Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2023/01/24 (2022-2024)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 2nd Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii January 24, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 2:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later) Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, 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: Rebecca Melendez: Bill 12 (Comm. 50), comment. Wattie K. Green: Bill 12 (Comm. 50), in support. Thomas Clement: Bill 12 (Comm. 50), in support. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 Bill 12: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-6 (KAILUA-HONALU URBAN ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A-5a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — ONE ACRE (FA -la) AT KEAUHOU, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-7-008:062 (Applicant: Shawn Maile Nakoa_ Esa.) (Area: 5.292 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into three lots of at least one acre. The property is located approximately a quarter mile northwest of its intersection with Kamehameha III Road, Pahoehoe 1 "-Kapalaalaea 2nd in North Kona. Reference: Comm.50 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 12 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. INABA: Aloha, Ms. Nakoa, if you'd like to approach and if you want to start off with opening mana`o. We also have our Deputy Planning Director in our Hilo Chambers via Zoom; and good afternoon, Mr. Pippan. (Note: At this time, Applicant Shawn Maile Nakoa, Esq.; John Pipan, representing Hawaii, LLC; and Jeannie Clement, landowner, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. NAKOA: Aloha and good afternoon, Committee Chair Inaba, Council Chair Kimball, and honorable members of the Council. My name is Shawn Maile Nakoa, and I'm a practicing attorney here in Kona. In this case, the Third Circuit Judge Wendy Deweese appointed me as Partition Commissioner in an underlying lawsuit, entitled Clement vs. Falcam, in Civil No. 3CCV-20-0000325, is in this capacity that I am the applicant regarding this Change of Zone request before you today. Judge Deweese invested and authorized me to subdivide the subject property into three lots, consisting of a minimum of one acre each, and in order to do that, a Change of Zone is required. I should note that —no, I will let Ms. Clement talk to you about the history of the property since it is her property. But I wanted to share with you that in Judge Deweese's Order, she expressly provides the following: "Given the parties long-standing connection to the property and their desire to retain interests in the property, it is just and equitable to order that the property be subdivided and partitioned in -kind into three lots." The Order further directs me to perform the Page 2 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 three parcel lots subdivision, and it specifically encourages the County of Hawaii Planning Department, DPW (Department of Public Works), and all other relevant government agencies to facilitate the commissioner's efforts to subdivide the subject property, and again, the purpose is for distribution to family members who have owned and resided on this property for almost 200 years. It's not a big development coming in; it's a family trying to go home. In this case, I think it's important to understand that in the scheme of things, this is a manini project in terms of both impacts, on infrastructure and impact on the neighborhood, where the parcel is situated. Again, it's old-time Hawaiian property. The purpose of the Change of Zone and subsequent subdivision, hopefully, is to simply allow a Hawaiian family to return to their home. We all know that Hawaiian families are leaving Hawaii because they cannot afford to be here, that's exactly the case that's in front of you. If Ms. Clement cannot move back to the subject property, she and her family will be forced to move to the mainland, so this is where the rubber meets the road with this particular family. I believe this Change of Zone request is equitable and lawful and the next necessary step in subdividing the property, as I have been instructed to do by the court, so I respectfully urge you to approve the request for the Change of Zone. I really appreciate your consideration, mahalo. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Ms. Nakoa. Ms. Clement or Mr. Pipan, if you'd like to go ahead. MR. PIPAN: Aloha kakou. Thank you, Chair Inaba. Thank you, Council Members for your tireless work in supporting your communities that you represent. This is a simple straightforward land use matter. If it had the appropriate zoning to support the subject subdivision, we wouldn't be before you now, we would be just going through the subdivision process. Seen is, it didn't have the correct zoning, so we are requesting a Change of Zone just to permit a three -lot subdivision so that this family isn't forced to sell their land, okay? It's a simple question, which is, the better alternative: subdivide, allow this family to keep their land in the family, or force them to sell it to the highest bidder? That's the question we're presented with today, and I think the answer should be obvious. So I won't belabor all the finer points, this is consistent with the General Plan, consistent with the Kona Community Development Plan. We worked hard with all the agencies and the Planning Department. We appreciate their continued support and work on this in crafting the conditions we have before us today, which we've reviewed. Some of them will be burdensome. We do believe we can accomplish them in an expedient fashion and get this Page 3 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 subdivision done for this family. So with that, I think —well, I'll hand my time to Jeannie (Clement), aloha. MS. CLEMENT: Thank you again for letting us come today and to speak with you all, and to hopefully gain your support. So, my family is kind of right. I have a map that's been in my family since 1730. It's pushing almost 300 years that this ahupua`a and this `aina has been in my family, and it's a shame for me to watch what I have to do to get back home, just to live there again. I grew up on that property before probablyI don't know if any of you know this, but when I grew up on that Kuakini property there was nothing to the left or to the right. Keauhou Shopping Center wasn't there. I mean, we had —we didn't have a stoplight in Kona. It was the old Kuakini Highway. We had no neighbors growing up. We raised cattle on our property there. From the top of that Kuakini Highway all the way down to Kahalu`u is where we forged, we played, and today of course it's very different. I am the great -great-granddaughter of CharlesI'm sorry, Joseph Kahoulupa Nahale, who was married to Nahinu. Nahinu was the last child of King Kaumuali`i of his fourth wife. That is where we came into our property, and we now today are fighting so that we can keep by the time the mahele is finished, two maybe -and -a -half acres, that my children and his children will get to live on. It's a sad day. I'm sure my kupunas are sitting up there going, "Holy cow, look at all what you have to do just to go home," just to live on property that's been in my family forever. It's true, my grandparents are there, their ashes are there. My uncle's ashes was —it was what we did when I was growing up. It really saddened me today to hear people still coming out and not doing their homework and thinking this is a development. This is not true. This is kanakaole trying to go home. So I would hope that you can look at what the Planning Commission has said, they're in support of our family. I do want to say one more thing, we didn't have a choice. I either had to sell the property or we go through this fight, and so far it's costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I was so blessed to have some of that, and now it'sI had never dreamed it was going to cost me this much. I don't know how other Hawaiian families can do it because it's so difficult. The rules and regulations that you have in place for people that want to go home, they can't do. They can't afford to buy an attorney to hire an attorney. Now, why did I have to have a commissioner, why did I have to go to court, because there was a lien on the property. The five -and -a -half acres were not —it was undivided interests, and whenever somebody owes money, the lien gets slapped on the whole thing; so in order to get my piece taken out so that I no longer am responsible for those liens, I had to go to court. That was the only way Page 4 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 I could do it, or sell. That was my option, go to court, go through all of this. I've been so lucky to have a commissioner that gets it. But my goodness, if you're going to change something in the future, please look at that. I don't know how other Hawaiian people are going to do it. I just don't know how. I've been blessed. Not pau yet, I'm still going through having to put in water and sewer. You know, $45,000 here, $30,000 here, I don't know how I'm going to do it, but with the will of God, I will because I need to go home. So thank you so much for listening to us today, and I hope that you will feel what we feel. Mahalo. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Ms. Clement. Real quick, why don't I head over to Hilo, Deputy Director Darrow, do you want to chime in on anything at this time? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Aloha, Chair Inaba. Jeff Darrow, Deputy Planning Director with the County of Hawaii Planning Department. As mentioned by representative John Pipan, it's been a collaborative effort through this process. There's not a whole lot to be said. This is a most appropriate request. It's met with favorable recommendations from both the Planning Department and the Leeward Planning Commission moving forward, and we support wholeheartedly this request. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Deputy Director Darrow. I want to bring it back here to Kona, opening it up for any questions, or comments, from my colleagues. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. This is for the Deputy Planning Director. So basically the conditions here is they have to do their subdivision within five years, and then I'm looking at the conditions because this is going to affect them if they can actually do this within five years. One of the conditions that really stands out that's disturbing to me is you're going to make them extend the sewer system to connect to them, that's a huge expense for a few homes, where they could probably do septic tanks. So why are we —are they in some type of improvement district, that they have no choice, that they have to connect? MR. DARROW: Aloha, Council Member Evans. When the Planning Department receives a request for a Change of Zone, we send out the request to numerous agencies and receive comments back from those particular agencies, which gives us direction in regards to conditions for that request. In this particular request, the application did go before the Department of Environmental Management. Their comment letter is Planning Department Exhibit No. 4 on the Planning Department background. Basically, based on County Code, if there is sewer within a particular area where the development is, Page 5 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 they're required to hook up, and that distance is 300 feet. Unfortunately, this particular application falls within 300 feet of the current wastewater system in the area. Planning Department normally takes these conditions and puts them within the rezoning. As mentioned, this has become a unique situation in the sense of the whole circumstances of trying to just provide an opportunity for this local family to come back home and to come back to their land. This gives an opportunity for the Council to consider a change to the condition that's been forwarded to the commission, if they so wish. MS. EVANS: Yeah, based on our previous discussion on another bill, it seems that we can set conditions, and that we like the ability to review and look at conditions. Personally, I think it's excessive. I don't think they should be required to attach a sewer. It's going to be absolutely a huge expense for them. I understand why our Environmental Management people want everybody on the sewage treatment plant but, you know, this isn't an improvement district that voters voted on, so it's not I don't think it's a "requirement," but you said it was by Code. Do we have the ability as the Council to say we're not going to follow the Code, by the way we set the condition on this? Can we change it? CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans, sorry, no. If we want to have a legal opinion, we can hear from Corporation Counsel. MS. EVANS: Okay, so Corporation Counsel, does the Code —are we going to be stuck with Code, that because they live within 300 feet, they have to tie into the sewer system? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon, Council. Elizabeth Strance, this will be quick. I don't know. I'll have to research that, and I'll have somebody respond. MS. EVANS: Okay, right. Thank you. Anyway, I see that as a huge expense. The other thing is I'm looking at the other conditions. You have to go through the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), which is always a hassle, very timely. No, they're not timely, let's put it that way. So, that's kind of disturbing. Why did you come up with five years? How did you come up with the number five for this? Because you're saying they have to complete all these things, which is a lot of money. If you look at this, it's a lot of money, it's a lot of consultants, it's a lot of processes. Why did you come up with five years? MR. DARROW: Council Member Evans, I think that question is being posed to me. Again, it's a typical timeframe that we have for a subdivision of this Page 6 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 particular size, and if you look at the end of the conditions, there is an administrative time extension added on to this particular application. MS. EVANS: So it's saying —so for you, it's five plus five may be granted? The other thing I want to ask, that you as the applicant for this change, have they given you any indication of how much it's going to cost you because the Department of Public Works wants you to work on the roads? Have you gotten even any idea how much is this going to cost? MS. CLEMENT: Yeah. This is what I was trying to say earlier without a lot of detail, is that the sewer, the waterlines, at a minimum, was $45,000, that didn't include everything else, and then there were some other costs. But at the end of the day, my attorney and I sat down and we figured out, I still have another $130,000 that I have to come up with. You're right, it is extremely excessive. Everything I've paid had nothing to do with the preparatory piece of the land, of the `aina, going home. I so appreciate you looking at that. I'm shaking, thinking somebody else gets it. It's amazing. MS. EVANS: Yeah, well, I'm shocked by the road thing here. MS. CLEMENT: You and me both, sister. MS. EVANS: Yeah, the road thing is really getting me here. It's saying, "Vehicular access to lot shall be prohibited from Kuakini," which forces you which may be the right thing. MS. CLEMENT: But I'm okay with that. MS. EVANS: Yes, because — MS. CLEMENT: Because it's safety reasons and there is better access coming off of Pomaika`i, so that was a condition that we accepted because I already have an access way off of Pomaika` i. I did that three years ago; went to the Planning Department, and then put a farm road in so I could get up to the property that way, and it's safer, trust me. MS. EVANS: When it saysI don't know if there's someone here to answer this. It says here that, "The connections and the construction shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets." I hope it's not Complete Streets because that's real expensive. MS. CLEMENT: No. MS. EVANS: What kind —do you know what level of construction, when it says you have to? Page 7 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MR. PIPAN: Yeah, thank you, Council Member Evans. The process for a project like this goes, the entitlement is the discretionary permits, in this case the rezone, then we submit for subdivision with a tentative plat map, which is basically what we've shown in the rezone exhibit; then we get feedback from Planning. Say we need to go through a Special Management Area (SMA) assessment, so to make sure that there are no impacts on ecosystems, public access, et cetera, and so forth, then we can get our tentative plat map approved and seek out designs for the infrastructure improvements that are required. The map may shift throughout this process that we're undergoing right now, based on the conditions that we arrived at. As it is, it looks like each of those three lots can have frontage on Pomaika`i Street, yes. So there wouldn't be required access to Kuakini, we're okay with having that access to an individual lot restricted. MS. EVANS: Last question, I'm getting timed here, probably. The last question, that part of —my understanding is, that part of Kona has a lot of cultural and historical history to it, like a lot. So it wants you to go through the SHPD, has anybody talked to you about what you're going to get into? Can you work with them? MS. CLEMENT: Yes. MS. EVANS: Has anyone spoken to you about what potentially may happen when you work with SHPD because I think that there's a lot of historical, cultural significance in that area. Any feedback yet? MR. PIPAN: Yes, no one better than Ms. Clement can speak to the cultural history of this property. SHPD has visited the site on a number of occasions. They were very responsive, and we very much appreciate their working with us to fine-tune this condition with the AIS (Archaeological Inventory Survey) requirement being tied specifically to ground disturbance because we believe we can complete this subdivision without any ground disturbance on this property, so if we can do that, we're not required to do the AIS prior to subdivision, this family can get back to their homeland sooner. We worked closely with SHPD on this project and many others, and we think it shows in this condition. Ms. Clement, maybe MS. CLEMENT: I found it interesting that when SHPD came to the property, and we've had other resources come to the property and looked at —there were some maybe new things, you know, maybe a plant or two that we found that we didn't know could be extinct because it was indigenous. But for the most part, we knew what was there, being as old as I am, walking that property for my whole life, we knew more than I think that they understood. I've had a map —we Page 8 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 actually had a Hal Hammett review of the property done back in ' 83, and so we knew. We knew everything that was on there, and I do appreciate that. I mean, my grandparents are there and my uncle is there. But I was very happy with the decision of waiting until Land Disturbance so that we can actually move forward with the two -and -a -half acres that we have to go home. That's where our old home was, like we grew up on that property as kids, teenagers. Yeah, I'm satisfied with that. MS. EVANS: That's good to know. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing your story, your struggle, your fight. I'm sorry that it has to be this way. You don't need to defend yourself and your claim to your `aina. One hundred percent, I'm going to be supporting this. It makes absolute sense. I'm just sorry that it's such a difficult process to get back and such a financial burden. It shouldn't be that way for a local family, so I truly empathize, and I'm just trying to figure out ways, how do we shave some of this off so it's not so financially burdensome, but also respecting the fact that we have these laws in place, right, that are supposed to protect public health and safety and the environment. I'm curious, Deputy Director, when it comes to connecting to sewer, is it within our wheelhouse to potentially say that the applicant does septic for one property, and should they develop other two lots, and that triggers connecting to sewer system? Is that something that we can perhaps have language on? I'm just trying to think about all the financial implications that this `ohana is having to take on, just to build and get back home. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. This is a tough one because again it's a legal matter, the question has been posed to our legal counsel. It is a County Code requirement, that if there is connection —if there is the ability to connect to sewer within 300 feet from that proposed development, they're required to connect. But again, sometimes we have to look at things on a case -by -case basis, not as an overall development in the sense that this is being proposed as a subdivision and it's going to be coming in and selling lots creating lots and selling lots to people, and having to put in the required infrastructure. This is a very, very unique situation. In that light, I would venture and say that the Council has the ability to consider some unique conditions in this case, in thinking about it, I would —if this was not within 300 feet of the proposed sewer line, the zoning would be Agricultural I -acre, which allows for a septic system on that particular parcel of land. There could be, just thinking out of the Page 9 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 box, a condition that says, "For the first dwelling on each property that they're allowed to put in a septic system, but any additional dwelling on any of the proposed lots would trigger the need to bring in a sewer system, and to connect." I mean, again, I'm in the same situation, that everyone is here trying to figure out a way to make this work better. Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy Director, for getting creative with me on the floor here. Again, we're trying to put our heads together to find ways to get you guys back home in an economically feasible manner. MS. CLEMENT: Thank you so much. MS. NAKOA: Shawn Nakoa, if I might weigh in? I appreciate the Council seeing that this is a unique situation. With regard to the sewer issue, one of the ways —another way in which it's unique, is that these are not new owners stepping in. It's kind of maybeI'm trying to be creative and work within the law, some kind of grandfather clause concept, perhaps to think about. I'm just trying to think out of the box here a little bit. I certainly appreciate you folks caring and looking at these really big issues that we've been discussing. Really appreciate it. MS. CLEMENT: I was telling Shawn that we lived there. We lived on that. I've had to tear down my grandpa's house that was on there that we lived in actually burned down, so all that was left was the cement pad. My tutu man built a fishing shack, and it actually got built up a little bit so people could live there. But, we lived there. We had a septic system there. This isn't like undeveloped, poorly, nobody's ever lived there. That was our home there. I bulldozed everything off of there because there were squatters. People were coming in and pitching tents on there, and then we would get in trouble because the police would have to come and kick them off the property. So had I not done that, all of that would have been there, and the infrastructure to live there again. I mean, we still have a telephone pole there. We have an electricity pole. We have water, and made sure the waterlines were replaced so that they would be good and clean for us when go take care the `aina when we're up there. So that's actuallyI said, "I wonder if it's Ie I already lived there, why do I have to do it again?" MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, and okay, and again just thinking out loud, trying to be creative, check in with my colleagues to get a pulse -check on that, as well. MS. CLEMENT: Thank you so much. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I mean, if this was a 50-lot subdivision, heck yeah, they're connecting to septic, I mean, sewer, but this is a completely unique situation, and I think it is within our purview to get a little bit creative and find ways we can be supporting our local families. If you folks are amenable, I will be working with Page 10 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 your representative and your commissioner to come up with some language in partnership with Planning Department to figure that out. I also just want to question the timing elements of this, having to get the subdivision approval in five years, considering everything that's been articulated in here, and potentially the need to do AISs, and how long should it takes to review things. Is that enough time, realistically, Deputy Director? I know five years is what we typically are granting applicants, but in hearing this conversation and deliberation, is five enough time? Shall we think about more? I mean, this is our chance, right? This is our chance to really take a look at projects, what the requirements are, and assign to them the necessary amount of time to go through the process. MR. DARROW: I would agree in this particular case, being that these are not developers and that they're —I mean, I'm sure they are going to need to hire somebody to help them through the processes, but we would be very supportive of any additional time. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. CLEMENT: Can I say something about that? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Sure. MS. CLEMENT: If it takes us five years, I'll be dead by then. I mean, this is killing me. This process is killing me. So I just looked at John, I said, "John, bruddah, we better be up there. I got to go home." I'm staying in a studio, my kids are in a studio because we can't afford to live anywhere else, and now I have to wait five years to go home, it's too long. I don't —this better be done because I've got to go home. I have an 87-year-old mother, who is in the hospital. That's the reason I came home, was to bring her home. She has to live in the hospital because I don't have any accommodations to take care of her at home. Five years? I better be done before that. Seriously, this is so hard. It's been really hard. Sorry. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It's okay. If it's okay with you, I'm going to come down and give you a hug and a kiss. We care very much about finding ways to support you to get back home. I hope it doesn't take five years as well, but we've all seen the way government, different agencies, and State, County -level works, so just trying to be realistic. But, we need you to stay strong so your family can go home. MS. CLEMENT: Okay. Page 11 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, moving with that, if folks are amenable, I'll be working on a couple of amendments in partnership with the applicant and the Planning Department. Thank you, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. I just want to point out real quick, the report that we were forwarded with this bill, is it complete? It seems like we just have the lettercorrespondence from the Leeward Planning Commission, but no minutes and no stand-alone letters from DEM or other departments who might have reviewed this application. Deputy Director Darrow. MR. DARROW: Aloha, Chair Inaba. It should be connected to the background report. CHR. INABA: No, I don't see anything further, and I don't think the other Council Members on the dais have anything further than the Leeward Planning Commission's their letter forwarding a favorable recommendation. MR. DARROW: I apologize for that. We can make sure that we get to you asap (as soon as possible). CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, I just want to point out before we have further discussion, especially in our efforts to kokua the situation here, this did go through the Leeward Planning Commission, and as we take up or imagine, amendments to kokua, I wanted to point out now that the parcel, this property, is in the Special Management Area. So any attempts to kokua, I just want that to be at the front of their mind to make sure that we are addressing any concerns on the SMA side. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Ms. Nakoa, I think you've heard from this tribe, we do want to help. I think the timing of this particular request, in light of some of the conversations we had prior, has really put this at the forefront. So Mr. Pipan, from what I heard from you, applicants are agreeable to the conditions of approval, but I actually am trying to help. Ms. Nakoa, if you could help me with Judge Deweese's Decision and Order, right, just an equitable, to divide this property. I'm trying to think of ways that you could work with Ms. Kierkiewicz in using Judge's Decision to somehow backfill; that although there are various conditions of approval that are required by ordinances, that there is a higher court asking for this to get your clients home. I wanted to hear a little bit about that Decision, and if that Decision through the Judge contemplated some of the guidelines that they would have to be facing through this Change of Zone process. MS. NAKOA: Thank you for your question. The case is ongoing, so it was the Order that appointed me commissioner and instructed me to subdivide. If possible, I think the Judge is well aware of separational powers. She understood Page 12 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 that this is a long, complicated process, and I think that's why she specifically noted in her Order, encouraging the County of Hawaii, Planning, and other agencies, to try to make this happen. If you're asking me, can the Judge just do it on her own and override you folks? l think the answer is "no." However, I think that the Judge in the land case understood the situation the way you folks are coming to understand the situation, and in her mind has decided that this subdivision should happen for this family. I mean, you folks are the legislative arm, and I think the Judge realizes that. I also think the Judge is trying to give you a nudge. MS. LEE LOY: In that particular Order from Judge, was there any contemplation about deed restriction in perpetuity for it to stay within the families, or it was just a subdivision action? MS. NAKOA: I'm sorry, could you repeat your question? I'm having a little trouble hearing. MS. LEE LOY: Sure. In the Decision from the Judge, absolutely, subdivision action to divide it into three lots, did it go any further about discretion about deed restriction and/or keeping it in the family for perpetuity? MS. NAKOA: No. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. You know, I think you've grabbed the hearts of this particular dais. There is a lot here. It's going to cost a lot. There's the sewer. There's the road. There are water units. You guys got to go pay for. I think you're in good hands with Council Member Kierkiewicz and with the Planning Department to somehow figure out ways to at least get people home for a little bit, and then think about the second lot and the third lot and how that happens. As Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned, "Government can be painfully slow," unfortunately that's the process we have in front of us. Chair Inaba, I'm willing to support this going forward and allow Ms. Kierkiewicz, the department, and the applicants to kind of begin to massage language for this particular applicant. I just find the timeliness of this very ironic. MS. NAKOA: Very interesting. MS. LEE LOY: Very interesting. Chair, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Kimball. Page 13 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair; and thank you guys for being here today. I had a couple of quick questions. Commissioner, I'll start with you. This is actually unusual for us. The first time I've seen a commissioner coming in and acting on an Order to proceed with a subdivision. Is there within the Order —and I'd actually like to have you repeat the Order number for me at some point. Is there a requirement as to who all the subdivided lots go to? So that's already in the language of the Order, who will ultimately have — MS. NAKOA: Yes, that has been decided in the land case. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. And then with respect then to you mentioned that you are the applicant in this case, and when we have an ordinance of this nature, the applicant is then responsible for these various elements of the conditions, so who becomes the applicant in that regard? So like for example, the applicant shall construct necessary water improvement; since you are the "applicant" at this stage in the process, what does that mean going forward? MS. NAKOA: I think the short answer is, as a commissioner, I'm an arm of the court. The real person in interest is Ms. Clement, and she would be responsible for MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I might help? Ms. Kimball, the entitlement would run with the property. So although they're applicant, the entitlement will be attached to the TMK (Tax Map Key), and when it's subdivided, it will continue to run with the property. MS. NAKOA: Which is in Ms. Clement's and her family's name. MS. KIMBALL: Right. So just like a traditional rezoning, the expense and the responsibility for developing these requirements go to Ms. Clement. MS. CLEMENT: Okay, so the way that the court Order ended up, that because the other family members did not want to participate in the mahele, and because of the lien and other issues, I took responsibility for it because I knew I had to do it. There was no way that's the reason I have a commissioner, because we couldn't agree and it's unfortunate. But yes, I took the responsibility so that I could go home. It doesn't mean that much to them, whether they go home or not, but it did to me. MS. KIMBALL: So is the Order clear that it's three lots? MS. NAKOA: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: That it's meant to be divided? Page 14 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. NAKOA: Yeah. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I mean, typically sometimes —and most of the rezoning ordinances where there's an intended subdivision attached with it, there is a clause in there about the number of lots that they intend to have generated. I didn't —unless I missed it, that's not included in this ordinance. But it's a requirement of the Order that it be divided into three. MR. PIPAN: So the zoning ordinance typically will not have a provision limiting the number of lots. That number is determined by the zoning that you're proposing, other factors like roadway that's eaten up by access issues. So in this case, the Order is for three lots, that's what we're intending to do, that's the subdivision we're preparing to submit to the Planning Department. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. The total acreage right now is five -something? MS. NAKOA: 5.29 (acres). MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Can I get that case number again or is there a document we can review on the Order? Is it publicly available at this point? MS. NAKOA: I can definitely provide the Order. MR. PIPAN: It is part of the Planning Department's background report. MS. KIMBALL: Oh, okay. All right, thank you. And this isI see it's urban expansion as far as the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map. What is it on the CDP (Community Development Plan)? MR. PIPAN: It's part of the Kona urban area. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I just want to make one last comment to Council Member Kierkiewicz. I'm going to seem like the bad guy here, and I want you to know right now it's not because I'm not at all sympathetic. I super am, and I want to see you be able to do this and get back home. Just a word of caution about, if we try to get around some of these requirements, that we can't I mean, the law has to be applied equally, and sometimes the law is wrong and that's our job to fix it, but as the law is right now, if the law says at 300 feet you have to connect, you know, we can't say we like them better than other people, we like them better than rich developers, I mean that would be illegal of us, right, to do that? So while I appreciate the department and Council Member Kierkiewicz's desire to make this easier, and Council Member Evans as well, we have to also just ensure that we're engaged in the equal application of the law. So go ahead, Mr. Pipan. Page 15 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MR. PIPAN: If I can just read the section of the Subdivision Code that relates to the sewer. It's a two-part condition. So the first part (a), this is Section 23-85, Sewage Disposal Systems, part (a) is, "In a subdivision to be laid out after December 21, 1966," that was a while ago, "sewer lines shall be installed where the subdivision is within three hundred lineal feet," that's what we've been talking about, " of the existing sewer system." Part (b) is, "In subdivisions where sewer connections cannot be made to an existing sewer system under the requirements of this chapter, the subdivider shall meet the minimum requirements of the State health department relating to sewage disposal." I think that gives some wiggle room. MS. KIMBALL: It gives them leg way, and I bring that up with the example that came to mind. I don't —what I'm trying to do is not give you a false sense of hope about what we might be able to do. There are certain things that we have to do for everybody, regardless of who you are, and as much as we empathize and are wanting to see this happen. I just don't want you to get a false sense that we can do things that we can't. MS. CLEMENT: Right. So the truth is that since I started this process back in 2019, that today is actually the first day that I actually sat here and thought somebody heard me. Somebody heard me say, "Why is this so hard? How come it's taking me this long and this much to go home?" So whatever you work out, to me in my mind, is somebody actually heard me today. Like, I'm not sitting here walking through this rhythm of things and I'm walking away, which I have done. At the Planning Commission, I cried because they said, "We owe you an apology, that you have to go through this." I sat there for the longest time thinking, "Oh, that's right, right?" I mean, I'm right, right? I should be able to go home without asking people, "Can I go home," right, "with all the conditions that weren't there when I lived there before." You know, 300 I lived back on that property back in the early —end of 50's. I mean, so yeah, I'm very grateful for anything, any relief. But more importantly, how fast can I get home? You know, I dream of that. So, I'm okay. Be fair, but also make sure that you're fair to the Hawaiian people, too. You know, we didn't ask for this. We lived there a long time ago, and now I've got to go through these hoops, and think how come it was different when I was there? But I know I'm okay. Just thank you so much for listening today, I appreciate it. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: I think we've all expressed that we feel that this should happen for you, right? Not only are we listening in terms of your request today for this rezoning, but perhaps this process will reveal to us where there are flaws that Page 16 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 prevent us from doing this for others in a more timely way. So, you may be sacrificing now for the benefit of others in the future. Thank you, Chair. I yield. MS. CLEMENT: And I'm willing to do that. If other families can come in next time, and you guys have changed things that bind us to a chair that's on fire, then amen, let's not do that anymore. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Aloha, Jeannie; aloha Wattie (Green). We've met a number of times over the last few years. I've heard you, each and every time, and it's broken my heart to not have been in a position to direct —we be able to impact the process that you have endured to get here, to have it go any faster or cost any less. My heart is lifted by the decisions being made by the judge presiding over this case, with the complications that incurred based on the lien, and as is so tragically the case, is with our Native Hawaiian families, through lineal descendants. We end up with so many names on a piece of property, which becomes, I'd like to think it was unintended. But I don't know, some bad things happened historically for the people of this land, that created a cumbersome process; which made it almost impossible for you to ever, free and clearly, own your land and return to those parcels. So, I am so grateful that what's happening in court and with this judge and the recognition of your deepest, most authentic intention, to reclaim these lands as your own homelands. I see this as a reclamation of kuleana lands by the lineal descendants. I recognize your authentic connection and the kuleana for that; and just the conversations we've had, the maps that you've shown, and the history that you did share of a heartful and heartbreaking for the amount of money that it's cost, and just be spiritual and emotional drain that it's brought on your family. As someone who sits up here, most commonly, if this was another circumstance for somebody trying to subdivide this land right in this area, where I'm sure you'll admit our traffic is horrendous, we are in SMA zoning, we're at capacity in so many other areas, that these are special circumstances that are part of a realignment, and making pono, so finding ways within the system at hand to allow for that to happen. However, I will agree with Chair Kimball, also being cautious to not create double -standards. I have one question. You know, I was just trying to bounce around —so the cost of the connection to sewer versus the cost of three septic systems on the propertyI live just on the other side of the highway, right? So it's like blue -rock and it's all very steep. So just wondering what the actual cost -difference might be, especially because that sewer line is already there, at the end of that road. So I just wanting to bounce around that I know —guesstimates are $15,000 per septic system, so if you're doing three homes, you're already at Page 17 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 $45,000; and in the long-term benefit of our `aina , which I know is your deepest heart, is connecting to sewer at this point is the better option, just because septic —if you do a leach field, it all gets back there. But I did have one quick question. You talked about your tutu kane's fish house and how it was turned into —I wondered what were the prior toiletry facilities