whose complaint is sustained, as having merit, feels that something will be done to the officer. Under present practice, the complaint is referred to the Police Department. They look into it. They act as they see fit, which may not be the same as the Commission sees fit, and because of the Information Practice laws, the end result never gets back to either the complainant or to the Commission. The second problem that has developed is that the Commission currently uses a private investigative firm to go out and talk to all the concerned people, and to submit a report, which the Commission considers. Almost without exception, and I think because of advice from the Union, the concerned officer refuses to make a statement. So, you've got a big piece of the puzzle missing. So, although the idea is well founded, and although I know the Chiefs argument is going to be that it's an independent body that looks at the facts of the case, and that is true, it, in many ways, is a meaningless exercise. I'II let the Chief respond to that. CORREA: The Police Department supports the current Charter language in the Charter, and the reason why we support it is because the intent of the current Charter is to have a civilian review board, which is the Commission, review, well actually, consider first, and if they accept consideration, then investigate, all complaints against the department, and they can only consider complaints against officers while under the color of authority, or, for the part, when they are on duty. We feel that the current process, the civilian review board, gives the general public a vehicle to come through where there is no interference from the Police Department, to consider the complaint and have it investigated to the best that they can, and then for them to make a decision, and then make a report back to the Chief of Police. Now, when the report comes back on a sustained complaint, our complaints are thoroughly investigated through our own administration investigative process, which entails handling the matters within the collective bargaining agreement, within our Civil Service rules and regulations, and within our policies and procedures, so that when we do discipline, and we do mete out discipline, that it can withstand any kind of grievance or arbitration. And, to certain extent, Mr. Wurdeman is correct, that the officers need not respond to the Police Commission investigator because the Commission is outside of the collective bargaining agreement, and when we serve charges on our officers, we are required, through collective bargaining, to give them certain type of rights. One of it is 33 • • called Garrity, which says that the individual, for all intents and purposes, has immunity from any kind of other investigation, whether it be a criminal investigation, and it is only handled administratively, which would not be stretched out to the parameters of the so- called Police Commission investigator, and so, our officers, now, are more willing to talk to the investigator. They are more willing to come before the Police Commission to represent themselves. The only time they are reluctant, if it's a very, very serious allegation, and that's the only time they are reluctant. We do have a procedure set forth whereby once the case is handled administratively, it goes before an Administrative Review Board. In house, they determine whether the so-called charge is sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. And at that time, we do have a mechanism to respond back to the Commission, to allow the Commission to know that we have taken action. But at the present time, because of the 92F Statute, which says that all disciplinary action is subject to personal privacy interest, especially County law enforcement police officers, you cannot divulge that personal information. That would be in violation of 92F Statute, with the exception of a discharge of an employee. Only after that employee has gone through the entire grievance process and arbitration process., then you can release that individual's name. And so that's the area we're working on right now to determine, with Corporation Counsel's assistance, whether or not that discipline can be mentioned to the Police Commission. But, I'll entertain any questions if you have any. RAY: Okay. Mr. Martin. MARTIN: One, a brief one, if I may. You made mention early on in your statement about the make-up of the Commission being an entity outside of your own body. CORREA: That's correct. MARTIN: Now, if this body is the one doing the investigation, shouldn't you then have some variance from that 92F, that you mentioned, about keeping it confidential, because they're the ones starting the investigation. They're the ones proceeding with it, with their own investigator. Once it's upheld or not, and if it is, and some disciplinary action is taken, I think there should be some rule, or something, that says okay, it's not us doing it, it's outside so therefore, they should have the ability to find out. Just to suffice, I think, what Mr. Wurdeman is saying. CORREA: Let me just say that the Charter states that the Police Commission shall review; consider, review complaints, and make a report to the Chief of Police. It doesn't say that they shall discipline. MARTIN: Maybe a misstatement. The discipline would be part and parcel of the department. I'm not saying that the Commission would have that right. All I'm 34 saying, if there were to be any disciplinary action taken, that they would be notified of it, and I don't know in detail, but yes - CORREA: Yes, that's the area that we're working on right now. Because, in essence, when you look at the functions under the 92F, another agency can have the information, as long as it meets the necessary functions and duties of the agency. Then we are authorized to release that information. But if the duties and functions of the Police Commission do not meet the conditions of releasing that information, then we are actually prohibited by law, and we want to comply, and we want to meet the conditions of the Police Commission, but we want to also stand on legal grounds, so that we're not subjected to any kind of civil liability, or any kind of illegal activity. WURDEMAN: But the citizen, who's the one probably most interested in knowing what happened, under existing law, he never finds out. HERKES: Mr. Ray. RAY: Wait, let me finish with Mr. Martin. MARTIN: Thank you, sir. With that, and I direct it now to you, Mr. Wurdeman, by removing this passage, and I believe that's what I'm hearing you say to do, is it not • possible for us to put something in here that would now either make them, and I hate to say force them to do something, but work in conjunction with the Union, it's rules, and the rules of the department too? CORREA: Let me try and interject something here. Regardless of whether or not we conduct the investigation, we cannot release that information to the citizen. That's absolutely prohibited by Statute. So the Statute has to be changed. The Office of Information Practices' Statute needs to be amended, and if you notice, in 1995, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers created this statute that exempted County police officers in the statute, very specifically, from being identified, and their discipline being made public. So that information cannot be released to the public. MARTIN: Again, I think that there is a mechanism here, because it's a Commission and it's outside of the main body of the department, that there should be some variance. I don't know. RAY: Marni. HERKES: The citizens of the County of Hawaii tried to address that mechanism. They passed the Charter Amendment. The Charter Amendment says the summary of the charges filed and their disposition shall be included in the annual report of the commission. 