HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2021-03-03 2020-2022 Hawaii County Council
71h Session
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii
March 3, 2021
INVOCATION: Reverend Katlin McCallister of Church of the Holy Apostles gave the morning's
invocation.
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaii County Council was called to order at
ORDER: 9:01 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair
Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Vice Chair
Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member (via videoconference from Kona)
Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member
Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member(via videoconference from Kona)
Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member
Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) (came in later)
PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance.
(At this time, Ms. Lee Loy led the Council in the Pledge of
Allegiance.)
PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Petitions,
MEMORIALS, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence.
CERTIFICATES
OF MERIT, AND (There were none.)
EXPRESSIONS OF
CONDOLENCE:
Announcement: CHR. DAVID: Before we move on, I'd like to wish all the girls in
the room and in our County, happy Girls' Day. Mahalo,
Ms. Lee Loy, for the beautiful leis. Thank you.
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
Cory Harden: Bill 5 (Comm. 17), in opposition.
(See Comm. 17.16)
Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 5 (Comm. 17), in opposition.
Erica Perez: Bill 25 (Comm. 131), support.
(representing Coral Reef Alliance) (See Comm. 131.22)
Jan Marshall: Res. 768-20 (Comm. 1137), comment.
Mojo Mustapha: Res. 768-20 (Comm. 1137), comment.
(See Comm. 1137.6)
Carolyn Pellett: Res. 51-21 (Comm. 124), comment;
Res. 57-21 (Comm. 132), in opposition; and
Bill 5 (Comm. 17), comment.
Amadeo Markoff: Res. 768-20 (Comm. 1137), comment.
Mark Texeira: Res. 57-21 (Comm. 132), in support.
APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval
OF MINUTES: of Minutes.
Vote on Approval Ms. Lee Loy moved to approve the Minutes of February 3,
of Minutes: 2021. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the
(Approved) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Kona,just a reminder, if you folks need to speak just shout out,
please. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, there's three things I want to take out of order
because we have people waiting outside. Number one is Resolution 56-21, if we
could go to that.
Page 2
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order:
Res. 56-21: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
HAWAII CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA CENTER, PURSUANT TO HAWAII
REVISED STATUTES SECTION 46-7, FOR A GRANT TO THE HAWAII
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Allows for the receipt of$545,760 in Federally-derived funds, which would be
used to automate and streamline the firearms registration process and improve
record keeping and data availability.
Reference: Comm. 130
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 56-21.
Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, this resolution was waived to Council
to expedite the funding, and we have today here Lieutenant Scott Amaral present
to answer any questions. Go ahead, Mr. Amaral.
(Note: At this time, Police Lieutenant Scott Amaral came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. AMARAL: Good morning. Thank you for taking me ahead of everybody
else. I really appreciate that. So, we are requesting that you folks accept the
$545,760 from the Attorney General's office, HCJDC (Hawai`i Criminal Justice
Data Center). This is part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check
Act Record Improvement Program, which will help to enhance the completeness
of automation transmittal of records to State and Federal systems used by the
NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check).
Basically, when we were looking at statistics in 2019 compared to 2020, there had
been a huge jump in the amount of permits for firearms. My section deals with
the firearms section. And historically, when someone would come to the Police
Department, they would have to wait outside in line to go ahead and get an
appointment, come inside to get a firearm permit. So, it's first-come, first-served
at the Hilo police station, the main station.
What has since happened, of course because of COVID (coronavirus disease), we
cannot have people milling about outside in our breezeways. And so, part of what
this grant will actually help to accomplish is an on-line scheduling system where
Page 3
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
someone can go ahead and produce their information, forward it through to us,
and we can start the process of the background checks and the permitting process
quicker. We have 14 days to produce or to have somebody either accepted or
denied for a firearm permit. So, this would significantly help us. What this also
does is allows for scanning. We have over 150,000 hardcopies of older reports,
and part of this grant is what it would help us do is through the scanning process
we would contract out to a vendor. And we'll try to digitize everything, which all
this does is really gives us the opportunity to put it somewhere that my personnel
can easily get to and actually start the process quicker and get these permits out to
our people, to the public.
Right now as it is, we're about a month out with firearms, people coming in for
permits, which is good because when COVID hit and everything else was going
on, we were about two to three months. So, we're getting better but this money
will significantly help us speed up the process of getting people firearms, as well
as denying them if they're not supposed to have it. So, that's the purpose of this
grant.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. We're looking at about a half-a-
million dollars.
MR. AMARAL: Yes, sir.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Who did the grant paperwork?
MR. AMARAL: The grant paperwork was done by one of my staff members,
Arlene Young. She actually forwarded it through HODC, who went ahead and
submitted it through NARIP (NILS Act Record Improvement Program). And
we're able to get that money. So, she did a great job in getting that done.
An example of difference in a modifier that we've hatched last year compared to
2019, we went from 2,900 firearm permits issued to 5,008. And my staff hasn't
changed, the amount of staff members. So, part of this grant actually has about
50,000 scheduled for a temporary position to help offset that.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, you're seeing double in the amount of
permits that you've been processing for a year.
MR. AMARAL: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I mean, I had a thought that COVID would
actually push people to be a little bit more wanting to have a weapon in the house.
That's interesting to me to see the statistics jump that high, though. I didn't
expect to see it double on the amount of permits taken in.
Page 4
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. AMARAL: Yes, double on that and almost double-6,995 on actual
registrations compared to 11,000 registrations in 2020. So, double in our
registrations. People having long gun permits or permits that are good for a year
are just buying more guns. But the good thing is, looking at it as well as
everybody, as things change and people get better and with the roll out of
vaccines and everything, I've actually seen some of the numbers starting to
decline but it's very minimal. But it's still starting to decline, which is kind of
nice.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate that your department was able
to get the grant. Mahalo to Arlene Young—is that right?
MR. AMARAL: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: For doing the paperwork and getting that
done so we can have some funding from outside of our County resources come in
to help us with this. Good job. And I know there was a long wait time on
permits, so I'm glad to see you get funding to help us streamline this process a
little bit more.
MR. AMARAL: Yes, sir.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And there's also Bill—we'll do your bill as
well after this so stay with us. But I'm going to yield for any other members'
questions.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Council Members?
Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Lieutenant, for being here.
Absolutely going to be supporting this. A lot of ways in which we can help our
folks just have more efficient processes.
I wanted you to clarify something you said earlier. You mentioned there being a
14-day turnaround time to either issue a"yes" or a"no" for. What was that
exactly?
MR. AMARAL: We have actually 14 days when somebody—when we start the
process and somebody comes in and we've gone over the permit process to
provide them a"yes" on a firearm permit. Now, if we're going to deny because
there's more background checks that have to be done or more clarification by the
person who's come in and asked for the permit, we can actually go up to 20 days
on an actual denial but we have to have good cause. We cannot just hold people
back just because we of course don't have all the required information. We
Page 5
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
actually have to work with them to see if we can resolve it. And if we cannot
within the 20 days, then we'll have to send a denial letter saying that we denied
them their permit.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: What's that driven by, I'm sorry? Is this County Code or
State statute or Federal law? I'm just curious.
MR. AMARAL: That is currently covered in State statute. So, we do have that.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And then you mentioned earlier there being—did you say
there was a backlog? You were, like, one or two months behind?
MR. AMARAL: Right now, we're about a month behind. So, somebody can go
ahead and get a firearm permit from Hilo. Because, every district has a Police
operations clerk who can actually provide the beginning process of a permitting
process. The only people who can actually do all the background checks are the
personnel in Hilo.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I see.
MR. AMARAL: And that's three people that I have, Arlene Young being one of
them. So, we in Hilo are about a month out. Some other places, say Ka`u,
sometimes people can get in within one, two weeks of calling to ask for an
appointment. It really depends. And so what we end up having because of this,
we have people going from Hilo all the way to North Kohala to go ahead and try
to get their firearms because Hilo, the main repository, is backed up.
And so, we've since turned around and been about a month, which is significantly
better than some other counties. But this process here will significantly help us
speed it up even more because without my clerks having to answer the phones to
make the appointments, if it can be done with an online scheduler, that takes
that—that's minutes out of their day they don't have to even deal with per person.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Right. Thank you. I really appreciate the additional
information. Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Kona? Anyone else in Kona wants
to speak? Seeing none, Mr. Chung, go ahead.
MR. CHUNG: Good morning and thank you for that information. This is not
unanticipated, right, the run on firearms, right? All of the national publications
were all predicting that there would be this run on firearms. My question has
really nothing to do with this grant. I'm just kind of curious from a statistical
standpoint. These new permits that have been applied for, are most of them new
firearm owners or are some current firearm owners stockpiling their supply?
Page 6
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. AMARAL: I don't have that breakdown here, but I'm the person who
actually will initially sign off, saying that the person might be denied. Looking
through the permits that I have seen, it's a mixture of both where some people just
in general like to collect guns. Not only COVID, but election year is another
thing, right? There's a lot of uncertainty. And so, from my understanding in
talking to Arlene who's been there for a while, usually there's a runI think 2008
had a huge run on guns at one point. I think she said in 2014, same thing. So,
there's always around that timeframe some type of increase.
MR. CHUNG: Have you ever seen an increase like this before?
MR. AMARAL: My current staff has not.
MR. CHUNG: Got to be fueled by the COVID situation, quite obviously, yeah.
MR. AMARAL: And it's the whole island that has to deal with this, but yeah, it's
significantly more. I mean, twice as much on all of that, yeah.
MR. CHUNG: Okay. But thank you very much.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Officer Amaral, for being here. I
actually was kind of going down the same lane as Aaron Chung because I really
wanted to understand if they were already current firearm owners and also what
Ms. Kierkiewicz talked about, about the permit timing. Because, I understand
that in addition to this, you would have to kind of attend some firearm training
prior to securing a firearm. What does that timeline look like? Because, I know
we struggled without a gun range. We had one up on Saddle Road. Can you put
this into bigger context of all the other pieces that come into play, not only with
securing a firearm license but the training that you have to go through?
MR. AMARAL: So, in regards to—in order to apply, they have to go through
some type of hunter's education class. Now, it has not been brought to my
attention that there has been a problem with people getting into that class;
however, we do not provide that class. And so because of that, I would assume
that they would have the same problems of getting enough personnel into a room
to go ahead and go through the class in order to get the permit. I would assume
that that would be a problem they would have too.
So, I think, like you said, it kind of starts at one place and it kind of snowballs.
That's definitely what happens. And so, less people being able to go through the
process to begin with because they cannot get into the class. They can't get into
the class, and by the time they finally do, it's months later from when they
initially may have done the first purchasing of the firearm. The gun is sitting at a
Page 7
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
gun dealer for months at times. And then when they're finally able to get to us,
the turnaround time is that 14-20 days, but that could be months from when they
initially wanted to get a firearm.
The flipside is, of course, if they've already gone to that class, like most of the
"reapplications"we call them, it's a way quicker process. They're just dealing
directly with us at that point. And then, what slows it down is the background
checks. And if there had been anything from the last time that they registered a
firearm till this time, that slows it down just because we have to do our due
diligence on the checks.
But yeah, I think everything is kind of slowed down. This grant will help at least
the portion that I can control, which is the Police Department. It will allow us to
do more case reviews so we can get guns back to their original owners. Say a
restraining order was issued where somebody was ordered by the court to
surrender their firearms, we have some of those from 1997a long time. That's
very long.
And so, part of what we're doing here is we're trying to hit all those older cases
so we can find out do these people want their guns back, are they even able to get
them back—and do case reviews as part of it to give people their guns back if
they so choose to. And if not, then we can go ahead and determine if it's going to
be destroyed. Everything is just a process. And unfortunately, we're a little bit
behind on that process and this will help.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah thank you, Officer Amaral, for providing, like, that holistic
context on just firearm ownership because actually the surrendering of firearms
through a temporary restraining order may result in four to five or even more
firearms, which ends up in the custody of the department. And it's just been my
experience through COVID, a lot of people are cleaning and they're finding
family firearms and they're debating, "Oh, should I register it?"
