Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCHSW 2023/08/15 (2022-2024) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being 2nd Session West Hawai`i Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii August 15, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and ORDER: Well-being was called to order at 2:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Stephanie Bath: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); in support. Jon Olson: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); in support. James Hoffman: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); comment. Patti Pinto: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); comment. Roberta Brashear: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); comment. PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 Hannah L. Hedrick: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); in support. (representing Fern Forest Farmer's Coop) Jeffrey Finley: Bill 63 (Comm. 395); comment. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you Relley and thank you to our testifiers. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 63: AMENDS CHAPTER 14, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE RELATING TO MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE, NONDEDICATED, AND NON-SURRENDERED ROADS Provides the opportunity for entities who control the use of private, nondedicated, and non-surrendered roads that are open to the general public and necessary for public transportation to request that the County assist with the maintenance of such roads. Reference: Comm. 395 Intr. by: Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder Motion to Approve: Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend passage of Bill 63 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Evans. CHR. KAGIWADA: Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Chair. I really do appreciate all the testimony today from different members throughout our community. They spoke to a lot of the reasons this bill is in front of you as a Council. I appreciate Mr. Pause being here today. We had a meeting about this bill a few months back. I also spoke to our Corporation Counsel and discussed with LRB (Legislative Research Branch) at length. For the body today, where it stands is, we had some substantial but collaborative input from our Corporation Counsel, Ms. Strance. With that, given the discussion and the intent, I need to work with LRB a little bit more to refine that into a set of amendments that is workable with us so we can view it in alignment with the bill, as written, that we can see as a whole. So, my intent is to postpone the bill today to the meeting coming up on September 5th, 2023, and I don't want anyone to feel that they wasted time coming in today. I just want to make sure that we come to the discussion for Page 2 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 something this important, that we really have something beautiful and finished in front of us. It wasn't my intent to push it, but we did have a lot of back-and-forth with the different departments. At this point, I just want to make sure I get something pretty in front of you folks and for the community so we can all see the finished product and then move forward from there. I am completely open to hearing discussion from the Council if you guys have ideas, criticisms, so I can work those into the next generation of this bill. I just wanted to give you my intent for today. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. With that in mind, would anybody like to speak to the bill as it is; as it was read in? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you, can I have Director Pause of Public Works? So, there's quite a few roads, I think, in North and South Kohala that would probably fall under this. I just had—one of the things—there's a lot of different subsections and criteria, and one of the things that really jumps out at me are these emergency evacuation routes. So, we have tsunamis, we have wildfires; we have different communities in my district wanting these evacuation routes. Very accessible, very prepared, very kept up. But one of the things is these evacuation routes, at least the way they are in my district; they're fenced, they're locked, they're not like traversed unless there's an evacuation or an emergency. So, has there been a discussion in your department about how we'd support these evacuation routes that are actually put in place until an emergency occurs? Because I'm curious, the way it's written may not—it may trump that, I'm not sure. I want to make sure this doesn't trump that. (Note: At this time, Director of Public Works Stephen Pause, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Sure. Steve Pause, Public Works Director. We've not had a direct conversation about that. The maintenance of those roads falls under our purview. I know one of the ones that is near and dear to you Hulu Street, coming out of Waikoloa. So, our focus has been to maintain them, if in fact, they need to be utilized. But I'm not quite sure, as far as maintaining access; and keys; and things, and exactly how that works. That seems to me, it would be something we should be doing in concert, the community as well as Public Works as far as access goes. MS. EVANS: I just wanted to point it out to the author, making sure that this does not kind of trump that. I mean, the language is a little just want to make sure that we do support the department in keeping up these evacuation routes if they're signed or marked or fenced or whatever, right? Because I know there's a particular road that's up in North Kohala when there's landslides and flooding Page 3 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 the community has to go through this one road. A lot of sections of the road over the last 50 years have been sold out to private landowners, and so there's fences. It's kind of a hit and miss. You might have some of the roads fenced and some of them not fenced. But the reality is, in an emergency it's the only way they can get out. There will be, I'm sure some discussion, if this law passes, and I'm very supportive of the idea that that road for example, it would be nice to have the County participating keeping that road, even though sections of it are private, and some of it is public. The private sections, we want to make sure they're still possible, right, because this community otherwise has no way out. So,just wanted to point it out to you, the author, and to the public that's watching. Thank you, Director. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else want to comment? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. First of all, you know, thank you to the author for bringing this forward so we can have a conversation around this concept. I think it is important and definitely in response to what we heard from the testifiers today to have a broader conversation about how we manage these roads; how we protect health and safety, which is why it's in this committee and not the Infrastructure Committee. This is a Health and Safety issue. But also, really glad that you're pulling this back for a little more rework. I was going to channel Council Member Chung and say, not quite ready for prime time. I have some specific concerns which I think would probably tie into what maybe you've been advised by Corporation Counsel. Particularly, the section about control and liability. I don't think we have the ability to just waive our liability if we touch something in the Code and have that stand up in the court of law. Once we touch something, no matter how minimally, folks will come after us and we'll have to litigate. I don't think this protects in any real way. The other thing that I'm concerned about is the specificity of the criteria, and I think this is maybe where we want to spend a little bit more time on, you know, particularly Number (3) Benefits to the General Public. You know, I think we need to get deep into the weeds about what those benefits are. If we're maintaining some of these roads and we're paving them for example, and we haven't done the full-on engineering study, you know, we could be in a position where we're creating an unsafe situation. Like there didn't need to be a guardrail when it was just a dirt road full of potholes, but now people can drive it really fast and they're going to fly off the turn. So, you know, I think there may be situations where engineering is required. And I'm not sure how that plays into this, the persons collectively owning 60 percent; I think this is maybe Page 4 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 something else that Corporation Counsel may have tapped into. I'm not sure that you could only get a portion of the owners to agree. I think you would have to have 100 percent agreement because of certain property rights. You know, this was something we discussed with the Ag dedication with reducing it only 50 percent having to sign on to the Ag dedication when we were told we couldn't do that because you were basically telling half the owners what they had to do with their property. So, something to think about there. You know, I think there's more issues with bridges. We definitely can't touch those without engineering. So, I think those need to be excluded. There's some other things, you know, I'm happy to talk with you about it offline. But overall, I think there's a couple other things I'd like to, maybe, throw out there as consideration. As opposed to potentially this approach, I think that the emergency routes and then the routes that are used by public transit, we might be better served by actually condemning those and making those public roadways. Then they're officially ours and then we officially have to deal with them. Then we can use Highways Funds on them. I don't know if you've actually considered the funding mechanism for this, but that would actually, I think, be ultimately over time serve us better. Then, the other thing I might recommend is that the Roads in Limbo program, which allows us to provide materials, has not be widely used because it's somewhat restrictive in terms of—well, it's for roads in limbo not private roads. Although I do understand from the previous Director of Public Works that it has occasionally been given to private road owners. So, it could be expanded to cover that or to be allowable on private roadways. But, you know, the restrictions have to do with getting the survey; getting the grating. You know, it was created by resolution, the Roads in Limbo Program. So, I don't know if you want to just take a tact of maybe looking at those two approaches rather than this one, which I appreciate the intent here. I have a community in Pa'auhau in my district. One road in and one road out. It's about a mile-long private roadway with I think about 130 houses, very poor plantation community. They have no way to pay for that road, but that's their only way in and out. So, you know, I want to see something like this for us, but want to maybe throw out some other approached ideas and then, you know, those concerns that I've addressed. One last concern, the one thing I don't want to do is provide a program for HOAs (Homeowners Associations) that have been negligent around usage of their own roadway maintenance funds. So, I would like to see some sort of financial component in here where if HOA was supposed to be—had the duty to pave the roads as part of their agreement of collection of dues. I don't want to Page 5 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 see us