35 • CORREA: Right. HERKES: And that is not being done, and because of the Statute. I understand that. So, we have made an effort to solve this problem, and the effort has not solved the problem, and I don't know what else we can do because the statute takes precedence over anything we do, number one, collective bargaining protects the police officer, but I would like to - we don't have the Police Commission here, but (e) says advise the Chief of Police on police/community relations, and the Police Commission could probably address this issue a little better than they have done. They could probably make the citizens understand that they are never going to find out what happens to that policeman unless they are fired. YUEN: Can I jump in for just a second? The general public, the person who made the complaint to the Police Commission, finds out whether the charge was sustained or not, by the Commission. CORREA: Right. WURDEMAN: He finds out if it was sustained or not sustained. YUEN: All right. The general public can also find out the charges, the • identity of the officer, and which ones were sustained and not sustained by the Police Commission, right? • WURDEMAN: Right. But as far as whether any meaningful disciplinary action was taken, that, they cannot find out. YUEN: The general public cannot find out whether there was disciplinary action followed up by the Police Department through the grievance process. WURDEMAN: Right. YUEN: The Police Commission, though, can find that out, right? WURDEMAN: Presently that's a point of contention. YUEN: What position does the County government take on that question, because it seems - CORREA: Let me address that question. YUEN: I know what the Police Union position would be on that question, but I would be interested to know, because it seems like, to me, that the role of the 36 Police Commission, given that they are over the Police Department, it's hard for me to understand why the Police Commission, unless it's specifically prohibited in the statute, the Police Commission cannot find out what disciplinary actions have been taken against police officers on an individual basis. Is that true? RAY: CORREA: annually. HERKES: Chief Correa. Let me answer Marni's question first. There is a report that is filed Yes, that's what it says here. An annual report. CORREA: The report is a general report, and it's also filed to the Legislature, required under the 92F Statute, that explains to them the number of incidents, the number of discharges, suspensions, and so forth. To answer Mr. Yuen's question. Currently, when a complaint is filed, it's filed with the Police Commission. It's notarized. It's handled. The Commission first considers the complaint, and at the first time they consider the complaint, they can determine whether or not they're going to accept it, or they're not going to accept it. Now, if they accept the complaint, the complaint is then investigated. After it's investigated, they • deliberate. The Police Commission does. And if they deliberate, their rules say they can find it unfounded, sustained, not sustained, or exonerated. They make a determination, and once they make that determination; let's say if it's sustained, then that report is forwarded to the Police Department. The complainant, or the victim, at that time, receives the information that it has been sustained by the Police Commission. Now, your question comes into play, whether or not after we investigate it, and we investigate it differently. And we come to a conclusion by our Administrative Review Board, and let's say we mete out discipline, no, the Commission does not receive that name at this particular time because their duties and functions, in the Commission, say that they shall review, consider, and furnish a report to the Chief of Police. Okay, review, consider, and refer a report to the Chief of Police. Discipline would come under administrative duties of the Chief of Police, and the Charter is dear, as far as the Commission, says that they will not interfere with administrative duties of the Chief of Police. • YUEN: Yes, but it says except for purposes inquiry. CORREA: Yes. YUEN: So, if the Police Commission were to inquire - CORREA: Yes, right. 37 YUEN: As to, we sent 20 sustained - CORREA: Complaints. YUEN: Allegations to the Police Department. What happened? CORREA: We can tell them that we investigated 20 cases, and we can give them the general findings of those 20 cases. YUEN: But, not individually. CORREA: No, we would say - YUEN: You would say you sustained 10 and CORREA: We sustained 10 of the cases, unfounded so many of the cases. That's the same thing we'd be able to do if we responded to the - MARTIN: Annual report. CORREA: Legislature, or the annual report. We do that sort of thing. But, • under the 92F section, it does state that when you are able to disclose records to any other agency, that that agency has to find it necessary for it's duties and functions for that information to be disclosed, before we're authorized to disclose it. And that's the question we're asking Corporation Counsel right now. So, if they come up with an Opinion, and say it's necessary for the functions and duties, I don't think we have a problem in being able to release more information. • WURDEMAN: I want to emphasize that I made this suggestion, not in any criticism of the Police Department, because I think they're trying hard to carry out what they've been assigned. It's just that, really, their efforts don't seem to lead anywhere, and the one place they do lead is that the report they generate is when we get sued. It's very useful to the other side. IRVINE: Unfortunately, I - RAY: Wait. Marni, are you finished? HERKES: No, that's all. IRVINE: I'm sorry when the County gets sued, but I don't think that's a good reason to throw out one little piece of sunshine on matters within the Police Department that are, obviously, very sticky here, and Honolulu has had problems with this same 38 • trouble. I guess I'd like to ask both of you - At this point, I think,. Honolulu's Police Commission is under the Corporation Counsel's Office. HERKES: Prosecuting Attorney or Corporation Counsel? IRVINE: I think it's the Corp Counsel in Honolulu. I'd have to look it up. WURDEMAN: I don't believe so. CORREA: No, the Honolulu Police Commission is under the Mayor. It's the same situation that we have here. IRVINE: You sure? CORREA: here. But Corporation Counsel represents all Commissions like they do WURDEMAN: Well, unless it's changed, it was never under the Corporation Counsel before, but I don't know. It may have changed. IRVINE: Well, I'll look it up. I have it with me, but I'II look in a minute. RAY: It was never under, what did you say? WURDEMAN: It's never had anything to do with the Corporation Counsel. In fact, when I worked for the City, the criticism always was that it was under the thumb of the Police Chief. And, there was some validity to that, which is something I don't find here. IRVINE: That's the end of my questioning, though, was that is it possible that if they were put, say, under the Prosecuting Attorney's Office instead, then they wouldn't be under the purview of the Chief of Police as closely, and they might be able to do a better job of shedding sunshine on what's going on? CORREA: Let me just make my statement, that, first of all, the Prosecuting Attorney is an elected official. IRVINE: Right, separately from the Mayor. CORREA: And the Mayor is an elected official. This Commission is independent, and it's appointed by the Mayor and approved by the County Council. Part of the duties of the Police Commission is to appoint the Chief of Police. Let's say, if the Commission was under the Prosecutor, I think you'd have some major conflicts in how the intent of the Charter was set up, to have an independent 39 • Prosecutor's Office and an independent Police Department. The Prosecutor is actually the lead law enforcement agency, or head, in the County of Hawaii, so there's already a check and balance. If somebody doesn't like what's going on within the Police Commission, then they have their alternatives of, if it's a criminal case, going to the Prosecutor, if not, in a civil, civil ramifications. • HERKES: That's true with the Police Department too? The Prosecuting Attorney can go into the Police Department? They can go to the Prosecuting Attorney and then they can prosecute? CORREA: Yes, the Prosecutor's Office can receive any complaint, and can mandate that it be investigated. HERKES: So they're going to the wrong body. WURDEMAN: I have not heard any serious charges to the effect that the Police Commission is, somehow, a tool, or under the influence of the Police Department. HERKES: I know, they're all full of women. They're not. WURDEMAN: I think they've shown their independence and if anything, they fight. CORREA: Quite to the contrary. 