I mean, ifI'm going to be supporting this money, but if you could somehow
amplify the use of this money to provide a holistic look from beginning to end,
that would be incredibly helpful. And as you mentioned, the firearm permits
coming through hunter education with DLNR (Department of Land and Natural
Resources) and looking at that context would also be incredibly helpful. But
thank you for being here today. Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Seeing none,
Lieutenant Amaraloh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to
kind of sum up a little bit: In using these funds to expedite your review of these
Page 8
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
permits coming in, but more so to do it in a safe manner so you're able to really
dig in and understand who's coming before you as far as the applicant. Is that
correct to say?
MR. AMARAL: Yes, absolutely.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think that's important because, one, we
want to get them out faster but we'd like to make sure that they're being actually
done properly, yeah.
MR. AMARAL: Yes, we want to make sure that we do our due diligence on our
checks and prior to allowing anyone to get a firearm or to get their firearm back.
So, that's absolutely right.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Lieutenant Amaral, thank you for being here. And would you just hang on?
We're going to do your companion bill after I take the vote on this.
MR. AMARAL: Yes, ma'am.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All right, there being no further discussion, all those
in favor of approving Resolution 56-21,please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 56-21: The motion to adopt Res. 56-21 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Then can we jump to Bill 24, the companion to this reso
(resolution)?
Page 9
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Bill 24: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 20-45, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 2021
Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants –National Instant Criminal
Background Check (NILS) Act Record Improvement Program account($545,760);
and appropriates the same to the NICS Act Record Improvement Program account.
Funds would be used to automate and streamline the firearms registration process
and improve record keeping and data availability.
Reference: Comm. 130
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 24 on first
reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Given our previous conversation with the
resolution, I don't have any further questions, but thank you for being here.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. And, Lieutenant, thank
you again. I don't see any other comments from this body. So, all those in favor
of approving Bill 24 at first reading, please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 24: The motion to pass Bill 24 on first reading was carried by
(Approved) the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Mr. Clerk, can we go to—we have some people in our
Kona chambers—Bill 10, please?
Bill 10: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 09-131 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM
PROJECT DISTRICT (PD) TO INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL MIXED –
20,000 SQUARE FEET (MCX-20) AT KAT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII,
COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-2-005:001
(Applicant: Palamanui Global Holding, LLC) (Area: 29.920 Acres)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this amendment, which would allow a five-year extension to comply with
Page 10
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Condition E(Secure Final Subdivision Approval). The property is located
northeast of the Kona International Airport at Keahole, between Queen
Ka`ahumanu Highway and Makalei Estates Subdivision.
Reference: Comm. 50
Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R)
First Reading: February 17, 2021
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 10 on second and final
reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. There was really no discussion about
this in Committee or Council. I think we all understood what was before us. And
so, I know that folks in Palamanui are in Kona, but just looking for continued
support for this measure. Thank you.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Anyone else? In Kona? Anyone else in
Kona want to comment? No? Well, thank you for being here, Director Kern and
Deputy. Other than that, all those in favor of approving Bill 10 at second and
final reading,please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 10: The motion to pass Bill 10 on second and final reading was
(Adopted) carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. All right, I guess we can moveoh, I'm sorry. It's the
companion. Sorry. Bill 11, please.
Bill 11: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 09-132 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM
(Draft 2) AGRICULTURAL—3 ACRES (A-3a) AND OPEN (0) TO PROJECT DISTRICT
(PD) AT KAT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 7-2-005:001
(Applicant: Palamanui Global Holding, LLC) (Area: 695.284 Acres)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to
amend conditions of approval. The Palamanui Development project includes
1,116 residential units, a 70-acre business park, 230 acres of open space, a 74-acre
Page 11
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
dry forest preserve, and a 30-acre university village town center with a 120-room
hotel, retail shopping, commercial amenities, and a 20-acre regional public park.
Reference: Comm. 51.11
Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R)
Approve: PC-11
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 11, Draft 2, on first
reading and adopt Planning Committee Report No. 11.
Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. We had robust discussions in
Committee, and I know that my colleague Council Member Holeka Inaba worked
really hard with the Planning Department and the applicant to address a number
of community concerns. And I think he and everyone involved handled that very
well. So, I'm going to be fully supporting this bill with the amendments that we
approved in Committee. So,just asking everyone for their continued support.
Thank you. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Kona? Mr. Inaba? No?
MR. INABA: Nothing at this time. Mahalo.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else here in Hilo? Seeing none, I just
wanted to, yes, echo my mahalo to the developer and Mr. Inaba for actually
working hard on getting a very comparable settlement of the items that were of
concern. And thank you for your hard work and Ms. Kierkiewicz' as well. So, all
those in favor of approving Bill 11 at first reading,please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 11: The motion to pass Bill 11, Draft 2, on first reading and
Draft 2 adopt Planning Committee Report No. 11 was carried by
(Approved) the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Can we take one more thing out of order and then we
can proceed with the—Resolution 50-21?
Page 12
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Res. 50-21: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED
FUND ACCOUNT TO ASSIST WITH THE PURCHASE OF A
REFRIGERATOR FOR THE KAWANANAKOA GYM
Transfers $3,800 from the Clerk-Council Services —Contingency Relief account
(Council District 3); and credits to the Department of Parks and Recreation,
Recreation Division Equipment account.
Reference: Comm. 123
Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy
Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to adopt Res. 50-21. Seconded by
Mr. Richards.
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. I believe Mr. Messina's here. This was
actually a request from the department, so I just wanted to have Mr. Messina
explain what the money's for.
(Note: At this time, Parks and Recreation Director Maurice Messina came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MS. LEE LOY: Director Messina, thank you for being here. Go ahead.
MR. MESSINA: Good morning. Maurice Messina, Director of Parks and
Recreation. So, thank you. I know this seems like a very small purchase, but I
can tell you for the community of Keaukaha this is not a small purchase. The
refrigerator's going to help the community when we do our events. It's going to
be in our kitchen there at the gym. And it's also going to assist when we do
programs. It's going to assist with our Summer Fun programs, make sure we
have a place to store food for the kids. It's going to help the luaus and all that
other good stuff. You guys have any questions that I can answer?
MS. LEE LOY: I don't have any but if you folks have questions for
Director Messina. Thank you, Chair. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else here? In Kona, anyone
have any comments? Seeing none, Mr. Messina, thank you for that and thank you
for all you do for our Parks and Rec. (Recreation)with some of these.
MR. MESSINA: Thank you.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All those in favor of approving Resolution 50-21,
please say "aye."
Page 13
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on Res. 50-21: The motion to adopt Res. 50-21 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, I'm sorry, we can move to the top of the agenda then.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business.
of Business:
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
(There were none.)
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions.
Res. 768-20: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN
(2018-2020) AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Allows for the receipt of$83,841,000 of Federally-derived funds to be used by the
Office of Housing and Community Development to support disaster relief, long-
term recovery, and restore infrastructure, housing, and economic revitalization in
Hawaii County.
Reference: Comm. 1137
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
Waived: FC
Postponed: November 6 and 18, 2020
(Note: There is a motion by Ms. David, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to adopt
Res. 768-20.)
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. YesterdayI'd just like to remind
everyone, and for the viewing public, that the Housing Agency did accept to
move forward to enter into an agreement with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development to accept two buckets of funding, 66 million
Page 14
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
and 16 million, related to supporting disaster recovery for the 2018 eruption. So,
it's about an $83 million allocation, and this is the next step for our body to adopt
this resolution so we can formally enter into that agreement.
So, I did want to call forward Director Sako to just let us know that all the internal
controls are in place for this. I mean, this is one of the largest grants we have
received from the Federal government and just want to make sure that we are set
up for success to receive and push this funding out into the community.
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MS. SAKO: Good morning. Deanna Sako, Director of Finance. So, this grant is
by far one of our largest, and we definitely have the internal controls set up. One
of the things with HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development) is not only do we have to do the action plan, but we have to do our
whole fiscal controls as well. So, the action plan went in. Our accounting stuff
went in. So, we are well set up to have this ready to go. We're working on the
project accounting and some of the specific details, but yeah, we've been working
closely with Planning and it's ready.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. And there was a number of folks that wanted
to testify, but they were testifying today about the action plan, which is not
something that is under, I think, our kuleana to have to review and approve. That
has already been submitted to HUD and approved by them. So, this is just really
a formality to accept those funds so that we can move forward and execute that
program, which is critical. I just want to remind folks. We're getting calls
weekly from constituents wanting to know when this program is going to roll out
because it's a tool for their recovery journey.
And it's not to say that we will not be finding ways in which to pivot these funds
in the future to support things like more infrastructure, investments. But we've
got to get this program going first, see how popular it may be and use that
information to inform our significant amendment,which is due, I believe, in July
because we have an additional allocation of 23 million.
MS. SAKO: That will be separate.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Anything that you want to add, Douglas? Our
recovery officer is here. I know that you were listening to testimony as well, so I
did want to provide you an opportunity to weigh in here.
(Note: At this time, Disaster Recovery Officer Douglas Le, Planning
Department, came forward to address the members of the Council.)
Page 15
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. LE: Thank you for the opportunity. Douglas Nam Le, Disaster Recovery
Officer. Director Sako really covered very clearly what today is about. This is a
significant resource and the largest grant that we've received. What's before the
Council and what we're seeking support on is the authorization to enter into the
agreement and also to appropriate the funds.
Without our ability to move forward today, it will be a challenge to identify a
program but also to address and really look into the other needs that we know also
exist as it relates to economic development and infrastructure following this
recovery.
We recently updated, kind of, plans around restoring infrastructure, and I know
there's more work to do in the Lower Puna area that did feel this eruption. And
we're really seeking support to be able to move forward on this program front.
We're also doing due diligence to understand what the housing need is, first and
foremost, because that has been the direction that HUD has provided us. I
understand that further information was provided today. And I think we need to
continue to do our due diligence with our Federal partners around the direction
and the ability to use these funds to meet our recovery needs.
Our teamFinance, the Office of Housing and Community Development—has
been working very closely with the folks at Housing and Urban Development
since January of 2020 on a bi-weekly basis, including several focused techno-
(technical) assistance and, "Hey, what about this"kind of conversations. So,
we've really put in a lot of time and effort to do that due diligence, and that needs
to continue throughout the entire administration of this grant program as well.
And so, we make that commitment to understand how we can best meet our
needs. In about a month when the survey is wrapped up on Kilauea housing
needs, we'll also have a much clearer picture of what that looks like.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I would like a little bit of latitude here.
CHR. DAVID: Yes, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. So, Douglas, yesterday you said that the
housing buyout program survey was sent out to 1,275 folks.
MR. LE: Exactly.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yesterday, you reported 167 responses.
MR. LE: As of yesterday morning, we got 171 responses to that survey.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Excellent. Perfect. The other thing I wanted to ask
about: Moj o Mustapha. He's a resident that would like to go back but he needs
to get back, or saying that he would like to get back through Hinalo Street. And I
Page 16
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
know that was something that Public Works Director Rodenhurst said was being
reviewed and considered. Do you have a timeframe for that? And I ask that
because Mojo can't complete the survey without really knowing if there is a road
to get back home. And it may be Hinalo. It might be another pathway home. But
when can he expect some kind of decision so that he knows if this program is
right for him or not?
