Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2021/05/04 2020-2022Committee on Finance loth Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i May 4, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 3:14 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Chair Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee 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: Sandra Demoruelle Jerry Warren: Patrice MacDonald: Jim Hoffman: Susann Tita: John Briski: Bill 22 (Comm. 104), comment. (see Comm. 104.3) Bill 22 (Comm. 104), comment. (see Comm. 104.4) Res. 105-21 (Comm. 217), in opposition. Res. 105-21 (Comm. 217), in support. Res. 105-21 (Comm. 217), in opposition. Res. 105-21 (Comm.217), in support. FC -10 May 4, 2021 CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that concludes our testimony from the public, I'm going to close public testimony. And let's go right to our first order of business Communication, Mr. Clerk. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 28.2: THIRD QUARTER REALLOCATION REPORT: JANUARY — MARCH 2021 From Human Resources Director William V. Brilhante Jr., dated April 15, 2021. Vote on Comm. 28.2: Ms. David moved to close file on Comm. 28.2. Seconded by Filed Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 30.8: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: MARCH 16 — 31, 2021 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated April 6, 2021. Motion to Close File: Ms. David moved to close file on Comm. 30.8. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: We have Director Sako in Hilo today. Any comments or questions on Communication 30.8? MR. INABA: Chair? CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Deanna, can you come to the table, please? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Good afternoon. MR. INABA: Aloha. I have question if you could explain to us the Police transfer, I think this is after the fact. But just there's a million dollars going from Various Salary and Wages, to Admin Salary and Wages. Could you just explain that for us, please? Page 2 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MS. SAKO: I'm pretty sure, and I'm reading this just to double check. But we budget the recruits with the Admin in those temporary positions, and so—or sorry, we list recruits in the temporary positons in Admin. But the budget for those positions, is actually in the vacant positions in the various districts. So this is that transfer, to move the money in the various districts to Admin to cover the cost of the recruits for the current class. There could be one or two more yet, I'm not sure if this would cover the whole year. But that's our way of funding the recruits, is with the vacant positions. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And then the next one for the PONC (Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission) it's seems it's moving from Maintenance Fund, to perhaps the normal fund. I' m just wondering how is this working, is it because we hit the $3 million cap that— MS. SAKO: We have, yes. This is actually—and it's not truthfully going from the fund, but it's the transfer to the fund. But because the Maintenance Fund, we've hit the cap, we do not need to transfer any more this year. And so we're going to use that excess, to fund the amount for the PONC transfer. MR. INABA: Okay. So we put in, what two percent into the PONC fund. Is this part of that two percent, or we've hit the $3 million cap for the Maintenance Fund so this is in addition to the already two percent. MS. SAKO: Actually part of the two percent, we collected more in Real Property Tax than we budgeted. So instead of doing an additional appropriation, we're just using the extra appropriation we have available in the Transfer to PONC Maintenance Fund. MR. INABA: As part of the two percent required. MS. SAKO: Right. To make sure we're paying the two percent of the full amount collected. MR. INABA: Okay. That answers my questions, thank you. Chair, I yield. Thanks, Deanna. MS. SAKO: No problem. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any other questions from the Council? Okay. Deanna, I have one question regarding the Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste Division Transfer. MS. SAKO: Okay. Page 3 FC -10 May 4, 2021 CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: The $180,000 and the reason was for purchasing two used transfer trailers. MS. SAKO: Correct. We were actually leasing them, and so we realized it was cheaper to buy them than to continually lease them from another company on the island, that owned the trailers. So they were willing to sell them to us, and overtime we're actually saving quite a bit money by doing that. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and this is for theI was reading the summary of why, I didn't quite understand what they were saying. The division is currently having to rent two trailers, to allow greenwaste to be collected and transported to WHOF which is the West Hawaii Organics Facility. MS. SAKO: Right. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: And then by purchasing, they'll be able to continue greenwaste collection at the Kealakehe transfer station. MS. SAKO: They will be able to, but the ultimate reason for doing this was it's the same two trailers, and then instead of paying monthly rental amounts, we're now actually the owners of those and we won't have to worry about paying anything in the future. So over time, we're actually saving quite a bit of money. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's good to hear. Now the next question, the following requested a transfer from Public Works. Was to purchase two used vehicles looks like it was whited-out and rewritten as used. MS. SAKO: I think it was a typo, yeah. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: So a total of $60,000, so $30,000 used vehicle was a pretty good price for a used vehicle. Do you know what we purchased? MS. SAKO: I'm not sure exactly what we purchased, but it was a lot cheaper than what we're paying for a new vehicles. Because with cost of metal and other materials are very high right now, so our vehicle quotes have been coming in extremely high. So we've been trying our best to buy used vehicles. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you for being fiscally responsible, I appreciate that. Okay, that's all the questions for now. Appreciate It. MS. SAKO: Thank you. Page 4 FC -10 May 4, 2021 CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Deanna. Any further questions? Seeing none, all in favor of closing file on Communication 30.8. Vote on Comm. 30.8: The motion to close file on Comm. 30.8 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. Comm. 31.10 REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: MARCH 16-31, 2021 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated April 7, 2021, transmitting the Above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Vote on Comm. 31.10: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 30.10. Seconded by Filed Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Next communication, please. Comm. 84.1: THIRD QUARTER REPORT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER A CONTRACT FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS: JANUARY 1 — MARCH 312021 From Human Resources Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated April 1, 2021 transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.5 of the Hawai` i County Code. Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 84.1. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Any discussion Council? Seeing Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify here when we get this report. It gives us the hourly rate, and contract duration but not the total amount. So is Director Mansour in Hilo, or anyone in Hilo able to give us the full amount for this contract? Page 5 FC -10 May 4, 2021 CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Usually Mr. Brilhante covers these, and he was going to be present. Is he in Hilo today, I cannot see everybody. Mr. Brown, I see you coming up. MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Chairman. Director Brilhante is not in the chamber at this time. MR. INABA: Okay. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: He's not online either, I apologize. We did discuss this with him, though. Do you want to postpone this to the next meeting to discuss, or do a follow up email? MR. INABA: Is there something that we might be able to get, when we get these reports? Oh, Mr. Brilhante, is not here to answer that question. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Deanna, can you help us a little bit? MR. INABA: I mean it justI think it would be beneficial to us, to know what the total amount is when we get a report like this. Because we know the hourly rate, we know the duration. But they could be working part-time, full-time it doesn't specify here. MS. SAKO: So I don't have that particular report in front of me right now. But normally if there's an hourly rate, it's usually someone who is part-time and we're paying them per hour. But it could be a variety of reasons, most of our 89 -day contracts are on an hourly basis. They can, depending on the terms of the contract, be allowed to work more or less. So each contract is a little bit different. But also even if they are full-time if you multiply it out there's—like the way the contract is written there's not a total dollar amount like our vendor contracts are. Because these are actually employment contracts. So most of these employees are not salaried, that's why there's not really a total contract amount. But we can try and work with Human Resources to determine if we can add something like part-time, or full-time or kind of what the intent is. Because there are some that their intended to only work like 10 hours a week. So that might help you understand it but in better context. Would that help? MR. INABA: Yeah, I think so, just so we have some kind of gage to what their kuleana is, and what capacity. Thank you. MS. SAKO: Okay. I'll work with HR to see what's available. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you, Director Sako. Chair, I yield. Page 6 FC -10 May 4, 2021 CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any further questions? Mahalo, Deanna, for helping. Motion to close file on Communication 84.1 is on the floor, all in favor of closing file on Communication 84.1. Vote on Comm. 84.1: The motion to close file on Comm. 84.1 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Before we read in the next one, I'm going to let my Vice Chair, Heather Kimball take over as Chair for the meeting. So I can further the discussion on Resolution 105-21. Please let the record reflect. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Kimball. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, can you please read in Resolution 105-21. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 105-21 INITIATES THE DESIGNATION OF AN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS OF ROADWAYS IN THE HAWAIIAN ACRES SUBDIVISION IN PUNA, HAWAII, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 12 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS Directs the Director of the Department of Public Works to submit an assessment report to the Council no later than September 1, 2021, which shall include all information stipulated in Section 12-10(a) of the Hawaii County Code. Reference: Comm. 217 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend adoption of Res. 105-21. Seconded by Inaba. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 7 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mrs. Kimball. So a quick back story. Improving district process is laid out in Chapter 12 of our County Code. Furthermore, the road standards that this gets us moving towards would be laid out in Chapter 23. Back story, on the Code in Section 23, requires that private roads be brought to a dedicable standard, which is what we call a minimum right of way for any private subdivision platted or finalized before December 1966. The reason for saying that is, that locks almost all the private subdivisions in Puna, into being responsible for their own system of roadways. In the case of Hawaiian Acres, their road dues are voluntary so it's up to them if they want to pay their road dues. And furthermore, they have about 70 miles of roadway. The roadway system right now, is in pretty bad shape. I drove road 1, which is one of their paved roads. There's really right now two paved roads, Road 8 and Road 1, that are the main access points in that link into the county highway system or the state highway system. And Road 8 is a PEAR (Puna Emergency Access Route), it is maintained by the county, but still owned by the Hawaiian Acres Subdivision owners. Road 1 is maintained by the Hawaiian Acres Road Corporation, which maintains the roads with the voluntary road dues. So that's just a little back story for, where we stand with this resolution in front of us today. After multiple meetings with the community, and both with HACA (Hawaiian Acres Community Association) and HARC (Hawaiian Acres Road Corporation), they both came together and asked me to move forward with something we've discussed for years, which is an improvement district. The improvement district as I said before, is laid out in Chapter 12 in our County Code. There's different ways of approaching it, but ultimately it is the selection of a geographical area or street, whatever you want to call it. And within that geographical area we as a county helped by doing a feasibility study, pulling the financing for a bond and securing that bond. And then helping organize the project, whatever it might look like, in this case a series of roadway improvements. And then it ultimately the assessments fall back upon to the community to pay off in a form of a property tax assessment. So to be very upfront the cost of this improvement district will be borne by the citizens of Hawaiian Acres. There are 4,000 lot owners in Hawaiian Acres. Ultimately it comes down to starting this and having the discussion. There's always going to be both sides of the fence. And I'm just here to help this move along, and have the discussion. You know, part of the issue that I've always run into, is when we discuss moving forward on anything there's always people against and for, whatever it may be, and some will sit right in the middle. And that's very hard to get through a public meeting with everyone feeling hurt, so in this case the process laid out in Chapter 12 really is a public comment driven process. It's a long process, but it gets to Page 8 FC -10 May 4, 2021 where I think we need to go. Especially given the voluntary road dues in Hawaiian Acres, and the state of the roads and the amount of roadways. It's 70 miles of roadway. And that's hard for even the county to take a look at, as far as financial picture. So I asked Fire Department to come today. Can I have one of you gentlemen or both of you gentlemen come up, and just give me a little bit of your thoughts on what this would mean to the Fire Department. Mr. Briski or Captain Briski from the Police Department was here earlier, he just said, you know, basically first responders will greatly benefit from this because they're having incidence where they're unable to, or get to a home takes a very long time. So for the Fire Department what would this mean to you for you know, an improvement district or improvement of the roadways in Hawaiian Acres? (Note: At this time, Assistant Fire Chief Darwin Okinaka came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. OKINAKA: Good afternoon. Darwin Okinaka, Assistant Fire Chief for the Fire Department. Yeah, we just would like to echo Captain Briski's comments. Anything that would provide better access, and egress for our units to respond in emergencies will be positive for us. You know, we would like that. I understand like what you mentioned, the challenges you might have to face with the property owners. But you know, from our standpoint the better the roads are the better we can access the properties. And then you know, another thing is access is one thing, but if we have emergency medical services and we have to transport patients, many times we have to even go slower if the roads are bad, you know, in transport to make sure the patients are rightful cared for, in the back of the ambulance. And so that in itself, Chief Smith might have some other information. But you know, just in general it would be positive, and we would support it. Thank you. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Smith, did you want to add anything? MR. SMITH: No, Sir, I have nothing else to add. Thank you. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. One of the testifiers in one of the meetings, had mentioned that he actually did suffer a heartattack recently. And he knew full well that he couldn't wait for the ambulance to get to his home, and his wife drove him out to the main highway to meet the ambulance knowing that time saved would be possibly his life. So I agree with you completely, it's definitely a larger issue at hand, a public safety issue. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Rodenhurst, I did ask you to join us today as well. If you could come up, because ultimately this is going to be handed over to Public Works if it passes Page 9 FC -10 May 4, 2021 through the County Council. And as Director of Public Works I was hoping you could give us your thoughts on this, you know, timeline, timeframe, what this might mean to the community. And mahalo for your time today. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. RODENHURST: Yes. Mahalo, for reaching out and having me here for this. Just full discloser before we start, I am a Hawaiian Acres resident. I have consulted with Corporation Counsel, they feel at this time it's not a clear conflict of interest. But if it would serve to provide transparency, I'm willing to go before the Board of Ethics to get a decision from them, after this moving forward with wherever this goes. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I appreciate that, and thank you for saying that. And for offering that information out, I personally am okay with moving ahead on this. Just (inaudible) via discussion as a Public Works Director, and if you want to mention how this makes you feel as a citizen of Hawaiian Acres, you can. But let's just—as this is a Council initiated action with community input, let's move forward on that end right now. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, and I will not be providing any comment as far as a Hawaiian Acres' resident, it will be solely as Director of Public Works. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's good. So with that said, you know, Public Works -wise this resolution directs the Public Works Department Director to do a feasibility study. So your thoughts on that, as we open up this discussion? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so you know, obviously as we've discussed, this concerns the dedicable standards of which we'd be able to accept the road. You know, looking at some of the previous costs, as far as providing a report. One of the one's that we looked at to provide a report, we used the Lono Kona, it was a previous improvement district, to get an estimate as far as what cost it would have to provide that report. And we came to the conclusion, or the estimate that it would be about $233,000 per mile. And that includes—you know, we're looking at land acquisition, we're looking at building in the right of way to the dedicable standards. Looking at drainage, looking at any improvements to the roadways. If there's a county road, intersections would need some street lights. And dedicable standards for this area will require a right of way of 50 feet. Currently, information that we have from maintenance, information that we have from the area, is that there's a lot of these areas that don't have that. So there would be some land acquisition required. As far as the road sections themselves, they would require three inches of asphalt concrete, they would require four Page 10 FC -10 May 4, 2021 inches of crushed aggregate base course and six inches of crushed aggregate subbase. This wouldn't be something with sidewalks obviously, but there would be paved shoulders. And these are all on our standards for dedicable. Looking at those costs, you know, and looking at our previous designs, and construction contracts and projects we're looking at a design cost of about $1 million a mile. And a construction cost up to $10 million a mile. That includes drainage improvements and the street light improvements I talked about. Now we talked about that there is approximately 73 miles of road in Hawaiian Acres. You and I discussed previously about if there was an opportunity to have just the letter roads and possibly Road 1 that right there is about 23 to 24 miles. Still a fair amount of road, and that would cost a fair amount. You know, for the report itself, looking at previous timelines, even for that 24 miles it could possibly take up to two years for that report. But it all depends on the scope of work, and how many miles we're looking at. So that some of the preliminary estimates, and numbers that we have right now, going into, looking into getting a report on this. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. What was it $233,000 a mile number you had quoted? MR. RODENHURST: So that was extrapolated from an improvement district that was made in Kona for, I believe it was sewer improvements. And that's what we based that number off of. That was the cost to my understanding around there per mile for that. And that included their report. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: That was for a design cost? MR. RODENHURST: No, that's the report cost. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: That's for the feasibility report? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Per mile? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so that can be pretty substantial then. MR. RODENHURST: I mean of course you have economies of scale that could possibly shave off some, but to be reasonable and conservative that's the unit cost at this point. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then touching on the 50 -foot right of way, why the 50 feet? Page 11 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MR. RODENHURST: So that's our standard detail, as our dedicable standards for a minor road. That includes 10 foot travel lanes, five foot bike lanes and 10 foot shoulder swales. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: And why that definition of road, verses just the minimum right of away. What's the thought behind that? MR. RODENHURST: That's our minimum standards for minor streets. And from there it goes up, if you go to business industrial collective streets, the right of way increases to 66 feet. All the way up to primary arterial street, which is the 120 feet of right of way. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: And the minimum right of way as is a 24 foot roadway? MR. RODENHURST: That's not a dedicable standards. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Not a dedicable standard? MR. RODENHURST: Not as of September 2017 of this standard detail. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Wow. We have county roads that are barely 24 feet wide. That's interesting. MR. RODENHURST: There are roads that were part of the county previous to these dedicable standards, and we are also in the process of updating and upgrading those roads to meet the current standards, pending funds and availability. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, understood. Something I talked about with Roy Takemoto last year was creating a variance to allow us to accept roadways that would be a little bit slimmer, knowing full well that we're going to run into width issues in some of the private subdivisions. And you know, what kind of an option, you know, I'll just stop there. Is that an option? MR. RODENHURST: I'm not aware of any variances put forth on our dedicable standards in the past, as far as past practices. Some of the reasons we have these dedicable standards are for foresight into maintenance costs, foresight in making sure the roads that we do except are something that will last and we can preserve. And that's the way they were engineered and designed. To enact a variance on that would overhaul some of that design, and I'm not sure of the full process of that at this point. Page 12 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, something we can discuss later. Sc I'll just summarize a little bit. About $1 million dollars for design per mile and $10 million per mile build out was you had stated earlier. It that right? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: And then prior to that, that $233,000 a mile for design study is that included in that million dollars? MR. RODENHURST: No, that's separate. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: That's separate, oh. Okay. Is there anyI mean obviously this is expensive. And I'm not—for the community I always told them from the beginning, we're not going to move forward with this unless we understand the pricing, because I wouldn't buy a car, or a house or anything else sight unseen and price unknown. And so this is just good to get this information out, and understood so we can look at it, and see what's doable and what's not. Just given the numbers that you've turned out so far, I'm going to say it's expensive. Is there any kind of matching funds, funding source that we can pull from. Mass Transit, GET (General Excise Tax), anything that can help us with a project like this given this isI mean, I think we're in the range about 16,000 people, and you know, those are all property tax paying citizens of Hawaii County. MR. RODENHURST: I think that's a question that maybe Deanna would have a better answer to. For me at this time, I'm not aware of any duty because this is private roads that we would be bringing up to dedicable standards. But I would default to Deanna, for the finance side of this. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Rodenhurst. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Yeah, I think unfortunately because right now they're private roads until such time as they're dedicated to the county, I don't believe we can use any other funds. That doesn't mean there might not be other options, USDA (U. S. Department of Agriculture) has helped us to fund some of our improvement districts in the past especially in the lower income areas. Then they frequently also have grant dollars to help supplement those loan dollars, but this isn't something that, you know, we've talked to them about yet being that this is the first time we're really seeing it. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Again, I brought this forward from the community. The community was wanting to understand better how this Page 13 FC -10 May 4, 2021 would work. What the price structure look like, what the project look like. It would be my desire to move this to Council, but not pass that until I get a feel from the community and how they stand on this, just given the numbers that we were given today. Open up for the Council as well, and yield for now and see what other comments and questions may come up. Thank you so much for the information, to this point. I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Chair, recognizes Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And thanks Directors, for being there. Ikaika, you mentioned 73 miles of potential road to be addressed, and upwards between $5 million and $10 million per mile to get it to standard. Is that what I'm hearing, is that correct? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. And that includes the cost of drainage improvements, any kind of traffic signal. And by the way, traffic signal also means street light, not necessarily having a traffic light. So just to clear that up. And the striping, and any signage improvements as well. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So if I take this 73 miles, and multiply it by 10 million that gets us over $700 million. Let's just take $100 million for now, for calculation. And Deanna $100 million,—if we were to float a bond on that one, what would the payback be and what would be—because we're talking about 4,000 properties. So what I'm looking for, is what kind of cost per lot it would be if we're distributing it over 4,000 lots. I'm just trying to get a feeling of scale on this. MS. SAKO: So USDA will let us do a 35 -year loan, but let's say we can't do that. And we have to use an improvement district bond, then the longest term possible under State law is 25 years. And so just doing very simple math, it's going to be over $100 a month per lot owner. Because typically the interest rates on those bonds are not as low as the General Obligations (GO) Bonds that we have. They're usually a little bit higher, because they're not secured or backed by the county. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So for a $100 million again, just to clarify $100 million for 4,000 lots would be a little over $100 per lot per month. Correct, $1,200 a year. MS. SAKO: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. Okay, that puts it in scale for me. Chair, I yield. Page 14 FC -10 May 4, 2021 ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I'm just trying to have a conversation, and I appreciate Mr. Kaneali`i bringing that forward to chew on. And I think that's where I want to start. Because at the end of this resolution it says to direct the Department of Public Works to prepare and submit a report that assesses the design. And so I just want to clarify some of the numbers. And if I heard correctly was $238,000 per mile. Is that correct, Director Rodenhurst? MR. RODENHURST: Two hundred thirty three thousand per mile. MS. LEE LOY: Per mile. So if you were to assess 70 miles, right, I heard that information about there. We're looking at $16.1 million just to an assessment, is that like correct math at this point? MR. RODENHURST: There would be some economy a scale of that, but at this point that is the estimated cost. MS. LEE LOY: So $16 million just to do a study, or an assessment. Okay. MS. SAKO: So you know, we're using the Lono Kona improvement district, which is one of the more recent ones. And that study was done, about seven or eight years ago it was completed. And that was a relatively small area, and a small district. So something of this scale, we haven't had to do before so that's why we're kind of unsure. And we were only informed recently about this, so perhaps between now and the next meeting we might be able to get better information for the Council. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. And then, you know, we talked about design guidelines and what we would have to build. And again, Mr. Kaneali`i said, it's going to be expensive. I kind of just want to start saying the numbers out loud, and I understand that they are just estimates at this point. So about $11 million per mile, right, with all the improvements 50 -foot right of ways, drainage, right? So $11 million, so times 70. Deanna, I see you with you calculator. MS. SAKO: Yeah, I'm doing the math. So times 77 miles, yup. And you want to know how much that would be? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, please. MS. SAKO: So about $9,000 a year, or $750 a month per lot owner. MS. LEE LOY: And what would be the total cost, of building out 77 miles? MS. SAKO: So the total cost would be about seven, well a little over. Page 15 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MS. LEE LOY: About eight? MS. SAKO: Eight hundred and forty seven million dollars. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. So $16 million to do the study, if we are in a perfect world $800 million to build it. MS. SAKO: Yeah. MS. LEE LOY: Director Rodenhurst, you've mentioned land acquisitions because we have a lot of private landowners. Just an estimated timeline about condemnation and land acquisitions. What's the timeline for something like that? MR. RODENHURST: It is hard to scale, because this would be for a large demand to the properties. It would be the roads themselves, as well as the individual property owners as we increase the right of way. MS. SAKO: So it's probably—you know, our department typically helps with some of that, and I think just to do the survey work alone is going to take a while. But it would depend how many different property owners and lots we're dealing with. And that's going to take quite a bit of time. We typically try to negotiate with the property owners first, to avoid the condemnation. But ultimately if we have to, we will go to court. And at the time we go to court, we have to put the deposit down so we will need the money in hand. MS. LEE LOY: Great, thank you. You know, again, I know Mr. Kaneali`i is trying to put something out just to have a conversation around. And I'm just going to borrow from Mr. Richards, it's not ready for primetime. And something else that Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned a couple meetings ago, about smallify. And I really think that I would rather see a resolution that identifies a specific critical roadway system. I would appreciate like metes and bounds descriptions, so that people can come forward with testimony that is sound and not guessing. I was really challenged by one of the testifiers, or a few, who actually called in to question Exhibit A and the legitimacy and authenticity of the survey. And without authenticating some of that, it's really challenging to pass a resolution that attaches it as an exhibit. And I personally as a member of this Council, want to see information that is sound but also certified. So to attach an exhibit that's being called into question, causes me to pause, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. And it's not that I don't trust it, I think if we provided credentials that it was authenticated, and that the landowners actually did at these response and percentages, it would go a long way to further the conversation and legitimize some of, you know, what needs to happen. This is a long process. And personally, I still can't get pass, these are private roadways and how we overcome that. So at this time it's a challenge for me to support this Page 16 FC -10 May 4, 2021 resolution, without more defined information, a defined area or just, you know, a defined roadway itself. With that, Chair, I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. I'm not sure who is first over here. Council Member Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Thanks. So Deanna and Ikaika, are you telling me that this study that's being called for in this resolution is going to cost $200,000 a mile? Cannot be. MS. SAKO: We're saying that by the next meeting we can try and get better information. All we have to go by is the Lono Kona one, which had about a mile of road was $232,000. And had much fewer lots than this one did. So you know, we're just saying that's the high-end, and we will try and get better information between now and the next meeting. You know, because we didn't have a lot of advance notice of this resolution coming forward. MR. CHUNG: Oh. MR. RODENHURST: For me, the scope really helps determine what level of study we can do. Depending on what roads, you know, each road is unique and what level of upkeep it is also what level of drainage is required. Those kind of factors, really change how much work goes into these. And having a scope identified of which particular roads, and to what extent on those roads need to be brought forth on this. It would help us to get a more accurate estimate for the feasibility study, and the subsequent design and construction cost. MR. CHUNG: But cannot be anywhere close to $200,000 a mile, right, just for a study. MS. SAKO: Right, we would hope not. So that's why we said, we'd offer to get more information. MR. CHUNG: I'd give you like $2,000 a mile maybe or something like that. All you've got to do is look at the miles, figure out what's the dedicable standards multiply it and maybe take into consideration some grading. But of course I'm not an engineer, but cannot be $200,000. I want that job, right? Holy smokes. But anyway having said that, we know that this is going to be a costly project. I mean, notwithstanding the cost of just assessing it. Which I think cannot be $200,000 a mile, absolutely unacceptable to me. But as far as I'm concerned, you know, if Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder feels that this is something that can benefit his community and he wants to pursue it. I'm supporting it. Might become kind of cost prohibited at some point for the residents, not so much for the county. But you know, we don't want to frontload Page 17 FC -10 May 4, 2021 money that we're going to be throwing away either, right, if it's going to cost $200 some -odd thousand dollars a mile. That would be ridiculous, we can't afford that. But yeah, I mean it's worth at least exploring. You know, I have to travel on Road F for some strange reason kind of often, and that is a bad, bad road, you know. But what I hear from those residents over there, they're not looking for paved roads, they just want better maintenance of the road. And that's where, you know, I have some ideas how we can do this from a county's perspective. But nobody listens to me. Anyway, but I'll support this for now. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Matt. I really appreciate the nature of this conversation. Sucks to have homeowners association where fees are voluntary, right. We have a whole slew of issues with our owners associations, a lot of big problems there. So thank you, I appreciate you bringing this forward. You know, I'm with Sue in really honing in on which specific roads should be looked at for an improvement district. Just kind of hearing the numbers playout from Director Sako, Director Rodenhurst. I do think they are quite large, I hope we get more fine numbers next committee meeting. But do think it's important, you know, given how little resources we have. We are really deliberate around articulating which specific roads we're going to target first. Deanna, could you provide some insight into the improvement district revolving fund, assuming that's going to be tapped to finance this initial step. Okay, sorry, go ahead. MS. SAKO: I was going to say there is roughly about $400,000 in that fund. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, little to get started. In the event that a feasibility study is done, we're fronting the cost for this or is this something that the residents of the area are going to have to pay the county back for? Just wondering, because it is called a revolving fund. MS. SAKO: Yes, it is called a revolving fund. However the Chapter 12 does say that either the county or the affected owners may advance the cost. So if the owners advance the cost, then they can get credit against the assessments if the improvement district moves forward. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And so let's say we front the cost as the county, community reviews the results. Turns out to be too expensive, not feasible, we just eat the cost of that study? Page 18 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MS. SAKO: Right. We would basically deplete the improvement district revolving fund. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And so a then no opportunities for other communities, say in my district or Chair David's district to do assessments. MS. SAKO: Right, we would have to find another funding source. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Yeah, I mean given how limited funds, they're in that revolving fund. I think it's important to maybe put a pin in this and really think hard on, you know, which roads specifically their community would like improved. Mr. Kaneali` i-Kleinfelder, you know, happy to support this, but I do think it needs a bit refinement considering how stretched we are with our resources. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Anyone else? Chair David, go ahead. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you, Chair Kimball. So I think a lot of my questions have been answered just by the other Council Members inquires. So Deanna, improvement districts in the end, after this preliminary process is over, then it goes out to the owners, public hearing and all of that. And then that's when the 51 percent comes in? MS. SAKO: Yes. So because this is a Council initiated process, there are multiple public hearings. But the main one is when we send out letters to each of the lot owners, and then it's actually kind of worded a little bit differently. That 50 percent have to file a protest that they do not want to move forward. So you would need 2,000 lot owners, to come in and say we do not want to move forward. MS. DAVID: I see. But that process, I'm just getting clarity because of the water improvement district and the village improvement district that we did prior. These costs that we're talking about, have to be borne first then? MS. SAKO: They do, and to such time as a bond is issued, yes. MS. DAVID: And so whether the total cost for all of these, the assessments and the study, that will eventually, if the lot owners agree to the improvement district, those costs, if we don't get any funding sources to help with this, then that gets tagged on to the amount that these homeowners will have to pay monthly? MS. SAKO: That's correct. MS. DAVID: Okay. Well I think in that situation, I think it seems like it's a huge, huge financial undertaking right now, even if we do the study. I support Page 19 FC -10 May 4, 2021 any kind of improvement districts. But I think with this one, honing it down to something that's not going to in the long run hamstring the owners to an amount that's going to be very, very, to me, unaffordable. The water improvement district, the people were very concerned that they had to pay $30 a month more on their water bill. And so this kind of capital improvement, I think their contributions, if we don't hone it down upfront, is going to be huge. And then we're going to be out, several millions of dollars doing the study. And when those final numbers come through, then we depend on the owners of these lots to decide whether they want to move forward or not. So I think any improvement district is a good idea, but I think we need to kind of figure out how much of this is really necessary at this point and time. Because the cost is going to be the cost is depended upon how much we do upfront, right? If we don't designate a certain area specifically for that improvement district to see how that works. So anyway that's just my thoughts, the idea is good. But I think I'm just thinking long run, and what the people are going to be ending up. The possibility of what they have to be paying in the long run might be out of reach and unaffordable. Anyway that's my two cents. And I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair David. Matt, go ahead. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ma'am. Thank you, Chair. Just for everybody, there was some testimony in the beginning that, you know, there was negative towards the community survey that was sent out by the community association. But there was a survey that was sent out, I can attest to that. And I worked with them to help them to just kind of shape what that looked like. In the back of the resolution is an exhibit, and on that exhibit they had, of 1,400 mailers that were sent out, 700 responded who were positive about the improvement district. Which is about 80 percent of them. Seven hundred and fourteen responses were recorded from those ballots, which were not to move ahead with the project, but more just a form of baseline to understanding what the community wanted. Which I thought was important. Of those 714, roughly 550 were positive about it. But there were four options really, that were presented, and the majority of the folks voted for the option two which would be for all lettered roads and that including Road 1. So for those of you who may have questioned, you know, that this is too much, you know, agree. I think from the beginning we all agreed this is too big of a scope, at 70 miles of roadway. And from what I understood from county projects, it's a million dollars a mile to pave a road. So the $10 million, is 10 times that I've heard in the past as far as repaving. But for dedicable road standards. But I also was going by the understanding that in minimum right of way standard it's in this table in Page 20 FC -10 May 4, 2021 Section 23-86 it says minimum right of way, which is dedicable standard according to the county. Not a 50 -foot right of way. So that was news to me. But with 285 people voting for option two, which will be the all letter roads, including Road 1. And the question of whether improved gravel roads could be done. So I think that really limits down the scope. So without getting too crazy about numbers today, and throwing out huge giant numbers to scare people away. But keeping this within an affordable range for the folks, and full understanding we just came out of the pandemic, and this was brought up last year. So we didn't move ahead until last year, just because we hit COVID. It's not the right time. Even now, it's worrisome. And I told everyone from the beginning there's going to be a cost. But again, would you move forward if you didn't know the cost here the principle of your mortgage payment, no. You want to know how much it's going to cost you. So the point of this is, just to understand what that's going to be for the citizens who live here. And the other half is, we will not touch private roads made or platted by this county before 1966. If you're a private subdivision owner, you're on your own. That is the message from the county, if you look at our Code in Section 23. That's clear as day, so for me we don't provide a lot of options these massive sprawling unimproved subdivisions that we help create in the 40's to the 60's. But now collect property taxes from, that's in every single one of our districts. So when we look at how we're going to help, there's not a lot of options for our community especially ones where it's voluntary road dues. You have mandatory road dues, they've made headway they have paved roads. But voluntary road dues, you're seeing a really poorly designed roadway system and the community can barely keep up with the roadways that they have. Even if that just means gravel. So therefore the improvement district, you know, as Roy and I talked about. Sorry just straight from the point, it's something I've come to learn on my first term and looking for solutions. This is the solution that could work for the community. Given that, you know, Mr. Rodenhurst, that we saw the 285 people voting for option two, that's just letter roads and Road 1. And we discussed that, yesterday between our phone call. I think we should nail it down to that framework, as far as the project scope. That amount of miles of roadway, and not get carried away with questions on what 70 miles of roadway will cost. Because of course it's going to be expensive, and it's scary. And if that was the intention, then we should not do that. Because I want be very clear, but I want to provide a good number. I also want to say mahalo to Mr. Chung for saying you got to give me a break, $233,000 a mile to study something. That just cannot—he said it the best, cannot be. And it's true, I cannot believe that. And also just please check into this, Page 21 FC -10 May 4, 2021 50 -feet right of way. Because there's a minimum right of way standard, which we used to call an agricultural right of way. And we've moved it to the minimum right of way, in that table in Section 23. So I want to understand why we cannot use a smaller right of way for these roads, especially if they're not, you know, arterial collectors. And I'm not an engineer, I don't understand the differences. But these are not, you know, transporting thousands of people. So I just wanted to clarify some of that for everyone, so we can get a feel for the scope. You know, what the thought was behind the survey that was sent out. And the amount of people who responded positively or negatively. You know, the negative ones were 122 people out of 714, saying no. And there is about 12 testimonies in support written that were submitted, actually there was two that was negative. So those odds—what I'm looking at is a lot of people really want this to happen, and some don't. And you're going to find that anywhere probably in your communities too. That's just to clarify. So Mr. Rodenhurst please use option two, which we've discussed as our basis for the amount of miles in that study. And please take a hard look at that mile for the study cost, I think that is incredible excessive. You know, to be nice about it. MR. RODENHURST: So to cover the talk about the minimum widths, isn't the minimum widths for our agriculture roads, that's 23-41. Under 23-86 which details the requirements for dedicable streets, I believe it's under, sorry I'm reading it off from this. It's under that Section 23-86 where it's based off of our current standards. And that's what I put forward here today, with the 50 -foot right of way including those widths, and that's for dedicable standards. The minimum right of ways for those roads on 20-41, I'll have to go and look into that further for you. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I'd like to know if that's a possibility, because that would take away the need for condemnation and property acquisition. And it still falls into our table of acceptable right of way widths. And that's what I think we should be designing this around. And again, I'm not an engineer, but that makes sense to me given the amount of traffic on these roads, and what would be useful for the community and to be cost effective. I'll discuss more to with Roy Takemoto, and get a feel for his thoughts on the variance and how that process would work. Because he was really the genius behind this, and helping me understand this project a lot. MR. RODENHURST: I would like to caution against the dedicable standards in changing the variance on that. These are designed for a reason, to provide the purposes necessary for the traffic that they're going see as well as the maintenance cost further down the line. And how do we preserve our county roads, so we don't have increase maintenance cost later on. And for other engineer reasons as well depending on drainage, and depending on availability for Page 22 FC -10 May 4, 2021 the traffic flow that we're seeing. So there's other things beyond just right of way consideration, which is consideration for what kind of traffic is going to be on these roads. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Understood, thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Matt, I'm going to go to Council Member Chung now, yeah. Council Member Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. And you know, I apologize to my colleagues, if I'm asking the same question again. But either I heard wrong, or I asked the question wrong or my question was answered incorrectly. But at the bottom of this resolution it calls for the Director of the Department Public Works to prepare and submit your report. Did I hear correctly that the report will cost $200,000 a mile? Cannot be right, I mean is that what I heard? MS. SAKO: So again, we said the only thing we have to base it on is the Lono Kona improvement district, which is the most recent one, and their report $233,000. And was covered approximately a mile. That was a very small improvement district. MR. CHUNG: And that was the county's end? The county paid for that? MS. SAKO: The County fronted the money from the improvement district Revolving Fund, and then got reimbursed when the bond was issued. MR. CHUNG: Okay. This is how I think it's supposed to work, okay, and it's only my opinion. The county will do an assessment which complies with the provisions contained in Section 12-10(a). And those called for very preliminary types of studies, or assessments so that we can get a preliminary cost estimate for how much this is going to be. Because I think the $200,000 per mile, applies to the design aspects. Generally about, you know, quarter of the construction cost, right. And I think that's where we might be hung up, yeah, because I've got to believe it's only going to take like about $5,000 and that's still $5,000 out of the county's money, I mean coffers, but I just think it's not going to take too much time on part of the department to just come up with preliminary numbers, so that we have a good idea as to how much this is going to cost per assessed unit. That's the main thing, that's what we're trying to accomplish right now. So that the people who are going to have to bear the burden of paying this thing at least have some idea as to how much this is going to cost, what they're going to get for what they're paying for, and then they can make a good decision, as to whether they want it or not. But that's only my two cents. But I think I'm kind of correct on this, because cannot be. If not no sense have improvement district ordinance Page 23 FC -10 May 4, 2021 already. Because it's going to be cost prohibitive, because the county cannot front that kind of money. So just kind of think about it. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Go ahead, Matt. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Heather. Thanks for the latitude. Again, I completely agree with Aaron. Moving forward, let's use option two please. I'd like to move this forward to Council but it will not go any further with this until we are comfortable with what those costs look like. And that's the commitment I made to the community. Again, the community asked to bring this forward. And I will not move forward with this until it's settled, and we kind of see what it's going to look like. I cannot do that in good conscience. So using option two, can you please come back to the Council in two weeks, and give us a number on what we're looking at with a number for the miles of road we're looking at through option two for the study. And then if you can give a better basis for that cost for the project, that would be good. But again, the study is really what starts us off, and what we need to understand now. Behind that study is a long lengthy public process that is a lot deeper than what we're discussing at this moment. So that's my desire for today. And I really appreciate today's discussion, some things are new to me, some things are not. And I learned a lot. Mahalo, for everyone's input. And thank you for the latitude, Chair. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Sure. MR. RODENHURST: I can provide the mileage for that. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: You have the miles right now? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: What is the miles for the option two? MR. RODENHURST: What we have right now, the preliminary of B, C, D, E, F, G, and Road 1 is approximately 23 miles. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: So that would be what we're calling option two that was in the survey that was sent out, that received the most votes positively? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: It would be a 23 mile Page 24 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MR. RODENHURST: Twenty-three and a little bit. I think its 23.1 miles, so approximately 23 miles. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: So the numbers that were thrown around earlier kind of—we just call that garbage right now. Because we never were approaching the entire system of roadways being improved by the community. It was this, series of roadways that had the most votes. So I'm just going to stick to that. So we'll call it 23 miles of roadway. Still understanding it's a very large number, but until we have some solid numbers in front of us, I don't want to say no, at this point. So mahalo, Mr. Rodenhurst. I appreciate you helping us kind of understanding this better. And thank you, Deanna. MS. SAKO: So Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I think it would really help if the resolution was amended because the reason those big numbers get thrown out is it's very general, the resolution. And it appears to apply to entire subdivision, which is the 73 or 77 miles of road. So at some point I think it would be very beneficial to amend the resolution, so that it's clear as to what we're talking about. But we will try and get better estimates between now and the next meeting. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: I can work on amending the resolution. I think the discussion needs to happen, and I've found sometimes it's good to just get the discussion moving and then amend as we need to. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Matt, let me pass it on to Council Lee Loy, and Council Member Inaba who's been patiently waiting. Go ahead, Sue. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. And Deanna just mentioned it. You know, we have a duty to pass the words in front of us. And although I'm hearing wonderful conversation, what we're being asked to do is, do it this way and then we'll let the paperwork catch up later on. And why I continue to stand by, you know, we need to refine what we're asking the department to do. And I really would appreciate it, because it manages the expectation whereby we can hold the department accountable. And then there's some actionable items around that, that Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder can take back to his community. I really would want to see this held in committee, refine to a place where everybody is getting good information to make good decisions. That was my thoughts, and Deanna mentioned it just now. So thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Director Rodenhurst, are we going be able to get the comprehensive numbers that Council Member Chung has kind of been talking about. Not just per mile, but per the lot as well? Because if we can'tI don't Page 25 FC -10 May 4, 2021 think we should put the pressure on—if it was going to take so much money are you going to be able to get that to us in two weeks or do we need more time? MR. RODENHURST: If I'm not mistaken, I was requested to get a more refined reporting cost for that feasibility study. Not the final report numbers, from that report in two weeks. Is that correct? I guess that's where I'm a little bit confused at this point. MR. INABA: Maybe I'm confused too. What are we talking about? Are we trying to get more concrete numbers, or are we just trying to get simple numbers to give us an idea? MR. RODENHURST: Because my understanding of what Council Member Chung asked, is to get a more refined reporting number on this. Which in turn, you know, if we're able to feasibly do the report. We'd be able to get a more refined design cost, and more refined construction cost. These preliminary estimates, very early preliminary estimates, are based off of a lot of unforeseen and unknowns at this time. Like I mentioned there may be some drain improvements need to be made, whether it be drywells or what not. The roads are at varying conditions that would have to be confirmed. We've talked about the right of way, dedicable standards, what kind of land acquisitions we would have, how many properties that we would be affecting. There are a lot of unknowns at this time. And while we are zeroing in on the scope with the, you know the 23 miles of road there still leaves a lot to be considered for this. And that's where that feasibility comes in, and like Deanna mentioned we haven't had an improvement district like this in recent times. I think this previous one the Lono Kona one was 2013, so that's where we're basing these numbers off of the feasibility. And yes, it does seem like a very high price, we're trying to figure if there's anything that would make this a little bit more zeroed in on at this point. And happy to have a discussion about zeroing the scope in to get those out there. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder has clarified that preliminaryI guess my question is in two weeks are we going to have an updated—it's not going to be $200,000 anymore we're going to have an updated number. Is that right? MR. RODENHURST: I can't confirm what the change is going to be, but we can look and see what's possible. As far as making sure this price is either justified, or providing how we can get a price that's lower than that. MR. INABA: Alright, thank you. Chair, I yield. Page 26 FC -10 May 4, 2021 ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. And before I recognize Mr. Chung, I'm going to do a little engineer translation. When looking at Section 12-10, and what would be described in the study, the language in there is actually quite vague, and I can see how depending on how you interpreted this is a very preliminary, broad study without a lot of investment. Or it could actually be interpreted to be something where you're going out and you're doing surveys and you're doing designs, and you're doing drawings. Having worked with engineers quite a bit when they're given situations that are vague, they're going to estimate it the way high-end. I think that's what we're seeing here. So I'm going to pass it to Mr. Chung. But I do believe that as we discuss this further, in addition to specifying the amount of roads that you actually want to look at. We actually need to define this study, and scope of work a little bit better. And it's all going to be dependent on how much uncertainty you're willing to except in the estimates. If it's just very high 30,000 foot you think it's necessary, then the scope of work is going