Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCHSW 2023/12/19 (2022-2024) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being 8th Session West Hawai`i Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai`i December 19, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and ORDER: Well-being was called to order at 3:47 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 (via videoconference from Hilo) 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 in support of Bill 110 (Comm. 639) and came forward when called by the Chair: Amedeo Markoff, representing Mainstreet Pahoa Association. Barbara Franklin. Julie Kron, representing Fern Acres Neighborhood Watch. Patti Pinto. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Relley, and thank you testifiers. Mr. Clerk? BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 Bill 110: AMENDS CHAPTER 14 OF THE HAWAI'I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING A REGISTRY OF INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS OF VANDALISM, IMMEDIATE HAZARDS, OR DISASTERS Requires owners of real property, or a designated agent of an absentee property owner, to provide to the County the property owner or designated agent's name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address to allow the County to distribute the contact information amongst County departments and agencies for the purpose of notifying the property owner or agent of potential or existing harmful impacts to the property due to vandalism, immediate hazards, emergencies, or disasters. Reference: Comm. 639 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to recommend passage of Bill 110 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This is such a straightforward bill. We have a serious issue in the Puna community. Squatters, natural disasters, and one thing that is like a common thread through all of this is being able to communicate with property owners in a timely manner so that the County and property owners can take appropriate action. I think setting up this registry is going to be a critical step in helping to deal with these issues. Note that I did not say solve because I think a lot of these issues require other agencies, levels of government, to do something. But I think this will at least get everybody on the same page in terms of making contact with property owners. One of the biggest things, and we heard it from a couple testifiers today in relation to the squatters' issue, is so often property owners are not on island or it's just not easy to get in touch with them. You know, having to do Google searches, stalk people on Facebook and Instagram, send awkward messages, all to confirm if whether or not they are property owners, and it really should be something that the County has, you know, access to. So that we are able to reach out to property owners to facilitate swift resolution and just confirm, are these legitimate tenants? Because if not, you want to make sure that you are protecting your property. Also, with a lot of absentee owners, we just want to make sure that there is accountability of those property owners. In thinking about having this information, if it's going to be used to facilitate communication in relation to dealing with squatters, we also thought about how this information would be incredibly helpful in times of emergency, as well as Page 2 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 following an emergency. I think our Administrator, Lisa Miura, can speak to when the eruption happened. Because we just had mailing addresses for folks, people were trying to access federal aid and they needed an official letter from the County to say that their property was under lava. Well, their mailbox was also under lava. There was no way for the County to call, send a text, email them with this information, which is very traumatic in and of itself. And so, this again just eases up the communication flow. I also think about in terms of disasters,just being able to communicate with Civil Defense Agency. Some folks may be off island traveling for medical reasons or for recreation. But not everybody is signed up for the Nixle or Everbridge alert systems. I also know that there might be shifts within Civil Defense to move to a different platform. We have the information. Now we will be able to have targeted communication to folks. Again, this bill is really straightforward, requiring property owners to submit critical information: a contact person, either if they are residents of this County, if not, to identify a designated agent, having a phone number that we can reach them at, or an email address. I'll be really honest with you. There is a point here about a fine of$100. This is tied to Section 1-10 of the Code, which says that the County can either fine someone $100 or throw them in jail for 30 days. This was something that, as a collective, we thought about, there has to be some sort of incentive for people to respond to this ordinance. We heard from one of the testifiers that this might not go far enough. I'm of the mind that we need to try something, see what happens and then take a really, I think, measured and methodical approach in terms of a next step. I really struggled with the approach we take here because I've scanned dozens of ordinances on the mainland that deal with squatters. There are whole sections and agencies that set up vacant registry processes, lots of bureaucracy, requiring motion sensor lighting and fencing, and all this stuff and before we even think about going there, one thing that we can do that I think is a very easy thing to set up is just require people to provide their contact information. I also want to note in the Pinkie folder there are letters of support from our collaborators: Fire Chief, Police