MR. LE: So, when I was with Director Rodenhurst at Council—it must have
been two weeks ago—he did frame a timeline of looking at the public roads in
Lanipuna Gardens, upper Hinalo, Leilani Avenue, that review to kind of be
completed by June of this year. So, the team at DPW (Department of Public
Works) is taking a look at that.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Last question. Something that
Amadeo Markoff had mentioned regarding the Federal Register, and it not
specifically saying this has to go to housing, that there are other things that the
government can consider spending this money on. Can you just clarify, for the
record, where we are with that specific language? And I bring it up only because
we've talked consistently about using this funding to address unmet housing
needs. And if there are other ways in which we can spend that money, great. But
I'd like a bit more context because we can do that, but I don't think we're able to
unless these housing needs are resolved first.
MR. LE: This issue is really a critical one. This Community Development Block
Grant for Disaster Recovery program has been running for, I believe, more than
30 years. And then over time, the program has really shifted and taken different
shapes. This disaster recovery program is built off of the Federal Community
Development Block Grant funding program. And so, it absorbs all of those
requirements. It absorbs additional requirements related to the vast recovery, like
the Stafford Act, and has also adapted over time as these big hurricanes and large
events that we all know of, right, have really required the Federal government to
work with local partners to focus and shift the program.
In the Federal Register Notice that covers our allocation of fundings, the primary
one is 85 FR 4681. It's available on our recovery website, linked from HUD's
website. It is one of seven Federal Register notices that covered our $82 million.
And in very clear terms, it speaks to how grantees receiving an allocation of funds
under this notice and under prior ones from allocations in 2018 and 2019 are
required to primarily consider and address its unmet housing recovery needs. It
does speak to otherwise eligible activities, like economic development and
infrastructure, which can be funded once our unmet housing recovery needs are
met.
Page 17
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
And so, really, this has been the basis of our many discussions with HUD since
January 2020. They've been clear on kind of what it looks like to meet needs in
economic and infrastructure housing side and to be able to work through any
reallocations right through this amendment process that they have.
I will say that when this question has come up before, the message I've received
from HUD, the disaster recovery team in particular who reports to the director in
Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia), is that as the years have progressed
you think about the hurricanes in 2017 and 2018 HUD has only moved further
and further around addressing unmet housing needs first, not just for the County
of Hawaii and this eruption event but across their program. So, we really take in
that direction to heart in terms of balancing not only what our Federal partners are
expecting and allow with these Federal funds, as well as addressing the needs we
know that are in the community, right. On the housing front as well as other
resources that are available to address economic development and infrastructure.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Got it. Thank you for that information. I'm just asking for
my colleagues' support today on advancing this measure. We really need to enter
into the agreement so Douglas and his team can staff up the buyout program and
roll it out successfully in our community. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the
latitude and time. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go
ahead.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I have a process
question, sorry. Yesterday, we had the Housing Agency and we discussed the
action plan. This resolution is allowing us to enter into an agreement with HUD
for the funding. The agreement is based on the action plan. Correct?
MR. LE: So, the action plan is important in terms of meeting the requirements
that HUD has for all its grantees, making sure that we have all the policies and
procedures in place. Director Sako talked about on a fiscal grant management
side too. But also it is important because it programs the funds. It says, "Of the
`x' amount of funding that we have, so much is going towards this project versus
that project." And what's really important about the action plan is also that it lays
out data to articulate on their needs. And that is the basis by which, looking at
that data, HUD approves how the jurisdiction kind of spends the money.
The way that a grant agreement works with the action plan is there's a grant
agreement that we're looking to execute, lives for the entire life of the grant. So,
whether we have two projects today or in four years from now we take away one
because it's pau and we add three more, the grant agreement is agnostic of the
program activities even though I understand that receiving these funds is really
informed by where the County is investing these resources to meet our recovery
needs.
Page 18
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
So, they're siblings in a lot of ways. But the grant agreement, once it's executed
it does not change. We went through it very diligently together at Housing
Agency yesterday. It does not speak to the actual program activities per say, but
the requirements that govern the program activities, that's helpful to clarify.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, today's resolution, which actually is
from last year—and then, Clerk, on the bottom of a resolution that we have on
file, it has the wrong voting block inside; "Poindexter." The names on the block
are incorrect, so we need to change those, I believe.
MR. HENRICKS: We wait to see if it's adopted first before we go through with
that action. But duly noted. Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. The reason I'm asking,
I'm just wondering if that HUD plan should have been attached to this as this is
the actual agreement allowing us to enter into an agreement with HUD. Or if it
was
MR. LE: So, the action plan can and will be amended over time. The grant
agreement is one that will remain in place for the entire life of the grant. And
also, what brings us forward, right, in terms of meeting with the Council is the
HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) requirement around intergovernmental
agreements, right? And so, that's why kind of really what this today is about is
the appropriation and the grant agreement.
I think that we've at both in the community but also kind of with Council
Members, I've had a lot of discussion of what the action plan could do, what
unmet needs are still out there that the action plan does not currently address. But
I think, for us, we really think about the grant agreement as one that is that
foundation for us to be able to secure and begin to implement these dollars that's
for recovery. And the action plan will change and address over time as the needs
also change around recovery.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. We're required to do resolutions to
enter into agreements with the Feds or the State, whatever it may be, via this
section of the HRS. And you're saying that the HUD action plan is actually
separate from this agreement.
MR. LE: What governs the action plan is how HUD programmatically structures
it as a requirement to receive funds, from our experience in working with HUD.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That was my process question.
Thank you very much. I yield, Madam Chair.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else here in Hilo?
If not, Kona? Is anyone else desiring to speak in Kona? I guess not. Okay.
Page 19
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Mr. Le, thank you for being here and thank you for explaining that all over. I
think we heard it yesterday, but we needed that explanation again. So, mahalo for
doing that. All those in favor of approving Resolution 768-20, please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 768-20: The motion to adopt Res. 768-20 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: If it's okay, I think there's a companion, Bill 219, "Order of the
Day, Second or Final Reading." Could we take that one too?
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order:
Bill 219: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 20-45, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING
(2018-2020) BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 2021
Appropriates revenues in the Federal —Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)-Disaster Recovery account($83,841,000); and appropriates the same to
the CDBG-Disaster Recovery account. Funds would be used to support disaster
relief, long-term recovery, and restore infrastructure, housing, and economic
revitalization in Hawaii County.
Reference: Comm. 1137
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
First Reading: November 6, 2020
Postponed: November 18, 2020
(Note: Comm. 147, from Finance Director Deanna Sako dated March 2, 2021,
transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 219, was circulated.)
(Note: There is a motion by Ms. David, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to pass
Bill 219 on second and final reading.)
CHR. DAVID: As noted, there is already a motion and a second, and I believe
Ms. Sako is here with a proposed amendment. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, could I
please entertain a motion to amend Bill 219 with the contents of
Communication 147?
Page 20
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Motion to Amend: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to amend Bill 219 with
the contents of Comm. 147. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Sako, could you please come and explain the amendment to
this bill?
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MS. SAKO: So, the total amount is still the same. It's just when the Federal
government appropriated the money, they did it in two batches and they would
like us to track that separately. So, all we're doing is breaking out the same
amount—the 83,841,000—into two separate line items in two separate accounts
so that we can justify to the Federal government how each separate batch of
money was spent.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Anyone needs further explanation?
Seeing none, all those in favor of amending Bill 219 with the contents of
Communication 147, please say "aye."
Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 219 with the contents of
Amend: Comm. 147 was carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Going back to Bill 219, as amended
MS. LEE LOY: Chair?
CHR. DAVID: Oh, sorry.
MS. LEE LOY: Motion to suspend our rules.
CHR. DAVID: Oh, thank you.
Page 21
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on Motion to Ms. Lee Loy moved to suspend Council Rule 24 to waive
Suspend Council the holdover for the substantive amendment of Bill 219.
Rules: Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following
(Approved) voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Now we go back, as amended. All those in favor of approving
Bill 219 at second and final reading, as amended,please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 219: The motion to pass Bill 219, as amended to Draft 2, on
Draft 2 second and final reading was carried by the following voice
(Adopted) vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Deanna. Okay, I believe we have—Mr. Clerk, can
we take Bill 5, second and final reading? We have Director Kern and Deputy
Director here.
Bill 5: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 6, OF THE HAWAII
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO USE
PERMITS
The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward favorable
recommendations for this amendment to the Zoning Code, which would amend the
applicable planning commission's time to approve or deny an application for a Use
Permit, and also clarify certain procedural matters.
Reference: Comm. 17
Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R)
First Reading: February 17, 2021
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 5 on second and final
reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
Page 22
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. We have Director Kern and Deputy
Director Jeff Darrow here to answer any questions about this particular measure.
We had a lot of testimony today on this, so I think it would be really helpful if
you could just go over the intent of the bill, and we can field questions from there.
Thank you.
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Planning Deputy
Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the
Council.)
MR. KERN: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the County
Council. Where to begin. So, I'll begin and then we can get into more details
with Deputy Director Jeff Darrow here. So, this bill, Bill 5, was originated with
the prior Administration, and we've taken it over and we're pushing it through. I
will say that one of the notes that I have on this is messaging. I feel like there is a
lot of confusion that is not accurate, and I feel that, as a Planning Department, I'm
going to work towards doing better messaging so everybody can understand it
simpler. And one of the big issues that I see is right off the bat it says, 90, you
know, cross out 90 days and put 60 days. So, that's a perception that we're
reducing the time, and that's actually not the case.
So, in Chapter 25, Section 25-2-63, Procedure for use permit, actually lays out
how that procedure occurs. And once an application of a use permit application
is, excuse me, upon acceptance of a use permit application, the commission shall
fix a date for a public hearing. The public hearing shall be commenced no later
than 90 days after the acceptance of the use permit application by the Director.
So, there's still the 90 days from the time it's accepted to get to the commission.
Now, what this amendment does is it says, from that public hearing—and this is
where part of it starts getting confusing—from the public hearing, they have
60 days to take action. Prior to that, that didn't exist. And so, if there was an
action done, as Deputy Director explained last time, if you had a split on a vote,
on a 3-3 and there's no action, then there is this automatic approval. How many
times has that happened in Hawaii County's history? Once. So, this is actually
to fix something, to make it better, to actually do the opposite of what some of the
testimony is saying. The testimony is coming in as basically saying we're
reducing the timeframe and automatic approvals. And that's really not the case.
This is an actual effort to fix the situation so there isn't an automatic approval and
that there's time to actually handle it. That's the intent of the bill. Jeff, do you
want to add to that?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks for that explanation. This is a housekeeping
measure. We need to be sure that our Code and our Rules align. And I know that
Council Member Chung brought up earlier that our Code changes should not be
Page 23
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
driven by Rules, but it's my understanding after talking to Deputy
Director Darrow that both were on parallel tracks. And so, this is just to ensure
that there's that alignment and consistency. Thanks for the explanation. I'm
going to be supporting this measure. I think we need to do it so that the Planning
Department has that ability, but also, I think it's in the public's benefit. Folks are
getting more time. So, looking for everyone's support. Thank you, Chair. I
yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Richards, go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And just a quick weigh in on that.
Director, I like the fact that you talked about the messaging and getting the
information across. But you've also been saying the same message at the
readings. This is not the first time. And so, Ms. Kierkiewicz, I appreciate the fact
to give the Director time to echo again what we're actually trying to do with the
housekeeping to fix it. So, you are messaging. But not everybody hears that
every time, so we keep messaging. I fully support this. Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Kona, anyone wants to weigh in in
Kona?
MS. VILLEGAS: Yes,please.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Villegas, go ahead.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for being here, Mr. Kern. I guess I continue to be
confused after hearing testimony from a number of different constituents who
have studied and gone over this legislation in full detail. They still have concerns
about not including an automatic denial. Can you explain why that has not been
included? It's my understanding that the legislation was put on pause for a while
in order to incorporate something like that. Can you explain why that hasn't
occurred?
MR. DARROW: Aloha, Council Member Villegas. This is Jeff Darrow with the
Planning Department. Our intention originally for this bill actually did not
include the automatic approval section. That's not the intent of the bill. The
intent of the bill was to extend the time for the planning commission to be able to
make a decision so that an automatic approval or denial, if it was a denial, would
not occur. In this case, it's obviously an automatic approval.