in the home, from back in the day. MS. CLEMENT: We had a septic system there. MS. VILLEGAS: A septic or a cesspool? MS. CLEMENT: No, we had a cesspool, sorry. Cesspool yeah, not septic. Cesspool, yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Cesspool, okay. Gotcha, I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. I want to thank you also personally for recognizing any access on to Kuakini Highway from there would be, number one, the fees that may be allocated to you guys for the subdivision, even though it's kind of just a small family property being broken up, would be astronomical; and I would worry for your safety, that area is already —we have people coming straight out of their driveways onto the highway, just across the way, and it's terrifying. I also just have questions about —because this isn't in SMA zone, if we do have to keep the requirement for attaching to sewer, so those are just some things I wanted to point out. I'm happy to let Council Member Kierkiewicz work with you on this. Historically, it may have been an opportunity for me, as your County Council representative, to do that. I want to let you know that I have not done that because up until this point, it's more my kuleana to know what I can do, now that the documents have come from the rest of the jurisdictions that are required to touch on this case. But as Council Member Kierkiewicz has offered, that's up to you guys to work with her on those things. I just want to let you know, and remind you, of my support for this. We've met a number of different times, in laughter and in tears. MS. CLEMENT: Yes. MS. VILLEGAS: I have the deepest honor and respect for your resilience, your determination, and your tenacity, because you are also creating the template. You are also paving a path for others to follow, as stated here. If the issues reside, oh we know there are a million issues that reside in the system, but if somehow we can rectify the things that are possible without accidentally overextending and creating too many exceptions, we have to provide for the ways and the means for families and lineal descendants from this land to return those lands and their spaces of kuleana, passion, and commitment, so thank you. Thank you for Page 18 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 following this through. My deepest wish is that your mom will return to this land before her time comes to pass, into the next round. MS. CLEMENT: Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: But I know she will be proud of you eternally. Her legacy lives on in you and your `ohana here; this beautiful baby, and his coos and giggles, which is just a reason why we all endure this process and this system. So, mahalo to you and your family. MS. CLEMENT: I appreciate that. Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, aloha. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Checking in on our time right now. I know this has been a very complex process for the `ohana who are here before us today, but I want to remind us at the same time, from our perspective this is a very straightforward request. So as we evaluate this bill before us, unless there are specific concerns or questions about conditions, I would like us to move forward so we can get to the vote. Thank you. We'll go with you, Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, and to the Conditions of Approval, Judge Strance, earlier today we had an Emergency Proclamation related to Housing, and just food for thought, if there are tools within that Emergency Proclamation that may be able to help this family, from seeing some stuff related to Coastal Zone Management, environmental impacts, and maybe this could be a tool with you, Ms. Nakoa, along with Ms. Kierkiewicz, to explore this as another tool to help. You know, I really appreciate my colleagues talking about double standards here. We really are trying to find this bright line without being inequitable and showing favoritism; we're trying to balance it all. But I think this might be a really great tool. You know, Shawn, we'd be more than happy to share this with you, that you guys can work together on that. MS. NAKOA: That's a good idea. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I yield. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Council Member Villegas, yes I'd be happy to work with you on the amendments. It was just something I'd put out there, and I wanted to see if folks were interested in exploring it more. If there was no appetite by colleagues, I wouldn't have pursued it. But I would love to work with you on it if you're amenable to that? Okay. Would you like me to include you in emails that I'm sending to the Planning and the applicant now? Page 19 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. If you're already in that stage of the process, that would be fantastic. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. This is for Deputy Director of Planning. You know, there's a real desire for affordable housing, and if I'm not mistaken, maybe a couple of months ago there were some developers of affordable housing in front of the Council and they waived fees so that it could help make it more affordable. Is it possible to waive some fees to make this affordable? Because we've done it for other people, it's not precedents. I guess what I'm getting at, have you the bigger question, have you waived fees for developers that have been in front of the Council, and recommended the waiving of fees? MR. DARROW: Aloha, Council Member Evans. The application I believe you are referring to was an application in Honoka`a for a Change of Zone to residential zoning. Along with that, the applicant requested what was called a "Plan Unit Development," and in there were certain exemptions that he was requesting. It's a tool available to developers or to anybody that's proposing a project, looking for design flexibility as well as certain exceptions. In this particular case, as far as the rezoning process, that's normally something considered during that process. I'm not sure if there is an ability at this point to be able to waive fees through this process. I'm sorry about that. MS. EVANS: I think it's important to note that the County Council does consider waiving and exemptions, It's not like this is abnormal that we talk about the waiving and exemptions. I don't think this is setting precedents at all, actually, because I think the Council has some power. I guess the discussion we're having today is, what level of power do we have? Because some of the stuff we can't have to live with, but it would be nice if we have some exemptions and waiver ability to definitely consider it. Because we do consider it for the ones that come in with larger projects. So I yield, thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans, to further respond to that inquiry, those usually come to the Council in the form of a 201H application, usually by a large developer who has —with multiple units proposed, and if a certain percentage of those units are to be sold or rented at affordable levels, then they are waived of even this rezoning process and even the permitting fee. In this case, it's more so a property owner wanting to rezone, and subdivide to build their house. So somebody who owns a vacant piece of property doesn't get exempted of their permitting fees, which is why you wouldn't be exempted from your permitting fees in this case because you own the property and you're building a Page 20 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 structure or a resident for yourself. I'd like to wrap up. So, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Just really quick, just to clarify, just because I hear some of your concerns on reducing cost. You folks have the water credits allocated, correct? MS. NAKOA: Yeah, so they have all the water necessary and the credits assigned to the property. MR. PIPAN: So the commitments are in place, but the service fees have not been paid, and those are something to the tune of $6,000 for each new meter, so that still remains. That's to put in the meter and get the actual water to the property. MS. VILLEGAS: Not something we have control over removing either, but just to know that the water and credits are there and available for you folks? Great. l yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. All right, I believe that brings us to the end of today's discussion. Ms. Nakoa, Ms. Clement, Mr. Pipan, thank you for being here. Like I said, from your perspective, it's been a nightmare. Looking at the bill today, from our perspective, this is a slam-dunk, make sense. So there is a motion on the floor at this time to forward Bill 12 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 12: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 12 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Lee Loy — 2. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: We will be taking this up most likely at Council, on February 8 h in our Hilo Chambers. Thank you all for being here today. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me or whichever Council Member you might be working with. Mahalo again. MS. NAKOA: Thank so much for such a thoughtful discussion. MS. CLEMENT: Thank you. I know I cry a lot, but it's emotional. It's terrible, right? But wow, I was really worried about coming today because of what Page 21 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 happened at the Planning Commission, and all the negative people and responses, and diversive. Today, my heart is full. I'm so glad I came home. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Checking in with my colleagues, is everyone good to keep going? All right. Mr. Clerk, Communication 49. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 49: YEAR-END REPORTS AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS FROM NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AWARDED COUNTY GRANTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated December 6, 2022, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-142(c). Motion to Close File: Ms. Galimba moved to close file on Comm. 49. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR. INABA: This is a communication being brought forth by Council Member Lee Loy regarding our Waiwai grant-in-aid. She's currently out of the room. We will take a five-minute recess, until she is back. Mahalo, we're in recess until 3:51 (p.m.) Recess: At 3:46 p.m., the Chair called for a short recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:51 p.m. CHR. INABA: All right. Aloha kakou, it's 3:51 (p.m.), calling this meeting back into session. We're on Communication 49, by Council Member Sue Lee Loy regarding our nonprofit grant-in-aid program. Council Member Lee Loy, if you'd like to cover Communication 49? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your patience. What my colleagues will find, this is the year-end report and summary from the nonprofit grant-in-aid that was awarded last cycle. This is part of a basically the process. They go through the process, and we're all very familiar with the awards process, but there also is a six-month process and then there is the year-end. This year-end report is a requirement for them to fulfill to be eligible for the next grant-in-aid cycle; for anyone out there and of our nonprofits who are watching, that application is available online and applications Page 22 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 are due January 31", so please encourage all of our nonprofit friends to apply. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Opening it up to colleagues. Any questions on this communication? All right. Okay, just a question from myself then, the nonprofits listed here are those who submitted their final reports, is that right? MS. LEE LOY: That's correct, Chair Inaba. CHR. INABA: Okay, so that the public and the Council know, if they want to review the actual submissions from the nonprofits through the Council, that is available in a communication, is that correct? MS. LEE LOY: It is. It's actually a very large document, and thank you to our Council Services that's making that available online. Very big downloadable document. but again, it's available for those —if you have any questions as to what their program was, or how they utilized the funding that we provided for them, it's all there. CHR. INABA: Perfect. Thank you. With that, there's a motion on the floor to close file on Communication 49. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 49: The motion to close file on Comm. 49 was carried Filed by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Communication 64 please, Mr. Clerk. Comm. 64: REQUESTS A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REVIEW OF GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated January 6, 2023. Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 64. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. Page 23 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair; and thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to advance this. Both myself and Council Member Inaba have been kind of meeting to kind of begin to develop what the next grant-in-aid process will look like, and one thing we landed on was learning the lessons of what we learned in the past. For my new colleagues, the grant-in-aid process has gone through a transition at a time when I was on the Permitted Interaction Group, they were all paper applications, and so two years ago we moved over to an electronic process in which applicants would be able to download that application and submit that application online in an effort to be more efficient with the application process. There was a lot of teaching moments to that. Like anything, when you go from one process to a new process, there are a lot of kinks to work out. In addition to that, what we discovered, and for my newer colleagues, was oftentimes an applicant would come in with a budget request for their program, but that process was very iterative because at the end of the day, they weren't sure how much money they would actually get awarded, and so the budget that they would submit was for the entire program, but oftentimes they did not get the entire award because we just don't have enough money. So with that, we had determined —or created a process that they would have to select a specific amount between $5,000 all the way up to $50,000, and build a budget around that. That was helpful from a contractual and deliverable process, but like everything, you can't make everybody happy. So we used that process to create a score, right, in an effort to not only challenge our applicants on what they were doing well but also see what they could do better. We adopted the change framework from Hawaii Community Foundation, which was pillars on different areas of community that they were serving, and so that was last year's process. Through that process, we learned a lot too, that some people would rather get partial award. Even if we couldn't give them anything, partial award would help. So this particular communication teases out some of what we heard through the last process on a couple of things, maybe providing them a partial award if we could not grant them the whole award. There was also some discussion that the Permitted Interaction Group was done by four people, and then those recommendations were advanced to the larger Council. So now that we're on an electronic process, this would give each and every Council Member an opportunity to score the applications, where the decisions weren't being made by just four members of the Council. We also want to set some minimum standards so that as we score these applications, they would have to cross some threshold; and because Mr. Inaba is such a great educator, we wanted to set the bar at least 60 percent. They would have to score at least 60 percent to be eligible for an award. Page 24 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 The other thing we're working on is a scoring rubric. But this communication was to hear from the rest of our colleagues about what they would like to see going into this next grant-in-aid cycle, and how much participation they want to provide. In the future agenda, we're going to be standing up our Permitted Interaction Group, but the conversation we have here will set the goals for that Permitted Interaction Group. Mr. Inaba, anything else to add? CHR. INABA: Not at this time. I'd like to just open it up for questions from our colleagues regarding the bullet points that are listed here, and whether there is support, just so we can get some idea. I'll chime in at the end to kind of wrap things up. So, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. So, this is my first time dealing with this. Is this reimbursable? Do the nonprofits or whatever group has to spend the money, and then turn it in, and then we reimburse them? Is that the way it's done? MS. LEE LOY: Yes and no, so it depends on the program that they have and how they develop their budget. The contract is developed with our Department of Finance. Sometimes they need the money upfront so that they can put on the program; other times, they have already —some nonprofits already have money, so they can get the program going but they'll be expendables. It really has worked out within the contract itself. Ms. Evans, I'd be more than happy to help walk you through some of the applications that have those things, to kind of broaden out that context for you. You know, going forward, those are the things: reimbursable, upfront. It's all really amenable to how we decide to run the project. MS. EVANS: Okay. The second question —so my experience with grants-in-aid at the State level, when they only partially fund, what they have to do is after it's been awarded, when they work with the department, whatever department they're assigned to, that they're going to require to rewrite the application and adjust the measurables and the outcomes because it's important that the department be able to measure. So they are required to kind of rewrite it and back off because they don't have the full —you know, they don't have all the money to do what they want, so they're required to do that. So again, it's that accountability piece. So, just to share that thought. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Do you yield? Okay, thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I am very excited to see that we'll all be participating. I do think it's really beneficial. I had the chance to participate as staff in the past two years with Chair Kimball's office. I do think it's beneficial in many ways. But just really, to get the breath of the need in the County on a smaller, you know, a manini level on what it needed. So, I think that's great. Page 25 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 It will be really great if you can tell us what the timeframe is so we can really budget in our schedules because it doesn't take some hours to go through all of those. Yeah, looking forward to it and hoping that this works out. So, thank you for putting this forward. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this really thoughtful proposal. I sat on it a couple of times with you, Council Member Lee Loy, and others, and excited about some of the changes we've instituted, going digital during the pandemic, aligning with some of the changed frameworks to see if we can secure more funding for nonprofits. Happy to score. One of the questions I had was, are we adopting specific things that we want to be supporting, or are there certain things we're not going to be funding? I think about the $9 million that this body has approved for the next five years, $9 million every year for the next five years relating it to homelessness; and that's being distributed to the Office of Housing, so does that mean we're not going to be taking any applications related to homeless outreach? I just want some clarity around that. I know we have $2.5 million to grant and invest in our community. Has there been any discussion with the administration around additional funding? I know that when Mayor Kenoi was in office, he often would grant an additional $500,000 or $1 million to the Council so that funding could go a little bit further. So I just want to get a sense of what our focus and priority are; if we want to adopt those as a body and if we're going to have a bit more money than $2.5 million to play with. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Two very excellent questions. I think that's what this discussion is also supposed to be kind of geared towards, you know, what is the focus of this year's grant-in-aid? I know Ms. Kierkiewicz, and then even Ms. Kimball, there was a time when feeding families was incredibly important, and as the Permitted Interaction Group, we really leaned in on our nonprofits that were providing feeding programs. We not so much have changed, but definitely, a lot of resources are being guided. If that is something that we want to focus on, the next communication coming forward that will be placed on the agenda for discussion is specifically the goal for the Permitted Interaction Group and those focuses, along with the scoring rubric —along that, to tease that out a little bit. I have not had any discussion with the administration about additional funds that may be available in the budget, or Page 26 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 guiding applicants who specifically have a mission around homelessness, to that money that you spoke of, Ms. Kierkiewicz. We have not had a discussion, MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, and thank you for that. The last thing I'll just kind of offer up is you know, some of our Puna Recovery monies that were gifted to us from the State have been spent on the Puna Strong grants program, and that's being administered in partnership with Hawaii Community Foundation. A second round of funding went out and with it, when is an organizational assessment that was geared towards understanding strengths, weaknesses, opportunities within the organization, and how they could build up their capacity, to go after more funding. You know, to pivot programs, to create new initiatives. Just so that we can think about how we can be supporting all of our nonprofits around Hawaii Island. All of the folks in Puna that I spoke to that are part of the second cohort thought it was really phenomenal and enlightening to just go through that process. You don't know what you don't know, and so it was really supportive and helpful to them. I think that if there's a way that we can integrate that system, that process, countywide, I think we should welcome that conversation. So, I'm happy to put you in touch with the team that's coordinating it. I appreciate you continuing to lead our Council in this Waiwai grant-in-aid process, Council Member Lee Loy. It's a ton of work, and that's an understatement, so I just appreciate you. Thank you. Chair, I yield, CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. I want to bring it back to the communication before us and the four bullet points there. The point of today's discussion and this communication is to get us on some agreeable ground as to how the Permitted Action Group will function once it's stood up. So in reviewing these bullet points, essentially we'd like to know, are we all agreeable to these bullet points? Because that also helps some folks who are going to be continuing work offline in the creation of the rubric, which will be brought to this body for review prior to being used. These bullet points are leading us down to a more specific track, so just want to kind of guide us in that direction. Go ahead, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. To the bullet, I love the idea of having the full body analysis of the eligible application. I think the more hands-on anything like this, this being to just improve the assessment. I will reiterate what Council Member Kagiwada said about making sure the time is blocked out because it is a consuming process. We want to do these nonprofits a fair service in terms of analyzing their applications. As far as the minimum score and that component of it, have you guys worked on or just test the rubric yet, or is that what the PIG is going to do, Permitted Interaction Group? Page 27 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 CHR. INABA: Okay, without having to give up the chair, is it all right with my colleagues if I can kind of answer? Because I've been working with Council Member Lee Loy on this and we kind of came up with this bullet points together. I have created a draft rubric, but we haven't advanced it, pending this discussion today. The rubric is as simple as it can possibly be, both for our benefit when we have to evaluate 200-something applications, and in hindsight, that we could provide it to applicants next time around, so they know how we're going to be scoring. Part of that rubric also talks about how partial scoring will work, so I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty because the rubric itself isn't to be discussed right now. But that partial funding component is to be addressed as part of the rubric, as well. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. That's enough to just respond with you know, last time around, we were fortunate enough to be able to fund everybody at the levels that they asked for. But one of the concerns that I had in our evaluation process is that our rubric sort of rewarded folks who knew how to do an application really well and knew how to write well as opposed to aligning with, you know, what Council Member Kierkiewicz talking about, you know, what are our priorities this term. As much as possible —well, I think a minimum score —like we have to have a minimum. Yeah, if we're going to give you money, you've got to reach a certain threshold. We just want to make sure that threshold is not artificial, but it's actually just based on the merits of the program and their ability to deliver on what they said. I'm speaking to the choir here, but I just want to share those thoughts. So yeah, I'm absolutely fine with setting a minimum score. As far as the partial funding, yeah, I think that we've kind of learned our lesson. As much as the idea was great about we're going to set it, you asked for this, you get this; don't ask for three times as much, knowing you'll get a third. I think that we can have some —give ourselves some flexibility there. It may be just down to, we have ten other people doing this one function that this group is offering and they're doing it better, but these two other things that we want to support and maybe we can split it that way. I think it's necessary for us to offer a partial funding. On the last one, about the measures and outputs, I think that's like supercritical in terms of our availability, or our ability to come back and see how well we're doing, how well we are accomplishing the goals of the program, our priorities for that year, by making sure that the measures and outputs. We know that a lot of nonprofits had struggled with these. So, I'm hopeful that we can provide some guidance in terms of how to do that. Page 28 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 I wanted to just speak toI understand that for this next round, the County Auditor will be taking a subsection and auditing, Council Member Lee Loy? Yes, okay. Is that for the ones that were from last year, or this is the ones that are coming in now? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I might? Yeah, it would a sampling of what we did in the past so that we can improve the process from last year. To your point about setting a minimum score, absolutely. What we did over the course of the last year, was do a lot of work with capacity building. As Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned, we offered training. We went through a whole process with HANO (Hawai`i Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations), talking about outputs/outcomes because there seems to be a lot of confusion on that for our nonprofits who are out there and who are applying. Those videos are online in which they can sit through and hopefully self -resolve. We are trying desperately to build capacity to your point, Ms. Kimball, and really creating resources for them to get better, in addition to they want to know their scores. They want to know how they did so that they can do better in the past. So setting that minimum, as Mr. Inaba mentioned, was how they know where they needed to improve. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, I think it's important to understand that there's going to be this audit of the process, and probably result in some Code changes because we're lacking some checks and balances, I think, in the system, and so we're having to provide it all of ourselves. I want to thank you, the Finance Department, and Judge Strance for all the materials that you've put together for applicants, to make sure that —it really brought itelevate it to a new level, so I appreciate that. And just kind of rolling back to the comment that Council Member Kierkiewicz made, and this minimum score and the scoring idea, I do want as we're talking about the rubrics and talking about the Permitted Interaction Group, the ability to have that conversation around what are some of our priorities are —and I don't know if it's possible to build into the rubric a portion of the scoring that is tied to the priorities of this particular term or this particular two years so that we are elevating those things that we've identified as the priority type of project. I do want to have that conversation. I trust you to wordsmith the communication in such a way that we can talk about that, but I think it's important to have that conversation with the body. Thank you for all your work. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: These all sound like great bullet points, so I'm totally in support of that. I would just —based on previous experience with great grant programs, I think it would be better if we would have put out our priorities to the Page 29 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 applicants beforehand, so maybe our priorities could be for the next time because that would be entirely fair to people. So, that's my only comment. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Yeah, rubrics, areas of interest, and all of that, next round should be provided when the application goes live. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Just on that note, do you know what the Mayor's —also what the Mayor's priorities are? Would be an interesting versus, you know, in our priorities, and how that kind of plays out for the community. I really like the idea of letting people know what kind of rises to the top so that when they do apply, that maybe it's supporting what the bigger priorities are that we've collectively all agreed to. Though having said that, the districts are so different and unique. If you're in Hilo property, you might be working more on homelessness, where you're out in the rural community, you might be dealing with access to mental health or health- care in general. You know, so I do think there might be some regional priorities that might stick out. So I look from rubrics. Great discussion, thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, thank you for taking all of these aspects that we've talked about last time, and remembering them number one, and then having such a great succinct list. I had the opportunity to participate in this ad hoc committee a couple of other times. Oh yes, it's a lot time and energy. We also did live interviews with each of the nonprofits, and I still think there is value in that, from a personal experience standpoint, although it was very, very long days. But I did see value in that, as far as relationship and face-to-face connectivity. I will —yeah, I'm open to participating in these four kind of bullet -points that you had here. I guess one of my questions would be, though, I'm especially very much in support of partial funding. Having worked with a number of nonprofits and