2018-11-28 Meeting Minutes (EMC)

Home

Regarding Bill 192, Mr. Warren said that feral cats are at the Waiohinu rubbish dump because people feed them. The County Council recently gave money to those people who feed the cats, to buy cat food. Feeding the cats that are causing the problem is absurd. Waiohinu has no greenwaste drop-off station, so all rubbish goes into the rollaway bins. The concrete pad to the chute is blocked off by boulders, so people have to carry their greenwaste from their truck to the chute, where it ends up in the landfill. The county has put the cart before the horse by building a $10 million food waste compost facility. It is the tail wagging the dog. It is a politician’s dream and a $50 nightmare for every person on this island. Money can be found within the department, and fees should not be raised. Regarding the Director’s Report on Nāālehu and Pāhala, the plan for Pāhala is ʻ opposed by the community. He has attended three meetings so far. There was a good plan promised for the Nāālehu ʻsystem in 2009, but it was abandoned, unbeknownst to the homeowners. There is a Fukunaga report that tells why. Director Kucharski has twice given him the hamburger without the meat, and he is waiting for the meat in the hamburger to tell him why the plan was abandoned. He has been asking for the report ever since he’s been coming to these meetings, but it has been a shell game. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Revisit and discuss process to track motions and suggest possible follow-up on previous motions. The commissioners had received a table of the motions that were passed and recommendations made since May of 2016 to the present. Chair Bennett asked if there were any items that caught their attention. Vice Chair Olson said he would like more time to consider it. Chair Bennett pointed out that many of the motions or recommendations they had passed were never responded to, and it was partly because they never articulated an expectation when it was passed. He suggested that when they make a recommendation to the department, they request a response of some sort as to whether it will be considered, or won’t work, or is not in DEM’s purview, etc. DEM’s response could be in the Director’s Report. He suggested that when they pass a motion, there should be verbiage about what they expect as a response from the department. In fairness to the department, if the EMC wants a response to a motion, they need to ask for it in the motion and use a tracking process such as the table they now have. He sees their function, mandated by the Charter, to be effective oversight. If they make recommendations and don’t follow up, they are not doing their job. Director Kucharski said many of the motions are for the EMC to send a letter or communicate some activity to either the County Council, mayor, or him. If there is an official transmission, there is generally a response. He is more than happy to be more demonstrative on the effect of a recommendation or ability of DEM to respond to one. When the EMC is discussing a motion, he ordinarily provides input on whether DEM could 3