Previously, you had 90 days to bring it to hearing. The section did not allow any
more time beyond that particular day to continue the hearing unless agreed upon
by all parties. And that normally happens. In one particular case, the applicant
was not willing to continue and the commission could not come to its decision on
that first hearing, and the automatic approval section kicked in. What we're doing
is we're extending that time period for the commission to make a decision an
Page 24
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
additional 60 days. So, if they cannot come to an agreement on the original
90 days, they have two more opportunities, two more hearings to be able to come
to an agreement.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, I suppose. So, there's no
inclusion. You're saying there's no need for any automatic denial inclusion
terminology in this.
MR. KERN: That's correct. I think that's a separate issue dealing with an HRS
situation. This again is housekeeping to make the process better and smoother for
all folks. I will say this, having sat on the other side of the desk for a period of
time, you look at it from a different lens. And sitting from this side of the desk,
you look at it from a different lens. And I think it's important to have a
relationship, the best that we can, between the Administration and the County
Council. And as we're working on Code amendments and changes in trying to
get things through, that we actually can get on board with these for the most part.
And this is something that when we go through this and it's being said that we're
kind of doing it in an inappropriate manner when it's the exact opposite, doesn't it
make you feel like you want to come and do more work in this manner? And I
would hope that the Council would want us to do these fixes that are appropriate
and good for the public and good for the folks and good for the processing. And
that's what this is here for, and that's what we're trying to do. And I would like
to just make sure that that's—we really want to have a good working relationship.
Thank you.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Kern. That comes across a little weird,
honestly, because it's part of my job to vet these things and represent my
constituents and make sure that I'm asking these questions, and that's my
intention here, not to make your job one you don't want to do and bring before us.
So, something that was mentioned in a prior meeting was the ability—in
testimony by Ms. Harden—was we'll just do a contested case hearing. And I take
it to heart, the challenges of just doing a contested case hearing. I'm currently
dealing with something like that in my district, and that's been presented as an
option. And it's hard for people to do: to know how to, to afford to, and to have
the time and energy to do. So, I think it was really interesting, those statements
that you just made.
So, I'm going to have to kind of think about those. But I do want you to
understand that this is my job to ask these questions and vet these concerns, and
make sure that each and every email that comes through my email box and phone
calls that I receive about concerns about a bill such as this when we are in such
we're in a time when there are a lot of people that have concerns. And so, that's
part of my job is to ask these questions and make sure that there isn't—that the
best possible edits are being made to this legislation, and the best possible forms
of communication are being exemplified here.
Page 25
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
So, I thank you for your patience and your gracious flexibility with answering the
questions both from myself and from the constituents who took the time to come
and testify today based on the issues being stated in this bill. And with that, I
yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks, Chair. Thank you. I think we're kind of going off
the rails here, and I do want to address something my colleague Council
Member Villegas did bring up. There have been questions from community
around why can't we address the automatic approvals or denials in this
legislation. Here's why: This is addressing a specific subject matter. And if you
take a look at our Code, we can address one subject at a time. If we were to
address the automatic approval and denials in this legislation, all of this has to
start back at commission. Right? And so, we can take a look at that in a different
vehicle. So, we have to move on what is before us today. So, I hope that
provides a little bit more clarity.
And I have stated for the record that I am working with the Planning Department
and Corporation Counsel to review what community has brought up as something
we potentially need to look at and change. So, I'd like for us to get back to
dealing with what is before us in Bill 5. That's all, Chair. Thank you. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you, Chair. That's where I was. Right? We have a
subject matter title that addresses a specific question. And I think Judge Strance
is going to appreciate this. My old boss used to say, "If you can't convince them,
confuse them,"which walks me back to what Director Kern talked about, the
consistent messaging.
And I hear loud and clear what the testifiers are talking about. But the department
recognizes there's the Code, there's the internal departmental rules, and then the
planning commission rules. And we're just trying to get this aligned. And what I
heard very clearly is it extends the decision-making part of the commission. And
the commission could approve but it could actually deny it also, which then
triggers a whole other lane for an applicant to take. And so, walking back to this
is the critical piece that helps keep everything in alignment, which addresses the
process for everyone in a fair way, in a fair manner.
I'm going to be supporting this legislation. But I do remember at Committee.
Please, we need to look at all of these rules, procedures, and codes holistically to
avoid the confusion. Thank you, Chair. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else wishing to comment?
Okay. Well, oh, go ahead, Mr.
Page 26
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. INABA: This is Kona.
CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Inaba.
MR. INABA: Hi, there. Question for Director Kern. What's before us right now
in the bill with regards to the 90-day extension, we're trying to align that both
withI'm trying to follow up, sorry, with Council Member Lee Loy's
statement—and is what we're trying to do here exactly aligned, everything, with
what's in the commission rules and with your department rules?
MR. KERN: Yes.
MR. INABA: Okay. I have a question for Corporation Counsel, please, and I'm
going to get started with this question as we transition here. Right now, the
ordinance says that we are considered as being approved provided that no written
objection to the use permit is received by the commission. Can you please
explain what"written objection" means as it currently is written in the ordinance?
And I'm asking Corporation Counsel this because we already kind of got an
explanation from Planning in the recent meetings. So, I just want kind of like a
legal official mana`o from you folks.
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
MS. STRANCE: Thank you. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel.
CHR. DAVID: Can you press your button right there at the yes.
MS. STRANCE: Make it closer?
CHR. DAVID: Yes. Bring it closer.
MS. STRANCE: Thank you. The reference is to a contested case matter.
CHR. DAVID: Can you, yeah,pull that mic really close to you because it
doesn't, yeah, it doesn't—
MS.
oesn'tMS. STRANCE: I'm a germophobe.
CHR. DAVID: Oh.
MS. STRANCE: Sorry.
CHR. DAVID: Okay. There you go. That's enough.
Page 27
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MS. STRANCE: There had been some confusion, Mr. Inaba, about that
language, and this bill is to clarify that it's the written objection for contested case
hearing.
MR. INABA: That's the legal, official. So, "written objection" as is written and
in the ordinance right now actually means contested case hearing? Is that right?
MS. STRANCE: Yes.
MR. INABA: I appreciate Director Kern's explanation, and I agree that it is
giving the public more time, which is awesome. The problem I have with this bill
is this part I'm asking about: "written objection"being changed to "contested
case hearing." And my, kind of, beef with this is that I tried to look up how to go
about filing a contested case hearing or to get a contested case hearing pending
before the commission. And we know how Laserfiche works as Council
Members, and unfortunately, it wasn't super easy to find out that information.
So, in this contested case hearing, to get something pending, can you explain how
that works, Ms. Strance? Because, I think that's kind of the big problem or
concern I'm hearing from constituents. It's the change from "written objection"
to "contested case hearing pending." So, what does it take to get a contested case
hearing pending?
MS. STRANCE: I'm going to defer to Mr. Kern who is more familiar with the
process. I can talk to you about language but not about how that process is
initiated. He would be more familiar.
MR. INABA: Okay. Director Kern, can you answer that question,please?
MR. KERN: Absolutely. So, once an application is accepted, the applicant will
get notification that the applicant's been accepted, then they're required to send
out their first notice to surrounding property owners. That list also is submitted to
the Planning Department with the application. The Planning Department reviews
that list of surrounding property owners for completeness. And various
applications have various distances. In this case, it'd be State Land Use Urban. I
believe it would be 300 feet of surrounding properties. And it also has to go at
least more than just one property.
And there needs to be a sign posted on the front of the property notifying the
public of the application in the most obvious, appropriate manner. So, that would
be on the busiest street, busiest corner, busiest area, the most-seen place on that
property. So, with that notification that gets sent out to all the surrounding
property owners on that list, it's going to state what the application's for, what the
request is for and that they can submit written testimony. They can also file a
Page 28
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
contested case hearing. "And furthermore, here is the application for the contest
case hearing. And if you want to do it, here's how to do it. Here's the
instructions for it. And here is the application in your hands to file it."
Then, once the hearing has been put on the agenda for the commission, the
applicant has to send out a second notice to surrounding property owners. And it
will then say the date and time and place of the hearing, all of the pertinent
information about the request and, again, that they can contact the Planning
Department for further information, show up present to give testimony at the
commission, provide written testimony if they wish to the commission. Or they
have the ability to file a contested case. "And again, here is the application and
instructions to file a contested case."
Now, they have to file that contested case seven days prior to the commission
hearing, and they have to pay the fee for that. So, then, that would be notified.
The applicant would be notified there's been a case filed. The commission's
going to be notified. And at that point, that gets turned over to the commission
for them to grant standing. And so, "standing" is do these people actually have
standing for a contested case? Because, it could come in from somebody in
Alaska to say, "I want a contested case because I want to cause trouble," or this
could be a neighbor. It could be somebody down the street. And that's the
commission's duty at that point in time to see if that person or that entity has
standing. It's not for the Planning Department to do that. It's for us to process
that.
And it's for us, the Planning Department, to ensure that the applicant made those
notifications and they were sent out. And they're required to show the Planning
Department what the notification was, who the list of surrounding property
owners were and that the contested case applications were in there. So, there's a
relatively decent period of time. It's usually, again, 15 days and it's about
10 days afterwards that the notices go out, and then there's a period of, let's say, a
month and a half or so and then there's a second notice. And again, there's the
sign. So, there is every effort made. And this is all by this is required. This
isn't an option. We can't go and change that up. This is the standard
requirement.
And if somewhere you were to miss that notification or they were to miss putting
in the contested case documents, then the applicant would be notified and told,
"You didn't file properly." They would probably extend the commission hearing
date and agree to do that to do proper notifications within the proper timeframes.
And that's how a contested case would occur.
MR. INABA: Thank you, Director Kern. You stated that the applicant—
MS.
pplicantMS. STRANCE: May I just add a little bit? And partly because I'm more of a
visual type of person. If you look at what this bill is doing, under the existing
Page 29
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
ordinance in the Code the timeframe within which the commission must act starts
at the acceptance period when the application is accepted. Once an application is
accepted, a process starts in, including public hearings.
The proposed revisions intend to run deadlines now after the close of public
hearings. So, there was some concern about whether the public, or there would
have been an inability to consider the application. By placing the time running at
the close of public hearing or hearings, I guess the evidentiary portion of the
process has concluded and then the 60 days run. And so, I think there was
confusion about the 60 to 90 is that we're starting the time running at a different
point along the line.
Now, the parties can agree to a continuance, which would extend the time further
down the line except if there's a contested case hearing filed. That means that
somebody has already objected to what's happened, and it doesn't make sense to
proceed with the rest of the application until the issues presented in the contested
case matter are resolved. So, it's kind of a stop button to resolve these other
issues. And so, I think, for those who are visual like me, if you were looking at
the continuum or timeline, we're talking about two different points in the timeline
and we're talking about when there should be a stop.
And then, I just want to add one more thing because I had been asked about
whether an amendment could be made. Council Member Lee Loy talked about
one provision. There is another provision in County Code [sic] (County Charter)
Section 3-10(d), which does not allow the County Council to change the purpose
of a proposed amendment or ordinance. The change from approval to denial
fundamentally changes the purpose and intent of this ordinance. And so,just in
terms of can we do it, you could but it would be against your County Charter and
would probably be struck down for acting outside of your authority.
MR. INABA: Thank you. Corporation Counsel, does "filed" and "pending"
mean the same thing in terms of a contested case hearing?
MS. STRANCE: I saw that language as well, and I'm not quite sure what it takes
to perfect a filing. And so, something would become pending, I think, when the
actions necessary to complete the filing are taken. So, if it's submitting an
application and a check, for example, then that would perfect and make the matter
pending.
