Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCHSW 2023/11/14 (2022-2024) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being th 6 Session West Hawaiʻi Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi November 14, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and ORDER: Well-being was called to order at 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair Mr. Matt Kānealiʻi-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. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, 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 in support of Bill 82 Draft 2 (Comm. 496.3) and came forward when called by the Chair: Timothy Rowan, representing Black Sands Community POA and Malama O Puna. Greg DiBenedetto, representing Black Sands Subdivision. Gilbert Hauanio, representing Black Sands Subdivision. Carrie Kowalski, representing Black Sands Subdivision. Stephanie Bath. Eileen O’Hara, representing Malama O Puna. Glen Barfield. PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 Jim Hoffman, representing Hawaiian Acres Community Association. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Relley, and thank you to the testifiers for coming out today. Mr. Clerk, would you please read in Bill 82? BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 82: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9, SECTION 2-40 AND ADDS A NEW (Draft 2) ARTICLE TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO IMPROVING, GRADING, REPAIRING, OR CONSTRUCTION WORK UPON PRIVATE, NONDEDICATED, AND NON-SURRENDERED ROADS Allows for entities who are authorized to make legal decisions regarding private, nondedicated, and non-surrendered roads that are open to the general public and necessary for public transportation to request that the County improve, grade, repair, or perform other construction work upon such roads. Reference: Comm. 496.3 Intr. by: Mr. Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder Postponed: October 3 and 17, 2023 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 82, as amended, on first reading.) CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So, there’s already a motion on the floor but I’ll turn it over to the maker, Council Member Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much, Chair Kagiwada. It’s been a little while since we’ve looked at this. I was thinking about the length of time and kind of where we stand, so I’m just going to recap briefly. This is something we’ve been working on, I’ve been working on, for I mean seriously, years. This is one of the biggest issues I think I have in my district, and the more I’ve looked across the island, this is a big issue that we all address. The reality is, and I thought about this bill and why is it important. The more I thought about it every one of us, I’m sure, has been approached by someone who lives on a private road and has always heard the answer when they need help, “We no can,” and for a number of different reasons. Whatever they may be from different County Code, state law, whatever it might be, “We can’t help you.” That’s what this bill looks to address is, instead of saying no can, is that we can actually say to those folks when they come to us, “Yes, we can. We can sit down and talk, and we have created a process.” And I want to be on the Council that actually makes that first step in creating the process because it was taught by some of our previous Council Members. Page 2 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 We do a lot of things but in some cases, we create a process, and that process becomes a program implemented by a department, in this case DPW, Department of Public Works. And from there, that’s where the community meets what we do. So, that’s what this bill is. It creates a process by which members of our community can come in and say, “We need help.” And we can say, “Here’s the program.” This is how you apply; this is administered by the Department of Public Works. The Council passed this in “X” day, and you can use this to request some funding or request some assistance with your roads as long as you fall within the criteria and you’re doing work that falls within the guidelines of the program. And what the basis of what we’re talking about. It’s the most simplest I can lay that out. This is not an easy lift. This has taken years to come to a point where I can walk into our Corporation Counsel and Public Works with something to put in front of them. At that point, we amended it to the point of needing a new title and becoming a whole brand-new bill. And I think we may have some work ahead of us but the product that you have in front of you today, Council Members, is I think the best stepping stone I can give us to be able to offer a hand to our community and making sure that they can get to and from where they need to go. We started by addressing a 60-year-old problem that was handed to us post Subdivision Code, post Statehood, that we have all been struggling to find a way to help. This is the first step in saying, “We can.” And we hear this metaphor a lot, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. This becomes the first bite. And I’ve got to give props to the person who says that a lot, you know who you are. But I’m not going to read through this bill. Again, we’ve had twelve weeks of kind of sitting on this bill and looking it over. It’s changed a lot. I have an amendment, but I want to get right to questions. Then I’m hoping that those questions, if they’re the same from the last meeting that was a month ago, can be addressed in the amendment that I have, which I really took to heart whatever was said in that meeting, and addressed it in one combined amendment that addressed some of the concerns about feasibility, some of the concerns about how we implement the program, and there’s different aspects of what was brought up by both department, community, and Council Members. So, before I do the amendment though, I want to hear from the Council Members, thoughts. If there’s no thoughts, we can go to the amendment and then proceed from there. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Members, other comments, or questions, or thoughts before we get to—there’s actually two amendments for this bill. But yeah, a major one from the author, and then a minor one from Council Member Lee Loy. Yes, Council Member Evans. Page 3 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MS. EVANS: Okay. Director Pause, I have three conceptual questions, but not dealing with the amendment. First of all, I’m so happy we’re moving this forward. I really like this idea. It’s come so far. So, question, the way the wording is, it talks about private, non-dedicated and non-surrendered roads. My community has asked me, and I need to ensure them that if there’s an evacuation route that is created as an emergency escape route, like the one we had in Waikoloa, would that terminology of private, non-dedicated, non-surrendered, would that apply to asking the County to maintain something like an evacuation route? Or is there another way to make sure that our emergency roads and routes are taken care of? (Note: At this time, Director of Public Works Stephen Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Hi. Stephen Pause, Director of Public Works. The first part of that question felt more like a legal question. But you’re aware that we do, under some form of agreement, maintain emergency evacuation routes specifically for Waikoloa. So, I wouldn’t see why we couldn’t come to agreements and arrangements to do something similar in other communities. MS. EVANS: So, you don’t need a process or anything that you can just do that now that this does not—because there—my community, looking at this legislation, just want to make sure that evacuation routes, emergency routes, would be included. If the community requests from you, for example, instead of it being gravel, would you maybe please pave better? You know, that’s the scenario we had in Waikoloa. MR. PAUSE: So, I don’t recall specifically, but there are eligibility criteria. Is that potentially one of the eligible—I think there were 11 total. CHR. KAGIWADA: To the author, do you have an answer for that? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I think I can help a little bit. Mr. Pause touched on it. MR. PAUSE: Thank you. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I think the question is, would this bill push them out of being applicable? Is that—? MS. EVANS: They want to request. They love the bill. They just want to make sure it applies when they request for their emergency evacuation route, which, you know, could be substandard because of flooding or earthquake, or whatever. Would they have to request—I mean, is it somewhere—I mean, would this cover it? That was the bigger question, right. Page 4 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Okay. My response to that, and Director, if you feel I’m wrong, please say so. But as long as they meet the criteria laid out, because this is specific to private, non-dedicated, non-surrendered roads. So, as long as it was one of those road types and not something else, if it was a road in limbo, an old government road, those are separate and very specifically done so, because combining the two terms gets problematic. So, as long as your emergency evacuation route falls under this program, then they can use this program. MS. EVANS: Is Waikoloa then private? Well, it wasn’t dedicated, right, it was never dedicated to the County. MR. PAUSE: No. It’s actually a bit more convoluted than that, Council Member Evans. There was an EA (Environmental Assessment) done and there was supposed to be easements given to the county and they actually were never given. So, that’s a bit more convoluted and it’s an issue that we’ve recently become aware of and that we’re working on. That may not be a good example, but I guess just to kind of cover it with a broad brush, I believe the intent of this bill is to address issues that are for the greater good. So somehow, I have to think that evacuation routes in addition to mass transit routes and routes serving parks, you know, that would fall somehow within, it would have to fall within this. I don’t know that there’s a specific eligibility criterion that addresses that. But I think if we looked at it, we’d be able to find it. MS. EVANS: So, it wouldn’t fall under this piece of legislation. MR. PAUSE: I’m sorry, it would or would not? MS. EVANS: Would it? Would it fall under this? MR. PAUSE: I just looked at this real quickly and I didn’t see a specific criterion, but I think if we were to read this, it seems to me it would fall. MS. EVANS: Okay. Well, I think that’s important because my community wants to (inaudible) it. That’s the question that I’m getting on this. The other thing is, in the purpose clause there was a comment about it doesn’t obligate the county to improve, grade, repair or do construction work in the future. And that’s in the purpose clause, but when I look into the actual section language, I’m not finding that. So, no language like this does not imply the duty of the county to maintain or do anything in the future. I’m not seeing anything in the actual— you say it in “Purpose,” but you don’t say it in language embedded in the section. So, just question mark. I want to make sure it’s there. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. Chair, can I? Page 5 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 CHR. KAGIWADA: Yeah. I think this is to the maker, go ahead. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, what is the question? MS. EVANS: Okay. So, in the “Purpose” clause it comments on the last paragraph, the last sentence, it says it will not “obligate the county to improve, grade, repair, or do construction work upon the subject road in the future” and that’s in “Purpose.” And what I’m saying is, in the section, in the actual language of the bill, I’m not sure I’m seeing that. And so, I’m wondering if there should be language like, you know, whatever work is done does not imply the duty to maintain it or do any future work. I’m just wondering if it’s in—it’s in the purpose but is it in the actual content? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Yes. It is. I mean, basically to summarize this last section of the purpose paragraph—and thank you, Chair, for the latitude. CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Where the last section of this, the purpose clause, is to not obligate the county to do future work in, and that is actually done later on in the bill, which is basically talking about maintenance, liability, control. And in (Section) 14-26-8, talks about control and liability, and I mean it’s pretty clear about stating the last one; Number (5), it says “Nothing contained in this article and no action undertaken pursuant to this article shall be construed as the County,” doing (number) one through five. (One) taking control of a subject road; (2) assuming responsibility to improve a subject road, (3) making warranties about safety, (4) adopting said road, or (5) agreeing to approve or undertake future work pursuant to this article. That was a very important clause that was called out by the department and Corporation Counsel to assure that we do the work, and we can help, but we also don’t take liability for that work. MS. EVANS: Okay. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Or require us to do more work in the future, if that’s helpful. MS. EVANS: Okay. And then the last question. There’s a comment about, you as the Director, putting together written approvals and agreements. Given that this is a process, I guess this would be for Corporation Counsel in a way. But if you’re given latitude to written approval and agreement, do we need to have any side bars, any criteria, anything more specific than that broad language so that it’s applied more uniformly from road to road to road, or do we want it wide open? Page 6 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 CHR. KAGIWADA: Corporation Counsel Judge Strance, thank you for weighing in. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. As I understand your question, Council Member Evans, you’re asking whether the term agreement to be further defined in this statute. And I would say, no. You know, there are lots of provisions within the Hawaiʻi County Code and Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes that permit government to enter into agreements without spelling out the exact terms of the agreement, and we had some discussions about that since the last hearing. There’s some provisions that are standard in, you know, county and government contracts we don’t have to have in the statute. It will just come down to, at the time that the director is negotiating and entering into an agreement with the parties, that those agreements would be subject to further review and comment as we do for almost every contract that is approved in the county. So, it would just put it on the same path as any other contract so I would say no. MS. EVANS: Okay. I was thinking along the line of just maybe a check and balance like subject to, you know, fiscal note by the Director of Finance, or whatever. I mean, basically it’s just a blank. You know, he can just agree, approval and agreement. MS. STRANCE: Contracts don’t work that way in the county because the Director cannot specifically sign a contract. The contract would have to be signed by the Mayor, and the contract process within the county requires multi- departmental review, including a final review by our office as to approve as to form a legality. And so, that would include some sort of certification by the Department of Finance that there are funds available for the project, for example. And so, just the process of contracting in the county would never allow or should never allow a department head to enter into a specific contract, and that’s by County Charter. There’s a couple of limitations to that where the agency has quasi-federal agency relationships, but that would not be the case as to an approval that’s specifically set out in County Code. MS. EVANS: Okay. Well, I think it’s really important. So, there’s no need for a cross reference, no statement as—about County Code or any other code that would apply. I mean, if we can be silent on it, that’s great. I just think that the only reason I bring it up is just to make sure that we’re all comfortable, that, you know, whatever is negotiating there will be a process following that to, you know, guarantee it’s in alignment with whatever other code requirements. Page 7 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MS. STRANCE: Understood. I don’t think that you would require or need that level of detail in a County ordinance as a general statement. I’m not sure that I would recommend it because hopefully, we don’t have to come back and request amendments to the County Code if we are changing our standard terms of contract. MS. EVANS: Alright. Okay. Alright. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Thank you, Council Member Evans. Anybody else to the main motion? Yes, Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask about roads in limbo. A couple of testifiers mentioned it. And so, I know that this does not cover roads in limbo, but how would this program and the current roads in limbo program—I don’t know if it’s a program, but there’s language that allows sort of a similar process of asking to have roads in limbo repair work done and their requirements for that. MR. PAUSE: So, I believe that the current program is that Public Works will receive your request and provide materials to allow a third party to perform those repairs. Typically, it’s gravel or coal plain mix, or something that folks can use to do repairs to the road. But that’s the extent of it, is that we provide the materials, but we don’t actually provide people or equipment who actually do the work on the roads in limbo. MS. GALIMBA: Great. I guess my question is, and I don’t know all of the roads in limbo around the island, but I think some of them have pretty substantial use, such that that they would fall into the category of be having substantial public benefit. And I’m just wondering if they are roads in limbo because they are government roads that just no government wants to accept. So, I kind of see them as potentially having a higher priority because they are somewhat government related. And I just wanted your thoughts on that, like are we then potentially making something that might justify a higher priority a lower priority? MR. PAUSE: So, I’ve never mastered the definition of roads in limbo and the history behind it. I inherited a program, again, that is based on providing materials to folks who want, you know, who live on a road in limbo and who want to do those repairs. There are other situations that have come to my attention that we’ve been put into a place where, as you’ve pointed out, the greater need, the greater good, we don’t obviously have limitless funding and resources, but there have been occasions where a road serves as a potentially primary form of egress or a bypass road. I can’t think of the one, I think it’s down in your area. It’s the road mauka (mountainside) for when the main highway floods. Technically, it’s a road in limbo but it serves the greater good, Page 8 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 and it doesn’t help anybody if the main road is flooded and the only way you can get around it is in a four-wheel drive. So, we have taken some steps to make some improvements in situations like that. But again, it’s a bit of a judgement call. On the other hand, I think you’ve heard me say this before, it ultimately serves the community in a way that is necessary. MS. GALIMBA: Alright. Thanks. I guess there’s also some fairly major roads in limbo in Puna, yeah. And so, I think that’s maybe not relevant at this moment but perhaps something to be thought through. MR. PAUSE: Council Member Kierkiewicz and I have had some conversations about a particular road down there. And again, you know, it becomes a judgement call. We’re limited in terms of our resources, but at some times you look at situations and it just hits you in the head and it says, you know what, we really need to do something to keep it up to a minimum standard just to allow people to come and go, especially in circumstances where it’s the only way to get out if the main road is so— MS. GALIMBA: One more question. So, would you say that this is the best way to address issues that it’s attempting to address in your opinion? MR. PAUSE: I’m going to sound like a politician. I won’t give you an answer. The concerns, no offense to the politicians here, I didn’t mean it like that. Thank you, which I am as well. So, I think the challenges that come with this or any bill like it still comes down to, how do you set priorities? How do you fund it? How do you properly resource it? Just generally speaking, you know, you look at this—obviously, the bill is intended to help the greater good. You don’t want to reward people who maybe should’ve been taking care of things but didn’t. But at the end of the day, it comes down to who’s using the roads, what is, you know, the public purpose. So, those are the challenges that I see. You know, is this the best we could do? Well, I think I heard people say it’s a really good start. You know, we’ve set up process and we’ve set up eligibility criteria. So, from my standpoint it at least provides, I don’t know, I hate to say guardrails, right, because it’s highways but gold posts, right, it provides limits and allows us to at least see how this can go. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Thank you, Council Member Galimba. And I think that was a pretty good political answer. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I wasn’t going to do this, but I think I’ve got to just start by saying that the United States is the only country in the world that actually has a negative connotation associated with politicians. In other parts of Page 9 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 the world, it’s understood that being able to handle politics and argue for your ideas and convince people of your position is actually a beneficial trait. And so, some of us are proudly in these seats up here. First statement I want to make is in regard to something Council Member Galimba said with respect to the roads in limbo and prioritization. You know, that is a lot of the calls I got about this bill, from folks in my district, was in particular, does this, you know, work for roads in limbo? No, it’s not. It’s for private roads. Well, we want to see something for that too. And so, I think, you know, as a body, that’s something I think a lot of us share an interest in pursuing. I think Council Member Kierkiewicz did a really good job last time just kind of framing managing expectations. You know, I heard a lot of the folks testifying today, very supportive, wanting to get their applications in, or their requests in right away. I want to be clear that we’ve set up a framework, and I think it’s a good starting place, but that funding piece and the resources piece, is like a little bit further down the road. No pun intended. You know, that’s going to be key here because we can’t use, for example, highways funds on private roadways. So, that’s not a pot available for us to use. And that said, this is perhaps a very popular thing to say, you know, Director, you’ve mentioned we have a thousand miles of roadway that is our, that we are responsible to goalie, maintain, we’re adding the potential for these other roadways. There’s also all of the roads in limbo, something like 400 additional miles, I think. We are going to have to pay for that somehow. And so, it should be noted by the public that if we’re going to start adopting all of these programs and we want to make headway, we’re going to need more staff, we’re going to need more equipment, we’re going to need more materials, and we’re going to need to find money for it. And it’s not just all going to come down through grants. So, I want to put that expectation out there. One of the reasons that property values are low in some of these areas, and I tell this to my constituents that live on roads in limbo, one of the reasons your property values are lower than in other places where are good roads is because of your road. I mean, market value of my home actually went up when we paved the road. It’s a private road. All the neighbors got together, we bought some pavement and hired somebody to do it, and the value of my property went up by $30,000. I mean, that’s how big the road improvement was on the market value of my home. So, just want to make sure that that’s something that’s laid some groundwork out there, folks. If we say we need to increase rates or something a little bit to cover all of these programs, you know, that’s a consequence of creating these new programs. To the maker, I know we have an amendment coming. I think I checked everywhere that you haven’t addressed these but did want to add, there’s the Page 10 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 component in there about the financial ability. I think it was criteria number 10, or will be 10, “The current owners have lacked the financial resources or ability to secure authority to improve, grade. . .” that one. I still want a little bit of wording about there not having been negligence or a failure to, you know, for example, if it’s an HOA (Home Owners Association) and they’re supposed to be collecting dues for road maintenance. That isn’t really included in that at this point. I don’t want to be paying for things where somebody else had kuleana (responsibility) to do something and they didn’t do it from a financial standpoint. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. I can, Chair. Can I answer this? CHR. KAGIWADA: Yes. Go ahead. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: This is on the amendment, or this is in the bill? MS. KIMBALL: This is in the bill. I believe it’s number ten in the current list of eligibility in Section 14-26-4. It just has to do with the financial resources. So, you know, in some cases there are homeowner associations or other groups that are supposed to have road kuleana. If they haven’t been doing it because of their own negligence or failure to follow their own rules or requirements, then I don’t want us to be paying for it. The other question I had was with regard to the annual list. And, you know, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think like PONC (Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Conservation Preservation) is an example, if I could have just two more minutes? CHR. KAGIWADA: Yeah, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Year-to-year those lists don’t accumulate, they just—new list each year, right? And so, some clarification about how prioritization would happen from year to year. Do things stay on the list forever? Do the priorities kind of get reevaluated as a whole every time? You know what I’m saying? So, kind of want some clarification around that process. And then real quick minor amendment in (Section) 14-26-7, the discontinuance section, “no longer meets all criteria set forth . . .” but then also I think it needs to just mention “or is no longer feasible” because you’ve kind of broken this out into two things: criteria, feasibility. And so, if it doesn’t meet either of those from before then I think that would be a reason for discontinuation. I apologize if those were included in the forthcoming amendment, but I didn’t see them in there. Thank you. Page 11 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 CHR. KAGIWADA: Is there anybody else that wants to speak on the main motion before we go to the amendment? Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I absolutely support this measure. I mean, government played a pretty significant role in creating these substandard subdivisions. And so, it’s about time that we find a way forward to implement solutions to improve quality of life. I remember Council Member Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder saying that this ordinance was inspired by other ordinances that other counties in our state had adopted. And so, a question I had at the first committee hearing was around the experience other counties had in implementing their versions of this bill. So, just trying to understand the mechanics of how it actually worked and if there are lessons there that we can apply to our situation. CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I heard your question. It was actually a very good question. I reached out to Oʻahu, and I spoke to the director, I have to find his name. I’ll get it to you. And I spoke to him, I was hesitant because I was wondering, does he even know what I’m going to talk about? He had been in this position for three to six months, so, he’s new. And he tells me, because I wasn’t expecting this answer. He tells me, “Yes, I am very aware of that section in the State Code. Yes, I am aware of that section in our County Code, and we use it frequently.” I was actually blown away by his answer. So, thank you for asking the question. Yes, as far as Oʻahu, City and County, they’re aware of the section of the Code and they do find it amendable, and they like it, they’re not making any changes to it, and it’s useful when they have a situation arise where they have a privately maintained road in a community that’s suffering, and they need to help. So, I hope that has some assistance. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. That’s a very thematic response. I’m looking for more concrete examples of an actual private road where the community has actually gone through a process of working with a county department to effectuate a positive change. So, if we could get concrete examples, I’m just curious to know how they’ve implemented their programs and if there’s anything that we can learn there. I’m still stuck on how we’re going to fund this because I think Director Pause knows, there are many county roads that I’m trying to get improvements on using the funds that we do have. And so, again, understanding our resource constraints and figuring out how we fund this program in perpetuity because there are going to be a lot of requests that can come forward. I definitely anticipate that. Page 12 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 Council Member Kimball brought up HOA fees. I pay those. Now I feel like I’m having to pay twice for work that an owner’s association should be doing. So, I would want there to be some resolution so I’m not feeling like I’m having to pay twice for the same kind of work that should be taken care of by a private entity. One of the questions I had is in regard to the comments that are being solicited from the different county agencies, and right now comments are being requested from Civil Defense, Fire, Mass Transit, and Planning. I also wonder if we might add Police to that list because our officers are often having to respond to calls for service and using these roads. And then, I also wonder if Environmental Management might also be requested comments from. And I only say that because very recently a wastewater treatment feasibility study was done for Puna, and one is actually being done for all of Hawaiʻi Island. And so, what I’m trying to do is I’m trying to measure twice, cut once, right. If there is road improvement work that has to happen because of other infrastructure improvements, it just makes sense to get on the same page and coordinate all that. I’m also curious about the kinds of road standards we are going to be adhering to when we make a commitment to improvements because there’s the county dedicatable standards, but I don’t know if that’s applicable in every situation where road improvement is being requested. Sorry, I’m throwing a lot at you, Director. I don’t know if you want to answer now or like at another meeting. MR. PAUSE: I was listening. I didn’t think I had to answer. All valid points. The road standards, I think we had this discussion this morning when we were talking about Old Coast Guard Road. There’s got to be a sweet spot, right. Yes, we have standards for new subdivisions and dedicatable roads, and everything that goes with that. And then you have situations where you just need to meet a minimal level of safety, and what does that look like. So, it’s a fair question. I don’t think I can answer that, but I do think it begs an answer that is just, you know, clear common sense. I mean, the reason we’re talking about doing this is we want to improve a situation that is maybe not safe or it’s substandard. So, what does that look like? You know, do we need to put 50-feet wide paving with shoulders and flashing lights and speed humps? No. We need to set some level of expectation that what is done is going to improve a situation that needs to be improved. So, all your questions are fair. I think soliciting comments especially, you know, one of the things that we brought this up a little bit earlier is the question about evacuation routes. I think I’ve heard that in every district that I’ve traveled. So, it’s a common theme. You know, should that be our highest priority and once we go in once to fix a Page 13 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 road to make it passable in the event of an evacuation, you know, do we put that on a regular list for maintaining without having to go back through the eligibility criteria? So, all valid points. Food for thought. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, thank you. And, you know, Council Member Kimball touched on this. I had brought it up during a first committee hearing on the bill, was how long is this list good for, and at what point does it go stale? Is there a new list of priorities every year? Does it function like PONC, or does it function similar to our Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list? I don’t know if the introducer has ideas or if this is something that is still being sort of considered by Public Works. MR. PAUSE: I don’t know what the intent was. I would just weigh in from my perspective that once you’re on the list, you’re on the list, and you go through some level of prioritization. It’s no different than when we look at CIP. What do we have the capacity to do? What is the cost to do that work? And we, you know, plug away and start with priority one, two, three, and go down based on resources, availability, funds, et cetera. And then a bunch more would come in for the next year, and I don’t know that you would displace and just throw the other ones away. You would just put it all in the mix and reprioritize. That would be the way that I would look at it from a project standpoint. But I’m not sure what the makers intent was. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could? CHR. KAGIWADA: Sure. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: To the intent, this was an interesting part of the discussion with the department, and LRB (Legislative Research Branch), and Corporation Counsel trying to figure out how we present information to the Council so that we can see what’s going on, how we make sure that the community can track where they are, and then also how to incorporate funding levels and how we’re going to fund, and really leaning in on the department. And I appreciate your answer because that’s about as best as you probably can right now. Without actually having this program and going through it, how do we visualize the people coming in to request, so the requestors, and how much funding we have, and where that’s going to get us, and having some kind of a list to show this is who’s on the list, this is the project, this is the amount of funding, and we’re going to get to one and two this year. That’s all the funding that we have or, “Hey, we got extra funding so we’re getting to one, two, three, four, five.” But the questions raised today, which are good is, does this list persist? Does this list become an ongoing list that we address every year? I feel like that’s Page 14 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 going to need to be worked on as we develop this program. If we can figure it out now, then that’s great. But it really is an interesting question because there’s so many different pieces we’re linking together at one time and really relying on the department, the director, to get us good information so that we can also feel good and the community can feel good about what’s being done with public funds. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Corporation Counsel, Director Pause, in the draft ordinance, it talks about notifying the requestor of the director’s determination. Is this in any way—can it be interpreted as like a commitment, in your mind? One thing that kind of comes to mind is OHCD (Office of Housing and Community Development) and Section-8 vouchers, and you qualify, you’re eligible, there’s only so many vouchers, right? There’s only so much money to pave roads, and now you’re on the wait list until some opportunity opens up. MS. STRANCE: I guess first, that would be part of our job to make sure that that’s not the case in terms of the language of any notification that would go out. So, as I’m reading the bill, there’s a process of application, and then there’s a requirement of a response to the application, and at some point, the application is complete. So, you know, in my view that means that at that point, the applicants don’t need to submit anything further, and it’s within the hands of the department. And so, the eligibility is a much different step from the commitment because the commitment would come through some sort of contract or some other documentation that would demonstrate that the work would go forward. And you know, if there’s going to be an expenditure of county funds, you know, there would be processes that would—it would be going through as part of the budgeting process. So, all of those document thresholds would have to take place before there would be anything that would require the county—and there may not, if there’s not a contract, there’s just like you’re number five on the list, you know, then the notice is going to be we just finished number four, we’ll be in your neighborhood next week kind of thing. So, I don’t think we’ve worked out, you know, all of those particular pieces. But they would need to be worked out and they would be separate and apart from the eligibility assessment. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Director, do you have sufficient staffing to carry out this program? MR. PAUSE: No. I brought up a few occasions that the resources necessary to do the work are a concern. We’re doing what we do now. We’ve certainly gotten better at doing more paving. Actually, you’ll be happy to see in the next budget we’re going to ask for another paver. But the resources are a concern. We’ve got really good people but there’s a lot of pressure to just keep up with what we have. I’ll use an example, it’s a bit more labor intensive to mow and cut weeds on roadsides than it used to be. Yeah, so it’s a concern but, you know, on Page 15 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 the other side of it, we always figure out a way to make things work. So, I don’t want to give a completely negative connotation that, you know, it’s impossible. On the other hand, it’ll be a challenge and we’ll have to manage that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I think at some point, you know, if this moves to Council, we still need to see the fiscal impact statement on this ordinance, and sort of the necessary resources to carry this program out. The final question I have is related to what if someone wants to appeal the determination made by the Director? An entity goes through the process, the department determines, you know what, it meets the criteria, it’s feasible, what not. But there are folks that live on that road that do not want to see the improvement. And I think that is a legitimate point because some folks that I’ve talked to, very few, but some that I’ve talked to have said, “Well, I moved to Puna specifically living here because I don’t want to be bothered.” And they do worry about improvements attracting more folks traversing, you know, their neighborhood. So, I just wonder if some kind of public notification or whatever process can be implemented so that if a road improvement was going to happen folks on that street are notified that there is some kind of public form or appeals process, I don’t know. But I do think that we have to take into consideration, you know, all viewpoints on this. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could do a quick response. CHR. KAGIWADA: Let’s let Corporation Counsel—looks like she has something to say, and then we’ll let you drop in really quickly. MS. STRANCE: You go right ahead. I was just going to say that’s a good idea and something that we need to think about. CHR. KAGIWADA: Could you speak up a little? MS. STRANCE: Good idea. Something to think about. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. MR. PAUSE: And my response also would be, I think we’re getting better at working with the communities and letting them know what we’re doing. A recent one that came to mind is we were down in Pāhala talking about work that needed to be done in a whole bunch of folks’ backyards for part of the drainage channel clearing, and we got people out. I think the lesson I learned is next time to bring snacks, we might be able to attract more people. But then, failing at that, Neil (Azevedo) guys went door to door and knocked on doors. So, there’s an opportunity, as you said, to come up with some way to effectively Page 16 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 communicate to the neighborhood. But I would tell you that I would completely agree that it’s necessary. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Did you want to add something? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I do actually. And I think this is just to the body. In regard to the statement, and this really is about expectation from the community, but also to the last question that was asked. The work being done is described in Section 14-26-5, and that really does clearly state we’re not coming in to pave a two-lane road into a community. We’re just helping to keep the road up; patch, provide gravel, coral for coral, gravel for gravel. And this is laid out extremely clearly, and again, based on the other county’s code already. So, I just wanted to lend that to the body. This isn’t going to come in and pave a two-lane highway down someone’s front yard. This is designed to help the folks in the community who can’t afford it, who meet the criteria, have somebody else to lean on and say, “Hey, we can’t keep up. Can you help us just lay down some gravel or come fix some of these potholes so that we can get better response from first responders?” Okay. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak to the main motion that hasn’t had a chance to speak yet? Did you want to speak again, Council Member Evans? MS. EVANS: I have one question. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. MS. EVANS: I know we keep coming back to the funding of this and what resources might be available, and I’m just going to throw it out there to the maker. If you’d like to consider that maybe we could form a PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) group, thinking that maybe we should, I think we should pass it, they should pass it just knowing that we’ve got to, you know, I mean with the comments today. But I think we’re close to passing it. But maybe we need to take the next step knowing that funding is going to be the issue and create a PIG group of a few of us that can go talk to our congressional delegation, our state representatives, and look at them about how the statehood and how things were done before we became a state. There is some public good in this, and I think we form a group, and we go out there and try to get funding. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thanks. Just a couple comments then, before we move on to the amendments. To the maker, so under (Section) 14-26-6, this is the process piece. When I look at this it looks like (b) (1), (2), and (3), the director shall, the director shall, the director shall. Does that mean that all of those things, if somebody puts in a request, that automatically all those things will be done? Or in “(1) the director shall determine whether the subject road proposed for Page 17 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 consideration satisfies eligibility. . ..” Could the director look at something and immediately say, “You know what, this isn’t one we should spend our time on. It really doesn’t need it, so I don’t need to do these other things”? Because it’s not clear to me whether all these things must be done if there’s a request or if we can stop at (b)(1) if it doesn’t make any sense to the director. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. In response, what section are you looking at? CHR. KAGIWADA: I’m in the process, (Section) 14-26-6. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Which number or which letter? CHR. KAGIWADA: B. Under (b), the director shall process requests. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: You’re looking at the amendment or the bill? CHR. KAGIWADA: No. I’m looking at the original. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: B as in boy? CHR. KAGIWADA: Yeah. Sorry, I am looking at the amendment. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I’d like to discuss the amendment, but I think we’ve got to put it on the floor first. CHR. KAGIWADA: I’m sorry. No, it’s here. It’s in the original. (Section) 14-26-6, it’s (b), (c), and (d), in the original. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, (b), (c), and (d). CHR. KAGIWADA: Are we saying somebody puts in a request and all three of these, (b), (c), and (d), are required to be done if somebody puts in a request, or are we saying that at (b), the director may look at it and say this is not reasonable, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on this, don’t need to go to all the departments and ask about it, and can it stop there if it doesn’t seem to have legs? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sure. Yeah. That’s a big answer. Give me a second. So, (b) talks about eligibility criteria, and we are very careful with an eligibility criteria. And, Director, please step in if you feel the need, okay? Eligibility criteria is to make sure the roads coming in are eligible. CHR. KAGIWADA: Yeah. Page 18 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Step one. So, that’s important because if they’re not eligible, they shouldn’t be on this list, they shouldn’t be looked at because either they’re not private, they’re owned by an entity, they’re just not going to meet the criteria. So, yeah, at that point, bye-bye. And then (c) we were talking about agency discussion, inter-agency discussion within the county. And then also trying to highlight and prioritize different roads that meet different goals for our county. So, this first one, (1), that’s our Subdivision Code. CHR. KAGIWADA: Understood. But my question is, if at the point the requestor goes to (b), and the director looks at it and says, “You know what, this is not, it won’t meet, or it doesn’t meet those eligibility—” does it stop there at (b), or does it still have to go to—because it says the director shall, the director shall, the director shall. So, my concern is that we’re saying that regardless of the request, even if it doesn’t make much sense at all, the director has to do (b), (c), and (d) before deciding that this is not—and I’m concerned about workload. I’m concerned about, you know, things like that. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: My—I’d say this in a very simple response. The intent here was to make sure that we’re laying out exactly how this process works, making it clear for the director and for the public who is coming in to request, and making sure that we’re following a pretty tight process and a timeline because a lot of times we see no timeline. So, they could come in and apply and Steve is busy, and no one’s paying attention and two years go by. So, we need to have a deadline and be specific, but I’ve also learned that there’s also a little room for openness so that the department can create the program and not be stuck to exactly what we wrote and have some ability to teeter totter back and forth on different lines. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. MR. PAUSE: I think your question is, if it doesn’t meet the criteria by the first one, then we don’t mess with— CHR. KAGIWADA: We don’t have to go to (c), right? MR. PAUSE: Correct. CHR. KAGIWADA: I don’t want to waste the time if we’re not— MR. PAUSE: Yeah, because the first one is the important one. It says, does it meet the eligibility criteria and I think there were eleven of them spelled out, and if it doesn’t meet one of them, I don’t know that you would go on. Page 19 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. It wasn’t completely clear to me that that’s the case because it’s not—(c) and (d), at least here, are not subheadings under (b), they’re standalone pieces. So, I just want to make sure that the intent of the maker and the understanding of the department and everybody else here is the same as what is actually being said here because a constituent can come back and say, “Look, I applied, and you are supposed to do all these things before telling me no.” Council Member Inaba, did you—? MR. PAUSE: That’s correct. And again, I think there’s, well I have some confusion, but that’s just me. Under item (b) you’re talking about numbers (1), (2), and (3), so if you don’t pass the criteria for number (1), then (2) and (3)— there’s some challenges I think, the new and the old with the— CHR. KAGIWADA: I think you’re looking at the amendment and I was looking at the original and that’s maybe some of the different—the numbering got changed. So, maybe it’s taken care of in the amendment. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I would say simply, I think we tried to address this in the amendment, but until we’re there, I don’t want to—I don’t want it to get confusing. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Yes. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, just following up on what you’re talking about. I think because it’s a process, it will go if then so there’s a—it has to meet (b) to go to (c). And with that, I think we can go to the amendment. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. As long as that’s clear with everybody. Do you have something, Council Member Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I do. Because your point is well made that a “shall” is a “shall” in the law, and it means it this shall be done by the director. You have three steps here. One is conditional upon the other, and so we do need to fix this language to say that, okay, if (a) is met, then (b) can happen. If (b) is met, then (c) can happen. Because right now, it is a “shall”, and all three must happen regardless of whether or not it fails one of those tests. So, thank you for bringing that up, and I hope that clarifies what at issue here for the maker. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I’ll just double check with Corporation Counsel. Do you agree that we should maybe double check that, the way it’s laid out? MS. STRANCE: If the intention is you don’t pass go unless you meet the requirements of the prior step, then I understand that, and we may need to clarify the language if the intention is that each of the steps be satisfied before a Page 20 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 determination is made, then as written, it’s probably okay. But that’s something that I think we can work out in an amendment process if that’s intent, or that’s the intention is clear. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Okay. I hope we just, yeah, whatever you meant to say, but if it’s very clear I think that would be good. Would you like to move on to the amendment? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Yes. Motion to Amend: Mr. Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder moved to amend Bill 82, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 496.22. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so this amendment was brought up two meetings ago, and this was in response to discussion at that meeting. I would like everybody to look this over, and again, we’ve had this, this has been submitted for about a month. I know this did try and go through and take care of a few issues that were brought up. One being feasibility, and really defining and laying out feasibility at the request of Council Member Kierkiewicz. Another being the complete removal of Section (k), which is basically just removing this “council shall authorize the proposed work.” So, this makes this more of a departmental driven program. And, you know, back and forth on that but ultimately, if we can remove some of the bureaucracy and create more fluid movement then we’re creating a more fluid program and something that’s less prohibitive. There is a lot of changes here. And I think, Ms. Kagiwada, to your point, we’ve realized, and I don’t know if you said this in a previous meeting, but it was a little bit funky the way that we had laid out the process. And I think this amendment actually does begin to touch on laying out Section 14-26-6, (a), (b), and then going (1), (2), (3), (4). So, you have a linear process that can be followed by an applicant making sure it doesn’t just turn into a floating process that has no finish and no start, which you really did detail. So, I’m hoping that everyone has read this already, understands the content, sees what it’s doing to the original bill. And again, just leaning on what I’ve said already, this is the result of all of our work to date and has been substantial. So, appreciate your time in looking this over. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: On the amendment. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Yes, I do support most of the amendments that are contained in the communication. I can’t support this though because I said at the Page 21 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 last hearing that I need signage and markings to be part of the improvements that are allowed for this bill. There are roads in my district that the pavement is okay but there’s no striping. And I understand that it might be the department’s stance that we don’t want to have signage and marking be a part of it. Based on what I’m reading, too, I’m concerned that if signage was to be removed due to repairs that are allowed under this bill or even pavement is put down over painting that was on a road, this language contained in (Section) 14-26-5, it’s number (2) in the amendment, that would prevent us from repainting the road or reinstalling any type of signage. So, that’s my only concern here. And I think going back to the definition that’s contained on just the general bill as to what construction or maintenance is considered, or how we’re defining that. I don’t want to limit us to not be able to do those striping activities and the installation of signs. So, if this section, if umber (2) was not to be included, I could support the amendment because I think it clears up a lot of what we’ve been talking about. But that’s what I would need to support it. I do support the bill as a whole, but I need it to work for the needs of my district as well. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Anybody else on the amendment? Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Yes, on the amendment. I was a little caught off guard with the restriction on signs, marking, and lighting being not something that would be supported by this bill because that’s something I specifically asked for at the first committee hearing. I often think that lighting for instance, illuminating the potholes that may exist on a road that has yet to be improved helps with public safety. And so, I would need this to be resolved before I could support the amendment. I also think that there is a lot of validity in the discussion you had earlier about what the director shall be doing to implement this measure. And so, I think we can clean up that section. And I’d also like to see the inclusion of other county agencies like Police and Environmental Management. What also came to mind was state historic preservation. I don’t know if that’s something we can mandate here but I think about a couple of situations in HPP where there have been requests to do road improvement to the owner’s association, and some folks are saying no because there are cultural resources there. So, I think that is also a consideration that has to be at least mentioned and acknowledged in this bill. And also, as part of the amendment, I think being very clear about the road standard, that it doesn’t have to necessarily be up to county dedicable standards, but as the director said, something that’s common sense. I will point out that’s it’s not so common though. Page 22 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 And if we could kind of clean up the annual list that is provided to the Council and at least begin to flush out some ideas around, is this a list in perpetuity? How is it going to be prioritized year over year? I think that will help to, again, manage some of the expectations that members have in the community around the bill. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. I just want to note our time right now. We are 25 minutes past the time that the last committee was supposed to start today. So, I want to do a quick check in. Can we kind of quickly maybe wrap up here or are we going to need quite a bit more time? Because I think we might need to do an adjustment. How are people feeling? It sounded to me like there are at least a couple people that are not ready for this amendment yet. So, I don’t know if you want to consider withdrawing it and working on it or what would you like to do? Well, let me just ask, is there something and then I’ll move. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Who are you asking? CHR. KAGIWADA: I’m asking you as the maker. Is that something you would consider? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Okay. CHR. KAGIWADA: Or what? Where are you right now feeling things? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I’m okay withdrawing this amendment and then working on it with the department. There’s been some comments made today, and I would like, before we move off of this amendment though, I would like, in response to the questions— CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Wait, wait. If we’re going to keep going, I’m going to let Council Member Kimball quickly go. I just want to do a quick check in. We’ll go with Council Member Kimball, and then maybe you, and then try to wrap up since it seems like we’ll be back here again, okay. If that’s okay with everybody? People feeling okay with that? MS. KIMBALL: You’re the Chair. You get to tell us what to do. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Go ahead, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. So, real quickly, my recollection is the same as Council Member Kierkiewicz, and Inaba that we had actually wanted the signage marking and lighting included as possible roadwork. And then I just wanted to lend my support for the amendment’s removal of (k), which was the suggestion that the Council would be engaged through an authorization process. I still think the more robust, and we are inching slowly by slowly towards that, we make the Page 23 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 rest of this, there is less and less a need for that. And I like just having a really clear process with guidelines that the department has in place. And then just to Council Member Kierkiewicz’s point, and quick question to Corporation Counsel because I’m not sure if it’s necessary or not. But because this involves a decision by the director and the Appeals Board is specifically assigned to be the place where anyone would disagree with the decision by the director, is it presumed that if there was a disagreement that would be the course of action or do we need to put the language in there to say, should somebody have a disagreement with the decision of the director, that’s the process? CHR. KAGIWADA: Corporation Counsel, go ahead. MS. STRANCE: My suggestion is that we add language that it will be in the sole discretion of the director and that this is not an administrative process. Otherwise, you’re taking authority out of the department to make these decisions. So, that would be my general suggestion, just like the Council and the Board of Appeals doesn’t decide the priority of other Public Works’ projects. It would not be deciding the priority of Public Works’ projects that would include private roads. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Alright, thanks. Alright, Council Member Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder, quickly if you want to gather anything else you may need for future amendments. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: So, I’m hearing from the body is, the amendment takes care of a few of the things that were brought up. This section two, and I would like to discuss this with the director as well, here. But, Mr. Pause, I’m going to lean on you for this one because this was something that we discussed in our meeting via Zoom. But how do you want to move forward with this section? I’m going to ask you here because everyone is asking about it. I’m kind of putting you on the spot but reality is this is something that we had talked about and we’re trying to figure out the right— MR. PAUSE: We’re talking again about signs, marking, and lighting. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Signs, marking, and lighting. I will say this for the body, if we’re doing work, we say we’re going to help maintain or do an improvement on a private road, just this remedial patching and we are being asked then to say, “Hey, let’s put up some lighting,” in an area that may or may not have power, then we’re kind of presenting a potential problem. I’m just putting that out to the body. If there’s never been signs or marking on the road, this isn’t going to come up. So, I completely understand the request, and this was part of our discussion back and forth, how do we go forward with this? Do Page 24 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 we make it a “may”? Do we remove it? I want to get that out now and discuss the details. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member— MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: I’m sorry. Mr. Pause. CHR. KAGIWADA: I’m sorry. Okay, go ahead. MR. PAUSE: Yeah, at this point I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. We’ve listed a bunch of items that we don’t want to do and there’s a few things here, but I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. I mean, ultimately, we’re going to be evaluating these on an individual basis. We’re going to be looking at safety. We’re going to be looking, again, what makes sense for the greater good. This isn’t a deal breaker to me. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Beautiful. That’s a wonderful answer. Thank you. Chair I yield. MR. PAUSE: Is it a brilliant answer? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: This morning was brilliant. I think we’re in committee. So, you know, we’ve got to figure this out. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Council Member Inaba, go ahead. He yielded. MR. INABA: Okay. I think to make it more clear on page two, number two, Corporation Counsel, based on the language that’s being added here saying what is not allowed, if for example, a road did have painting on it, had stripes, I guess we’re going to call it marking in this case. If the department were to pave over what was existing marking, this language, does it prevent them from repainting the road after they pave it? MS. STRANCE: I think that the language could be clearer because you could argue that there needs to be another comma somewhere. But the clause shall not include—has this hope list and, you know, I think it’s arguable that anything that follows “shall not” is excluded. And so, if the intention is to allow some discretion, for example, if the department paves over lines, would it give them the authority to put in lines as written arguably, it would prevent that restoration of work. And so, I think we could break that into another section or clause and if the intention is to allow for signs, markings, and lighting, under circumstances determined appropriate by the department, then that would get taken care of anyway, in another amendment. Page 25 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MR. INABA: Thank you. And I just ask that question because it makes it clear that this could be, you know, it’s unintended, I think. But we would like things to be restored as they were in the event that we were to make improvements or any kind of maintenance work on a road. But I would like those things, signs, marking, lighting, to be added back in the main bill if we do hear this or see another amendment, to say that those activities are allowed or are, you know, considered improvement grading, repair, or construction. So, thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Would you like to withdraw the motion? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, completely understood and heard for the comments on the amendment. And I will be withdrawing the amendment. Withdraw Motion Mr. Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder withdrew his motion to amend to Amend: Bill 82, Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 496.22. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. We do have one more amendment here by Council Member Lee Loy, who’s not here. Can we get a motion on this amendment? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Chair? I’m just going to throw out there, we don’t have to hear this amendment at this time when the maker is not present. CHR. KAGIWADA: Can we just keep it for next time since we’re—is that okay to just keep this for next time? MR. HENRICKS: That’s your prerogative, either way. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, yeah. Alright, we’ll keep it for next time when the maker is here. Alright. So, back to the main motion. I guess we’ll be postponing. Does somebody want to make a motion to postpone? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Given the conversation today, and given the public’s continuous push, and just showing up, I would ask the body if they’d we willing to make a move. Just what their thoughts are in moving this to Council as we work on the draft amendment. Many comments were heard, and I do feel that we’ve worked hard to address them, and I feel that this bill is to that point of moving forward to make a statement to the public that we do think this is important and we want to elevate this discussion. At Council, we are still two hearings away from ever passing this, it would be first read. And if you’d permit that moving forward with the amendment at that time. And that motion is the motion on the floor right now. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. Page 26 PCHSW-6 November 14, 2023 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, with all due respect, my preference is to keep this bill in Committee. These are pretty significant changes that we are recommending, and because they were presented in one amendment package, really got to make sure we get it right. And I’d prefer those longer, comprehensive discussions happen within Committee. My vote is to do a continuation to the next Committee. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I concur. I prefer to, you know, get everything hashed out, unless it’s minor adjustments, in Committee, and get a fairly complete bill to Council. That’s been my preference all along. So, I continue to request that you consider that. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder moved to postpone Bill 82, Draft 2 to December 5, 2023. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KAGIWADA: Any discussion? MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. KAGIWADA: Yeah. MR. KĀNEALIʻI-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. Just like to thank you all for your time and then your continued input, and to the Department, Ms. Strance as well, Corporation Counsel, and to the Legislative Branch for helping me get there. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. No further discussion, we’ll take a vote. All those in favor? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 82, Draft 2, to to Postpone: December 5, 2023 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kānealiՙi-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Lee Loy – 1. Excused: None. Page 27 PCHSW-6 November 14,2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:35 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Lee Loy— 1. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. And we are adjourned. Approved: s. Jenn Kagiwada, it (Date) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being JK/tk Page 28