1 think we have a very good relationship that's independent. WURDEMAN: It's something to be concerned about, but I don't think that it's happened. HERKES: In the past, maybe, but not now. RAY: Okay, more questions for these gentlemen? Marni. HERKES: Yes, I have a question for each of you. I'm investigating, and thinking about, a Department of Public Safety, from a client's standpoint, and I always go at this from my standpoint. It makes sense to me to have the Police, Fire, Civil Defense, Emergency, all under one department because then, they take care of me and all of my safety issues. That might be a huge department, and it might not. There might be some savings in having all of them under one head. How do you feel about that, each of you, from your standpoint, now that you've had a few weeks to think about it? RAY: Excuse me. I'm not following you. A Commission? 40 HERKES: A Department of Public Safety. RAY: A Department of Public Safety, so you have the Police in the same department as the Fire Department? HERKES: Yes, separate sections, just like Public Works and Permitting. WURDEMAN: That is the case some places. RAY: Oh, okay. Go ahead. Sorry. CORREA: My understanding of Departments of Public Safety. They are in smaller counties with smaller agencies, and they find it profitable, economical to do that sort of thing. I think, for Hawaii County, just looking at the size of the Police Department alone, which is almost like 599 employees, or 580 employees, and just thinking about the overall complex organization of our Police Department, and dealing with the different Unions and everything, I think it would be a big task, and I think it can be done but I think it's got to be carefully looked at and well planned and organized, before you even entertain such a task. One of the major things, I think, you have to look at is how you'd keep each working unit separate, as far as their job description, and so forth, so there's a lot of work that has to be done with Unions so that you can be able to work out all the contractual obligations between, let's say, even Fire and Police. But, for us, we've got a pretty good sized area and county. HERKES: Well, then that's one, yes - CORREA: Geographically, 4000 square miles. HERKES: Geographically, itis, but we only have 150,000 people. That is not a lot of people. CORREA: Yes. I just want to mention, keep in mind, for a department our size, we're not a small department as compared to the United States. Most of the departments in the United States are fairly small. If you look at City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu PD ranks in the top 20, as far as size, in the United States. I think they're 16th in sworn personnel, and 20th overall, as far as size is concerned. So they're inthe- HERKES: It doesn't mean it's right, but they may be. CORREA: Yes. HERKES: We may be looking at some restructuring here. 41 CORREA: Okay. WURDEMAN: The Department of Public Safety idea, I know it's been tried places. I don't see any compelling reason to do it. I don't see that there's a problem that requires it to be done. And, one of the problems that I see arising is you've got career track people coming up through the ambulance, through the fire, and through the police, and how are you going to pick a Chief? Could be a fire person, medical person, or a police person. HERKES: I'm not going to pick anyone. I would pick a CEO to administer, to manage the department, and then he would have Fire Chiefs, and Police Chiefs, and Emergency Chiefs underneath him. The Manager is what I would have. CORREA: Technically, it's almost the same as we have now, though. HERKES: Well, technically, it would not be the same as you have now. CORREA: It would not be a political appointment. HERKES: Technically, it would not be the same in no way. RAY: Sue. IRVINE: May I just clarify my question about the Commission. I was reading the wrong page. It's the Ethics Commission in Honolulu, which is under the Corporation Counsel. WURDEMAN: Yes, they're under Corporation Counsel here too. IRVINE: Thank you. CORREA: Can I give a summary? RAY: Sure. CORREA: In summary, all of the counties throughout the State right now, operate with the same type of Commission. Some of them have unique problems and their problems have to do with the make-up of the rules and regulations that they have. I think our Police Commission composed rules in 1995, and they had the hearings, and I think their rules are good. They are following it well, to the point where, I think, now they're going to have these contested case hearings, and our Police Commission was the first to adopt those rules in the State, and so the counties are taking a look at some of our contested case hearing rules. We get to the point where Honolulu might 42 • not be able to handle our type rules, just based on the sheer task of trying to do that type of things on Oahu, so each island actually gleans from each other. As far as the way they handle the cases, I think our Commission is doing a good job because what they are doing is they have the ability to look at cases, and if they feel that the case actually does not have any merit from the onset, they are not accepting, they're not considering, they're not sustaining. And they are doing it from their level and they're letting the public know that they're not accepting it. So it eliminates any kind of interference, or influence, from us investigating ourselves, and then screening out these cases. So from that, it's been working very well, from that standpoint. RAY: More questions? Marni. HERKES: No more questions, but I think that probably lends credibility to the Police Commission, as well as makes the officers feel a little bit better about the Police Commission because only the ones that come to you, are ones that they feel have some merit. CORREA: Right. RAY: Well, I apologize for not having the Police Commission here, but 1 didn't find out in time, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go ahead and have these gentlemen here, and at least have this discussion in part. So, we will have to get the Police Commission here, at some point in the not too distant future, to wrap up this discussion. So, no more questions for these gentlemen on this topic, but since we do have Mr. Wurdeman here, there may be - HERKES: And we put all kinds of things under him. RAY: I'm sure we want to take advantage of, especially our midnight Board of Appeals move - HERKES: The minute you leave, we start putting things under your department, and we're not adding any personnel either. WURDEMAN: I know that. That's a given. RAY: So, I'm sure, Mr. Wurdeman, you're aware of the discussion and straw vote by this group in regard - WURDEMAN: I wasn't aware there was a straw vote. I'm aware of the initiative, yes. RAY: I'd say it's just a vote of sentiment in regard to moving the Board of Appeals to your office in conjunction with this idea of creating a Division of Permitting, 43 so I guess, give you a chance to respond to that. WURDEMAN: Okay. Well, nobody wants to take on new responsibility, especially since it's unlikely there will be staff to go with it. But leaving that aside, I really think it, objectively, creates a greater opportunity for people to charge that there's, at least, an appearance of conflict of interest. And the reason I say that is presently, suppose there's an appeal from the Planning Department. We have one attorney that represents the Planning Director. We have another attorney that advises the Board, and we try and keep those two functions separate, and with some success. But, now, what there is the constant danger of, some kind of a conflict, and maybe the members of the public see it as inherently somehow corrupt, but now, if you bring the whole administration of the Board into our department, with the files and the secretarial function, and with us having some control over budget, I think that increases the danger. And I think the Board of Appeals should be placed somewhere in an agency that has really nothing to do with its operation, that can provide administrative support, but is completely neutral as far as the merits of any particular dispute. RAY: So, where would that be? HIGASHI: Parks and Recreation. • WURDEMAN: Well, I don't know. I mean, I don't want to point fingers at anybody, but, I don't know, Finance Department. How's that? RAY: Sorry, Mr. Takahashi beat you to the punch on that. WURDEMAN: Or the Mayor's Office, or the Finance Department. I don't know. Somewhere where someone can do the necessary record keeping, budgeting, procurement, and typing, and notice giving, but where the adversarial process, involving issues of the moment, is not being heard. HERKES: RAY: Citizens Advocate. So, more questions for Mr. Wurdeman on this particular - IRVINE: I guess this is slightly off the subject because it's concerning all Boards and Commissions. There's a lot of Boards and Commissions that seem to be having conflict of interest problems, and maybe it's inherent, but do you have any comment on the possibility of moving, say, the Ethics Board under you, or over to the Prosecutor's Office, or moving the Police Commission to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, where it would be more independent of the department it's watching? WURDEMAN: No, I don't think there's a problem with the Police Commission and the department. I mean, I've seen some pretty healthy disputes between the two. IRVINE: Okay, what about Ethics? WURDEMAN: One of them is what we were talking about. The Commission wants to know what happened to Officer So and So who they thought committed some heinous offense, and they don't get any answer back. They get very upset. IRVINE: I think, maybe, it does hinder their ability to work, then, if they can't get an answer and get very upset. RAY: But how would that be answered by moving the Commission? IRVINE: I don't think that would. His argument isn't relevant to moving the Commission. Problems that might be solved by moving the Commission are the ones that are going on in the Police Department right now. If an officer, in 1988, had felt free to go to the Commission and say, I've got a problem, and he didn't, or he didn't do it, saying I have a problem with things here, so I don't know if there's anything we can do to make things look more independent, or somehow - RAY: • This is now. IRVINE: Well, - Okay, but, I don't want to get drug into that. I mean, that was then. RAY: Wait, wait. And do we have a problem, or perceived problem, with the way things are working now, that would prompt a change. I think that's what we should be focused on, rather than what may or may not have occurred in 1988. IRVINE: I think there's a perceived problem in the Police Department right now, whether we can solve it through the Charter, at all, or make things look, or seem, or be perceived, to be more independent, or that we can shed more light on what goes on. That's what I'm exploring. RAY: Okay. Mr. Martin. MARTIN: Just a question, and Chris, I'm posing it to you, and Mr. Wurdeman, possibly you can help answer this question. I think I asked it the last time that this question came up. If an officer does have a problem within the department, would it be the property of the Commission that he would go to, or would he go to his Union rep? VVURDEMAN: I would say he'd more likely go to his Union rep. If he did go to the 45 iCommission, he'd probably be told that that's an administrative matter, which is, presently under the Charter, outside their jurisdiction. r IRVINE: All right. YUEN: If I could just make one comment on the subject of moving the Police Commission. I think the discussion that we had earlier about whether the Police Commission can get information about what has actually happened to individual officers being disciplined, I think, while apparently this is still under study with Corp Counsel's Office, I think the Police Commission's ability to get that information is much stronger by the fact that, really, the Police Commission is, under the Charter, a part of the Police Department. It is an aspect of the Police Department, with certain powers and functions. It isnot a separate agency from the Police Department itself. And, one more thing. There was a mention of putting the Police Department under the Prosecuting Attorney, does create a number of other conflict of interest problems, particularly in the question Of criminal prosecution of police officers. RAY: Marni. HERKES: Is the Planning Commission, then, an aspect of the Planning Department? Is this different than the other Commissions and Boards? YUEN: No, the Planning Commission, I think, is defined in the Charter as part of the Planning Department. HERKES: So, this is a similar - Maybe I need to know how many are tied together. Ethics is tied - WURDEMAN: Well, they're all put somewhere for administrative purposes. HERKES: Yes. YUEN: Yes. Some of them are really attached - I don't know the phrase for just administrative purposes, as used in the Charter, but in practical terms, many of the Commissions are only attached to a department for administrative purposes, and they don't really do much with the department aside from the fact that they look to the department for their staff, for the keeping of their records, and for doing clerical kinds of functions. The Board of Appeals is an example of that, in my opinion. The Board of Appeals' connection with the Planning Department - There's a staff member of the Planning Department who is assigned to them. That person does not sit there and give them advice, or tell them what the Planning Department does. That person, primarily, does things like schedule meetings, make sure that they're going to have a quorum, draw up the agenda, put things in the newspaper, send out the necessary mailings, and 46 so forth. So, that's an example of a Board that's really attached strictly for administrative functions. Then there are Commissions that the Charter would call them departments under Commissions, and those are Civil Service, Liquor, Police, and am I missing one? I think that's it. And they actually have the power in those to name the director. Of the three that I mentioned, the Police Commission has the most restricted powers in the Charter. I think, for reasons of not wanting the Commission to interfere with the management of this very large department, there is a specific limitation on their powers that you're not going to see spelled quite that way in terms of Liquor and Civil Service Commission. WURDEMAN: Of course, a lot of how it works depends on who the incumbents are at any particular time. HERKES: But Appeals could just hire their own staff, and be a Board and Commission free standing. Or they could have a staff out of your office. WURDEMAN: Yes. There was a former Planning Department person who was in the job when I got here, who's no longer there, who, when preparing the package that went to the Board of Appeals; let's give them this; let's not give them that. It was like that, and you know, that's something we try to guard against to make sure a complete record goes to the Board. But, a lot of times, when you have a Planning Department person, and that's where the Board is now, who is controlling the flow of information, essentially, to the Commission on an appeal of the Planning Director, there's a problem. IRVINE: then? Did you just make an argument for putting it under your office, WURDEMAN: No. It should go somewhere. It should go to some neutral place where the personnel who work there are not, in any way, interested in the result of the case. HERKES: So, we just need a staff person for the Board of Appeals. IRVINE: Well, except that that staff person would have to get the information from the department anyway, and they might not do any better at getting it than the Commission itself. Whereas, if somebody's within the department, they should have all this information, and only if they're not doing their duty properly, would they send out some things and not others. I think, when I was on the Board of Appeals, we certainly seemed to get all the information that they could possibly get to us. RAY: More discussion on this? Anything else for Mr. Wurdeman, in general, while he's here? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wurdeman. 