Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2023-06-21 2022-2024 Hawaii County Council 161h Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 21, 2023 INVOCATION: Senior Pastor Bill Dierking of Kona Coast Baptist Church gave the morning's invocation. CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaii County Council was called to order at ORDER: 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance. (At this time, County Clerk Jon Henricks led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.) PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Petitions, MEMORIALS, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence. CERTIFICATES OF MERIT, AND (Note: At this time, Mr. Inaba presented the June 2023 Haweo Award to Kona EXPRESSIONS OF Community Policing Officer Wyattlane Nahale of the Hawaii Police Department) CONDOLENCE: Recess: At 9:18 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:23 a.m. Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Richard Ha: Bill 48, Draft 2 (Comm. 279.60), in support. (representing Da Rubbah Slippah Group) Leslie Cole-Brooks: Bill 48, Draft 2 (Comm. 279.60), in support. Cory Harden: Comm. 323, comment; and Bill 48, Draft 2 (Comm. 279.60), in support. Melinda Hughes: Bill 48, Draft 2 (Comm. 279.60), in support. (representing Yummet) Megan Lamson: Bill 48, Draft 2 (Comm. 279.60), in support. (representing Hawaii Wildlife Fund) APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval OF MINUTES: of Minutes. Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to approve the Minutes of May 17, 2023. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR. KIMBALL: Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, I will just say thank you to all of our Council Services staff for so promptly turning around the minutes from our previous meeting. Really appreciate all of your work and effort. All those in favor,please say "aye." Vote on Approval The motion to approve the Minutes of May 17, 2023, was of Minutes: carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Page 2 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Comm. 323: REPORT OF ATTENDANCE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS INABA AND KAGIWADA AT THE JUSTICE-INVOLVED HOMELESS INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUM HELD VIA ZOOM ON MAY 23, 2023, PURSUANT TO HAWAII REVISED STATUTES SECTION 92-2.5(e) From Council Member Jenn Kagiwada, dated May 26, 2023. Motion to Close Ms. Kagiwada moved to close file on Comm. 323. File: Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So, I just wanted to have a quick discussion about this, because it seemed like there was a little bit of confusion around the issue around the Sunshine Law and attending informational meetings versus working on legislation together, that kind of thing. So, I had been under the impression that it was three members. So, more than two members attending a meeting needed to file a report. But when we looked more closely at the language, it actually says two or more members. So, if there are two members that attend an informational meeting, it looks like we need to report that. I initially reported this because there were two members plus a member of Council Member Villegas' staff who attended. So,just to be cautious, I thought of that as three members being represented there. So, I did do this report up, but I'd like just to hear, maybe ask Corp. (Corporation) Counsel to come forward and just clarify this, so that we are all on the same page. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning, everyone. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you for being here. So, HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) Section 92-5(e)provides that two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, may attend an informational meeting. So,just clarification. If two members attend an informational meeting, we do need to report that. Is that correct? So, more than one? MS. STRANCE: Well, it's a little more complex than that. So, the entire section reads, "Two or more of the board, but less than the number that would constitute a quorum for the board, may attend an informational meeting or presentation on matters relating to board business." Then it goes on to list some examples. So, it's the two or more members and the content of the informational meeting relates Page 3 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 to board business. So, there are certain types of events or meetings that Council Members may attend that are not related to business before this body. And so, it needs both. Your concern and inclination about having a staff member of another Council Member attendance at the meeting was a good instinct, because there are some guidance given by the Office of Information Practices that talks about sort of a telegraph effect, you know, when you have go-betweens. So, that was a good instinct. If the Council would indulge me, I'd like to read the precise guidance that the Office of Information Practices gives to boards on this subject. It's just two paragraphs. CHR. KIMBALL: Can I ask you to speak real closely to the microphone, so we can make sure we've got that clear. MS. STRANCE: So, this is from the Guide to Sunshine Law for State and County Boards. It's available for anyone to download from the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, and is the primary resource that our office goes to when we have questions that are unclear to us. So, on the issue of attendance at informational meetings or presentations, this is what guidance is provided. "The Sunshine Law allows two or more members of a board, but less than a quorum, to attend an informational meeting. The board members may participate in discussions, even among themselves, so long as the discussions occur as part of the informational meeting or presentation and no commitment relating to a vote on the matter is made or sought. At the next duly noticed meeting of the board, the members who attended the informational meeting or presentation must report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that related to official board business. "This informational meeting provision thus allows less than a quorum of board members to attend, for example, neighborhood board meetings, legislative hearings, and seminars, at which official board business is discussed, so long as no commitment to vote is made and the subsequent reporting requirements are met. The law is intended to improve communication between the public and board members and to enable board members to gain a fuller understanding of the issues and various perspectives. As with the rest of the law, this permitted interaction will be interpreted to prevent circumvention of the spirit of the Sunshine Law and its open meeting requirements." So, that's the precise guidance that's given if that's helpful. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, that is helpful. So, in this case, attending an informational meeting, the Justice-Involved Homeless Intergovernmental Forum, seems like it is a topic that very much is possibly going to have Council business Page 4 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 in the near future. Just to clarify again, you feel like if we have basically a staff member attending for us and participating, that is equal to a Council Member also attending. So, if we have one Council Member but two staff people, for instance; or even one staff person from another Council office, we should report that if it's business that may pertain to the Council? MS. STRANCE: As a general statement, it's probably better safe than sorry. I don't know that Council Members can control the activities of their staff. They may have independent interests. You don't want to tie the hands of your staff members, but at the same time, you want to avoid the appearance, really. If at that meeting, then, there is a group, including the staff member, are starting to have discussion and that's observed by the public, then I think that's where people get into trouble with the Sunshine Law. So, whether it's a violation or not, it ends up going through the process, and an investigation needs to be undertaken to evaluate it. So, there are people that if nobody says anything, it's not a problem. And then there are people that are, "I don't want to have anything splashed on the front page of the newspaper and not have provided an explanation to the public or my colleagues." So, those are sort of the spectrum. But I do want to say, I think you have an overly broad interpretation of what board business is, because you use language like "It's speculative, that it could come up sometime in the future." So, let me just read to you what the definition of"board business" is. This is the definition provided in the statute. "Board business means specific matters over which a board has supervision, controlled jurisdiction, or advisory power that are actually pending before the board, or that can be reasonably anticipated to arise before the board in the foreseeable future." So, some kind of speculative "Well, it might happen someday, somewhere," is a little remote. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, agreed. Yeah, sometimes we do get a little overly cautious, overly broad there maybe. But in this case, I feel like since the organization has received funding, I believe, from the County, to work on things and potentially will receive future funding, it seems like something that fits within the realm of reporting on. MS. STRANCE: I like the way you think. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, great. Thank you. That's it for me for now. Thank you, Chair, for indulging me and just trying to clarify this. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Before I take anyone else on this discussion, I want to interject an example just for clarification purposes. I had worked the year before last with the Legislative Session to make some amendments to Chapter 92 for greater clarity around this specific purpose. Page 5 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 In discussions with OIP, Office of Information Practices, with respect to attendance of these meetings, specificity is really what's important, as Judge Strance mentioned. So, if we attend a meeting where, as a general topic, affordable housing is discussed, that is not something that is covered by the board business because it's not specific. But if were to attend an informational meeting with respect to a particular housing development that may come on our agenda for approval, that's where we cross the line into board business. So, specificity and also timeliness is important. If it's not going to come before us for a couple years and it's still very speculative, that also does not constitute board business. So, in determining whether or not a communication is required,just think about, is this something that has that level of specificity or is it a general meeting about the subject matter? With that I'll pass it to Vice Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. It was based on this communication request I had the Clerk put out to OIP about staff, whether they are considered part of the board, and the answer we got back was, no, they're not. So sorry, Corporation Counsel, I'll forward the email. But understanding, as well, that idea of just being cautious. So, I feel like we're right back to where we started from, but just considering how specific the meeting is. Then also, we thought, some of us, that there were three Council Members needed to trigger this, but reminding us all that it's just two. So, mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Inaba. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I don't know if this was done before, but would it be possible to invite OIP to come to this Council and give us a discussion on this topic? I mean, I don't know if they would come over and do that, but it would be nice to have a public discussion about OIP and how they think about this. Because my big question is, there's dedications and there's blessings, and all these people that are breaking ground on projects. But of course, they don't have their subdivision approval in front of us; they don't have their zoning code in front of us, and yet they're inviting us to their event, and I'm feeling like I shouldn't go. CHR. KIMBALL: If I may, before Judge Strance starts, there's another type of meeting, which is an informal gathering, which means a social or informal assemblage of two or more board members at which matters relating to board business are not discussed. So, those kinds of events, ribbon-cutting and things like that, where there's no discussion of board business. Remember, the Page 6 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 definition of"board business" is very specific. My interpretation from my conversations with OIP is that's not an issue. But, Judge Strance, go ahead if you'd like to respond. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. There's two parts to what you just described, Council Member Evans. One is, Sunshine Law doesn't apply to your discussions with non-Council Members. So, you may have people coming up and talking to you all of the time, whether it's at a public function or not, and those aren't covered because the purpose of the law is to avoid backroom deals in its basic sense. So, if they want you to come to an informational meeting about something that's going to come before the Council in the near future, there's no problem with you going. It's just if other Council Members are there, then there's a requirement that you report it back to this body. So, the law isn't saying you can't go. What the law is saying is that if you go and there are other Council Members there, you just have to bring it to the public's attention and to your colleagues' attention, and that's the transparency that's required. Then the second piece is that if you are there with your colleagues, you don't talk about how you would vote on something that's before this body now or in the future. I don't know if OIP would come for a public discussion, because they tend to deal with specific issues and interpretations. They provide a lot of training, and they have training available online that you are welcome to attend. Then when specific circumstances come up, then they tend to provide—you give them specific information, as much as you can, and then they provide you with an opinion. They also collect their formal and informal opinions that is searchable online. So, I don't know that they would want to come and talk about things that they've already provided guidance on, but we can certainly inquire. But I think the biggest takeaway I get from some of the discussions that I've had with them and with reading of the law, is that sometimes people take a little bit of information and they run with it, when the specific situation as described has other facts that are relevant to the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down. So, there is other guidance and this kind of goes to Council Member Inaba's comment. There's some other specific guidance that OIP has given about having—an example they give is there's something before the, a vote or something, before the Council, and you send your staff member to go talk to all of the different Council Members to get input. That serial or kind of telegraph type of discussion is not permitted. So, that's the basis for the advice that I gave on the staff members. Page 7 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 And it may be that what the office is responding to with Council Member Inaba is that their primary concern is focusing on the discussions that council members or board members might have at that meeting about board business or how they might vote. So, I'll look forward to that email that Council Member Inaba got. But I would be hesitant to say, under no circumstances is the presence of a staff member at an event going to be okay if there are other facts that would suggest that the intention of sending staff was to undermine the Sunshine Law. MS. EVANS: I just was thinking maybe a guidance statement like, "Staff can go, but you can't make any comments. You can't put my opinion on; you can't comment on what's at that meeting. You can go and show and take notes, but you can't speak a position of the Council Member or imply anything. Then maybe you just can't share that with anybody else. You just report back to your boss." If there's guidance there, because I do send my staff to quite a few things. MS. STRANCE. Why don't we start with my reading what Council Member Inaba received and researching that a little bit more and maybe asking whether there's other specific guidance. Because it might be that they've made the determination that it doesn't matter because it applies to Council Members, and that telegraph issue applies to just bills that are before or that are on the agenda, and not to some of these other things. Our advice tends to be fairly conservative when—once the door is open and there's something that's very clear that it's okay, then our advice will sometimes change. MS. EVANS: Okay, thank you. And one last question is, if I go to some event and I run into Member Villegas, and then it's like, oops, now there's two of us here. Is it okay that I just announce so it's in the meeting minutes, then I don't have to write a note? That I just come here and say, "I just want everybody to know that I showed up, and Member Villegas was there. And I want it in the meeting minutes that two of us were there." Would that be enough to satisfy the reporting? MS. STRANCE: I need to look a little better about what your practice is, and I haven't specifically researched what's required. It might be that there needs to be something in writing for the record. I would just have to double check. MS. EVANS: Please let me know, because I'd like to just announce it; have it in the meeting minutes, if that would suffice. MS. STRANCE: I mean, the other thing is that if it'sCouncil could come up with a form that would be easily completed;just check the box and fill in the blank with a short description kind of thing. There's some specific language in the statute regarding the content of the disclosure that needs to be made. MS. EVANS: Okay. Fits the discussion, thank you. I yield. Page 8 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Evans. I don't want to take too much more time on this. I did want to invite Clerk Henricks to add any additional comments, if you had any, with regard to this matter. MR. HENRICKS: Thank you, but I do not. I appreciate the opportunity, though. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'll just conclude by saying that it has been past practice to just file a communication, as Jennifer Kagiwada has done, when there is specific discussions happening at the event that would be board business. I think it's important when making these decisions about whether or not a communication is required or not, to just think about the fundamental purpose of the Sunshine Law, which is to ensure that backroom deals are not happening; that there's not backroom solicitation outside of the public view for a particular vote on a matter that is before the board. So, that is the fundamental purpose. And so, if it feels like that is something that's happening, like you're being convinced to vote a particular way or something like that, that is a time that you would want to be reporting the particular interaction. So, I hope that clears it up. If we do need to do training, the Office of Information Practice does offer regular trainings, which you're welcome to participate in. As Judge Strance said, there are recorded trainings available. If that is not sufficient, we can certainly work with Corporation Counsel to provide a more in-depth training so that we're all very comfortable with our understanding of Chapter 92. It is my experience, working with OIP, that they tend to prefer to respond to specific examples rather than to respond with like a broad sweeping overview because there are many nuances to Chapter 92, as we have seen through this discussion. With that I will proceed with the vote on the close file, communicationactually, I wanted to just check in. Sorry, Council Member Lee Loy, did you have anything in Hilo? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. No. I'll check in with Judge Strance, if needed. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. All right. All those in favor of closing file on Communication 323? Page 9 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Vote on Comm. 323: The motion to close file on Comm. 323 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions. Res. 164-23: PROPOSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IKI PLACE, KOHANAIKI HOMESTEADS Proposes the development of the "Iki Place Water System Improvements"pursuant to Resolution No. 634-16 and Section 12-10(c) of the Hawaii County Code, with the Net Project Costs of$275,000 to be paid by 18 assessed units within the subdivision. Reference: Comm. 271 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Approve: FC-53 Postponed: June 7, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to adopt Res.164-23.) MR. INABA: Thank you and mahalo everyone for the opportunity for the postponement. We did have the chance to regroup with the Clerk and Corporation Counsel, the Water folks and Finance as well, to make sure that everything is as it should be here in the resolution. So, we're good to go and will be also seeing additional resolutions in the future, as we are required by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and other parts of this process for Water Improvement Districts. So, ask for your continued support. Mahalo. One last thing, a big mahalo to Wendy (Baez) for shepherding this through, and I think this is going to be her second Water Improvement District resolution. So again, always go check with her if ever needed in your district. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Vice Chair Inaba. Council Member Evans. Page 10 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. EVANS: Just one question for the introducer. Since this is such a lengthy process, where does it go from here? Does it go to—isn't there, at some point in time, when we have to notify all the owners of what's going on? So, what's the next process after we vote for this? MR. INABA: Yes, so there's going to be a joint public hearing that will come separate, kind of like the business improvement district. That's where those who reside within the district get to come and share their thoughts, and even others as well. So, there will be that public hearing process. MS. EVANS: Okay, thank you. I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any further discussion on Resolution 164-23? Go ahead, Vice Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: I'm so sorry. Wendy's paying attention, and just that we have already tentatively set the date for August 15'h in the evening here in Kona for the public hearing. So, that notice will be sent out via the Clerk's office for August 15''. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Inaba. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting Resolution 164-23 please say "aye." Vote on Res. 164-23: The motion to adopt Res. 164-23 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 53 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball –7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz–2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 164-23 is adopted. Page 11 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Res. 186-23: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL DONATIONS OF SECURITIES OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII WITHIN THE 2023-2024 FISCAL YEAR THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE'S CAPITALIZATION PROCEDURES Provides County Council pre-authorization for the County to accept donations that are not covered by the Finance Department's capitalization procedures for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Reference: Comm. 310 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder(B/R) Approve: FC-55 Motion to Approve: Ms. Galimba moved to adopt Res. 186-23 and Finance Committee Report No. 55. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIMBALL: Any discussion? Seeing none, I just want to thank all of the folks that have contributed to the County. We really appreciate your support. All those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Res. 186-23: The motion to adopt Res. 186-23 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 55 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 186-23 is adopted. Res. 187-23: AUTHORIZES THE ABANDONMENT AND SALE OF A PORTION OF THE MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, IDENTIFIED AS REMNANT R-1, SITUATED AT HOLUALOA Seeks to abandon and sell a 215 square foot discontinued right-of-way of Mamalahoa Highway at a price established by the finance director that is based on the square foot value used for determining the real property tax valuations of the abutting owners. Reference: Comm. 311 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba(B/R) Approve: LAAC-21 Page 12 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to adopt Res. 187-23 and Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee Report No. 21. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KIMBALL: Vice Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: No further discussion. Ask for the Council's support. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Any additional discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Res. 187-23: The motion to adopt Res. 187-23 and Legislative (Adopted) Approvals and Acquisitions Committee Report No. 21 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 187-23 is adopted. Res. 188-23: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement with the option to renew for two additional five-year terms with Giampaolo Boschetti and Donna-Jean Walden, for approximately 14,704 square feet of warehouse space and secured parking at an estimated monthly cost of$8,500. Reference: Comm. 312 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba(B/R) Approve: LAAC-22 Page 13 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Vote on Res. 188-23: Mr. Inaba moved to adopt Res. 188-23 and Legislative (Adopted) Approvals and Acquisitions Committee Report No. 22. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 188-23 is adopted. Res. 193-23: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT FOR PARK MAINTENANCE AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT BUDDY PERRY SOCCER FIELD LOCATED AT THE HERBERT C. SHIPMAN PARK IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 Transfers $34,500 from the Clerk-Council Services —Contingency Relief account (Council District 5); and credits to the Department of Parks and Recreation, Transfer to Capital Projects Fund-General account. Reference: Comm. 324 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to adopt Res. 193-23. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KIMBALL: Vice Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: I ask for my colleagues' support on behalf of Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Anyone further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Page 14 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 Vote on Res. 193-23: The motion to adopt Res. 193-23 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 193-23 is adopted. Res. 194-23: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT FOR MAINTENANCE AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT VARIOUS PARK FACILITIES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 Transfers $2,500 from the Clerk-Council Services —Contingency Relief account (Council District 1); and credits to the Department of Parks and Recreation, Transfer to Capital Projects Fund-General account. Reference: Comm. 325 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to adopt Res. 194-23. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KIMBALL: This is actually a return of CRF (Contingency Relief Fund). So, unfortunately, the Taro Festival was not able to happen this year. So, this CRF, which has originally been earmarked for that, is just going to go now to Parks and Rec. (Recreation) for additional improvements in the district. Ask for your support. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say Ic aye. Vote on Res. 194-23: The motion to adopt Res. 194-23 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 194-23 is adopted. Page 15 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading). (FIRST READING): Bill 28: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 7, SECTION 19-53 AND ARTICLE 10, (Draft 2) SECTION 19-71, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES Safeguards certain agriculturally productive properties which are also used as an owner's primary residence or as an affordable rental from rising assessment values. Reference: Comm. 113.2 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Approve: FC-28 Postponed: March 22 and April 19, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to pass Bill 28, Draft 2, on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 113.7, from Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba dated June 19, 2023, transmitting presentation material relating to Bill 28, Draft 2, was circulated.) MR. INABA: Thank you. This is, I believe, the third time we're going to discuss this bill, and it is in its second draft. Again, the main point of this bill is to provide the Homeowner Class Benefits to agriculturally productive lots, whether they're in the dedicated or nondedicated Ag programs at this time. So, giving them the homeowner Class rate as well as the three percent assessment cap and also allowing that for affordable housing rental units as well. So essentially, they're paying the lower tax rate and they're getting a three percent assessment cap protection if that is their primary residence, and they only can get this benefit on one residence. So, if they have five different farm lots, they'll only be able to get this at the location they live. I'm happy to take any questions. We have our Real Property Tax Administrator and Assistant Administrator here in chambers today to answer any questions. But they are in support of being able to move this forward. Should the other bills that are before us today pass, we will likely come back. But we will need to come back and make amendments to this Section. But in the meantime, I would like to see it move forward to provide this benefit to our farmers where they live. Happy to take any questions. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Vice Chair Inaba. Any discussion? Council Member Evans. Page 16 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. EVANS: For Lisa Miura of Real Property Tax Division. So, for people that are listening today, the public, this bill is about dedicated and nondedicated Ag, or does it just affect one of those categories? (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura and Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator Keita Jo came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. MIURA: Correct. Lisa Miura, Real Property Tax Administrator, with Keita Jo, Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator. Bill 28's focus is on the Homeowner Tax Class, but those in any active agricultural Ag program with our office are the ones that would qualify. So, that includes nondedicated agricultural and dedicated. MS. EVANS: Okay, I was looking at a previous discussion that we had on our meeting minutes, and there was a comment. It was mentioned in there that when we were talking about these Ag classifications, you thought there might be 8,000 parcels. Then we got your communication, that you're estimating about 2,300 parcels. So, I'm a little confused about the number of parcels. MS. MIURA: So, there's about 1,000 parcels in dedicated. These numbers here are the nondedicated and dedicated that have homeowner's exemptions. So, these are the ones that would be affected by this bill. MS. EVANS: Oh, okay. Well, that's good because then people know that we have probably 8,000 Ag properties. So, these are people that other people are not applying for a homeowner's exemption. MS. MIURA: Correct. But there's 8,000 in nondedicated Ag alone and an additional 1,000 or so in the dedicated. MS. EVANS: Okay, right. I think it was good to put it in perspective, because I saw that comment that there was 8,000 parcels. Okay, thank you, I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any other discussion on Bill 28? Yes, Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I've stated this before but it's been a little while so I just want to state it again, that if we pass this and we don't do anything about closing the loophole on those who are not actually doing Ag on these properties, I have a concern with giving a homeowner exemption to the folks that are not doing that. But, hopefully, we're going to work on that. It's just the timing thing. So, thank you for putting this forward. I think it's a good bill overall. Page 17 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Before I go back to you, Vice Chair Inaba, anything in Hilo? She's all good over there. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I just wanted to thank Council Member Inaba for introducing this bill. I think it's a great bill. Very supportive. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Vice Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, and I want to speak to Council Member Kagiwada's point. The Real Property Tax Division is already, in the meantime, working to clean up. A lot of folks got letters this year sharing that they have reviewed their property, and there is no Ag activity going on; that they would have to reapply next year. So, if they're not doing it, we're already kind of trying to tighten up there, but there are about 2,000 parcels. So, the division does have a lot of work there but is already starting to clean it up. So, in the meantime as we see these other bills, at least we know there is some attempt to clean these. Those who are not doing the Ag that they're supposed to, out of the program. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you so much. I'll be supporting and thank you to Real Property Tax for working on that. I know it's a heavy lift. Thank you so much. MR. INABA: With that, again just ask for my colleagues' support, and want to thank again Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance, as well as our Tax Administrator Lisa Miura for their work. Because they really needed to go through these Sections, and I would say, it's their bill. So, mahalo. Initiated by me, but with a lot of help from them. Mahalo. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Vice Chair Inaba. Anyone else? All right, thank you. I wanted to mahalo you,particularly Keita Jo, for putting together—I hope everyone saw the communication that's attached to this bill. It's in your pinkie folder113.7. On the back of that has the impact on revenue with respect to this adjustment. Just wanted to make note that this is a snapshot in time, this particular communication, and that the overall impact will be just based on what's happening with the market. So, I really want to thank the Real Property Tax Department for helping put this together. Vice Chair Inaba, I have gotten so much positive feedback from folks in my community in particular. It's a very difficult year for a lot of our farmers. These last couple of years when market values went up so much and their homes were not covered by the three percent cap protection. So, I think this is the right Page 18 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 thing to do, and I'm happy to support it as well. With that, any further conversation? Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting Bill 28 at first reading please say "aye." Vote on Bill 28: The motion to pass Bill 28, Draft 2, on first reading and Draft 2 adopt Finance Committee Report No. 28 was carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Bill 28, Draft 2, is adopted at first reading. Bill 43: AMENDS CHAPTER 19,ARTICLES 1 AND 8, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY (Draft 2) CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION,AS AMENDED),RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL USE DEDICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES Seeks to implement recommendations of the Real Property Tax Review Working Group and Agricultural Committee's September 2019 Final Report by: amending the definitions for "commercial agricultural activities" and "Commercial agricultural use dedication"; adding four new definitions relating to commercial agricultural uses; amending Section 19-60 of the Hawaii County Code to create a "Long-term commercial agricultural use dedication"; and establishing a new section titled "Short-term commercial agricultural use dedication." Reference: Comm. 217.6 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Galimba Approve: FC-48 Postponed: May 3, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to pass Bill 43, as amended, on first reading.) ; and Comm. 217.7: From Council Member Michelle Galimba, dated May 18, 2023, transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 43, Draft 2. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Kimball relinquished the chair to Acting Chair Inaba. ACTING CHR. INABA: We'll head over to Chair Kimball. Page 19 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. At this time, I'll actually suggest that Council Member Galimba introduce the amendment that is part of the agenda. ACTING CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Galimba. Motion to Amend: Ms. Galimba moved to amend Bill 43, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 217.7. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: So, this is a pretty simple amendment of just adding "an agricultural conservation easement with a term of at least ten years, that has been recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances"to the list of requirements of things that you can do to get the ten-year dedicated agricultural tax benefit. It was great that we had this discussion about agricultural conservation easements yesterday. I thought that was sort of a good prelude. They do require that a piece of land stay in agriculture. They're pretty strict as far as really keeping land in agriculture and in open space. I will admit that this is a little bit of a public relations stunt on my part for conservation easements because they are so hard to get. You would probably do the tax process first, and then get your conservation easement. So, I just kind of wanted to put it in there to sort of hint to people that that might be a nice thing to do since they're going to be dedicating their land for ten years, if they should look at a conservation easement. But there also might be some folks out there that have their land in conservation easements already, and so that would help them to just get the tax benefit. So, I hope that my fellow Council Members will support this amendment, and happy to take any questions. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Heading over to Council Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, and I want to thank my colleague Council Member Galimba for proposing this as an additional option for farmers to present to the Real Property Tax Department as a validation that they're actually engaged in Ag practices. As you said,part of our impetus with this bill is to actually make the process for applying for these dedication programs as straightforward and simple as possible for our agricultural workers. By adding this additional mechanism that would validate their genuine activity as agriculture I think adds another opportunity. As you say, like some of the other ones here, the organic certification or having the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service)plan, if they've done it, they're probably legit farming. So, I think it's a good addition, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment as well. Thank you, Chair, I yield. Page 20 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Hi, I'm looking at how the Real Property Tax Division will implement this. So, I'm looking more about the list of the following when they petition for long-term commercial Ag. It would be on Page 4; I don't know if you have the bill in front of you. But when it says here, "It shall include at least one of the following," is one enough? Should it be two, not one? The only reason I'm saying that is a farm plan is a plan, and it may not be an Ag activity. I'm a little confused, because a plan is a plan; it's not execution. Where if you have receipts; obviously, you have $10,000. So there's something there or documentation and certification. You've gone through a lot of effort to get—you wouldn't do this probably because it costs too much money to do good certification. I've talked to the farmers, it's a lengthy process. But a farm plan, how would you look at that? (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura and Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator Keita Jo came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. JO: Keita Jo, Assistant Administrator for Real Property Tax. The farm plan would be used in conjunction with an agricultural inspection to look for active agricultural use. So, the verbiage "farm plan"really also constitutes a management plan; what the intent for the property is in terms of managing the agricultural use on a property. Does that clarify? MS. EVANS: So, they're petitioning you for a dedication and this will impact their taxes, correct? MR. JO: Correct. MS. EVANS: I'm just seeing the other ones. I'm just looking at the bar. How high the bar is, and it looks like the bar is pretty high, except the farm plan is not, I don't know. MR. JO: So, I think what would be followed up, if this legislation passes, is rules and regulations to define exactly what that farm plan would look like. But it's akin to how we handle our native forest dedications. So, there's a native forest plan in terms of planting regiments and things like that. So, the farm plan is kind of one of the tools that is actively used by the farming community to manage their business. MS. MIURA: I just wanted to clarify that the farm plan will tell us how they're going to manage their farm, but they already have to be farming. So, they can't say that"It's our intent to do ten acres of pasture, and here's how we plan to get Page 21 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 there." They don't get the lower Ag value until they're actually doing it. So, when they apply and we inspect, they have to be doing something already for the dedicated program. MS. EVANS: Good, okay. I think that's important to know. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Any further discussion? Okay, heading back to Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Just wanted help to clarify for Council Member Evans. There is a definition of the farm plan, and that there is there has to describe the agricultural practices and show that it's a commercially viable operation. Then, of course, commercial activities; there is an income revenue threshold of$,2000, which is actually something we've discussed that hasn't been modified in quite some time. Is that the appropriate dollar amount for that threshold for commercial activities? I think that is something that we should probably have further discussion on. I did want to also bring to everyone's attention, you received a communication this morning, which is a presentation from RPT (Real Property Tax) about the financial impacts of these different programs as they've been presented thus far. You want to go through it at this juncture? Are you ready to just present this real quick? Mr. Ruedy, are you ready to present the slides? Well, I'll yield while we're waiting for the presentation to be set up. Point of Clarification: MS. KAGIWADA: Chair,just a point of clarification, I guess. ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes, go ahead, Council Member. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. So, my understanding was the packet relates to Bill 44, and we're discussing Bill 43 at this time. ACTING CHR. INABA: We are on Bill 43, Draft 2. MS. KAGIWADA: I just wanted to make sure that we're on track here. It seems like the packet was the presentation MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Actually, the wording on this is for Bill 44. I apologize for that. It actually does cover both bills. So, I think—it does pertain to both bills. Mr. Clerk, do I have some flexibility on this where we can have this presentation now? Yeah? Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think it would be best to have it now because it does pertain to both bills, and I apologize for that lack of clarity. ACTING CHR. INABA: No worries. Page 22 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MR. HENRICKS: That being said, does this pertain more to the bill itself or the motion to amend? Is the motion to amend more specific? MS. KIMBALL: My apologies, yes, we haven't resolved that. We should take the vote on the motion to amend before going back to the presentation. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. So, any further discussion on the amendment? We have a motion to amend Bill 43, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 217.7. All those in favor? Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 43, Draft 2, with the contents of Amend: Comm. 217.7 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz—2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Back to the main motion; Bill 43, Draft 2, as amended. And we have our presentation ready. Council Member Kimball, you still have the floor. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I will pass it over to our RPT Administrator and Deputy Administrator to go through the presentation. (Note: At this time, Mr. Jo provided a power point presentation to the members of the Council. For viewing of subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office or online by navigating to the Council's video archives from the County's homepage at www.hawaiicounty.gov. A copy of the presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 218.4.) MR. JO: That's what we have provided to you folks. Be happy to take any questions. ACTING CHR. INABA: Alrighty, Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, and thank you so much for putting this together. I hope everyone can appreciate the level of work and skill that it took to put this information together. Just to go back to the original intent of the bill, we're responding to the outcome, the report, from the Real Property Tax and Ag Page 23 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 working group, their recommendations, making it easier through these documentation mechanisms to participate in the program. But at the same time, ensuring that the controls are a little bit stronger. Clearly with the rates that we have set, the intention is to actually drive people to the ten-year dedicated program or at least the three-year dedicated program if they're speculative, and they can't be certain that they'll stay in operation for the ten years. That is definitely the intention between where the rates are set. Just in light of the conversation around Bill 28, all the examples that were presented today here are on vacant land. So, it wouldn't include that adjustment that we just made to taxing the property at the homeowner's tax rate. So, keep in mind that if somebody goes into the ten-year dedicated program, they would get the tax benefit as far as the valuation through the dedication program. But with Bill 28, they would also get that homeowner's tax rate. So, that would be another level of analysis that would tie into this. With that, I will leave it to my colleagues for questions and comments. ACTING CHR. INABA: Checking over in Hilo, Council Member Lee Loy, you have any questions? MS. LEE LOY: I don't have any questions. I really just did want to take the opportunity to thank Real Property Tax; Lisa and Keita. This was actually something I know I really wanted to lean in on, and they've provided it in a very succinct manner. We know Real Property Tax has a whole bunch of levers and all kinds of impacts. Thank you so much, Keita and Lisa, for putting it together because now we have to kind of communicate that back to our constituencies as to, you know, when we start tinkering with the tax. Keita, I did have one question. You mentioned about a set of rules or guidelines that would need to be developed by Real Property Tax. How long do you think that will take for the office to kind of sketch through? MR. JO: The expectation is that we will, assuming that these bills pass, we would go through and establish rules and regulations, internal procedures and processes, prior to the rollout. I believe the rollout date is looking at September 2nd of 2024. So, we would definitely be rolling that out prior to that date. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Keita. Then,just throwing out there, assuming everything goes, our homeowners, our real property tax owners, they will see that in their January assessment. Wait, I know you guys have so many dates. When will they see it on their notification? MR. JO: So, I believe the way that the bill was written there's a carve out so that the first actual change in regards to people who are currently in a nondedicated agricultural program, the first time that they will see a change if they decide to go Page 24 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 into a different program, whether it's the Community Food Sustainability or the Short-term Agricultural Use Dedication, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it is July 1st of 2026. MS. LEE LOY: Great. Thank you guys so much. I really can support this bill, especially knowing that we have a long runway to communicate. Let Real Property Tax get all of their needs met along with a set of rules, and then communicate that out to our Real Property Tax owners. Thank you so much. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I also wanted to thank you folks for this terrific presentation; very easy to understand and also good-looking. I just had one question, and it's more like a curiosity question than anything. I just noticed my particular district was the only one where Scenario D actually was a little bit higher than Scenario E. So, the short-term dedication is three times the Ag assessment versus Scenario E is 30 percent of the market. I'm guessing it has to do with the value of agricultural land in my district, but if you could talk that through a little bit, I'd appreciate it. MR. JO: So, that actually speaks to, I believe in some of the previous hearings, that actually speaks to the market value and what the market value of property is on a per-acre basis. So, what you're seeing there under Scenario E is the fact that, on a per-acre basis, the 30 percent of market is actually lower than taking that three times the agricultural rate if you were to go to that short-term dedication. So, when it comes to orchard. So, essentially, on a per-acre basis, the market is less the $4,500 per acre. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. So, the Ag assessment is like an island-wide assessment? MR. JO: Yes. MS. GALIMBA: Got it, thank you. MS. EVANS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Just so everybody knows, it's really hard at this end because of the way the speakers are; it echoes. It's very soft at this end, so I'm sorry. MS. GALIMBA: No problem. So, the Ag assessment that they're basing Scenario D on, so that agricultural rate is an island-wide rate rather than specific to my district. Then the market value—we are very far away down there in Ka`u the market rate is probably the lowest on the island. So, that's the reason Page 25 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 that actually Scenario E is lower than Scenario D, and it's the only example where that was. So, I just wanted to tease that out a little bit to understand it. We may need to explain that to our constituents as well. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Yes, if everyone can speak directly into the mics so we can all hear. MS. EVANS: Thank you. So, the bigger question for me is, there is this statement about if we do a short-term dedication, which will be three years, which they will have to achieve a certain level of proof that they're doing this, right? But we're going to charge them three times the Ag assessment versus if they do a ten-year dedication with one. Here's my big concern. I talked to beginning farmers, and I talked to the young people, and I talked to people who come here in my district, and they really want to farm. In the first three years is when you do your capital investment. It's huge. You have to go get loans. You have to buy everything: your equipment, your seeds, or whatever. I'm just wondering, why are we doing three times the assessment in the first three years when they're going to be struggling to get it up and running? So, the bigger question is, was this really what theI'm thinking it did come out of the working group and they wanted to streamline the dedication process. They wanted to establish control mechanisms. But did they actually want to hurt the beginning farmer? Because to me this bill has a negative impact. So, was that discussed at the working group, or did it come out of the working group? I don't know. ACTING CHR. INABA: Turning it over to Chair Kimball to respond. MS. KIMBALL: So, yes it did come out of the recommendations of the working group initially. The wording in the working group report is the suggestion that if we maintain the nondedicated program, that it would be shifted up to be three times the dedicated rate. The purpose being that the original intent of the nondedicated program was to be for speculative projects or places where they were uncertain. You know, there was an aging farmer; he wasn't sure that his kids would take over the business and it would still be in Ag for ten years. That was the purpose. It was kind of a catchall for those that didn't fit in the ten-year dedicated program. The proposal before you at three times, like I said, its basis is in the recommendation of the report. The intention is Real Property Tax is our lever for engineering, right? The intention is to encourage people to get into the ten-year program. What I'd be concerned about with lowering the short-term dedication Page 26 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 program rate is that we'd just have people cycling through that short-term program when, really, we want to incentivize them to get to that longer ten-year dedicated program. That being said, Council Member Galimba bringing up the interesting scenario that happens when we go to the 30 percent of the market rate, which is now currently proposed for the Community Food Sustainability Program, what happens with that percentage is that, depending on the value of land in your area, it fluctuates a little bit more. So, one thing that I might suggest as we get into the discussion about Bill 44, if we ultimately determine not to do the Community Food Sustainability Program, one of the things we might consider is actually making the short-term dedicated rate at 30 percent as opposed to three times. I'm perfectly happy to take from the amendments, adjusting the multiplication factor here if we want to have a broader discussion. But the intention is to actually drive people towards the ten-year program rather than just cycling through every three years in the short-term program. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans, you still have the floor. MS. EVANS: Okay. I'm just concerned that the beginning farmers are so struggling getting capital and money to start out. I'm not real happy with the "three times." I don't know what the answer would be, maybe two times? I understand the short-term dedication. I do think that there's people that think they want to be farmers. They put three, four, five years into it and realize it isn't their lifestyle; it isn't going to work for them. But the reality is, there's so many people that want to try, and I don't want to discourage them. I don't know. I'd like to see that changed. I don't have the answer today. But anyway, that's my reaction to it. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Other discussion? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Are we discussing Bill 44, or can we discuss it now or no? ACTING CHR. INABA: We're on Bill 43, Draft 2, as amended. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Then I'll wait, thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: All right. No further questions? I have just a couple questions. So, for the most part, and it seems to be the case when I look at this Page 27 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 wonderful packet you folks prepared for us, anyone who's currently in the nondedicated Ag program who would go to the short-term would see an increase in their tax bill. MS. MIURA: For the most part, yes. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Just conceptually, because you provide it in the summary page that showed all of our districts, but then in the subsequent pages, you provided more specific examples by district. How were you able to come up with the fiscal summary overall if things go different ways, and it's dependent on the district? MS. MIURA: So, are you saying, if Council wants to question two times or like different numbers in here instead of what we provided, what the fiscal impact would be? ACTING CHR. INABA: I think I just have to hear the explanation, because I get confused when I'm looking at the page-by-page district examples and because, in some cases, the 30 percent works better when you come up with this chart that shows—is this chart able to account for all of those potential variables that could be by district or which way? MS. MIURA: It does. It's a painful process, but it does take into account all the ups and downs, as well as the minimum tax. So, there's literally over 1,000 parcels in the Puna area that, no matter which program they go to, is going to be at min-tax because of the value of their land anyway. So, it is taking into account, and I think that's why you're seeing such a low changeover for Council District 4. ACTING CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you so much; save me the pain. Council Member Galimba, any last questions or comments? MS. GALIMBA: I guess,just responding to Council Member Evans, I too can see an argument for the short-term being two times to tracking the current nondedicated. Just in terms of, sort of not negatively impacting starting farmers and folks that just can't do the full ten-year. But I'm a bit on the fence because I also want to drive people towards a longer dedication. So, I have gone back and forth in my head on that as well. So,just wanted to comment on that. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. On that point,just wondering if you considered putting a maximum number of times you could do short-term dedication, or with that part of the conversation that we might consider if we do drop that rate. And Page 28 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 the intent just to try to move people to the ten-year dedication that might consider putting a maximum number of times you could do the short-term dedicated? That's a question, I guess, to the makers. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, that's an intriguing idea, and I see RPT nodding their heads. I think we'll take that discussion, and yeah, I think that has merit. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. And then my other just checking for understanding here. When we look at the fiscal summary by district, the first or the second page you showed, what we're most likely looking at is a scenario that is a blend of these, like this is just if everybody did this or everybody did that. But it's very unlikely that everybody will do one of these. Okay, I just wanted to check for understanding on that. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, then, there's a MS. KIMBALL: Can I ? ACTING CHR. INABA: Oh, sure. Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for bringing that up, Council Member Kagiwada, because when I was shared a draft of these slides, I was like, "Make sure you put a covey out here that these numbers, as they are represented here on that second page, are unlikely that everybody would move to one program or the other. It's actually probably going to be scattered all over the place, depending on what we finally land on." But, yeah, that's an important note to make with respect to these numbers. They should betaken as they are, not the likely scenario, but just a baseline for understanding. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Perhaps we can also add that some folks might not do any Ag, and they might strictly go into the homeowner class and pay the homeowner rate if that is their primary residence. All kinds of things. But thank you, Real Property Tax, again. The motion is to approve Bill 43, Draft 2, as amended at first reading. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 43: The motion to pass Bill 43, Draft 2, as amended to Draft 3, Draft 3 on first reading and adopt Finance Committee Report (Approved) No. 48 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. Page 29 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: We're going to take a quick five-minute recess. We'll be back at 11:11. Recess: At 11:06 a.m., the Acting Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:15 a.m. Bill 44: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLES 1 AND 7, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY (Draft 2) CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO COMMUNITY FOOD SUSTAINABILITY USE ASSESSMENTS AND NONDEDICATED AGRICULTURE USE ASSESSMENTS Seeks to implement recommendations of the Real Property Tax Review Working Group and Agricultural Committee's September 2019 Final Report and the 2021 Annual Report of the Real Property Tax Board of Review by: establishing a sunset date for the definition of"Nondedicated agricultural use assessment"; adding a new definition for"Community food sustainability use"; establishing a sunset date for Section 19-57 of the Hawaii County Code; and establishing a new section titled "Community food sustainability use assessment". Reference: Comm. 218.3 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Galimba Approve: FC-51 Postponed: May 17, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Galimba, to pass Bill 44, Draft2, on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 218.4, from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated June 20, 2023, transmitting a PowerPoint presentation, was circulated.) MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. So,just to frame the discussion again about this second bill. With the changes that we're making to the long-term dedicated program and the introduction of the short-term dedicated program, the goal is to phase out the nondedicated program. In going through the process of working with RPT, there was a recognition that there are folks that are in the nondedicated program that might not ultimately fit into the long-term or short-term dedicated program. However, they're doing something for our community; they're providing food. So, the idea was to put forth this other avenue for those people to be able to get some sort of tax benefit based on the fact that they were contributing to the food systems. So, it's a little bit different, as Keita Jo was mentioning. This is not applicable to pasture or forestry. It's only applicable to food types and activities that ultimately result in food production. The food can either be sold or donated. Page 30 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 I wanted to present this bill so that we could have a fully rounded discussion about what would happen with the phase out of the nondedicated program, and I'll just remind folks that if we proceed with Bill 43, creating the short-term dedicated program, and choose not to do the Community Food Sustainability, the best option moving forward would be the withdrawal of this bill and the presentation of another bill to just phase out the nondedicated program. So,just wanted to highlight that in case, in a scenario that there would be a"no" vote on this, we would be limited on our ability to come back and phase out the nondedicated program. So, I will yield for questions and comments. Thanks. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Opening it up for discussion. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: So, on your last statement, if this does not pass because the way the title was written, if we decided to—we couldn't amend the nondedicated Ag use assessment for the rest of the term? MS. KIMBALL: Correct. Because of the title, we cannot amend the document to just phase out the nondedicated Ag program, because it contains the creation of the Community Food Sustainability. If we were to vote it down, we are not, per our rules, able to consider a matter that is substantially similar to a matter that was previously voted down. It would be up to this body to determine if Bill 44 would be substantially similar to a bill that just phased out the nondedicated Ag program. That is something that is up to us to determine what"substantially similar" means. But in the interest of being cautious, I think the best approach is to actually withdraw this if folks don't want to do the Community Food Sustainability Program. Thank you. MS. EVANS: I support withdrawal at this time. We just were moving forward on two other bills in concept I really like. I'd like to see them move. If we withdraw this, that's not actually voting it down. So, that's an opportunity. If we withdraw and if you wanted to bring it back, we would still have time? I mean or it's possible? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I can withdraw and bring it back. I can bring it back in the same form, or I can bring it back in the amended form. My preference would be to—if it's something that the body wants to continue to deliberate, then that's a postponement and we continue to deliberate. But if the body is generally feeling like Community Food Sustainability, it's not quite what I'm looking for, my preference would be then to recommend withdrawal. So, there's a couple of different—there's three pathways: pass it, postpone it for further deliberation, or withdraw it to correct it if we just want to phase out the nondedicated program. Page 31 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. EVANS: Okay, thank you, I yield. MR. HENRICKS: Acting Chair Inaba, may I interject for a second please,just about a procedural matter? ACTING CHR. INABA: Sure, go ahead. MR. HENRICKS: A withdrawal is not in order for this bill, as it is on a Draft 2. And the Rules of Procedure of the Council and also Robert's Rules state that after a motion has been amended, it is not subject to withdrawal. Your other options would be to postpone it to the call of the Chair,postpone it to a certain date, or postpone indefinitely if you prefer not to take a vote on this bill. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for providing that direction. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So, I'm a little bit flexible here on how we deal with this, but I don't want to see it go away entirely and here's why. I've heard from some other counties that have kind of gone this route already and not had this kind of option available for people. That they heard from families, you know, Native Hawaiian families, people that have been in the community for a long time, that really would fit this Community Food Sustainability category here, and felt like without that, when those counties moved forward without that, there was kind of an outcry from some folks who felt like there wasn't a place for them. They really weren't doing dedicated Ag in any way, but they were doing a very important community service, and we're part of the community. So, if we want to table it and wait and see if we get outcry we can do that, but I feel like we will. I would prefer to go ahead with this and fix the problem that I believe is there, that you're attempting to address with this. But if the rest of the body feels like they are not ready for it, if we could postpone to the call of the Chair or something and go forward with the other parts that were already voted on and see if indeed we have community members who feel like there isn't a place for them and they would like something like this, I'm willing to go along with that. So, that's just my feeling on it. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further questions? All right. For this discussion, if you have questions, I'm going to share my questions now, but we'll be flexible here. Administrator, if you could just share with the Council, and for the public's knowledge, the main difference and kind of the requirements and strictness between the short-term and this community's sustainability. (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura came forward to address the members of the Council.) Page 32 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. MIURA: The biggest issue or the biggest differences—when you go to a dedicated program, there is minimal size requirements. The nondedicated program was created without minimum sizes and, for lack of a better term, because Keita and the Council have used it, the nondedicated Ag program doesn't have many guardrails. So, people will tend to come in and say, "I've got five different citrus trees spread out enough. I'm doing nondedicated Ag." Or they'll come in and saga current example is, "I have perimeter fencing, but I move the fencing around. It's not permanent, and there's nothing stating it has to be permanent." So, we come up across a lot of issues in the nondedicated Ag program. Being that the Ag value is only two times the commercial rate for a ten-year program, there is over 8,000 parcels still remaining in that program, because there's zero incentive or very little incentive for them to commit themselves to a ten-year dedication. So, that is definitely where we're seeing the issue. I just want to point out, and I'm sure some are already thinking it, the prior bill actually set the short-term rate or value at three times the commercial. So, leaving the nondedicated Ag "as is" at two times the commercial value, means there's zero incentive for people to go into a three-year dedicated which would have more requirements. Just something to throw out there. As far as Real Property Tax, we definitely would like to see more guardrails. Originally, the staff had asked to have the same minimum size requirements as the dedicated program, but we realize that's not going to happen; the way the discussion is going and understanding there are people that don't meet those minimum sizes that have committed themselves to do food sustainability. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you very much. For myself, and then being provided all of these summaries and different examples here by Real Property Tax, I think as we try to make this change having more options is a good thing. Also, thinking about those who have not yet engaged in Ag activity who might be able to start dabbling through this community sustainability and then maybe make their transition over to long-term dedicated, but I feel like it gives us that medium for them to kind of enter there. So, it's a lot for us to consider, all of these bills together. That's my thoughts right now. Just want to check in again with everyone. Any further questions or discussion? The motion right now is to forward or to approve at first reading, Bill 44, Draft 2. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Just the thought of maybe postponing this to the next Council meeting where we bring up for second hearing on Bill 43, and just finish what we do on 43 and bring up this one again. Because I'd really love to have the—if we pass out something at second and final reading or if we pass out 43 and we know Page 33 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 that's in play, I'd really like to have possibly a further discussion on this bill at that time and say, "Now that we've got that behind us, where are we headed?" Because, I liked some of the things I just heard, but I do think it's confusing when you have slides, and it has (Bills) 43 and 44. It would be nice to just focus on 44, knowing we've finished 43. For me, I'm just trying to wrap around, because there was a lot of stuff going on. Still, it's a lot of stuff when you do three at one time, and there's a lot of impacts and a lot of scenarios. We went through so many different scenarios. For myself personally, I don't mind continuing 44 and having that discussion because food sustainability is so important. But it's just a recommendation on how to keep it alive and going and maybe finish 43. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. So, Council Member Evans, I think I'm hearing intention and maybe the request different. Is it that you would like to see Bill 44 after Bill 43 passes? So, not having it on the same day. MS. EVANS: It could be on the same day, but I'm assuming, yeah postponing it but not moving it forward is what I'm but postponing it. I'm fine with it, 44 being on the same day as 43 because I think, when we bring up 43, it's going to be on second reading. So, at that point, I suspect we're going to solidify what we want to do with 43. So, at that day, then we can see where 44 fits. But I just— ACTING ustACTING CHR. INABA: Understood. Thank you. Further discussion? Council Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: If I may ask,just to refresh my memory. Our timing with you folks, are we going to still be okay if we postpone this again in terms of the timeline that we set out on the bill? Just a cursory look, I think we're still good, but I want to confirm that with you folks. MS. MIURA: I believe, originally, the goal was when we sent the letters to the property owners that have their parcels in one of the agricultural programs, that we would explain it all at one time and not have to repeat letters. But if they're handled separately, we would just send out letters to those from the first bill today, Bill 28, completely separate to those individuals, and we wouldn't be able to notify them about any of these changes. So, those would still have to go out as separate letters. Maybe if there's this much confusion with Council, then the public will probably be equally or more confused about it. So, we can do it separate; it's just a matter of cost and time from our office. I think August would probably be the latest that we want to really look at doing this, though, because we still have to create rules and regs. (regulations). If people are going to change programs, we just need to know where they are in it. Because by August/September is when the new applications are due for Bill 43. Page 34 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: All right. I do also want to point out in Bill 44, Draft 2, it has a take effect day of July 1 st, 2023. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, we'll have to make that adjustment because we can't even accomplish that under current circumstances. ACTING CHR. INABA: Actually, yeah, not even if we postpone. All right. So, want to go to Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I just wanted to speak in favor of Bill 44 and the Community Food Sustainability Program. I really do think that it's an important part of this whole package, because there are a lot of folks that do contribute to the food system in small but significant ways. So, not having it as part of the package I think would really be sort of hurtful to those folks, as well as needing to sunset our nondedicated Ag program, given that we're moving Bill 43 along. So, I guess, to me, unless there's likeI'd like to know what the objections are to the Community Food Sustainability Program so that we could work on it. I would love to be able to move the whole package along. That's my mana'o. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I concur with that sentiment and keeping things moving today. So, I'd be supportive of that. Yeah, I think that, to me, it's always very important that there is support and alignment with those that do the work. So, thank you guys for being here with this incredibly detailed presentation and analysis of all the different variables. I can only imagine all the equations in the spreadsheets, the Excel formulas, that you got to put in there. But you've taken something that is very confusing and at least given it numerical value. I don't think we can eliminate any and all risks of somebody being disgruntled or not feeling that they're adequately represented. But I think, for those of us who are serving in this role, that's kind of just a given in the job. But if you're okay with it and you don't feel that this creates undue, unnecessary risks or dangers for our County in navigating these tax protocols. I look to your guidance and leadership in a lot of these capacities, and I see collaboration and connection and really some creativity in being able to draw in participation from people of all different socio-economic backgrounds who are connected to the land; and to food resilience and regeneration, which is something key to our survival, No. 1. It's also a key factor and goal for our island, and I think the world as a whole. So, I will be supporting this moving forward and concur with the benefits outweighing the risks here. So, thank you for your creativity in ways to try and draw people into sincere, authentic participation in agricultural propagation of our food systems, which is what we want to be supporting in this County and providing for. I take into great Page 35 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 heart, Council Member Evans, your concern about the smaller farmer. So, I think that there are ways to mitigate that. I also am feeling kind of heartened by some of the funding that's heading our way and the resources that are going to be behind authentically supporting your small farmer. Also, calling on the carpet, the gentleman farms that have become the tendency and, all too often, the norm for subdividing properties and zoning changes and whatnot. So, it's time to hold those properties accountable and recreate that benchmark and standard for what we expect for authentic use of property if there is going to be certain tax benefits associated with it. So, thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. In the spirit of hearing my colleagues really liking this idea, then I need to ask a couple questions. So, the way it's written, you're deleting one section and sunsetting the nondedicated Ag assessment. But you are replacing it with a different program. So, it says here, if you are a nondedicated Ag assessment, a person who gets that and qualifies now for that, that in fact is going to sunset on you, which forces you then to come in and apply. ACTING CHR. INABA: Perhaps you can ask it of the Real Property Tax Administrator. MS. EVANS: Yes. MS. MIURA: Sorry, I wasn't sure if you were asking us or Chair Kimball who wrote the bill. So, the copy I have says it's repealing the nondedicated Ag. Mine doesn't say sunset. So, I don't know if you guys have a different thing in front of you. But they would need to reapply for a different program. They don't automatically convert over. So, I believe the goal was that they would have sufficient time to decide which would be better for them to go into: the Community Food Sustainability, or if it was somebody who was doing pasture, which is not part of this food sustainability, would be to go into a short-term or long-term program. Is that the question you had? MS. EVANS: So, that's why it's connected. This would be for Heather. That's why it's connected to Bill 43. Because Bill 43 is setting up different programs that they could apply for if we pass Bill 43. So, if this repeals this out currently, this program, then they will look at the options they have and come back. And then we are creating in Bill 43 what some of those options are. Obviously, there's benefits and costs, and winners and losers, I suppose. Who might not benefit? I mean, if you repeal this out, who is it we're—is there people that we're impacting? Unintended consequence of someone we might be impacting? Page 36 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: For these questions, Council Member Evans, I'll ask that you address our Real Property Tax folks. MS. MIURA: Well, I don't know if it's unintended. It sounds like it's intended that those doing pasture that have less than ten acres are going to need to provide additional information of why they're one acre or half acre, which is in the nondedicated Ag now, with a goat or two goats should get a short-term or long- term dedication. I believe it would be very hard for anybody to prove why two goats on half an acre should get an agricultural value in the dedicated program. So, it's hard to answer the question because I don't think that's an unintended consequence. I think that's intentional that we are not providing it for the one goat, the one horse, the two sheep that aren't being used for food. They're—I don't want to say pets because I know some people use them for other things. But if it's not linked to a bigger farm or producing cheese, I mean you could have less goats and milk goats and make cheese. But if they're just doing it so they can mow down their yard, I don't know if there would be an Ag benefit for them. They wouldn't have a program to qualify for. MS. EVANS: So, do you believe the way we wrote the language, Community Food Sustainability use, that someone who has two goats—say they get baby goats; they grow them and they sell them for food. Could they come in and actually, you really have a high level here for proof of community food sustainability. You have all those different things. So, is that something we should look at? Because under Community Food Sustainability Use Assessment, I thought you were looking for people maybe doing stuff in their back yard; taking it to the Farmers Market. The level of criteria when they come in and apply is so high, I'm not sure they'll ever meet it. Because, you have a farm plan, and then I think, based on the amendment today, you probably would want to put conservation. Not on this one? Not in this one. So, is the criteria, knowing who your target audience is, is it too high of a benchmark for having it be community food sustainability? MS. KIMBALL: I'll respond. This is where the Farm Plan comes into play, and there will be likely different farm plan requirements with respect to a dedicated program where it is a commercial farming activity versus the farm plan that would be required when you're producing food. Really, the proof there is that you would have those receipts from either selling the food or donating the food during the course of the year. So, we wanted to provide all of the options just in case they happen to have those other options. People with those other options like the organic certification should probably be in one of the dedicated programs. But we didn't want to tie Page 37 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 our hands with that being an opportunity. But most likely folks going into the Food Sustainability program would be doing a farm plan, and it would be a different farm plan that would be required for the commercial program. MS. EVANS: I'm hoping there's enoughI don't know, guardrails I guess enough information in here so that it's really clear that that level, the level of requirements to have food sustainability on your half acre, which a lot of people grow half acre. They do aquaponics, for example, in their backyard and are very successful. Some do raised beds and they do basil and lavender, and they sell it in the Farmers Market and that's how they exist. I just want to make sure the level of requirements is not a barrier. Because I'm trying to understand the target and who you're targeting here. I understand why everybody wants to make sure nobody's cheating. But I just want to make sure that—and I love the idea. I just want to make sure it's written in a way that achieves it. So, anyway, that area of—if you were reading this and someone came in and said, "Oh, by the way, we have five lemon trees. And every time lemons go off once a year, we go and we make $800 or $900." So, they gave you the receipt. Would they then fall underneath this the way we've written it? That would work? I'm just trying to do the scenario. Would that work? MS. MIURA: Sorry, I'm trying to go through this one again, because I know there was an amount in one, and I don't know if it carried over to this one. MS. EVANS: Well, this one says receipts demonstrating $10,000 in farm equipment. Oh, that's yours. That's an application. MS. KIMBALL: May I Chair? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: So, there is a requirement for receipts, either for sale or the donation of$1,000, is the threshold with the nondedicated Ag program. I think that that is a value that's similar to the commercial program, which is set at a $2,000 revenue requirement. It's something that we should discuss. So, it's on Page 4 at the top where there's the documentation that's required for the sales piece. MS. EVANS: Interesting, the donations. So, you're okay with someone writing a letter from a nonprofit saying, "We've got `X' amount of lemons." Obviously, you don't know what the market value is for the lemons. But at some point, would you feel comfortable with donations? MS. MIURA: I think if it is supporting the idea that you need to go beyond just feeding your family and your best friends and your cul-de-sac, and you're trying Page 38 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 to reach to a community level, that's what I believe the point of having the donations and their(inaudible), if they were donating it to like a food hub or a, I don't want to say Food Basket, but you know, one of those groups. Like we have meals in Waimea on a Thursday night. If somebody was going to donate a large portion to that that equivalates a $1,000 or more, I believe the intent when they drafted it was to recognize that it is going beyond the family use. I think that's a big change for the nondedicated Ag program or Community Food Sustainability, is to get taxpayers to understand this isn't for your backyard or for you to maintain a well-kept yard because the goats or the sheep are taking it. You're having to give back to the community somehow. So, while we may not love all parts of the bill, we can live with it because it is trying to at least get the County, from what we're seeing, to focus on a community level to help our office get away from individuals who may be growing ti leaves, which is wonderful. But if you're not doing something on a community level with it, selling it or donating it, then should you be getting a lower Ag value just for having ti leaves, for example? So, if the Council decides, yeah, we're fine with giving that, then that's something we have to live with. But there's going to always be an unintended consequence, or one person who may be negatively affected by it. But I think it depends on how the Council wants to go for the whole community or for the whole island, rather than just 10 or 20 people. In regards to are we in danger by passing this? I can see a lot of those in pasture being very unhappy. But there is another avenue. So, I don't know of a nice way to say it. I guess we've got to decide what's really worth the taxpayers' dollars. Because whatever people don't pay in taxes from getting breaks from doing very loose active Ag, we're still paying for it, as other taxpayers are paying for it. We can't give a lower homeowner tax rate. We can't give a lower agricultural tax rate because there's so many people actively abusing the program. I wish I could say we're getting better at it, but for every one or two we get out, we get one or two new applications. MS. EVANS: Right. I would offer a friendly amendment then. It would be more like donations for community meals. Because, those organizations are nonprofits, and they could easily give letters of, you know, Food Basket, whatever, right? But it would be food for community meals. The only reason I say that is anybody I know that's got these lemons or whatever, they're running around the neighborhood giving them out like crazy; for those who can't stand seeing fruit rot, right? But that might be a friendly amendment, that donations for community meals. Then it's encouragement. It's give back. A thought. Thank you. Page 39 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: I want to try and kind of wrap this up. I'll just say the donations, whether it's for whatever purpose, it's going to the nonprofits, which I think is the main thing. Whether they then redistribute it out for community, it serves a community purpose, which is the intention here—community sustainability—so that the donations go through and are verified for their value, and you're able to provide that document to our Real Property Tax folks. That's what allows you to get this option. To kind of recap. Bill 43 clarifies one existing program, adds the short-term. Bill 44 is removing the nondedicated and providing this Community Sustainability. So, in the end, three programs to choose from. If you're a nondedicated and being phased out, we'll be using the term "sunset"because it's going to be repealed five years out from now. I just have a question. Bill 43 and 44 both have effective dates of July I". So, to the makers, what is the new effective date going to be when we meet about this at the next reading? MS. KIMBALL: So, I'd actually have to defer to the Clerk on this. What happens in this scenario where the effective date is before the second reading? Does it just become "upon approval"then or should we amend this going forward? MR. HENRICKS: Before I answer that question, I thought Iin anticipation to these questions, I saw that Bill 43's effective date is not July 1. It's September 2. I may be mistaken. So, it's just Bill 44 that has a problematic effective date at this point. ACTING CHR. INABA: My apologies. Okay, Bill 44 then. MR. HENRICKS: (Bill) 28 is okay as well, I think, yeah? ACTING CHR. INABA: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: So, can you restate your question, Ms. Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: If we have a scenario where the effective date on the legislation is prior to the approval date for second reading, does it become, by default, effective on approval, or do we need to come and amend that? MR. HENRICKS: No, the effective date will need to be amended prior to the Council passing it on second and final reading. There's very little legislation including this one that can be effectuated with a retroactive effective date. So, that will need to be done. If it's not, for some reason, that's a problem. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, well we'll prepare that amendment for the next hearing. Page 40 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MR. HENRICKS: That's a one-pager. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. With that, I think the sentiment here is to move this forward. We can have even more discussion. And seems that Bill 43, there's a lot of support for. But perhaps encourage my colleagues to look at Bill 44 for areas of improvement, remembering that it's providing another middle-ground option at this time. There's a motion to pass Bill 44, Draft 2, at first reading. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 44: The motion to pass Bill 44, Draft 2, on first reading and Draft 2 adopt Finance Committee Report No. 51 was carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Bill 44, Draft 2, moves on to second and final reading. Taking up our last agenda item, Bill 48. Please, Mr. Clerk. Bill 48: AMENDS THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS (Draft 2) AMENDED), BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2-7; AMENDING CHAPTER 2 BY CREATING A NEW ARTICLE 49; AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 37, RELATING TO SUSTAINABILITY, CLIMATE, EQUITY, AND RESILIENCE Adds a new agency and agency head to coordinate and manage policies and programs to address sustainability, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt to the impacts of climate change and other natural and human caused hazards. Reference: Comm. 279.60 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball and Ms. Villegas Approve: GOEAC-51 Postponed: June 7, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kimball, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to pass Bill 48, as amended, on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 279.80 dated June 14, 2023; Comms. 279.81 and 279.82 dated June 20, 2023, from Council Members Heather L. Kimball and Rebecca Villegas, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 48, Draft 2, were circulated.) ACTING CHR. INABA: Chair Kimball. Page 41 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. So,per the conclusion of our discussion last time, I have a couple of amendments to Bill 48 today. The first is contained in Communication 279.80. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 279.80. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. MS. KIMBALL: So, the amendment before you has to do with the request to clarify the language around two terms, "environmental justice" and "equity," so that, in the body of the bill, when those definitions were inserted in it, it read well. So, it's really just a reorganizing of those, with the exception that with respect to environmental justice, we decided to abide by the old adage that brevity is the soul of wit and actually narrowed down the wording to make it more succinct so it was easier to read. So, that's it. Just tweaking there on the language. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any discussion on this amendment? There being none, all those in favor of amending Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of Communication 279.80, say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 279.80 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Back to the main motion. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. There's two additional amendments here: Amendments 279.81 and 279.82. One of the other requests from the body,per our discussion last time, was that there be clarification around this being a political appointment and the Mayor having the ability to remove. This is important because this office is not contained within the Charter and it's not a department. The Charter is clear with the department heads that they are coterminous with the Mayor, but that is not the case for non-department heads. You'll notice like for the office of the Housing Administrator, it says, "appointed by the Mayor and may be removed by the Mayor." So, in order to be consistent with the other examples we have in our Code of the creation of offices and administrators, there was the request by the body to have the language about that removal of the Mayor. Page 42 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 As you may recall, we had in the previous language, "for a term of six years and for no more than two consecutive terms." When you add in the language about the ability of the Mayor to remove the person from office, that actually becomes obsolete and inconsistent. So, the two amendments before you propose the removal of that language, has the language "may be removed by the Mayor." The difference between the two is that one has the removal of the Mayor, and approval of that removal by the Council; and one is just removal by the Mayor. The reason for the first one, "removal of the Mayor and approval of the Council," there is precedence for that. That is how we deal with Corporation Counsel, and that is because Corporation Counsel serves both this body as well as the Administration. I will say that that has been problematic, so that's something to take into consideration. And then there's also just the overriding issues of the separation between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch; and having that"Council approval for the removal" may be considered by some as a violation of that separation. You could also imagine the scenario where the Mayor wanted to remove someone, this person being in their cabinet, though Council disagreed. And now you have the Mayor working with somebody that they have already said that they don't want to work with. Would that actually be a productive situation for anyone? So, I will propose the first amendment for the purposes of discussion, and we can go from there. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 279.81. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. MS. KIMBALL: I've set the stage for this, so I would yield to comments and questions. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada, go ahead. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Just for understanding here, can you elaborate a little more on what the issues have been around having that similar scenario with Corp. Counsel? ACTING CHR. INABA: Go ahead, Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. This is pretty much anecdotal, and there's the feeling that, okay there are times that the Administration and the Council disagree. The perception may have been that certain times the Corporation Counsel was representing one or the other side of that when they really meant to represent both of us. I'm not saying I agree with that assessment, but that is the perception that can sometimes happen when you have this scenario. It's a little vague but that's the example. Page 43 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. All right, interesting. I was kind of leaning towards the one with the Council being involved, but that makes a lot of sense to me. I guess there's no scenario where the Council gets to just decide. Yeah, it makes sense to me that it could be problematic with the Council having to be on board if it's not working out for the Administration. So, I understand that. I guess I'll listen more to what other people have to say but understood. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. First off, I want to thank Council Member Kimball for bringing forth two options. Your capacity for bringing options to this body so that our colleagues can weigh in and the decisions can be made collectively here is incredibly admirable. It takes a lot of extra work, but it provides for opportunity for these kinds of questions and to come out with a solution, as opposed to just something getting voted down. So, I share that same kind of sentiment as Council Member Kagiwada. I like the opportunity for the Council to then have to approve of the removal. I see the potential for contention if the Mayor, in fact, wanted to have somebody removed from the cabinet, and then if Council didn't approve the removal, they've got to work with them. Perhaps it's, I don't know, some of the challenges I've already endured in a number of different capacities in life. But with this new role, being somebody that's going to hold any Administration accountable for remaining in alignment with policies and procedures that take into consideration the challenges of climate change, I think that if it required the Mayor and this person remainingI think if there was any extraneous, horrific reason for this person to want to be removed, I can't imagine a Council that wouldn't support the Mayor in that. But I can't imagine a Mayor who didn't want somebody doing as many things as perhaps this person wanted to do, moving our County in a progressive direction. That would be my greatest concern, that their service would be sabotaged by an Administration that didn't value that alignment and level of accountability for that office, at which point I would want it to be heard and brought forth into the public for discussion and comments, and for truth to be told on what was going on and why this person was being asked to step down or being terminated from that role. So, for lack of sounding like a jaded cynical woman here, that's the scenario that I would be most concerned about. So, I am more comfortable including the Council's opinions and votes in whatever scenario, but hopefully there will never be one. But should one present itself, that the Council also be included to weigh in. So, that's my mana`o on that. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. Page 44 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 MS. EVANS: Yeah, I'd like Corporation Counsel. If I'm not mistaken, if the Mayor asks someone to leave their position, because it's "at will," someone could still file a suit with the Human Rights Commission. There's all kinds of ways you can sue for being fired inappropriately or for wrong cause. Correct? I mean someone does have recourse, if I'm not mistaken, if they get asked to leave, even if they're "at will"? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. STRANCE: Yes, "at will" employment doesn't protect an employer from violating State and Federal laws. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, bear with me, because I'm leading to the next question. The next question being, if the Mayor decided to ask someone to leave, and they have "X" amount of days to contest that and file a complaint that they were let go unlawfully and for whatever reason, discrimination, or whatever they come up with, there's "X" amount of days. Once that passes, if this comes in front of the Council for us to vote one way or another, to approve or disapprove that, my understanding is we cannot tell the public why that person was let go. Is that correct? MS. STRANCE: That's generally correct. As you folks were talking about the bill, there probably would be required some sort of Executive Session. So, in terms of it being a very public process, that probably would be required. MS. EVANS: Executive Session is one thing where you can talk about personnel issues. But if we're in a public meeting and we're voting two-thirds to either disagree or agree with the Mayor, we cannot talk about the Mayor, or nobody else could talk about why they were asked to leave. Is that correct? MS. STRANCE: I need to get back to you on the specific parameters. Typically, when you folks go into Executive Session, you have a discussion and then you come out of the Executive Session and you have a vote. There's a new law on Executive Sessions that I would need to factor in on what level of discussion there would need to be on the records. But whatever it is, you would have to be given guidance as to what would be permissible and impermissible under the law to discuss. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you for this. I'm not going to support having a two- thirds vote of our members. I just like to avoid popularity contest relationship building over the years. I just think this is ripe. I think the Mayor is accountable to the public for the people that he chooses. I think the Mayor should remove people that aren't doing their job or is insubordination or whatever. I mean there's reasons. Page 45 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 If that person is wrongfully let go, they have a right to file a lawsuit against the County. And there's a high level of proof. But I think there's options if people get fired wrongfully. So, having said that, I prefer the other way of giving the Mayor a person "at will." So anyway, thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, guys, for the input. I was just reminded of one other comment that I wanted to highlight, which was that this position would serve to advise both the Council and the Administration in the sense that two of the responsibilities that we've given the office is for policy development, which they would support us with, as well as budget-related recommendations. I would also say that the amendment that we made last time that actually defined the requirements for the role helps, I think, in what was brought up by Council Member Evans. We've made it very clear what we want, the skills that we want this person to have. So, I think, by providing that greater framework, we're protected against, I think, getting the wrong person, which was really the concern in the first place with respect to this. So, anyway, my two more cents. So, four cents from Council Member Kimball. ACTING CHR. INABA: Any further discussion? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I guess, yeah, this is a tough one because I sort of see both sides. But I guess, given the discussion, I'm leaning more towards just having the Mayor, because it sounds like it could get very complicated to have the Council in the mix as well. So, that's my two cents or one cent. ACTING CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Just one more clarifying question, kind of following-up. I was thinking on the same lines as Council Member Evans. So, just to clarify, if the scenario is the Mayor wants to remove somebody; comes to the Council and we have Executive Session. Within that Executive Session, would the Mayor be allowed to share concerns or reasons on why they wanted to remove the person, or is that still something that needs to be kept strictly with the Mayor? MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I'm not aware of this scenario having arisen, for example, with the Corporation Counsel position. So, I think what you're talking about is a situation where a Mayor has asked a person to step down; the person doesn't want to step down. So, it goes to County Council, and in some session, there'd be a discussion about whether the Council is going to keep the person in the position that they are even though the Mayor has said, "No." Page 46 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 So, it would create a very interesting situation. But I would expect that there would have to be some sort of process within your Executive Session, that you're provided enough information to make a decision about whether to support the Mayor's request or not. So, exactly how that would look, I'm not sure. So, we're a little bit on uncharted territory, but I would expect that if the bill is passed and that situation were to arise, that some process would have to be invoked. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. I was just thinking also of the scenario that Council Member Villegas kind of mentioned, like, it's not necessarily that the Council wouldn't support the Administration's decision, but that they would want some understanding of why this was happening instead of being completely in the dark. It almost sounded likeI may have heard that wrong, but I don't know if that is, indeed, the case here if the Administration is even allowed to share with the Council at that point. MS. STRANCE: Well, the closest thing that I can think of is, during the last Council session, there was a request by the Mayor to have a commission member step down, and that became a fairly public process. I think one of the criticisms that was offered then was that there wasn't kind of a notice type of process to the Council, and a good mechanism for the Council to really deal with what had happened. So, that's just my observation. A lot of you were there and may have a different one. So, if the bill were passed, I think we would want to create something that doesn't—if a situation were to arise, that it doesn't flow up in a way that prevents a thoughtful process and it would be one that everybody sort of knew what was going to happen and what was expected. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. I'm just thinking that, for the public to know that the Council has heard, even if it's in Executive Session, what the Administration's reasoning is, and then to come out and support the Mayor I feel like would give a higher level of trust with the public in some ways. I guess that's what I'm kind of trying to figure out here. But, okay, thank you very much for your insight and thoughts on that. I yield. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. I'm just going to share my two cents now. This goes probably on a broader application for all of our department heads and any positions that are appointed and confirmed, that people should serve in those roles until a successor is appointed and confirmed. That way it gives, almost, the Council the abilityI don't know if this is a legal problem but to see who's in there now, and they would technically be removed by having someone replace them. Then the Council will then know who the replacement is. So, the determination of whether we keep that person on is based on who we know the Administration is trying to replace them with. Page 47 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 So, I for sure can't support this one, though, because I don't think we should start heading down this road of having different offices and departments' removal processes being taken up differently, because there's only that exception for Corporation Counsel. So, checking back with the maker of the motion. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. If my math is correct, this is not going to pass, so I will withdraw the motion. Withdraw Motion Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to amend Bill 48, to Amend: Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 279.81. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 279.82. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. INABA: Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, obviously, I don't need to go into detail about this amendment, but appreciate what you just said with respect to appointment of a successor. I think that's important and I'd like to think a little bit about how to word that. But would suggest that we move forward with this amendment at this time. Then I will come back with another minor tweak just to include that succession language at the next reading. ACTING CHR. INABA: Perfect. Any questions or comments on this amendment? If not, there's a motion on the floor to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, as amended, with the contents of Communication 279.82. All those in favor? Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 48, Draft 2, with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 279.82 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: Back to the main motion, Bill 48, Draft 2, as amended. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. We've had lengthy discussions and conversations about this bill already, so I'm happy to respond to any more questions or comments. Just want to take this opportunity to thank everybody that came to testify today and testified via letter, all the different organizations. I have a lot of excitement about this bill moving forward. So with that, I have no further points to make on my end. Page 48 Hawaii County Council-16 June 21,2023 ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I share your sentiments. I'm grateful for all of the conversation and the patience that my counter part with this bill has had in bringing forth amendments to any of the terminology and the cadence that there was any confusion or issues with. I am extremely hopeful for the continued support of our colleagues in this incredible opportunity for our Council that I'm so deeply, professionally, and personally grateful to have the opportunity to participate in. So, mahalo. ACTING CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I think the content of the bill and the direction is fabulous, but I will not be supporting it. I still believe that it should be by Charter amendment. I believe the content of the bill. I believe the positions. It's solid. We can move forward without hardly a—very little time lost. Positions are already funded. They're in our budget. I believe the language. There's a lot of great language and guidance here. We can definitely pass an ordinance. But to set up an office, I think is the wrong way to go. By doing it by ordinance, I think it should be before the people to vote as a Charter amendment. Thank you. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving Bill 48, Draft 2, as amended on first reading, please say "aye." Oh, thank you. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote,please. Vote on Bill 48: The motion to pass Bill 48, Draft 2, as amended to Draft 3, Draft 3 on first reading and adopt Governmental Operations and (Approved) External Affairs Committee Report No. 51 was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba–5. Noes: Council Members Evans – 1. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy –3. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Bill 48, Draft 2, moves forward to second and final reading. ACTING CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This brings us to the end of our agenda. Page 49 Hawai`i County Council-16 June 21,2023 OTHER The Acting Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, BUSINESS: Other Business. (There were none.) ANNOUNCE- The Acting Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, MENTS: Announcements. (There were none.) ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:24 p.m., Ms. Galimba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Acting Chair Inaba—6. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy — 3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. INABA: The meeting is adjourned at 12:24. Mahalo. Council Approval: AUG 1 6 2023 1 t COUN __- '. JH/dt Page 50