jumping in and taking care of that maintenance when they've been actually the negligent party. Alright, that's all I think for now. I yield, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anyone else would like to get involved in this conversation? Hold on, let me just see if anybody else—go ahead, Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I just want to thank my colleague from Puna, Council Member Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder, for taking this on. This is something that has been a longstanding issue for Puna Council Members for decades and it goes back to the fact that, you know, we are substandard subdivisions that lack all kinds of really critical infrastructure. The roads, municipal water, wastewater facilities; you know, post office boxes. So, thank you for taking this on. I don't think it's going to be settled at one or two committee meetings. I definitely appreciate the very pointed and specific suggestions that were put forward by Chair Kimball and do support that. I want to make sure that this is something that our Public Works Department can take on. I want to make sure that we have the—not just the appropriations available, but that we have the wherewithal provided to us within our HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statues) that allows us to use, you know, our powers as the County and the different tax levers that are afforded to us to finance something like this. And for there to be very clear and explicit criteria around the kinds of roads that would qualify for this situation. I also recognize that in some subdivisions, it's just impossible to install, you know, County-dedicable standard type roads. So, is this an opportunity to explore a different road standard for rural communities? I don't know, but I think this is all that we have to talk about if we are going to be addressing this longstanding issue in a meaningful and holistic way. So, thank you for bringing this forward and all of the hard work that you put into it. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder for getting us started here. I guess in the last Section, maybe a recommendation, (a) seems to cover kind of the idea that if a road no longer meets the qualifications, then we can stop maintaining it; (b) seems to kind of maybe be repetitive of that. So, maybe—this is a lot of work you've done, like significant writing and just thinking of ways that we can always boil things down and simplify it where we can. I think that might be one of the areas. Page 6 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 Then on page three, Section Number(5) there, I'm not sure if those A, B, and C are meant to read together or they just need to meet one of those qualifications. So,just the semi-colons. Super-specific, sorry, but just wanted to point that out since I saw it. Then lastly, while we're going to have this discussion moving forward, I've had some opportunity to work on something like this in Kona, but not owned by— it's owned by the original developers who have gone—they're alive but they're no longer existent as an organization. So, the organization has folded and were not able to maintain. So,just wondering if or how we might be able to include— not that it's excluded now, but just wanted to put that out there because it's definitely maybe a different situation then what has prompted this bill. And from a Puna perspective, but something that we're facing here in Kona with those who intended to dedicate but never finished and at this point, 30, 40 years later, the road is not to standard anymore. So quick thoughts overall but thank you so much for starting us on this discussion. Chair, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Inaba. Any other Council Members. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks Chair. Listening very carefully to my colleagues and trying to integrate this bill into what seems to be a very singular focus,just about the roads. But having done a little bit of this work in just different spaces, and maybe this is a question for Judge Strance, something you guys can take back when you guys meet. A lot of these roads in limbo connectivity issues currently exist in our agriculturally zoned land/state land use agricultural zoned districts. So, if you could explore the possibility of a state land use, maybe rural designation as an underlying foundation for some of these large lands within Puna. Because my concern is when we look at this particular bill, it talks about utilizing multimodal transportation systems that I just don't know would be applicable in a state land use agricultural district and within a County-zoned agricultural lands, and just trying to eat the elephant a little differently this time. Maybe fundamentally we keep running into these roadblocks, pun intended, is because the state land use designation doesn't allow for it. Some sweeping changes administratively to go to a rural step rather than the full- blown urban step of a state land use designation might lend itself for some of these things with connectivity; the overlaying of our mass transit roadway systems; injecting the type of money that needs to happen might be better served with a rural state land use designation rather than Ag-1 that currently—I see my colleagues nodding who know how this all lays on top of each other. Because Page 7 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 it's really beginning to feel like a hamster wheel, trying to get roads for these districts without really addressing the root cause, which is the state land use agricultural designation. Just putting it all on the table for you guys to chew on. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Judge Strance, Corp. Counsel, would you like to say anything to that. I'm not sure if she was just giving you information or if there was a question in there, but if you want to comment? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. Considerate it chewing; I'll chew away that there's a lack there. The statute is really directed at the existing—well, it's a sentence in a larger statute. But it appears to address towards existing roadways. So, it's not an issue of the County coming in and taking more on, it's whether the County is going to participate in maintenance of existing private roads. Some of the comments that are being made have to do with the criteria for that. And that's one of the reasons that Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder has been good enough to postpone the bill, because I think there needs to be some broader concerns. I know that the Department of Public Works has raised some concerns that I haven't thought of. So, the idea there being a collaborative process and people continuing to kind of throw in issues that they might have and is helpful in terms of considering, you know, how to put together the bill. So, there was a lot of thought given to the bill. I can tell that. I've provided some input, and there wasn't time for Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder to build it into an amendment. Since then, there's been other discussions that warrants further conversations. So, I think those conversations will be held to the extent that requires us to chew on thoughts that we will do, and we'll try to translate them into amendments. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Lee Loy, did you want to follow-up with that? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, acknowledging that this is a tool to help with maintenance. Just seeking clarification towards that maintenance, because in Ag standard on a collector road or what is deemed a collector road compared to a minor road. There's all these other nuances about how many feet, how much, right? I absolutely think there is some way to partner in all of this. Page 8 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 It's really getting down to how much cars is this carrying? Does that make it a collector road or a minor street, and then getting to those standards. Because it's all going to boil down to the cost of it all to help them maintain their roads. And like Council Member Kimball mentioned, you know, using some of our mass transit funds or other funds that are out there to help stack those dollars to get that work done. That's my only curiosity around the state land use designation underlying all of these types of roads in those areas. MS. STRANCE: I'll take that into consideration. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I yield. MS. STRANCE: Let me just—I don't know if it's part of maintenance of roads. I think that underlying concern is that there are roads within the County that are accessible and being used by a lot of people that have fallen into disrepair. I think one of the challenges of this body in consideration of this bill is whether and under what circumstances, the other County resources will be used on private roads. MS. LEE LOY: I'm sorry, I had one more question. Because this is going to go into Chapter 14, which is the General Welfare, but our roads and our road definitions are housed in (Chapter) 23, and assuming that at some point, it's going to see the light of day. I just want to make sure that they're either talking to one another and/or housed within the right area when we're looking at maintaining a type of road. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, Chair. I just had a couple of questions, and I think it's probably for either Director Pause or Corporation Counsel. It is about Section 14, which is on Page 4, Section 14--(c). That entire paragraph. I don't understand what the significance of it is. So, if you could maybe explain why the date December 19, 1996, is important; and also, what Number(2) means. This idea that "a road that the County determines has been dedicated by implication to public use for roadway purposes." Anybody have any idea what that means? MS. STRANCE: I'll have to look at that more carefully. MS. GALIMBA: You're going to look at—okay. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Director Pause. Page 9 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 MR. PAUSE: I would defer to Judge Strance on that. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Was there anything else, Council Member Galimba? MS. GALIMBA: I'll await the resolution of this legal mystery. CHR. KAGIWADA: Anybody else who hasn't had a chance to speak yet? No. If not, I'll go back to Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: I guess this is for Director Pause. Given, obviously this is going to cost a lot of money, and following the train of thought of Council Member Lee Loy, if these roads, be it private or not, if the decision is made that it becomes our mass transit corridor where we pick the public up, or if we determine through our Civil Defense that sets our evacuation routes for a tsunami zone, and we file that paperwork or whatever, if we as a County make a decision about a road, even if it's private, would it kick that road up to a different level where we should be maybe maintaining it? But more importantly, would we qualify for Federal dollars; because there's all those pots of money, right, at the Federal level? Thank you. MR. PAUSE: So, I'm not sure specifically. As you say, there's a lot of money out there, and they're in various pots. I'm not sure specifically what we would draw for, but you bring up a really good point about setting priorities. And part of what we need to do, especially if we're looking at taking on additional work, is to be able to come up with something that's credible as far as what our priorities are. I would think that Civil Defense, and we've talked a little about evacuation routes today. I think Civil Defense has to have a seat at the table as well so that we factor in things like evacuation routes and emergency bypasses and such like that. So, I think that would all be part of the conversation. Mass Transit, evacuation, and then our just day-to-day maintenance work. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Anybody else who hasn't had a chance to speak. Okay, we'll go back to Council Member Kimball and then maybe we're going to try to wrap this up, knowing that we have many more discussions on this in our future. So, go ahead, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, wanted to just wholeheartedly get behind Council Member Lee Loy's comments about redesignating state land use as rural, as opposed to Ag. This discussion is relevant to that, but also the affordable housing. One of the reasons we can't build ohana in HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park) and whatnot, is because it's Ag not rural. So, this would be a huge shift; a Page 10 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 huge win for us, as well as potentially opening up pots of money. So, thank you for raising that in this context. I would also note to any of the listeners out there that this will not change the property taxes. That change would not change the property taxes. But the property taxes are actually why I wanted to speak again, because I had one thought about this that I just wanted to, and this is not a judgement thing, but wanted to be sensitive towards—which is, I know in my district, we're seeing quite a bit of gentrification. One of the things that keeps land affordable is that it's difficult to get to, and I just want to throw that out there, because I'm not sure to what extent, and obviously we have the cap for homeowners. But when we start doing these infrastructure improvements, especially if there's partial ownership by a homeowner, is that going to be an impact on the taxes, right? Because when you start making improvements on property, you lose that three percent cap, and I'm not sure if that would apply if it's a partial ownership in a road. So,just another thing to check with the Finance Department about that might interplay with all of this as well. Thank you Chair, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, would you like just a couple minutes to say anything else before we wrap up? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Chair. You know, I really appreciate all the comments today. Some of these things that were brought up by you folks, we actually are in the process of addressing. Others were new, and I think we can look at them. Again, it's going to be a pretty sweeping change is what we're going to come back with. So, I don't want to get too deep into it today, because of the amount of change that is going to come to this measure. I say that in keeping the intent the same in the bill but finding a way to incorporate the comments of Corporation Counsel into the bill we have in front of us; to come back with the same intent but meeting all the qualifications that we're needing to hit. As well as touching on the things that you brought up today. But I appreciate everyone's time, and thought, and openness to this. As Mr. Olsen said, "road, roads, roads, roads." I'm kind of a one-trick pony for my district. This is what has been crucial for us for the public safety element and emergency response. But I also want this to work for everyone's district because we have this in every single area on our island. This is the result of a huge amount of movement and development before we even became a County, and we're still dealing with the repercussions now. But we have to be able to take care of our people. Page 11 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 So, try to find a happy balance and go forward with this and make sure we make the departments happy and give them the abilities that they need to work through this. Keep our Corporation Counsel happy and not burden you and drive you insane. Then also just really saying mahalo to Leslie (Chow) from LRB who was absolutely crucial in getting this to this point today. So with all that, yes, thank you very much, Chair, unless you have anything you want to add? CHR. KAGIWADA: Just a couple things. Once again,just echoing my colleagues' sentiments. Thank you for bringing this important discussion forward. Clearly, there's lots and lots of things we can discuss. One thing I want to make sure we do is have our Director of Finance here to talk about, you know, some of the issues around financing potential things. I don't know at what step, but please keep that in mind when you're putting forth and inviting people, it'll be great to understand what the ramifications are around some of these decisions financially. With that, would you like to make a motion? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would. Chair, if you would give me the latitude, I'd like to make a motion to postpone Bill 63 to the September 5th, 2023, Committee Hearing? Motion to Postpone: Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder moved to postpone Bill 63 to September 5, 2023. Seconded by Mr. Inaba CHR. KAGIWADA: Can I get a vote on that. All those in favor? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 63 to September 5, 2023 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Clerk, you have nine "ayes" on the postponement. Page 12 PCHSW-2 August 15,2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:24 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright, we're adjourned. Thank you. Approved: ,� , 2I r3 Ms. Jenn Kagi adaY hair ( ate) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being JK/dt Page 13