47 • WURDEMAN: Thank you. RAY: That concludes the Unfinished Business. I'd like to kick around this water issue before we go, since it's fresh in our minds. Kind of get a feel for where people are. I want to share a couple of things with you. In regard to the Division of Permitting, I had some folks call me last week, who just kind of woke up to this whole thing, even though it had been reported to them for some months now, and shared some concerns with me, that I just want to throw out there. In regard to potentially, discretionary calls in the subdivision permitting, and the example they used was the ability to allow grass shoulders, or swales, or whatever, in a community that wanted to maintain more of a rural character, and their fear was that, by moving this from Planning to Public Works, we get more of a black and white engineer response and overlay vs. from the Planning Department. And so, I'm not sure just how that would, .or could work, and I've discussed it with Mr. Yuen, but once it was brought out to me, it's also a concern that I share, and I know, just in terms of departmental response when we were reviewing the Subdivision Code in the County Council, which has been tabled for the last couple of years, and is just coming back up at the end of this month, that the Planning Department was much more flexible, and kind of open to change than the Public Works Department were, especially in terms of road standards, and the shoulders, and this and that. And I know, just representing the • Waimea community, they've spoken out very strongly for the rural character and wanting these kinds of things. So, anyway, I'm just bringing that out as something that I think we need to look into to understand that, to see whether it's an issue at all, because it just went right over my head, to tell you the truth, and it seemed like everybody was on the same page, and this looked like a good idea from an organizational standpoint. Roland. HIGASHI: I'd just like to say that the Department is not flexible. It's the Director, and you're going to have a new Director. When that happens, it may be the opposite. You're not sure. The Subdivision Code is one that is written and hasn't been approved. But I think if people are concerned about certain infrastructure, it can be put in the ordinance when they do the application. RAY: I'm just mentioning that I've gotten this input and I'm sure that we're going to get more, and I just want to bring it up. The reason why is this seemed like this was something we were pretty far along on, and thought we'd, if not put behind us, we're pretty comfortable with, and I just want to make sure that we explore this before we take it out to the public and explore all that - Sue. IRVINE: I've done some subsequent talking to people too, and it's the impression of many that we have, sort of, a one-stop permitting right now; that Planning and Public Works do shift papers back and forth, and all you do is go into 48 Public Works, and then things take place, and whether we would really be streamlining something or not, I'm not sure. RAY: We certainly need to be assured of that. Gary. YOSHIYAMA: In thinking about this Charter change, that the two departments favor. I think that we're talking about three things; subdivisions and a couple of other functions being transferred. What I was thinking on, along the lines, was that just to add a Charter provision to the Planning Department where the Mayor may propose, and the Council may approve, specific transfers, like the subdivision approval, and just stick it in the Charter, and that gives the flexibility to coming, future Administration and Councils, to transfer these functions, rather than us making a move, and saying this is how it's going to be, and then you've got to take it to the people every time you want to make change. So, that's where I'm coming from. RAY: Okay. John. SANTANGELO: Just wanted to kind of back you up on that, having gone through that same process with the Subdivision Code, and when we tried to work on roads. And one of the things we worked on was this cheap and skinny, and Public Works is very resistive to it, so never mind the Planning Department's head, but when it came • to Public Works, if they looked at something that they had to take mowers out and mow, or maintain vs. something that was a little more stable, they were pretty resistive. And a lot of communities, like Volcano, and areas like that, really liked the ability to go cheap, skinny, and have that kind of swale, so thank you for bringing that up. RAY: Well, let's just look into it before we go any further down this street. MARTIN: I think, just a brief comment on that. I can see the concerns if it were to be put in the avenues that it was put it, especially like with ADA, American Disabilities Act. They'd have no recourse but to say you've got to do it a certain way, and that'd be engineering thoughts behind it. So, if it can be left in the flexibility, like Gary is saying, I could go along with something like that, but to put it in a format, and now it becomes black and white, we'd probably be doing more damage than good. • RAY: Okay. Marni. HERKES: We had some discussion about Chief Engineers; if we needed a Chief Engineer or if we needed an Administrator, and I think it's a serious mistake, and I try not to do this, to personalize any of these actions, to tie them into people that have been there, because I've been here long enough, I can remember people on both sides. So, I'd really like to continue the discussion because we did talk about an Administrator, rather than an Engineer heading that department. That's a different kind 49 • of an issue. RAY: So, would your suggestion be that we just eliminate that criteria, and then it could be either one; or you wouldn't preclude an Engineer from being - HERKES: I wouldn't preclude it, but I would, in the job description, have a sensitivity to the wishes of the people, that, more than pure engineer description - when I put that performance measures should be in all of them, and one of them would be sensitivity to the rural nature. YOSHIYAMA: We just switched gears, right? Is that what we did? I thought you were tying it to the other thing, but you're just switching. HERKES: I'm tying it to the Public Works Department that isn't headed by an Engineer, that's headed by an Administrator. YOSHIYAMA: Oh, okay. HERKES: And the Planning Department. That isn't necessary. HIGASHI: Board of Water Supply too. HERKES: And the Board of Water Supply too. RAY: Okay. HIGASHI: But anyway, we can take that up later, more in detail. RAY: The other thing I wanted to share with you is I had a lengthy conversation with the doctor, who was friends of the Irvines, in Lexington, Kentucky, on Saturday, that furnished us with the information, and he's really got a pretty amazing background in government in Lexington, and been involved for over 20 years, been involved in two Charter Commissions. He's currently a Council person at -large. But anyway, they don't have a system in place that was nearly as exciting or interesting as I had hoped. And basically, they pretty much operate under the same framework that we have. Their Chief Administrative Officer is a more active, more professional City Manager type, but that's because the Mayor has chosen to recruit and have somebody like that. They initially did create a Council -hired Chief Administrative Officer position, and they found, over the years, that that did not work. They switched, and now they basically have a very similar system to ours, so he didn't have anything magic to recommend in terms of, oh gee, this is the way we do it, and this would be great for you, unfortunately. So, I think we're kind of back to the discussion, is there anything, or would we want to do anything in terms of the Managing Director position, to point it 50 more into the direction of a City Manager type. So, that's the only option offered, and you can't compare one situation to the other. Perhaps it works well there because they evolved. Over the years, they went through one system, or one transition, and now they are where they are now, so it's an entirely different place. And I did ask him about the mix of single member and Council positions at -large, and he was very much an advocate of that, and said, in his mind, an advantage is that is a good way to elect your Council Chair because, out of your Council persons at -Targe, the number one vote getter is the Council Chair, so that's kind of an interesting way to do that, but, like