in nonprofits, and granting kind of perspectives, you can create a program and write a budget for $50,000. And then, okay, I got all $50,000, which is amazing when that happens. It's a windfall; it's beautiful, but at the same and after years of working with other members of this Council on the ad hoc, there's always been a real push for authentic, not only fundraising but spending, and it becoming an initiative for more collaborative fundraising, for them to expand on the relationships, so sometimes providing everything through the challenges and adversities. Sometimes in creativities in our budgeting, we can get a lot more done for less money. So I just see that beingI'm really grateful for that. I alsoI just wantedI needed a little bit of clarity. When you're talking about priorities, are we talking about priorities of the program and what the rubric will Page 30 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 be based on, as far as likeI don't know you know, this much red, this much purple, this much blue you know, something like that? Or is this of values and priorities of the Council as a whole for where we are looking to allocate our grant-in-aid funding? CHR. INABA: The second one. MS. VILLEGAS: The second one. CHR.INABA: Yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: So I think that's great, but I guess I'd want to explore that a little more becauseI don't know, as Council Member Evans said, our priorities might be one thing, but based on the application that come in, they are very reflective of the priorities of our communities and the diversity in the different regions that we represent, and something that I'm a very strong proponent for in continuing, is making sure that we ensure equitable distribution geographically to all of the different districts, and there will be a lot of different overlap. I'm sorry, there will be a lot of differences in there, but the equity remain the theme. So, just a couple of myI did have a quick question, and if it's okay, Chair, I wanted to ask Council Member Evans, for the State level grant-in-aid, does the State or those on that committee make decisions on the priorities for where funding is going to go? Is it like based on a nonprofit certain focus? Yeah, does the State do that, or is that already something that happens? MS. EVANS: So what happens at the State is they choose a legislator to be kind of the reviewer, and interviews all the —so all the applicants come in and actually get an interview and have that initial interview. And then, there's basically, are they qualified? Do they meet all the requirements? And then if they pass that, it goes to the Finance Committee, who then has all the members that sit on the Finance Committee, the applicants get to come in and make like a two -minute pitch to the entire Finance Committee as to why you should fund this. And then it just boils down to what makes it on the list. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Gotcha. MS. EVANS: You can say it could be a little bit politics there, but MS. VILLEGAS: There's always humans. MS. EVANS: You know, there's that human part of it, but the thing is they get a shot at trying to convince all the members and not the full body. See, it never goes through the full body. Page 31 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. MS. EVANS: It always goes through. And then eventually, the list gets published. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you for that. MS. EVANS: You're welcome. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. So going back to my question about priorities, I guess I'm still a little confused on that, but it sounds like we're going to have deeper conversations on that. If the priority was feeding people, then we're essentially saying the nonprofits that feed people would be higherI'm just looking for that kind of a —and if those nonprofits would be told beforehand, that that's what we were focusing on for our grants-in-aid. But it sounds like we're going to have more conversation, so I yield. Thank you. CHR. INABA: So we will have further conversation and we can have it, perhaps more openly, because all applicants would have been submitted by the 31 ". You know, some of the things that have been brought up, if we look an application, this is just general discussion, and we know that it's just incredibly inflated, these are some of the things that we're going to be putting in the rubric for us to consider, as that's the first —those applications that inflate are the first on the chopping block when it comes to partial funding. And then we're looking at the distribution across the island and in what communities for what types of services. So those parts are not ironed out yet as much as the application and the outcomes, and that part is. So we will be back to iron that out with all of us before we all get a chance. So in kind of summarizing this discussion, it seems we're all on board with the four bullet points here that need some further discussion as to what the priorities are, and how the partial funding will be dealt with, but that will be in another communication. Council Member Lee Loy and I will work on that. If there are any other thoughts right now that you folks might want to include, we kind of get the gist of where we are, and we'll include that as part of the rubric to be submitted to you folks. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, thank you. Has it ever been discussed to have the applicants come to a Council meeting and get their one or two minutes, that's it, or pitch to the whole body at once, publicly? CHR. INABA: Yeah, that was the practice up until just a couple of years ago, and that's why we stripped it away from that to the online form —on that to the full Council to the Permitted Interaction Group. So not to the entire Council, no. Page 32 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 (Note: At this time, County Clerk Jon Henricks came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Inaba, just real quick because this is a good question. Historically, before we had that, which was a long time ago, it would appear before the full committee in opening meetings, applicants. What we're talking, there were far fewer applicants at that time. Because the applicants started grow, the Council decided to transition to the Permitted Interaction Group, to allow for a more efficient process. But that was many, many years ago. MS. EVANS: Well, I know there are a lot at the State Capitol, but they make them —it's either one or two minutes, and they go boom, boom, boom, boom. But they all get that one shot of that last rah, rah, right? So I was just curious because it's kind of interesting to hear them when they, you know, make their last pitch. But thank you. CHR. INABA: Yeah. I mean, in the way we are conducting the process now, it's a shift away from days of interviews to a more efficient online system. But that's why we have these discussions right now because we don't want it to be completely void of a human understanding component throughout the process. Council Member Le Loy, any last thoughts? MS. LEE LOY: Just a great big mahalo to Judge Strance, who actually did provide some of the training to our nonprofits about the compliance documents that are required. So we have equipped this next round of applicants with some real good tools to meet some basic fundamental scoring. And then to the rest of my colleagues, I'm hearing you loud and clear, if we provided some of those kinds of goals upfront so that when they applied, we would know. This process starts in October, before it really is before the full Council. And then to my other colleagues, now that we're all scoring, we can all bring our own little hope, wants, and desires of each and every one of our districts into that decision -making process, and so I really think what we're doing here really kind of gives everybody an opportunity to bring in what's very important to the districts, and allowing our nonprofits to really serve community because they do that very, very well. Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Thank you to my colleagues. MS. EVANS: Chair? I'm sorry, I'd like to make a comment. CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: So over the weekend, we didn't know where these grant-in-aid applications were, and everybody was struggling and everybody was looking all Page 33 LAAC-2 January 24, 2023 over the website. We could not find it. What we didn't realize, it was on the Department of Finance's website. We assumed it was going to be on the Legislative County Council website. So I think if we could link it on the website, you know, it's a nonprofit grant-in-aid, and have a little link that links it over to the Department of Finance, that would have made a difference. We could not find it. So sorry, new kid on the block, didn't know where to look. CHR. INABA: Yeah, just to help with that, if you google Waiwai Grant -in -Aid, the very first link that pops up, will take you through the training videos, the application packet, and even the reports from previous award years. MS. LEE LOY: Ms. Evans, my staff has put together a social media tile. More than happy to share it with all of my colleagues. You can throw it up on your social media websites, wherever you want it. It will take everybody to where they need to go. CHR. INABA: Thank you. And just to —one last thought, this opportunity for everyone to score is exactly that, an opportunity. Not required, everybody will be provided with the tools to score, and the deadline to return scores, and we will average based on the scores that are turned in by the Council Members who choose to participate. So it's all in our best interest for our own districts and for all of the communities who we represent and the nonprofits across our island to participate and have the opportunity. So with that, we will be back shortly in the coming meetings with a rubric for us to further discuss exactly how we evaluate the merits of each application, and then the subsequent partial funding after that as well as the timeline. So thank you everybody for your input on this matter, and slowly year -by -year try to improve it. There is a motion on the floor to close file on Communication 64. All those in favor, please say "aye." Page 34 LAAC-2 Vote on Comm. 64: Filed The motion to close file on Comm. 64 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — l . Excused: None. CHR. INABA: This brings us to the end of our meeting. January 24, 2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:30 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Meeting is adjourned at 4:30 (p.m.). Mahalo. Approved: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee HI/na (Date) Page 35