MR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern, do you have any opinion on that"filed"
versus "pending"?
MR. KERN: Yeah, I would interpret it the same way, that"filed"would be that
they filed for a contested case and, basically,just in a timely fashion. That's the
main criteria, that it's filed in time, that there's the check there. And then,
Page 30
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
"pending"would be that the commission granted standing for the contested case,
and now there's a contested case hearing. We just dealt with this at, uh, I think it
was our last Windward Planning Commission hearing.
MR. INABA: Okay, so, it has to be granted "hearing"to be considered pending.
MR. KERN: It has to be granted"standing."
MR. INABA: Standing. I'm sorry. Okay. And then, you talked about when the
applicant is doing their notification that they provide an opportunity for the
contested case hearing process to the neighbors. They give the application to the
neighbors for a contested case hearing if they want?
MR. KERN: Yeah. So, typically, what you'd see is on the first page. You'd see:
"An application has been filed for such and such use permit to do, whatever, a bed
and breakfast. And they intend to do x, y, z. The property's located at such and
such location. Please see the attached location map. Please see attached floor
plan of the home or whatever the proposal's going to be. You're welcome to ask
for additional information from the Planning Department. You're welcome to
provide written testimony. We'll notify you. Depending on what notification it
is, either we'll notify you when the public hearing will be or you're welcome to
be present at the public hearing and provide testimony." And then it says, "You
also have the right to file a contested case hearing under such and such rules, and
the application for the contested case hearing is attached." That happens twice.
MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And that's for everybody within 300 feet you
said?
MR. KERN: For a use permit, yeah, on State Land Use (inaudible).
MR. INABA: Yeah. Okay. Last question. Thank you, everybody, for the
opportunity to get clarification on this. This is just to make it more clear one last
time. "Written objection" as it's written right now in the ordinance, if somebody
was to write in to the commission separate of the normal testimony process,
would that stop the timeline as it exists right now?
MR. KERN: No. The only way that the timeline would be stopped is if a
contested case hearing was (a) filed and(b) granted standing. Otherwise, it would
just be considered normal testimony, whether it was in favor or against or
commenting.
MR. INABA: Okay, so, "written objection" as it's in the ordinance now isn't a
simple written objection. Right? So, technically, somebody could write in a
written objection and, even though that's how the ordinance is written right now,
it wouldn't stop the process. Is that right?
Page 31
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. KERN: That's how I understand it, yes.
MR. INABA: Corporation Counsel, is that how you understand it as well?
MS. STRANCE: Yes. The written objection or comment would be considered as
part of the hearings process.
MR. INABA: Okay. That's all I have right now. Mahalo nui.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else here? Mr. Kaneali`i-
Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I listened to the
testimony of the public, and I think they had some good points. And while we
have touched on—we've extended the time period. And while we've touched on
"we cannot amend the bill as it is for the automatic denials would change the
intention of the bill,"I think that the main concern that I got from the public is
making sure the public is able to contest the case in a fashion that's accessible to
people.
And not everyone has $200 to file a contested case hearing. Not everyone can do
the paperwork. Some people, it's difficult for them, period, much less having to
send a check in for $200. So, I think that was the real intention of the public, was
setting up that space for them to participate and to have that accessible for
whomever may be filing that contested case hearing.
I appreciate the extension of the time, but I do hear the public. I really appreciate
Mr. Inaba and Ms. Villegas's questions and, Zendo Kern, your explanation and,
Strance, your—is it Judge Strance or ? What do ?
MS. STRANCE: I answer to almost anything.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What do you prefer? I was thinking about it
last night. I was writing you an email and I called you "ma'am."
MS. STRANCE: Maybe not"ma'am"—makes me feel too old. But either
Ms. Strance or Judge Strance is fine.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, we'll go "Ms. Strance." So, I
appreciate Ms. Strance's email as well. You clarified some of my questions. Part
of me feels that if what we have in front of us is not correct, then we shouldn't
proceed. There's no burning desire to fix this. We've only had one instance of
this in our County, as was said by Mr. Darrow and Mr. Kern. I never like hearing,
"We should just do this because we should." Is there a really valid reason for
doing this? You're extending the time, understood. But other than that, if there's
not a real strong desire here to pass this bill.
Page 32
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
So, I'm just saying that so others may understand we don't have to pass this bill
today. We're not dying to pass this bill. If you don't know what it's doing and
we don't understand it and it is confusing not all of us were born into the
planning part of the world and understand it inside and out. But if there's an
understanding that we don't get it or it's not fixing something that's immediately
broken, then we don't have to pass it. That's our choice.
Initially, I wasn't going to say yes to this. I'm going to say yes to this bill today
based on what I've come to learn. I would, again, caution any time we're told to
pass something because we should just move it along. I hate hearing that. I'm
just stating that for the record, but I do appreciate what was said today.
Ms. Strance, I may follow up with a question regarding intent and purpose of a
bill regarding (Section) 3-10(d) in our County Charter. That's a separate
question. But I do thank everyone for their time on this and for the latitude and
for a good conversation, if anything, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Chung, go ahead.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. First of all, I do agree this present Administration
inherited this matter, right, and you're just seeing it through. Second, I didn't
really hear any different testimony today than I heard the other days, quite
frankly. And third, I can't recall what the vote was because it's not reflected here,
but I know I voted against this at first reading. I might have been the only person
to have voted against it at first reading. I could be wrong. And the reason I voted
against it was, as Ms. Kierkiewicz accurately stated, was because, among other
things, I was concerned that perhaps we were allowing rules duly promulgated by
the planning commission to drive an ordinance. It should be the other way
around. That was one of my concerns. And then I had some other concerns,
which I didn't articulate.
So, since that time, I've really taken a close look at this. So, let's go one by one.
And quite frankly, no matter what kinds of reasons a person may give for or
against it, people are set in their minds, "That's it already!" Right? We all
understand that. But let's go to Subsection, first, (a), that first. That was the thing
that kind of stood out in my mind. They're reducing from 90 to 60 days.
And, Zendo, you mentioned there might have been some problems in the
messaging, okay. But when I look at this thing really closely, it actually affords
the public more time, okay. Because at first, it was 60 days after the acceptance
of a use permit application. And who knows how long it's going to take after
that, right? So, even if it's 90 days, the processing of that application could take a
long time before it hits the commission. Right?
So, this one, yeah, it reduces it from 90 to 60, but now it's after the completion of
the public hearings at the planning commission. So, you know everything's
Page 33
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
complete already, right? So, in other words, the commission, after all the public
hearings are closed, you cannot be dillydallying around. You've got to do
something. Right? So, this actually is better. I don't know why they mixed it up,
quite frankly, but it is what it is. But it actually is better.
The more interesting issue, though, comes down on Subsection (c). Holeka talked
about it, about the written objection. But you addressed it, Zendo, when you said,
hey, somebody with no interest in this matter can come in, file a written objection,
and now circumvent, which isI'm going to get to the main point here—is going
to circumvent a State law. This thing was patterned after a State law, which
requires that any agency,planning commission, come up with rules. It's really
fish or cut bait. Right? And if not, it is approved. That's a State law.
And the State law—and I cannot really recall the exact words, but it said
something like, "unless otherwise provided by law." But it didn't say that the
counties or agencies can provide stricter laws. My reading of that is that the
State, unless there's some other State statute that is contrary to that law, then it
would trump that law. But we as a County cannot come up with something that
trumps a State law. That's my reading of it anyway. So, it is a law. It said it has
to be approved. That is a State law. So, this mirrors a State law. So, I'm saying,
from my reading of this, we cannot come up with an ordinance or a rule that says
it's denied automatically. This is what it says pursuant to State law.
So, if we allow a written objection from a non-interested party to come inso, in
other words, they can always, for every application that comes in, a person can
file a written objection from Alaska, as you've used the example, to circumvent a
State law. That's horrible. We can't allow that to happen. Right? But in other
words, though, these written objections are considered by the planning
commission, right, in determining whether something should be approved or
denied.
So, I took a real close look at this thing. I don't see anything wrong with it, quite
frankly, but people will believe what they want to believe. But I really took some
time in trying to examine this matter. Okay.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else before we close this?
MS. KIMBALL: Chair David, this is Heather Kimball.
CHR. DAVID: Oh, go ahead, Ms. Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair David. I just had a couple of questions.
Actually, I'd love for Judge Strance to weigh in on those statements that my
colleague just made. That was my assessment, too, is that State law requires us to
Page 34
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
automatically deny if we do not meet the timeframes that we set. Is that true?
I'm sorry, automatically approve. My apologies. Automatically approve if we
don't meet the timelines set by our ordinances. Is that a correct assessment?
MS. STRANCE: Your question is whether the County can enact an automatic
denial in light of the automatic approval provisions of Chapter 91?
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah,just in response to what Council Member Chung just
said, which is my understanding based on our previous hearings as well, that the
automatic approval is part of the HRS and that requires all bodies with decision-
making authority to automatically approve if they fail to meet the deadline set in
their rules. Is that a correct interpretation?
MS. STRANCE: I would have to get back to you on that. I haven't fully
researched what the authority of the County is in terms of enacting something in
direct contradiction to that. But I would have to research that further.
MS. KIMBALL: The other question I have—like you, Judge Strance, I'm visual.
And this is kind of forI think this would be for Director Kern or for(Deputy)
Director Darrow. Thank you, Council Member Inaba, for drawing my attention to
that change of the wording from "received"to "pending before." Deputy
Director Darrow or Director Kern, can you clarify the timing for when, for
example, a hearing for standing could happen, meets within the other timeframes
established through this ordinance so there wouldn't be a situation where
someone has filed their contested case, but they're waiting for a hearing on
standing by the commission and that deadline is missed. Could you clarify
whether or not if that would be a possibility at all?
MR. KERN: Sure, I'm happy to clarify. Zendo Kern here. So, when the
commission hearing is agendized—and so for Windward, it's usually the first
Thursday of the month; for Leeward, it's the third Thursday of the month. When
the item comes up, if there was a contested case hearing stand, excuse me, a
contested case hearing filed the seven days prior—let's just assume that a
contested case hearing was filed within the proper timing and everything else. It's
going to go to the hearing date.
Let's just say it's Windward; first Thursday of the month. They're going to,just
like you folks do, they're going to say, "First item on the agenda," a, b, c. The
first thing they're going to do is say, "We've received a petition for standing in a
contested case hearing." And the first thing they do is take care of that subject
matter right then and there. We just dealt with this. And so, the commission
stops any type of activity or action on the actual merits of the application, and
they talk about granting them standing for a contested case.
The person who filed for the contested case gets to have a say. They say, "Here's
why I believe." They put it in writing too. The applicant, they get a say. The
Page 35
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
commission then does its deliberation, and they choose to give standing at that
time or they don't. And if they do choose to give standing, the first thing that
happens—and I think this is really important for the public to know—is it goes to
mediation. It's required to have mediation to start with, and it's also important to
know that the County pays for that mediation. And then from there, if it can't be
addressed, then it goes forward into the continuation of the contested case.
And while the standing in the contested case and the contested case is still going,
whether it's settled or there's conclusions of law and findings of facts that come
from that, no action is taken against—with regard to the request of the
application. So, in the case that this isagain, the contested case is filed in the
appropriate manner; you'd never have the application getting ahead of the
contested case. It's virtually impossible because it always goes: Contested case
first. Is there standing? Let's deal with that. And then we could move forward
with the actual subject matter at hand.
Does that answer your question appropriately?
MS. KIMBALL: Well, I'm taking that your answer is no. It is impossible for
MR. KERN: That would have been a lot easier.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. But the short answer often helps in clarifying some of
these things. I also want to confirm that there would also be an opportunity with
an automatic approval for an appeal through the Appeals Board.