I say, apples and oranges. We couldn't be more different from Lexington, Kentucky, you know, the Island of Hawaii. But anyway, I just wanted to share that with you, so I don't think it's worth exploring anything further, as far as that model goes, and we don't have anything in terms of more material ordered, or searches or agendas scheduled, or I haven't been directed to dig up a City Manager somewhere. There is a couple from Oceanview. They were in here one evening. I think they're from Riverside, California, and I think the gentleman's wife actually worked in the County, I think both of them did, or whatever. But anyway, they're chomping at the bit to come in and share their experience. But, I just wanted a sense from the group, what, if anything, do you want us to pursue along these lines. What, if anything, in regard to the Council Manager? IRVINE: Manager? These people you just mentioned. Did they work under a Council RAY: Right. HERKES: Were they a Council Manager? RAY: No. Worked under. I think she was a clerk, and he had some other function. MARTIN: believe it is. You said Riverside, right, California? Is that not Orange County? I IRVINE: Close. It's east of there. I can't think of the county. RAY: Anyway, so, I had high hopes that this Lexington model was going to point us in an interesting direction, so I just need to know what more do you want to do with this, because this is such a huge issue. Does anybody have any ideas, if you want to pursue this further? HERKES: Lexington did point us in an interesting direction. Just because they're not doing it, is that a reason we have to give it up? RAY: No, oh, absolutely not. 51 HERKES: No, I really like the Lexington model and I want to do an organizational chart. RAY: changed it? HERKES: You mean the model the way it was previously before they Yes, the one we have in here, before they changed it. IRVINE: They're no longer under this. Is that what you're saying? Because this says, 1 think, that the Council hired. RAY: Right. HERKES: It's 1972. IRVINE: Oh, I see. So, now they're back to the Mayor. RAY: Look at the first page. HIGASHI: The Mayor, yes. The Mayor hires the Managing Director. HERKES: The first page is a different letter. It says the Mayor hired. So, they changed to the Mayor -hire, but we don't have to do anything that they did. We can design our own, but use this model. RAY: Sure. HERKES: Okay, that's what I'd like to pursue. RAY: Okay. How would you suggest we pursue it? MARTIN: Are you looking for someone to mention a straw vote, possibly? RAY: No, no, no. Well, you can pursue it that way, or - It just seems like we had a lot of information on this. We've had a lot of time to think about it, and as Chris has reminded us, this is really a total rewriting, restructuring, so if this is something we're going to pursue, we'd better get right on with it because it's going to entirely effect everything we do. I think we've got to either embrace this or not. John. SANTANGELO: Two things, as I've looked at this, that I'm interested in. One is I've seen us deal with things where we went from one, and I shouldn't use because it's a trigger word, but for lack of a better way of describing it, from one extreme to another. And taking things in steps seems to work, and when I looked at this City Manager 52 • thing, again, I'm of a mind, personally, to look towards the next Charter Commission. Maybe us taking an intermediate step, so no matter what we pursue, I would hope that, as we pursue, that we would at least take into consideration what we have now, and how we could strengthen that to be more professional so, if it didn't get to that point, that was our fall back. So, it seems to me we can pursue a lot of this and still be building information that can be applicable to that. RAY: George. MARTIN: Mr Chair, as we started out with this; and it came out, I think, of the blocks real fast, and it seemed like it grabbed hold, quite a few of the Commissioners. My concern was the ground swell from the people. We went around the island. There was absolutely none. I still don't see any for this particular issue. And yet, we're supposed to be making changes for the better. We're supposed to be guiding for the next ten years, but I don't see the need to make the change at this particular point in time, that would embrace a total change, in a sense of going away from what we have. Now, if we can tweak the Charter and give the Managing Director more power somehow, even though he's still going to be under the Mayor, okay, we can look at something like that, but to go away from what we have in existence right now, I don't see the need for it right now. RAY: Sue. HERKES: What are we doing here, then? RAY: Wait, I'd really like to get a sense of where we are on this. HERKES: Okay. RAY: Sue, do you have anything? IRVINE: I hadn't read his cover letter, here, very good, necessarily, and I thought they were operating under a Managing Director appointed by the Council. The feeling I've picked up here at times is that people would like to see Council, maybe, have more power vis-a-vis the Mayor, and we're not addressing that if we leave things exactly the way they are. RAY: I think Mr. Childs offered an awful lot of very concrete suggestions in regard to that dynamic, and made the argument against a Council Manager form of government, so I think there are a lot of things that could be done, short of that. Roland. HIGASHI: I'm still open minded. I haven't made a decision. I'm still searching 53 • for information. RAY: Marni, obviously you're interested. HERKES: Well, this is a lot of time spent. If you're going to just tweak it, it takes maybe a week, so we might as well just tweak it and go home. But if we're going to make some changes, you're right, we should get on to making changes. I thought we were on that direction. IRVINE: Do you have a model? I mean, do you have in your mind what you might like to see? HERKES: This is what my organizational chart looks it, and I work on it every once in a while, and I think about it. IRVINE: Could you type it up? HERKES: No, I'm not ready to type it up yet, but that's kind of what I'm working on. It's a very simple kind of a thing. IRVINE: Well, slam it out, and call it a draft, and let us see it. RAY: Okay. John. SANTANGELO: My main goal here is looking at the future, and having a more professional person, male or female, that's able to deal with bond ratings, deal with the administrative part of this in a way that assures some sort of competence, and so, I'm open to any model. It seems to me, something to get past the voters. RAY: Gary, any comment? YOSHIYAMA: I'II start with what Sue said. At our last meeting, I made a general statement that what I see, as far as the Council and the Mayor, is it's not a balance of power, as far as I'm concerned. I agree with where George is coming from, but I use a little bit different words. I'd like to see the Managing Director with more responsibilities, and us beefing up the qualifications for that position, and I thought that that's where you were Coming from. RAY: It is. YOSHIYAMA: So that's where l am now. RAY: But, I thought that they had come to some sort of intermediate, or 54 halfway thing, where it was more concrete. YOSHIYAMA: Okay. RAY: I don't want to comment too much on the City Manager thing, but in terms of the process, Marni, I don't think we ought to feel that we're doing any less important a job, or our role is less important, if we don't come up with a major overhaul of the Charter. I think the important thing is the process. I was on the County Council and I was not particularly familiar with the Charter, and had never really thought about most of these issues, so I think the process is very valuable. We sit down and we have these discussions, and we go through it. I know I go off and get disappointed, oh gee, we don't have five zingers to come out there with, and whatever, but I don't think we ought to buy into that. 1 think it's well thought out that every ten years, for lots of good reasons, that we review the Charter, and we correct, number one, just what needs to be corrected, and if there are things that are significant that we decide that we want to address, then that's fine. But, I just continue to return to the strong belief that the Charter is not