to be a little lighter. With that I'll pass it to Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Well I don't know if Mr. Inaba's question was answered, I was just going to address that. But addressing the Chair's statements, this has to be very broad. The reason for that is, the whole purpose behind the improvement district arrangement was that almost all of the cost, if not all, were going to be borne by those properties that are within the assessment district. Therefore there's not going to be any, you know, our cost to the general public. And the only that the county would put it up, would be its full faith in credit. Because we're going to be issuing bonds on this thing. So what I'm thinking, I mean the only thing that Mr. Rodenhurst and Deanna can do from now until the time that this either goes to the committee next time, or full Council is to now reassess the option B, or C or whatever it is that, you know, we're looking at. And say there are now 24 miles, and you know, x amount of graded areas. But that's all they can do, they cannot move through with a study per this resolution until the resolution is adopted. And that study in my mind, is going to take months. You know, it's not going to take a lot of investment on the part of the county, but it's going to probably be done in-house. And if it costs a lot, then they would have to come back to us for an appropriation. I'm sure it can be done in-house, just looking at what's provided for in the County Code. But it would take, I would think a least five months. And then they come back with their report. Then I think another resolution has to be passed, which is going to create the—or I think from there maybe they're be noticed kinds of provisions. I don t know how this thing is going to work, but something else has to be done later on. But I don't think we're going to get anything specific, and when I say specific I mean generally specific, next meeting. We're looking Page 27 FC -10 May 4, 2021 months down the line, and it's after the resolution is adopted. That's all I have to say. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. And I guess I'm a little stuck on the dollars, and cents of this. I support the intent of trying to get this done, and I was thinking about it this actually goes back to Jen Ruggles and I had this conversation four-plus years ago. Or maybe not quite that long, maybe four. Concerning doing this, but it never got beyond anything. And I hear what Finance is saying, I hear what Public Works is saying. I want to support it, but I also don't want to sign up the community for something that maybe they're not ready to get signed up for. And I hear what Mr. Chung is saying about it, I think I would prefer to see this stay in committee, get a few more guardrails around it, every pun intended, and yet some idea of what the scope of it's going to be, coming back with Mr. Rodenhurst information as well as maybe a little bit better understanding of the scope. Because I want to support it, with those numbers when we go to Council and that's where we're going to have a lot of input form the community depending what they're saying. So that's my mindset right now, I'd like to hold it in committee, get those data points in place and then take it out from there. So Chair, I yield. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Richards. Any final thoughts? Alright, I will just chime in one more time. I agree that I think we need to spend a little more time with this in committee. Personally just define that scope a little better and in terms of Section 12-10 what you're really looking for at this point. Again, it can interpreted fairly broadly in terms of what their requirements of the study was if you're just reading that text, you know, straight on. So at this point this is their motion to defer, to either the call of the Chair or a specific date, decision making on this resolution. MR. INABA: Yeah. I want to make a motion to postpone to the call of the Chair, so we can hopefully have—or Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder can hopefully have more discussion with Public Works and Finance. And maybe even at that time, iron out the amendments to the resolution. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Res. 105-21 to the call of the Chair. Seconded by Mr. Richards. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Any discussion on the postponement? Council Member, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate the concern for slowing it down, and holding it. At the same time it would then have to move it forward to Council Page 28 FC -10 May 4, 2021 anyway. As Mr. Chung described, and as I read through Chapter 12 and maybe some of you should brush up on Chapter 12. It can't go anywhere, and this is just the preliminary study step. Until it passes through us, and the study begins. So without it being approved at Council, it's stuck. So moving it forward to Council holding it in Council, deferring it, it just feels very circular. I'd like to move it ahead. I'll be voting against this motion. But expressly, this will not move pass the final goal in my eyes, until we can better understand what the cost are. For me we've laid out pretty well where this is going to sit, what the subdivision has defined as the scope of their project. We've discussed that today. And without this being passed, it's just a basis of a feasibility study. If you read that section, it just lays that out. I mean there's not really a lot of movement, in that improvement district section of code. It's laid out piece by piece what happens. It's a pretty long process, the beginning is the feasibility study. There isn't a lot of precedent on this happening, as there's not a lot of base what we do on. I'm open to amending pieces and parts of this as I discussed with Mr. Rodenhurst. But for me, what I think is proper is to move this forward to Council. And then hold it at Council without—if you guys don't feel comfortable moving it past, having a final vote. We're not locked into anything, by moving it ahead to Council. The only thing that this does is approve us moving forward with feasibility study. And I'm going to hold true to my community and to you guys, that we will not finalize the vote on this at Council if it gets there, until we're comfortable with the pricing structure that we're going to see for the scope of the project. Because ultimately it's the people of Hawaiian Acres who will be paying this off, and I don't want to burden them heavily. And this is not easy to come to, and I understand that the folks are going to bear the cost, you know, so I don't take this lightly. But with everything, you know, said today, I'd like to move this ahead to Council, and not defer and putting a holding pattern whatever is going to be said. I'd like to just move it ahead, and hold it at Council so that we can move on it when we're ready. That's my two cents, mahalo. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Any other comments on the deferral? I'll just make a comment. I think it's just a difference of philosophy that if something still in progress it should sit in committee rather than move to Council. And I think this is still a work in progress. And I'll give you an example. You say that Chapter 12 specifies things pretty clearly. I would disagree. So 12-10(a), paragraph (2), "The general character and extent of any improvement to be proposed" shall be included in the report. When you say "general character," you know, what does that mean? That could mean any level of detail, right. Page 29 FC -10 May 4, 2021 So without us specifying at what level of detail we need to make decisions about this particular case. I think that's why you see this astronomical cost for the study, because that's so ill defined in the code. And good reason right, because it's going to be fluid to every project to what level you need to examine sort of these things to make a decision. That's just my position in terms of where this needs to be worked on and why. Icertainly no objections, you know, considering this for your community. Clearly it's something that's very important for discussion, and that's not the position I'm taking as point of opposition to the concept. It's just really just a need I think to massage a little bit more. With that, any other comments? We'll take the vote on the deferral. All of those in favor of deferring to the call of the Chair? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Res. 105-21 to the call of the to Postpone: Chair was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, and Acting Chair Kimball — 6. Noes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and Villegas — 3. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: With that, I will yield the chair back to Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Acting Chair Kimball relinquished the chair to Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Let the record reflect I've taken back over as Chair of the Finance Committee. Okay, Mr. Clerk, next order of business, please. Res. 109-21: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR AN EXTENSION OF A MULTI-YEAR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT WAREHOUSE IN KEA`AU, DISTRICT OF PUNA Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a four-year lease extension for 12,000 square feet of warehouse space. Reference: Comm. 223 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder (B/R) Page 30 FC -10 May 4, 2021 Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend adoption of Res. 109-21. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We have Deanna Sako in Hilo to answer any questions. And mahalo for every one of you for your patients, I know you've been waiting. I believe we also have Officer Amaral in Hilo as well to discuss this, being a Police Department lease for the Police warehouse in Shipman Industrial. Can you please give us a little background on the project and what's going on and then if there's any questions we can go with the Council's questions. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: This is just an extension of a lease, we've been leasing property and you know, I think we've talked in the past about as we have to maintain evidence the space to store that evidence increases. So we wanted to extend this lease for additional amount of four years at site undisclosed on purpose. And so we're happy to answer any question you might have. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo. Any questions from the Council. Okay. Well I appreciate your time, thank you for coming today. There are no questions at this time. Motion is on the floor to forward Res. 109-21 to Council for a favorable recommendation. All in favor? Vote on Res. 109-21: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 109-21 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Kimball — 1. Excused: None. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Next order, Bill 21. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 31 FC -10 May 4, 2021 Bill 21: ESTABLISHES AN OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2021, TO JUNE 30, 2022 From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 1, 2021. The balanced budget includes estimated revenues and appropriations of $590,800,952; which represents a proposed 0.8 percent increase compared to the Fiscal Year 2020- 2021 Operating Budget. Reference: Comm. 103 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder (B/R) Postponed: April 13, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 21 on first reading.) ; and Comm. 103.1: From Finance Director Deanna S. Sako, dated March 1, 2021, transmitting reports entitled, Departmental & Agencies' Six Month Progress Report on Program Objectives for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and Final Status Report on Program Objectives for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Vote on Bill 21 (Approved) CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Is there any discussion on Bill 21? Wonderful. Okay, seeing no discussion. All in favor of forwarding Bill 21 to Council with a favorable recommendation? The motion to recommend passage on Bill 21 on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 32 FC -10 May 4, 2021 Bill 22: RELATES TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1. 2021. TO JUNE 30. 2022 From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 1, 2021, transmitting the proposed Capital Budget for FY 2021-2022 and the Capital Improvements Program for the next six years from Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to 2026-2027, which includes 66 projects requiring a total appropriation of $188.78 million. Approximately $129.56 million are intended to be funded in whole or part by bonds, $3.1 million to be funded by Federal Grants, and $56.12 million to be funded by the State Revolving Loan Fund or State Capital Improvement Projects. Reference: Comm. 104 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder (B/R) Postponed: April 13, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Kimball, to recommend passage of Bill 22 on first reading.) CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo, Mr. Clerk. Any discussion on Bill 22, Council Members? No? Deanna, you still in the chambers in Hilo? Thank you, Ma'am. I have a question for you Deanna. MS. SAKO: Mm-hmm. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So this is our capital improvement budget, correct? MS. SAKO: Yes, it is. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: My question is, how is this Council supposed to know what projects on this list will be done and what's not? MS. SAKO: It's basically done by the ones that are noted that there's grant funding, there's some that are noted that are fair share. Sorry, I didn't bring it down with me. You know, there's different funding sources, those are kind of—those come with funding so to speak. The others are not, and so it would all depend if it's either something that can be funded by fuel tax, and you guys do pass the fuel tax ordinances that do have the potential projects listed, within the ordinance. And then you guys also pass the bond ordinances, which also have specific projects listed. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood. And we have a long list of projects that are both prioritized, and we show a funding source. But is this the way it's always done, or we don't know what's going to happen and we just kind of wander into our capital improvement budget and hope projects will get done? Page 33 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MS SAKO: Well I believe most Council Members work with the departments to help identify it as a priority. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But does identifying it as a priority mean that it'll get funded? MS. SAKO: It depends if there's a bond ordinance to pay for it or not. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And we have bond ordinances existing, correct? MS. SAKO: Yes. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And we have grants existing? MS. SAKO: Yes, we do. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so I'm guessing that we do know some of these projects will be funded. MS. SAKO: Yeah, there's various projects on the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Projects) list and other lists. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Would it be possible to have a list of capital improvement projects that will be funded this year submitted to this body? MS. SAKO: You know, Planning is in charge of the capital budget. So you know, each department is kind of tracking some of their own grants, so I don't know how long it would take us to pull that together. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I mean you have a list in front of you, with all the projects we've submitted as priorities. I can't give you a number, but there's got to be less than 30 on here. And if the departments know which ones they prioritize and we know which ones are funded it would be useful. MS. SAKO: So in the front of the ordinance, when I said some are grant funded I meant if you're talking specifically about those projects in the front of the ordinance, it says that it supposed to be funded by a grant. It actually says Federal Grant Funding above the project. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's fine. But again, back to which ones will be funded this year. Or this coming fiscal year, and which ones will not be? And is it possible to get a list of those projects, and get it to the Council? Page 34 FC -10 May 4, 2021 MS. SAKO: So if it's not federal funded, it's not State Revolving funded, then no, we have not determined yet what other projects will be funded. Because we have not come forth yet, with another bond ordinance to fund projects. That process is taking place. I think I've mentioned that before, where we're trying to prioritize the projects and prepare a bond ordinance to come forth to Council. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So at this point in time, we don't know which one of these projects will be funded, is that what you're saying? MS. SAKO: I am not going to make a blanket statement on every single project, because the capital budget is prepared by planning so I don't have them all memorized. But you know, there's definitely some projects are probably going to have to fund. But you know, even some of these projects that are listed here are just the planning or design fees, which we may or may not get to in the coming year. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because of our, you know, in constrained fiscal position that we find ourselves in this year, I'm very interested to know what projects that we will be proceeding on funding or not. And I do feel that we know full well which projects we'll be funding, walking to the next fiscal year. So if I can ask again, can I please have a list, whether it's through planning or through finance, of the projects that we plan on funding this year through our capital improvement projects list? MS. SAKO: I can't answer that, no. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So that's a no or a yes, or you need time to think about it? MS. SAKO: I just said, we're preparing a bond ordinance and prioritizing the projects. You're the one who said, you feel that we do know which projects we're going to do. I tried to very nicely say we're not sure yet, which projects we're going to do yet. So I don't know how to answer your question. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm looking for a little bit of clarity on where we stand with our capital improvements, and I think it's to the best interest of the county and to the Council to know. MS. SAKO: So we have a new Administration, we just asked every department to submit their priorities to us. Some are already on the last two fiscal years', capital budgets because each budget is good for three years. So we have projects that are ongoing, we have a new Administration is place, we just asked everyone to prioritize it based on federal mandates. You know, you've heard the shape of our sewer system, you've heard about the shape of our roads. So we just got that Page 35 FC -10 May 4, 2021 list from each of the departments, we're in the process of prioritizing it. But that hasn't been completed yet. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: When will that be completed? MS. SAKO: I'm not sure. I'm trying to get the budget in tomorrow, so after that. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So as soon as possible I'd like to see a full list of what will be done. This coming fiscal year, expected. And not just a prioritized list, because it doesn't mean anything or doesn't mean enough. I'd like to see a little bit more clarity on what's going on. And I think it's good for the Council to understand what will be done in the fiscal year what those projected projects will be. And so if you know tomorrow, if you know in two days, great. Submit them as soon as you have them so we can better understand our budget. Okay, thank you, Ms. Sako. Okay, motion is in front of us to forward Bill 22 to Council for first reading. All in favor? Vote on Bill 22: The motion to recommend passage on Bill 22 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. May I have a motion to adjourn, please? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 5:09 p.m. Ms. David moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 36 FC -10 CHR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We are adjourned. Mahalo. Approved: Mr. Matt Kdneali`i- einfel Finance Committee MK/rk Chair G/q//q� I (bate) May 4, 2021 Page 37