MR. KERN: It would be Third Circuit. So, anything that's a commission goes
through Third Circuit. The Appeals Board only deals with Planning Director
Public Works Director decisions.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Back to probably
Mr. Darrow because this, as you said, was initiated from the previous
Administration. And one of the things that I took home from your previous
testimony was that whether it's automatic denial or automatic approval, neither of
those should ever happen. Like, we should not expect that because that means
that somebody's not doing their job within the County. And that, in the past, it
has been rare; one example in the last 20 years. Was there a particular incident
that led the past Administration to initiate this process on this part of the Code?
Or is it just, "We're going through things, trying to clean things up, doing some
housekeeping"? Was there some sort of incident that motivated this action now?
MR. DARROW: The Planning Department is in the process of going through a
change with our entire record system. I'm sure you folks heard a lot about it
yesterday with EnerGov. One of the actions that the Planning Department has
been trying to take care of is,prior to that launch, trying to get their timing
processes in line as well as their fee schedules, everything, in order. There were a
Page 36
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
number—and there still area number of timing of particular actions and permits
that are completely different than other actions. We're trying to bring consistency
to those time periods.
As far as planning commission actions, the consistent timing has been 90 days.
And again, this is for the planning commission decisions, not necessarily County
Council decisions. But the Planning Department has 90 days to bring it to hearing
and then 60 days after the close of hearing to make a decision. And so, that's
been the consistent timeframe. And that timeframe has been—we've gone
throughI agree completely with what Council Member Chung said, that the
Rules should not direct the Code. But what we're trying to do is that we're trying
to do this consistently to Rules and Code.
Unfortunately, we took care of Rule first before the Code, and now we're just
trying to bring the Code in consistency with the Rules even though there really
wasn't—it was just a matter of bringing consistency across the board. It wasn't
an issue of one driving the other. It was consistency across the board.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you for the clarification. I also do agree with my
colleagues that the Code should drive the Rules and not the other way around.
But I see in this particular case, we are expanding the opportunity for public to be
involved in this process. And I appreciate you bringing in the EnerGov
conversation and the need to actually set some of these timelines very clearly
because that will be critical in the operation of that system. So, thank you for
clarifying my questions. I appreciate your time.
MR. DARROW: Thank you.
MS. KIMBALL: I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball.
MS. VILLEGAS: Ms. David? Chair David?
CHR. DAVID: Yes?
MS. VILLEGAS: I just had another question if I could ask.
CHR. DAVID: All right. Thank—someone didn't speak?
MS. VILLEGAS: Unless there's anyone over there who hasn't spoken.
CHR. DAVID: No. Go ahead.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And forgive me if I missed it. I appreciate the thorough
answers from Mr. Kern, but I don't think I quite was able to capture the
Page 37
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
differentiation in the transition of terms here in Section (c). Section (c) is
essentially the challenge in this, in all the edits being made here, at least according
to the constituents who have raised the greatest concerns.
If, of course according to HRS, the State law will not allow for automatic denial,
then that's not an option. And thank you for your help clarifying that. As you get
confirmation on that, Judge Strance, that would be greatly appreciated. If it's not
even an option, then we'll gladly remove that from any conversation. However,
my concern remains with—and I really appreciate the continued clarification
about this. It's an extension of an amount of time, and we are getting alignment
with our Code and our Rules.
But I do still have concerns as to why, then, the changes were made to Section (c);
does not seem particularly necessary to change the terminology from "written
objection"to specifically "contested case,"which brings me to my more specific
question, the difference between "received" and "pending before." What would
be the specific, I guess, need for this change and, yeah, the terminology that's
there? And I don't know if, Judge Strance, this is a question for you or if,
Mr. Darrow, you might be able to answer that for me.
MR. DARROW: I can go ahead and address this, Council Member Villegas.
Again, our goal in this particular Code change was to have consistency with our
Rules as well as with the Code; the Code being the authority, the Rules following
the authority but it was out of whack. Our Rules clearly reflect the language that
you see before you in the Code at this time. The term "pending" is because there
is the—if you just file a petition for standing, as Director Kern said, the
commission has to make a decision of whether or not to accept or deny standing.
So,just by the mere fact that someone's submitting a petition does not stop the
process. They have to approve standing. And therefore, it becomes a process that
is pending before the commission that they will have to resolve through a
contested case hearing at that point.
There have been times that the public has submitted a petition, but they were not
granted standing. And that did not change the timeframe that they have to make a
decision.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I guess my continued concern—and I understand and I
appreciate the intention of this Administration and the Planning Department
streamlining. We have such challenges and issues with our permitting process
and so many frustrated business people who continue to struggle to get their
permits and to go through the processes at hand. So, I understand and I want to
trust that that's the intentionality of some of these changes.
But I can't help to question the changes here for "written objection." And I do
feel for those who writing in a written objection might be their only cause or their
only way of communicating something like this. And having it being essentially
Page 38
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
upgraded to having to be a contested case hearing, I think that's what I've been
hearing from my constituents about their concern about the changes here. And I
question whether or not this was necessary in this specific bill if the intentionality
really had to do with different timeframes.
So, I, myself, would feel more comfortable if there were, potentially, some
amendments to this and there may that we left it with "written objection" and
left it with "received"until which time there could be more buy-in from the
community where this is regarded. So, those would just be my requests on this.
Otherwise, I still have reservations. And as Council Member Kaneali`i-
Kleinfelder wisely stated, there is no major rush on this. There is no timeframe
that anything is waiting on.
And I think that part of this legislation was written really well, and I think that we
have an opportunity to improve upon it with a couple of changes. And I think that
might, at least for me and for those that continue to express their concerns, this
might resolve those concerns and be able to bring us to a more cohesive outcome.
So, that would be my ask on this. And until that time, I feel like, unfortunately,
I'm not going to be able to support this legislation at this time. Thank you. I
yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Chung, did you speak yet? You
did already. Okay, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I think you need to wrap this up
and, yeah, go ahead.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: One of the options we have is to postpone.
So, I'm just going to make the motion to postpone Bill 5 to the call of the Chair.
And I'm only doing that because there has been some question and concern, and
there's a lot of toss-up. We're not in a burning desire to pass this bill, as I
understand. It's one of the options of the Council. So, I'm going to make the
motion and then we can see what happens. If there's no will of this body to do
that, then we can proceed to the main motion.
Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to postpone Bill 5 to the
Postpone: call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and failed by
Failed the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder
and Villegas —2.
Noes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards,
and Chair David—7.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Moving forward, then, on the
Page 39
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. KERN: Madam Chair?
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead.
MR. KERN: Just one minute.
CHR. DAVID: Sure.
MR. KERN: So, a standard practice for decades, as long as probably I've been
born, is that if somebody gives a written objection to the planning commission,
they take it as you folks do, as testimony. And it's always been the standard
practice that you need to file a contested case in order to move that forward. If
there isn't a burning issue here, it should get done.
The irony is if this wasn't passed or it was postponed, the concern about getting
this automatic approval is actually right there. The big concern about what I feel
was one of the elements that was coming exists. By getting this done, it actually
takes that off of the table and eliminates that possibility. So, I feel it's obviously
in the best effort and intention of the public. And however it goes, it goes. So,
thank you, all, for your support.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. Mr. Chung, go ahead.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I just wanted to address something that Ms. Kimball asked.
It had to do with my opinion on this matter. And I never try to advance my
opinions as being the absolute because, as Judge Strance knows, you put two or
three attorneys in there, you might get five different opinions, right? And that's
only my opinion. We'll see what the official opinion is later on. But I did want to
make this one point, though, and it, again, has to do with Subsection (c), the all-
importance of Section (c).
We all know that the automatic approval was already there, right? It's just kind of
changing what triggers or what could stop the automatic approval. But I would
also make this argument—again, only my opinion but after reading the State
statute, it could be argued that we don't even need Subsection (c), that the State
statute controls this matter and that it would be approved if no decision was made
at the agency level after they made their rule determining or prescribing the length
of time they had to make that decision. There's nothing in the State law that says
that we have to promulgate rules or codify that requirement. So, that's my
argument. I mean, it could be argued, anyway. And—well, I'll just leave it at
that. But thank you.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Okay, I'm going to close this up right
now because I want to say something. Thank you for this very in-depth
discussion again. And I think it's necessary because of the perceived confusion
about this. The Planning process is naturally very confusing. And the
Page 40
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
paragraph (c), to me, is the paragraph that I think I really like because when you
refer to the contested case hearing, that's a separate animal, process all in its own.
And that has to be completed, like you said, before Planning moves forward with
anything.
The other important thing I think about in contested case hearing is not everyone
will qualify because, if I remember correctly, your interest has to be separate and
distinct from that of the general public. So, leaving it referring to "written
objection," it's very subjective. It might be somebody just saying, "I object to
this." So, that's vague to me and that is why the reference to "contested case," in
my opinion, makes this really clear; stops the process until the contested case
decision is made. And that can take years.
So, take it from somebody who did it, no. So, I twice. But, no, and I appreciate
that because I think this whole discussion that we've been having in Committee
till now just pretty much brought light to something very complicated. And so, I
appreciate everybody's contributions—Judge Strance and my Council
Members because I think I have a better understanding. And I'm happy to
support this measure because you folks have a lot more to do, right, in bringing
our procedural issues, department-wise, no, into compliance or just making that
balance consistent. So, on that, Council Members, all those in favor of approving
Bill 5 at—what is this, second and final reading? Okay. Please say "aye."
Vote on Bill 5: The motion to pass Bill 5 on second and final reading was
(Adopted) carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards,
and Chair David–8.
Noes: Council Member Villegas – 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
MR. KERN: Thank you, all, very much. Have a great rest of your day.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. We're going to take a break for five
minutes. Okay? We're in recess.
Recess: At 11:17 a.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:26 a.m.
CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, can we please move on to Resolution 40-21?
Page 41
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business.
of Business:
Res. 40-21: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF SIX
INTOXILYZER 8000 BREATH TEST INSTRUMENTS TO THE COUNTY OF
HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT
The donation provided by the Maui Police Department is valued at approximately
$42,000.
Reference: Comm. 107
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Approve: FC-17
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 40-21 and
Finance Committee Report No. 17. Seconded by
Mr. Richards.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead.
MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: As this was in Committee and we had a very
robust discussion, well, not a robust discussion, we discussed it. Torey is here
today, Torey Keltner from the Police Department. And if there's any further
questions—and he did wait very patiently throughout the last item on our agenda.
I appreciate your time. I'm sorry for the delay. If there's any further questions, I
yield the floor at this time.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. I believe we'll let him say something. He's been so
patient, waited all morning. Please give us a summary again.
(Note: At this time, Traffic Safety Coordinator Torey Keltner, Police
Department, came forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. KELTNER: Madam Chair and members of the Council, thank you for your
time. My name is Torey Keltner. I'm the Program Manager for Traffic Services
at the Hawaii Police Department. This is a great opportunity for the County. I
have the good fortune of representing the Police Department and County at many
meetings with the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, the
other law enforcement agencies in the State. And we've all worked together on
traffic safety and getting Federal grant funds that are appropriate for each of our
counties and the police departments to obtain equipment.
In a discussion in 2019, end of 2019, it came up that Maui had purchased some
additional intoxilyzers. They went on to the 9000, and we currently and still
maintain the 8000s in our County. And I'd ask them if, by chance, they would let
Page 42
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
us have a couple of theirs that they did, and the discussion went back and forth.
Ultimately, they decided, through their administration, that they would allow us to
have six of those instruments, which is a benefit to us.
We currently have eleven that are maintained by the department. Nine of those
are in operation in the districts, and we just have two backups. And the idea is
that we'll be able to replace and place some of those pieces of equipment in
additional locations within the districts and substations so that if an officer is
conducting an investigation into a DUI(driving under the influence), then they'll
be able to more readily get to those areas and do that. And these instruments are
actually portable. So, anticipate that we'll have one assigned to each of our traffic
enforcement units if they so choose to use them out in the field(inaudible)piece
that way.