particularly significant, compared to who's in office, and I don't care what kind of a Charter you have, it works both ways, right? I mean good people are going to provide good government, no matter what the Charter, and bad people are going to do a lousy job, I don't care what the Charter is. My answer to people is to elect good people. HIGASHI: That's right. RAY: That's the key to good government. SANTANGELO: John, just to throw this thing out because we talked about something and I'm in a quandary. I've gone out and talked to people, and it's very opposite to how I feel, and I just wanted to bring that out as something that maybe we could talk about a little more in-depth and maybe you could do what I did. But it deals with this at -large position. And I just want to give you a quick little thing that I came up with on that, you know, so often when we talk to people, and last week - By the way, I felt it was one of the most wonderful and best uses of my time, when we got together in Waimea. I don't know how ya'Il felt but I thought that was a good meeting. But people came, and when they talked about Council members, they talked about my Council member, who I can go to. If you look at an at -large position, and so often when we talk about modifying what we have, it's like we throw out single member, and that's not it. We're saying single member districts but maybe these at -large. Then it occurred to me, if you have that six single member and the three at -Targe, an individual who has a case that has merit, should, in all, theoretically, have four advocates; three at -large and that seat. Okay, and that sounds good to me, but I have to tell you that when, and especially in Oceanview, Pahala, as you get into the rural areas, they perceive this to be contrary to their best interest. So again, I hate dealing with perception because it 55 • never really equates to a practical working. On the other hand, this is an overwhelming perception, and I just throw that out for discussion because I would hate to be involved in something that really is perceived as screwing the people, and it frustrates me. HERKES: I'm glad you brought that up because I was going to bring something up at the end. I'm struggling with how many people should a Council person have in their district. How many residents should they have? You said, last meeting, they have about 14,000. It seems to me that 10,000 would be a better number. That would be a more manageable number of people to reach and touch. So if we have a 150,000 people, which I think we're going to come up with close in the census, that's 15 people. So if you do 12 Council people, as 10 or 12,000. You know things that are going around in my head, how many people should be in a Council district? • RAY: I can respond. I think one huge difference is the geographical area. It's a heck of a lot easier being a Council person in Hilo - HERKES: I can probably respond to that, too. RAY: Than it is in Ka'u. HERKES: That's right. RAY: That's probably the most extreme, and I was in, probably, the second most extreme. You know, Kohala. Not only the distance from Hilo, but then you've got to travel over a big district, so that has a lot to do with it, but I don't think 15,000 people is too many. You can go to every single door with a district that size, so I don't think it needs to be brought down to that common denominator. HERKES: Okay. Well, that's what I'm wondering. RAY: I don't know if we want to get into this discussion of Council districts and terms now. SANTANGELO: No, I just put that out there. RAY: Do you folks want to discuss any of these water issues tonight? MARTIN: It's fresh on everybody's mind. Possibly we should before we go home and come back in two weeks, and gee, what exactly did Milton say. SANTANGELO: Maybe it's better we digest it. MARTIN: We're talking raw sewage, what digest? 56 • RAY: I'm going to throw that out on the floor. Does anybody have anything they'd like to share in regard to what they heard tonight on the discussion over the Wastewater Division? MARTIN: I think that what Roland brought up made a lot of sense. That if these two departments can make an internal change amongst themselves, put something in writing. Go and, possibly, get the ordinances changed, if necessary, and it's not our body to do that, it is the Council. But we could go along and, say, we suggest to the Council that they make these changes to avoid possibly putting something on the ballot, maybe they'd have another take. And just because it's not ready to be used for 18 months, as Milton said, at least everything is in place so that when they are ready, they can start doing it the next day. RAY: Before we go any further, I think we need to address Gary's question about whether we even need to be looking at this in the Charter. YUEN: I think there's two parts to that. I do think that the Charter would have to be amended to permit, or to put, Wastewater into the Department of Water Supply, and the reason I say that is, I think, if you went back to the original Charters, and historically looked at what had been the Department of Water Supply, it's water supply, and so if the Council were to decide that they wanted to move Wastewater into • Water Supply without a Charter Amendment, I think that would be incorrect. Then there's this other question of cutting off somebody's water if they didn't pay their wastewater. Off the top of my head, I think that is legal, but if the Commission were seriously looking at doing this, in order for that to be possible, I would want to look into that a little further because it raises this question of when can the government interrupt, or stop supplying you with essential public service because you're not paying some unrelated fee. Could the government cut off your water service, if you didn't pay your parking bills, you didn't pay your real property taxes, things like that. And, there is a question here because water is essential to people's health and life. Now, that being said, I think if it is legal for them to do that, the Council could pass an ordinance authorizing that, even if they were administratively in separate places. In that case, the merger would not be necessary to have this bill collecting leverage, or hammer, that we've been talking about. RAY: Is there anything we could do, independent of the Council? Because what scares me is that the Council would never have the political will to pass that ordinance. MARTIN: Why not? It takes the monkey off their back. YUEN: If you notice right now, it does not say in the Charter that if you 57 don't pay your water bill, they cut off your water. That's not really the structure and function of the government. I also tend to think that if the public that doesn't want to pay their water bills, or pay larger water bills, has enough influence over the Council to prevent that from being passed, they probably wouldn't pass it as a Charter Amendment, if we were to put it in. But, I don't think that it would be a function of the Charter Commission to say when water service should be cut off. The most we would want to do is address the organization of the departments, and then leave it to them to decide what collection measures they want to take. RAY: George. MARTIN: Chris, in all honestly, the Commission has the right to set forth rules and regulations according to the Charter, and if one of the regulations is if you don't pay your bill, you get cut off, then it's legal, is it not? YUEN: I'm concerned about that because you're talking about two different services. We're talking about a person who pays their water bill, but does not pay their sewer bill, and can you cut off their water. MARTIN: Well, I have a contract with the Water Department for Ookala Community Association, that says that everybody can pay their water bill, but if I, as the President, don't pay the bill that we use to float the loan to build the system, the system gets cut off. So, there's got to be mechanisms and avenues, that it is possible to do what we're thinking about doing. I understand your concern, but there should be a possibility to do it, and it shouldn't be that hard to find. YUEN: I'm raising this as a question. I'm speaking off the cuff, and I haven't researched the issue. My gut feeling is that you can do it, but I think that there is a legal question here on cutting off water supply because of your failure to pay for an unrelated service, a separate service. RAY: Sue. IRVINE: From a totally non -attorney point of view, the County has a real hard time cutting off people's water anyway. They've been through this before with Hawaiian Homes, and whatnot, so I think it's not a big piece of clout, but I really think we need more time to look at the larger issue here, with Public Works, how unwieldy they are; wastewater, solid waste, and the Water Department; in what manner we ought to handle those three. RAY: Do you have anything to share, a sense of that? IRVINE: Not at this moment, although there certainly must be a lot of 58 models on the mainland, or I guess we've heard from - Honolulu is doing water and wastewater, just billing jointly, is that the? RAY: Yes, but they're separate departments. IRVINE: We could, at least, look at what our other counties here are doing. RAY: And a situation I am familiar with in Honolulu, is that, I think Mayor Fasi really did raid the coffers there, and I think that was the incentive to get at the money. IRVINE: Oh, he put them together and - RAY: anything? Marni. HERKES: I would have a problem putting something like collecting anything in the Charter. I am going to research. I notice that in Lexington, they don't even have Water Department in their Charter, so I guess it's probably a State or a Water District, or something that's managed. I don't know where it is either. But, they do have sewer, sanitation, and all that, in one department, and I think that I would like to look at, as Jiro says, take a global perspective on this. So they switched it over, raided the coffers, and then, so - Roland, RAY: John. SANTANGELO: I would really, and I have some strong opinions, you already know that, but getting involved in what the County hasn't been able to do on its own, anyway, and that's in terms of collecting, balancing the budget, that's up to the Mayor and the Council. And if you look at wastewater, and some of those areas, and some of the graphs that we've gotten, and how many people are effected, and how many other people aren't, I don't believe that we should be dealing with that, and I'd like us to stay the heck away from it. On the other hand, I've looked at a lot of models, as I've said, and it came down to an environmental model that dealt with your waste, and that was solid waste and wastewater,and the marvelous things they do, and the complexity of that vs. water. And it wouldn't be bad to look at that. But I'd sure like to go on because I'd like to stay out of this cutting people off and doing that kind of stuff. I don't think that's what we're about here. RAY: Gary, anything? YOSHIYAMA Well, I certainly see the need for the departments to work together. And I really don't see the need for a Charter change for that. What disturbs me, in part, was some of the statements I heard, and I think Marni put it really well. We're one 59 • County but the statements we're hearing, some of them were this is my turf, this is my area, and I don't want to spoil it, and stuff, but still I don't think a change is needed. RAY: The Department of Water Supply is different from the other departments. It's structured differently. They are semi -autonomous, so it's not a surprise that they would feel differently, but I am more inclined to see an alignment between wastewater and solid waste, actually, and I wish we had a solid waste plan to have some idea where that was headed. Because that's such an up -in -the -air situation. It's probably going to all unfold in the relatively nearly future. It would sure be helpful if we had some sense of where that was going. Roland. HIGASHI: Following up on that, and in my mind, I'd like to probably put in the Charter some place, where an Office of the Environment, or Department of the Environment, can be created. Maybe not right now, but if it's in the Charter, pursuant to the Charter, it can be created, as a spin off of Public Works. I think that would be something worthy of consideration. If it's not mentioned in the Charter, then we'd probably be stuck with Public Works all this time. RAY: But, should that situation evolve, the Council can introduce that and create that opportunity. • HIGASHI: RAY: But so can we, yes? Yes. HIGASHI: Right, so it's better than leaving it up to the Council. I'd like for us to kind of pursue that idea of at least a concept and some wording in the Charter that that be allowed in the future. RAY: HERKES: Okay. Does anybody want to continue meeting this evening? No, I'm ready to ride. RAY: The next meeting date - we have two meetings scheduled in November. Our regular meeting is on November 10th at 5 p.m. at this location, and on the 24th at 3 p.m. in this location. We got a lot done on a Saturday. SANTANGELO: That's the day before Thanksgiving. RAY: We're going into the Holiday season. HERKES: Oh, it is the day before Thanksgiving. No way. 60 • RAY: Yes, I did just notice that. The 24th is probably not a reasonable meeting date, on Thanksgiving Eve. IRVINE: long weekend? RAY: The Saturday that would work for me would be the 13th. What if we threw another Saturday meeting that Saturday, or is it a HERKES: No. YOSHIYAMA: I don't think I'll be here. RAY: Let's see what we can do. We've got one meeting on the 10th. It looks like we need to cancel the meeting on the 24th, and that's our Special Meeting. That's not that big of a deal. How about Saturday, the 4th of December, the first Saturday in December? YOSHIYAMA: Yes, sounds good. HIGASHI: Right. IRVINE: Great. RAY: And we try to - HIGASHI: So, in November, what's the meeting in November? No meeting in November? HERKES: No, the 10th. MARTIN: The meeting in November is the 10th, 5 o'clock, here. RAY: We have our regular meeting on the 10th. SANTANGELO: Where's the Saturday meeting? RAY: You want try to do it up in Waimea again? It's up to you guys. HERKES: Yes, it's easy for me. IRVINE: Yes, it worked well. RAY: So, 9 o'clock, to try to get a location for the 4th? 61 MARTIN: RAY: So, December 4th. Anything else? MARTIN: So, we're tentatively on the 4th, respective of the place you're going to find for us, and that's 9 a.m.? IRVINE: Oh, that is the Waimea Christmas Party. RAY: It's in the evening this year. YOSHIYAMA: Just to let you know, I won't be at the next meeting, the 10th HIGASHI: I won't be at the next meeting. RAY: Motion to adjourn? HERKES: So moved. RAY: Second? 441 SANTANGELO: Second. RAY: Okay, thank you everybody. The discussion ended at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submi ' ed, Sharron Henry Secretary -Administrative Assistant WASTEWATER DIVISION Department of Public Works 108 Railroad Avenue - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8338 — Fax (808) 961-8644 October 27, 1999 Memorandum: Mailing Address: 25 Aupuni Street, Rm. 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 To: John Ray, Charter Commission From: Peter Boucher, Division Chief Subject: Proposed Merging of Wastewater Division and Department of Water Supply I have prepared the following summary in order to assist in the debate over the proposed merger between WWD and DWS. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Reduced responsibility on Chief Engineer Potential cross contamination of equipment Combined billing/accounting with option of Transfer of responsibility for debt load and water shut-off for non-payment ownership of capital assets Potential cross -training of employees would Transfer of responsibility for EPA grant increase staffing flexibility conditions and other agreements Shared laboratory, machine shop and Increased water and/or sewer rates to offset engineering resources debt service currently paid out of general funds Recycled water distribution Paradigm of "water cycle" management Reduced politics in decision making Since the option of combining Wastewater Division with Solid Waste Division into a separate Department is also frequently mentioned, I have also prepared another summary for comparison purposes. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Reduced responsibility on Chief Engineer Composting sludge, handling FOG Paradigm of `Environmental Management" Substantial increase in tipping fees Additional administration costs