But we're really lucky that we have such a good working relationship with Maui
County. They've helped us. We've helped them. And it helps, generally, the
public have a safer place to live and drive in our counties. So, thank you.
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo for being here and your patience again. Council
Members, any comments? Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to thank Torey for his
hard work on this. I mean, it's important to continuously cultivate relationships
across counties and you've done that, and it's turned into something really
beneficial for our County. So, thank you, Torey, for your hard work. Chair, I
yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. In Kona, anyone? Seeing none,
here in Hilo? No? All right, thank you. Thank you, Torey. All those in favor of
approving Resolution 40-21, please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 40-21: The motion to adopt Res. 40-21 and Finance Committee
(Adopted) Report No. 17 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Can we skip down, now, to Bill 25, please?
MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Torey.
Page 43
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order:
Bill 25: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 20-44, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
JULY 1, 2020 TO JUNE 30, 2021
Adds the following Public Works projects to the Capital Budget: Pahoa Feasibility
Study —State ($500,000), Puak6 Facilities Plan—County ($300,000), and Puako
Facilities Plan—State ($1,500,000). Funds for this project shall be provided from
General Obligation Bonds, Capital Projects Fund—Fund Balance and/or Other
Sources ($300,000) and State Capital Improvement Project Funds ($2,000,000).
Reference: Comm. 131
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Waived: FC
Note: Requires 2/3 vote of the entire
membership to amend,pursuant to
Section 10-6(e), Hawai`i County Charter
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 25 on first
reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
(Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour
came forward to address the members of the Council, via
videoconferencing.)
CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I believe we have Mr. Mansour. Go
ahead.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, and we did hear this in I'm sorry, we
waived this to Council to expedite a request and the funds. We did reach out to
Dora, and I think, Eric, you're here for us today? You want to come up to the
front and, Deanna, if we have any questions for you? Anyone in Kona, we also
have Deanna available if there's further questions for the Puako and Pahoa
feasibility studies. And, Ramzi, we have you. Thank you for being here today,
Director.
MR. MANSOUR: Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Why don't you just break it down for us a
little bit and start us off. And then, if there's further questions from the Council,
which I'm sure there will be, we will go from there.
Page 44
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. MANSOUR: Thank you, Madam Chair, Council Members. Before you
today, this bill to allow us to appropriate some of the funding that we have
received from the State, the $300,000, it's already being appropriated by our
County for the 500,000 that we're receiving for the Puna District. And that's as a
commitment, as I mentioned to you earlier in a prior meeting, that will be coming
before you on March 3rd to include the 500,000 we get in as a CIP (Capital
Improvement Project) fund for the Puna District.
The other one based on the $1.5 million, that State Capital Improvement Project,
we need to amend that bill to include these projects within them. And for
$1.5 million, the County contribution has $300,000. And, therefore, I'm here to
answer questions. I've got Eric in our—Deputy Chief from Wastewater present at
the Hilo facility to answer also other questions or may give background to this
bill. Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield for the other members.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mansour, Director. Mr. Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Let Ms. Kierkiewicz go first.
CHR. DAVID: All right. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This is actually a question for
Director Sako. I'm just curious. There's an appropriation in here500,000 from
the State for a feasibility study—and I know that we have to do a 20 percent
match. So, 100,000. What funds are we leveraging? Can we use any of the
funding we got from the State for recovery to match or is that not allowed? I'm
just curious.
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MS. SAKO: I don't know if it's specifically related to recovery. This is a project
that's been on our books for a long time.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I see.
MS. SAKO: But we already do have the match appropriated, and it's actually in
an older bond authorization.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Excellent.
MS. SAKO: So, the money's there and ready to go.
Page 45
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. And then, the scope from the Office of Budget and
Finance? And I ask that because we had received 2.5 million from EDA
(Economic Development Administration)to do that sort of larger EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) study to identify wastewater treatment facility
opportunities in the region. And I just wanted to make sure that we were able to
take the next step for Pahoa using these funds. So, I'm just wondering what the
scope is.
MS. SAKO: Yeah. And I think the Wastewater Division has already been
discussing how to kind of incorporate and maximize the use of those funds so that
we get the most bang for our buck for dealing with both the EDA and the State
funds. So, they'll probably start the EDA project first and then tack on these
after.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Anyone from the department wants to
elaborate? Eric, do you want to elaborate, or Director? Director, he's punting to
you.
MR. MANSOUR: Yes, definitely. We are, right now, as part of that$2.2 million
that we're already getting from the EDA, we already got the position for the
Planner V and in the process of getting recruited for. So, our goal is trying to
maximize the funding to get the most efficient process in getting and delivered to
your district the feasibility study as far as the wastewater treatment is concerned.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And then, is there a timeframe for that, for leveraging the
EDA funding and when we should have a study completed by?
MR. MANSOUR: I believe we have two years. And I'm not sure. I remember
the last time we had discussions, it was about a two years' limit.
MS. SAKO: So, these particular State funds also have to be encumbered by
June 30'h of 2022. So, we'll be working on kind of both simultaneously. But they
should be able to get far enough along with the EDA study before because these
only have to be encumbered. So, we just have to enter into an agreement to
perform the study.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you for those details. This is really great
news for Puna. We had earlier conversations today about helping resolve housing
issues, and people wanted to make sure there were enough investments in
infrastructure to drive economic development. And this is one of those things that
helps to accelerate that. So, thank you. Please keep me posted. This is really
important and actually touches three districts: mine, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's,
and Chair David's. So, we're keenly interested in how this advances. Thank you.
I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Richards, go ahead.
Page 46
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. And thanks, Ramzi, for being here.
This is a culmination of a couple of years' initiative coming out of both
Senator Lorraine Inouye and Representative Dave Tarnas as far as putting forth to
get this funding coming to us. I think as long as I've been in office you heard
Erica Perez give testimony on this bill, and she's been working with the coral
alliance. She's one of the first, very persistent people pushing the initiative for
Puako and rightly so. Ramzi and I have discussed Puako and the concerns for
those nearshore waters.
The funding is here to get going and to move along. And the question—in fact,
Ramzi and I both had this question within the last months: Where are we with the
funding? The funding is now here. We can appropriate to go forward. So, that's
it to do the facilities plan. Obviously, it's not the funding of the facilities in and
of itself, but it's the planning and getting it further down the line.
The nearshore waters are something we've all talked about. We talked about
Alii Drive and the concern there, Keaukaha and the concern there. This is taking
the first step at addressing an area that has no wastewater management. So, I'm
going to ask for the support of all my colleagues. This is a very important first
step, and looking for more funding to take care of the wastewater management.
With that, I don't know, Ramzi, if you have any other comments you want to
make.
MR. MANSOUR: Not at this time. I think I agree with you a hundred percent.
It's very crucial that we start looking into these developments that front end the
shoreline and try to find solutions. And this will give us the opportunity to do so.
MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Ramzi. So, Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. And thank you to both my colleagues. I just
want to share. The nearshore quality monitoring, especially at Puako, is
something I addressed when we were on the Water Board, which is now going
back almost eight years. And this is really a critical link to addressing the health
of our coral, the health of our reef, especially out in Puako. But not only there but
hopefully serving as a model for Keaukaha and Alii Drive and just all of the
Kona coast. So, wholeheartedly supporting this. And if this becomes a model on
how we partner County, State, and even Water Department and the funds and the
ability to leverage clean water monies, this would be the vehicle. So, thank you
for bringing this forward. Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Kona? Any comments from Kona?
Seeing none, any more comments from here? Seeing none, well, Director, thank
you for your patience and everyone's patience for waiting for this to come up on
the agenda. And on that, all those in favor of approving Bill 25, please say "aye."
Page 47
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on Bill 25: The motion to pass Bill 25 on first reading was carried by
(Approved) the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: All right. Now, let me see. Can we just jump on the last item on
bills for second and final—well, not really the last one yeah, it is—Bill 12?
Bill 12: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, ARTICLE 5
AND ARTICLE 7 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION,
AS AMENDED), RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, USE PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND ZONING DISTRICT
REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CLINICS AND MASSAGE,
ACUPUNCTURE, CHIROPRACTIC AND OTHER SIMILAR HEALTH
SERVICE FACILITIES
The Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions forward favorable
recommendations for this amendment to the Zoning Code, which clarifies the
definition of medical clinics and personal services establishments, and identifies
zoning districts where such facilities would require a Use Permit.
Reference: Comm. 52
Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R)
First Reading: February 17, 2021
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 12 on second and final
reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. DAVID: Discussion, Ms. Kierkiewicz?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. We've had really healthy discussions
about this in Committee and Council. Pretty straightforward request but
leadership from Planning Department is here to answer any questions if my
colleagues have any. Thank you. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Any comments in Kona? Seeing none,
any more comments, Hilo? No? All right, all those in favor of approving Bill 12
at second and final reading, please say "aye."
Page 48
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on Bill 12: The motion to pass Bill 12 on second and final reading was
(Adopted) carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David–9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
MS. LEE LOY: Chair?
CHR. DAVID: Yes.
MS. LEE LOY: I have a note from Administrative Director Kunz. She's been
waiting in the chat for Bill—hang on, let me check my note here.
CHR. DAVID: Okay.
MS. LEE LOY: 23. Yeah, is that the one?
CHR. DAVID: Bill 23? Okay. All right, Mr. Clerk, Bill 23, first reading please.
Bill 23: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 20-45, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 2021
Increases revenues in the Federal Grants –Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act(WIOA) account($76,479); and appropriates the same to the WIOA Rapid
Response 2020-2021 account. Funds would be used to assist in rapid response and
layoff aversion activities in Hawaii County.
Reference: Comm. 108
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Approve: FC-18
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to pass Bill 23 on first
reading and adopt Finance Committee Report No. 18.
Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
(Note: At this time, Housing Administrator Susan Kunz came forward to
address the members of the Council, via videoconferencing.)
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Page 49
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We did hear this at our last meeting, and
Royce Shiroma was out for a back injury. And he was available but Mrs. Kunz is
available via Zoom or video. There was a question from Ms. Kierkiewicz. It
seems like you two have discussed whatever that question was. But as you're
here, I'll open it up so Ms. Kierkiewicz could lead with her questions if she has
any and we'll go from there.
CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And thanks, Administrator Kunz, for being
here. Your staff did follow up with me and get me more information about the
American Job Center and the programs that are available to people that are
displaced because of COVID or have other unemployment issues. But if you
would like to provide that information to my colleagues, I certainly welcome
your comments on this to see how this money is going to be pushed through your
agency and into the community to help with unemployment issues.
MS. KUNZ: Okay, great. Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone,
Madam Chair and members of the County Council. My name is Susan Kunz.
I'm the Housing Administrator for the Office of Housing and Community
Development.
The Rapid Response program for which we are appropriating funds for today is a
program that's actually authorized out of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act. And this program allows us to provide support to employees
and employers who have filed a WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification) letter or filed for community closure with the State. So, what
happens is the State will issue a WARN letter, which is a Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification letter. And once we receive this letter, we can transition
to provide these services.
Now, the program does say that it's to assist companies who have 50 employees
or more who are being laid off, but I want you to know that Hawaii County will
respond to any number of layoffs. And it enables us to provide assistance for
them to transition to new employment and also for the employers as well.
This particular funding is a set-aside amount that is actually appropriated by the
State, and it comes out of the WIOA (Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act)
Dislocated Worker Program Fund. So, it was a part of that statewide allocation.
The State splits it up and then awards it to us to provide these services.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That's very helpful. Thank you for the details. Chair, I
yield.
Page 50
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Kona, any
questions? Seeing none, thank you, Administrator Kunz, for your patience and
for being here.
MS. KUNZ: You're welcome.
CHR. DAVID: All those in favor of approving Bill, I'm sorry, 23,please say
Ic aye.
Vote on Bill 23: The motion to pass Bill 23 on first reading and adopt
(Approved) Finance Committee Report No. 18 was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: All right, I think we can go back to the top of our agenda.
Resolution 51-21.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business.
of Business:
Res. 51-21: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED
FUND ACCOUNT TO COVER EXPENSES FOR THE COUNTY
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Transfers $10,000 from the Charter Commission account; and credits to the
Redistricting Commission account.
Reference: Comm. 124
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 51-21.
Seconded by Mr. Richards.
CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This item was waived to Council to expedite
the process. I believe Mr. Brown is here to answer any questions.
Page 51
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. HENRICKS: I can try to.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Or Mr. Henricks.
MR. HENRICKS: I mean, he knows more than I do on this but—
MR.
utMR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I have my notes on my paper right here.
MR. HENRICKS: I'm here for easy questions.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You know what, Jon? I think we'd all like
to hear from you.
MR. HENRICKS: If you have any questions, it's fairly straightforward. The
Charter Commission has been dissolved, so that money will lapse. There were
some funds that we didn't use. They didn't have as many meetings as maybe they
wanted to, due to the COVID and other situations. And there were some
appropriated funds that weren't used. And there are expenses for the
Redistricting Commission, mostly equipment, software, things that they'll need in
the future, hopefully that we could then hopefully acquire in this fiscal year using
these funds. Maybe free up some of our funds that we hope to have appropriated
for next fiscal year for, perhaps, unforeseen expenses.
So, this is just an effort to make the best use of our funds. And if we don't use it,
it will lapse anyway. So, it's just nice to have this extra layer of resources that
will give us more options in the future in this fiscal year.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for that explanation.
MR. HENRICKS: Sure.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
MR. HENRICKS: And there were some testimony not that I often respond to
testimony that the Commission hasn't been seated and all. It has. It was seated
by this Council back in July, and the Commission did have its first meeting just
this Monday.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Henricks. I
yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Any other questions?
Kona?
MR. INABA: Yes. Holeka.
Page 52
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Inaba.
MR. INABA: First question, Jon: What was the total appropriation for the
Charter Commission?
MR. HENRICKS: I think it was, for this fiscal year, between $25,000 and
$30,000, I believe.
MR. INABA: Okay. And then, what is the total appropriation for the
Redistricting Commission?
MR. HENRICKS: Ten thousand dollars for this fiscal year. And then next—
MR.
extMR. INABA: So, this is an additional ten, or this is the total ten right here?
MR. HENRICKS: It would be twenty all totaled if this is transferred.
MR. INABA: Okay.
MR. HENRICKS: Twenty thousand.
MR. INABA: Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone elseoh, Ms. Kierkiewicz, go
ahead.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. And let me know if I'm going beyond
the scope of what's allowed for this discussion. I know the Redistricting
Commission met this week. Clerk Henricks, can you provide us an update on
that? I mean, what can they actually do? Do you think they're going to be using
this money this year? I mean, my understanding is they're still waiting to receive
the data from the census
MR. HENRICKS: Right.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: In order to redraw the lines. And so,just curious if you
think that they're going to have that information, those materials, and take next
steps.
MR. HENRICKS: There are—great question. There are still resources that we
need to acquire: hardware, software, licensing, things of those natures that if
we're able to do that now, it will still be in place. It will still be available for use
eventually when the data is presented to the State and then that's all prepared by
the State for the County's use.
Page 53
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
So again, the purpose of this is it's available if we can use it. That again would
then free up what we've asked as an appropriation for the next fiscal year for,
perhaps, any unforeseen expenses, which we don't know what we might
encounter. I think, as you've stated to some degree, there's some uncertainties
that—there's always uncertainties but maybe more amplified now because of the
situation with the census and things of that nature.
And there are requirements in the Charter that the Commission must meet with
regards to public hearings and things of that nature that, you know,publication
we might need to do things that would not normally be required because of the
situation with information being delayed and— There's a lot of things that we
need to look at with regard to the deadlines that are in place and how much time
the Commission would have. And that could result in a need for funds to do some
creative things and other things that cost considerable amounts of money.
So, if we're able to keep what we have as a reappropriation request for next fiscal
year and bolster that by spending money in this fiscal year, it just gives us more
comfort going into next fiscal year and heading towards the end of December
when the plan is due to be submitted for the Council districts for the next ten
years.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you, Clerk, for those details. Thank you for
being proactive in having the foresight to identify what's needed now and
procuring that so that when the Commission does have the data, they can activate
and start moving and making those decisions. Thank you.
MR. HENRICKS: That is the goal even more so than before. We always want to
be prepared so that we can act as quickly as possible, but because of the
circumstances that we face that are beyond our control, ever more so. The more
prepared we can be to get the ball rolling as soon as we possibly can, it's the only
responsible thing to do.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair, I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Seeing none
MS. KIMBALL: Chair, this is Heather.
CHR. DAVID: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Is the Commission supported by your staff, Jon? Or are you
guys going to also use these funds maybe to have some consultant services?
MR. HENRICKS: That's a good question. It's possible but the goal, the
objective is to utilize the expertise we have. Our Elections Administrator,
Ms. Nakamoto, is prepared to provide her services as part of her role with the
Page 54
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
County. That will cover a lot of ground for what the Commission needs as a
resource from a human resources aspect. We have staff that's already in place to
provide technical and clerical services.
But you never know when we might need to go outside for consultant work. And
even given the circumstances, that might be even more necessary. Hard to say.
But if things are running at least to as close to according to what we understand
should happen, we probably won't need to contract out for anything other than
consulting services that have more to do with standard operations, not special
needs because of the circumstances we're in.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. That's all I had. I yield.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anyone else in Kona? Seeing none, I
just want to say mahalo, Mr. Clerk, for all that you do and keep us posted.
MR. HENRICKS: Will do.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. All those in favor of approving Resolution 51-21,
please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 51-21: The motion to adopt Res. 51-21 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Res. 55-21: AMENDS RESOLUTION 735-20 AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF
HAWAII
Reduces the funding amount from $13,076 to $12,000 for the "Increasing
Production of Novel Floriculture Products for Import Replacement"project.
Reference: Comm. 129
Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R)
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Res. 55-21.
Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Page 55
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This item was waived to Council, again to
expedite the process. There's also a request for a five-day hold. We have
Glenn Sako, I believe, outside to answer any questions that members may have.
It's a small change to correct the amount of funding from well, it was 13,000 to
the actual 12,000 that it is. Sorry. Glenn, if you want to come in. And I don't
know if the members have any questions, but at least you could come in and grace
us with your presence as you've waited so patiently outside. Good to see you, sir.
(Note: At this time, Economic Development Specialist Glenn Sako,
Department of Research and Development, came forward to address the
members of the Council.)
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If you could explain this a little bit. It
touches on what we lost in the eruption. It touches on our floricultural industry.
So,just give us a brief overview.
MR. SAKO: Glenn Sako, Economic Development Specialist, Agriculture,
Research and Development. Yes, I apologize. This was an oversight on my part.
When we were putting together the B-52, we inadvertently pulled out another
previous B-52 and I failed to notice the change in the amount. And so, we just
ask that you amend the resolution or do a new resolution so that we can get it
passed. Our Corporation Counsel is very sharp on these things. Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Nice catch. And then, how's this program
going?
MR. SAKO: Well, they're awaiting the funding. But what it is about is,
basically, we're trying to reduce the importation of outside agricultural products
by raising our own here. There's three primary plant products that we're looking
at for this project. Anytime we can produce something locally instead of bringing
it in from the Mainland is better for our agricultural producers and our
environment.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It ties in very well with sustainability. So,
well placed. Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield for now.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else? Kona?
Seeing none, thank you very much for your patience. All those in favor of
approving Resolution 55-21, please say "aye."
Page 56
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on Res. 55-21: The motion to adopt Res. 55-21 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Okay.
Vote on Motion to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to suspend Council
Suspend Council Rule 15 to waive the 5-day hold for reconsideration.
Rules: Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following
(Approved) voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you.
Res. 57-21: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED
FUND ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A GRANT TO FRIENDS OF THE FUTURE
FOR ITS EMERGENCY "GRAB AND GO" COMMUNITY FEEDING
PROGRAM
Transfers $5,000 from the Clerk-Council Services —Contingency Relief account
(Council District 9); and credits to the Department of Research and Development,
Business Development account.
Reference: Comm. 132
Intr. by: Mr. Richards
Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to adopt Res. 57-21. Seconded by
Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Richards.
Page 57
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. This is in the continuing quest of us trying
to feed our County. And this Grab and Go program is actually headed up by
Donni Sheather in Waimea, and she has been working very diligently to
repurpose some cooked food. It's worked out really well. And just for the
listening public, the Friends of the Future is just the fiscal management going
through. This is going to a very small program that has been working very
diligently to help feed our people. So, with that, I ask for my colleagues' support.
CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? No? Seeing none,
Kona? No? All those in favor of approving Resolution 57-21, please say "aye."
Vote on Res. 57-21: The motion to adopt Res. 57-21 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
MR. RICHARDS: Chair?
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead.
Vote on Motion to Mr. Richards moved to suspend Council Rule 15 to waive
Suspend Council the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Seconded by
Rules: Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. DAVID: Can we just proceed? I think we've done every item. If you can
doublecheck and we'll move on to "Reports."
MR. HENRICKS: Just"Reports" is left.
CHR. DAVID: Just"Reports." Thank you.
Page 58
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for
ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading).
(FIRST READING):
(Note: All items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.)
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
THE DAY the Day (Second or Final Reading).
(SECOND OR
FINAL READING): (Note: All items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.)
REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports.
FC-16 NOMINATION OF DEBORAH WARD TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN
(Comm. 112): SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Requires Council
Confirmation by: March 12, 2021 (Section 2-215(k),
Hawaii County Code)
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Finance
Committee Report No. 16. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
CHR. DAVID: Any discussion, Council Members?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If I could, Chair?
CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think she'll be a great fit, and I hope
everyone supports her.
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor please say
Ic aye.
Vote on FC-16: The motion to adopt Finance Committee Report No. 16
(Adopted) was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 59
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
PRPSC-13 NOMINATION OF WESLEY L MATTOS TO THE FIRE COMMISSION
(Comm. 113):
Requires Council
Confirmation by: March 12, 2021 (Section 13-4(k),
Hawaii County Charter)
Vote on PRPSC-13: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adopt Parks and Recreation and
(Adopted) Public Safety Committee Report No. 13. Seconded by
Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
RAWEEMC-4 REAPPOINTMENT OF MELISSA CARDWELL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
(Comm. 106): MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Requires Council
Confirmation by: March 13, 2021 (Section 13-4(k),
Hawaii County Charter)
Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to adopt Regenerative
Agriculture, Water, Energy and Environmental
Management Committee Report No. 4. Seconded by
Mr. Richards.
CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Again, I really like what Melissa Cardwell
has done with our district, and I hope she continues to make such great movement
in our Environmental Management Commission.
CHR. DAVID: Mahalo for that. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor
please say "aye."
Page 60
Hawaii County Council-7 March 3,2021
Vote on The motion to adopt Regenerative Agriculture, Water,
RAWEEMC-4: Energy and Environmental Management Committee Report
(Adopted) No. 4 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
REFERRALS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Referrals
EXECUTIVE for Executive Session.
SESSION:
(There were none.)
OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Other
BUSINESS: Business.
(There were none.)
ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
MENTS: Announcements.
(There were none.)
CHR. DAVID: I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. Please, a motion
to adjourn.
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:02 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn the
MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas,
and Chair David—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 61
Hawai`i County Council-7 March 3. 2021
CHR. DAVID: Thank you. everyone. We are adjourned.
APR 0 7 2021
Council Approval:
ilkellW 411116,_
C 1+UNTY CLE 4
JH/dg
Page 62