Chief, Mayor Roth. He was actually part of initial discussions when he was Prosecuting Attorney. And who did I miss? Oh, and our Prosecuting Attorney also provided some information on how this registry of information would be helpful to their efforts. Also worked in collaboration with Real Property Tax and Deputy (Keyra) Wong, from Corporation Counsel. Lisa, I'd like to invite you forward to just kind of speak to the merits of what we are trying to do here and to just confirm that this is something that your office has the ability to do. You know, I did make a comment earlier, worried about the workload in general, that your office is carrying. So just want to make sure that this is something that you folks can take on and that there is an important reason for why we are collecting this information. Page 3 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MIURA: Thank you. Lisa Miura, Real Property Tax Administrator. I think I want to start that the discussion really occurred probably four to five years ago, after the 2018 lava event. And during that event, it was Civil Defense and Police that were reaching out to us to try and get any type of data that we had in our system. And a lot of the phone numbers that we had, or email addresses, were old. And so, you're right, when we were sending out—finally when we got the County on the same table to start doing the lava letters so that people could get insurance payouts, the letters were coming back. And so, we were losing money there but obviously, it was going to houses. We were told by the post office, they would hold on to the mail when there was—the lava had covered them. But everything was just overwhelming for, I think, the post office and everybody in the area. So, they were coming into the office because we didn't have their emails, some of them didn't have printers, so we were at the DRC, the Disaster Recovery Center. But one thing that did come out was we did not have as much of the numbers and contact information that would've been helpful. Not just home phone numbers, because those wouldn't have worked, but cell phones, which a lot of people carry now, more than having a home phone number. So, through the years—I'm not going to hide the fact that sometimes we would get Council Member Kierkiewicz's email and we were like, "Oh, we're still on this." But, after the wildfire, Fire Chief really started pushing. Through those years, Police, especially the community policing officers that deal with a lot of squatters, contact us regularly to try and get any type of information because they're trying to figure out where these owners are. And houses have burnt down or improvements in structures, and it is—while our focus is on valuing, taxing, collecting, this would be beneficial information because we have every single property on the island in our database. So as much as I would like to say, "Oh, that's not in our wheelhouse." I think we have a role to play in it to make sure there's somebody who can coordinate the data who's not going to be elected, no offense, or appointed, that's going to go away. That we're going to be here. The system is going to be here. And that even, no matter what happens with the administration, the data will still be able to be kept up. In regards to being able to do it, it's a huge lift. It's not even a little one and I realize I was just whining a little bit earlier in the prior meeting about some of the new things that Council has approved that we're trying to figure out how we're going to get going. It's not just a matter of people putting new staff into our office. We can't fill the positions we have. So, when this bill came up, Keita Jo, the Assistant Administrator and I, really looked at other ways people could file this. Our preference, and we realized a lot of people don't do internet but would be for them to fill it out online so that it could import into our program. The main reason for that is one, we're not deciphering somebody's Page 4 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 handwriting, and there are a lot of people whose handwriting is atrocious. So, I can see them submitting it, and we can't even figure out what it says. But if they put it online, it would go into the system a lot easier. And so, we are trying to move, like other counties around the world, to have what you call a screen sweep. You enter the data, and it goes into the system. This isn't a lot of sensitive data in regards to, I think, concerns of cyber security, but it would be helpful if that was our first role. So, in that case, we do believe it would help other County agencies, especially for us looking at the emergency side of it. I'm not going to pretend that everybody is going to be more than thrilled to provide us, Real Property Tax, or the County, their data. There's a lot of people that are concerned about where the data is going to go. So, we had worked with Corporation Counsel. I think my biggest concern was the OIP (Office of Information Practices) request. That somebody would come in and demand that data to be shared. And we assured the way the OIP is written right now, that we wouldn't be forced to share that data, the email addresses, and the phone numbers, with somebody, even under OIP. Because I can see that being a concern and an issue for a lot of public people, including myself. I wouldn't want that out there. Even though if you Google your name, half the time, your information's out there. So anyway, I just wanted to share that and I'm available to answer any questions you might have for us. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Lisa, for that. I also have Keyra Wong, who was the Corp. Counsel assigned to assist us with this project. The data privacy piece was something that was very important to our team so we wanted to make sure we referenced the statute and were explicitly clear about who can access this information, for what reason, and to just assure the public that no random person can call Lisa's office and kind of demand that, you know, contact information. Anyway, looking forward to folk's comments about this measure. Thank you, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball and then Council Member Lee Loy. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz, for bringing this forward. It's certainly an issue that has been a concern for some time, and I know that you've been looking at this for a while. So, I really appreciate the ability to have a dialogue about it. I did want to just— so I think there's a lot of uses for just having this information. And I don't want the discussion to go too far on like, squatters and dealing with that whole side, because that is a piece of it, but I don't think that's the sole motivation. A lot of the—I mean, I'm thinking about like dangerous flora. Like if we don't know—if we can't contact the property owner, we can't cut them, we can't cut the tree. Dangerous dogs, you know, if there are dangerous dogs holing up, we can't go on there if we can't contact the property owner. So, don't want to—I think the Page 5 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 letters of support do a little bit of a disservice because they kind of pigeonhole this into a certain thing. But it's actually much, much broader, and this is general enough at this point that I'm comfortable with that. I don't want it to feel like it's just a punitive thing and I think my other colleague will have something to say about this, for people that don't have another place to live, right. That's not what we're trying to do here. I appreciate that. I do agree with the testifier about the fee. I think it's a little small. Would recommend, even to start, something a little bit more meaningful and would propose that you incorporate the language in—from other sections about notice of violation. And the notifying procedure as well as an opportunity to appeal through probably, real property tax appeals board (Tax Board of Review). Just as a matter of course when we fine people for violations and give them a chance to say, "Sorry, you guys made the mistake." So,that would be my one recommendation. My other would be purely editorial in nature. I'm a little concerned that there's too much information in the definitions and not enough information in the actual Code language. I see a lot of definitions of sort of common terms. I think we're—I'm more inclined to use—put stuff in definitions when you're kind of a—there's a term that either means—it could have multiple meanings, and so you need to be very specific, or it's unique, and you need to be very clear and then you're using it multiple times in the language. For example, in this bit of Code, you're only talking about the property owner a couple of times. I think you could make it very clear in the Code part who we're talking about with property owners, rather than having it sit up in the definitions. I'm not sure that LRB (Legislative Research Branch) agrees with me on this approach, but I think this is a little too definition heavy. I'd like to see some of this in the Code section. Thinking about how people interact with our Code; they go to a section, and they read that part. They don't necessarily review all of the definitions up front. So, I'm happy to have a deeper conversation with you offline about specifically which ones of these definitions, but I would generally say if it's less than a—you know, if it's a small sentence it can just go in the Code part rather than being up in the top on the definition. Those would be my recommendations at this time. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Yes, to Council Member Kierkiewicz. I remember a couple of years ago, it must've been four or five years ago, walking out our backdoor and on the lanai, Council Member had convened a whole bunch of people on the back lanai, and I was like, "What is this about? Squatters bill", and here we are five years later. Really appreciate you tackling, you know, this issue which is not a sexy issue but needs to be done. What I absolutely appreciate is just the measured steps that this bill takes so that we can gather this information. I think to Council Member Kimball's point, there's definitely help and assistance that's going to be provided for Real Property Tax and our first Page 6 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 responders. But I also see this as a way and a tool for us to even look at, you know, all these vacant areas, right? How to assess our budget and make sure resources are being directed appropriately, whether it is our Community Policing Officers. I remember at a time when you traveled, you actually called the Police Department to let them know, "Hey, we're going to be gone for about two weeks. Can you make area checks?" And you know, we've grown so far pass that. I actually loved the definitions and Ms. Wong would probably say the definitions isn't for the users, it's for the attorneys. Right? So, I actually like that the definitions are there. It helps Real Property Tax. It helps our Corporation Counsel, or any appeals process that we need. Those definitions are incredibly helpful. I'm just really proud of Council Member Kierkiewicz. This was a tough one. I know where she started and where we are landing today, is very different than where she started and actually, I am really happy to support this bill. I think there are areas, like the appeals process, as we walk all those things out. And then, you know, notification to surrounding property owners, I think we have some tools. But perhaps maybe that could be defined in some administrative rules around this particular section of the Code and how it's utilized by Real Property Tax and others. Happy to support this one and look forward to passing this up to Council. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. In support of the bill. I had a question for Corporation Counsel regarding the section of HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) that's included. So, the title of the bill is speaking to—the purpose of collecting this is to notify property owners of vandalism, immediate hazards, or disasters. In the—yeah, owner contact information required section, subsection (d). It says, "The contact information collected and maintained by the division may be utilized or shared between the appropriate County agencies, in accordance with Section 92F-19 HRS". So, in looking at that section of the HRS, one of— number (6), is "To the legislature, or a county council, or any committee or subcommittee thereof". So, is that something that the body as a whole, if ever needed, would request formally? Or how is the county council—a county council being used here? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Keyra Wong came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. WONG: Good afternoon. Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking if the County Council, if you wanted to receive this information, whether you had to do a formal request. MR. INABA: Yes. Page 7 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MS. WONG: Yes. When we're looking at what's to be disclosed, we're talking about the mailing address, email address, name, contact information, such as that. Essentially you need to have a legitimate purpose, right, for requesting that information. And that's the requirement of why it needs to be in writing, and for what purpose. Because when we were working through this bill, Real Property Tax is the housing agency of this information. They cannot just go give it to Police or Fire. There has to be a legitimate purpose, that's either related to administrative enforcement,public safety, and law enforcement purposes. So, if the County Council wants to make a request that falls under either of those particular reasons, then foreseeably yes,you could receive that information. MR. INABA: Okay, and then in the case—I love that we're going to hopefully get this information and I think it's just helpful across the board for all. Does the way the bill is currently titled limit it so that—for example, Planning or DPW (Department of Public Works) couldn't use it—use this contact information for items not related to vandalism, immediate hazards, or disasters? Because part of the bill is also speaking to administrative enforcement. MS. WONG: Yes. I believe if Planning or DPW were to make a request to Real Property Tax for contact information, and it's related to, for example, a notice of violation that they want to issue against a property owner, they could receive the information. MR. INABA: Okay, so the title of the bill then, doesn't limit. Is that—I mean, I would like them to and that's why. It's like if we're going to get all this information, I don't want—I don't want Finance to not be able to share, for example, with Planning and DPW for the sake of enforcement. MS. WONG: I think the intent is—was made, so that it's information that can be shared. I'm not sure—I don't know the answer to that with respect to whether the title is sufficient or not. MR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have general guidelines as to if perhaps the language contained within the bill is—maybe allows—is a little bit more broad than what's contained in the title itself? Do we need to— MR. HENRICKS: Generally, the text, the provisions of a bill will, you know, be more expansive than the title. But if your question is if the title includes such specific nouns that you feel like the contents of the bill go beyond what the title's provided, I wouldn't argue with that. But it's not uncommon for the text provisions to—they shouldn't be converse. I don't think it's converse, but it does—I'm not—I don't know if I'm reading the same thing you're reading. But if you're saying it goes beyond, I would agree with that to a certain degree. Page 8 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MR. INABA: Yes,just when I read the title it's for vandalism, immediate hazards, or disasters. And if I think of zoning violations, I don't think— MR. HENRICKS: To that point, and I haven't finished law school yet, working on it—nights. It's really hard. I think it's more importantly what the section and the article says than the title. Okay. It's the contents of the article and what its intent purposes and what its boundaries are just by the plain reading of the text, would tell you what its allowable uses are. But again, I'm still working on that degree. MR. INABA: Deputy Frenz, anything to chime in? I just—we're able to see you on the screen. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Dakota"Cody" Frenz came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. FRENZ: Yes, good afternoon. Deputy Corporation Counsel, Cody Frenz. So, my thoughts in this regard, Council Member Inaba is, if you look at the definitions that Ashley has utilized in the bill itself, disaster emergency, immediate hazard, vandalism, for example, those cover some of the provisions, or potentially cover, depending on the nature of the actual and the views in question, if you're looking for a tie in to how that may or may not relate to this actual bill to provide the department that may or may not request that information, utility in utilizing the section for that purpose. So, I do think that there would be that appropriate tie in, in that regard. MR. INABA: She finished law school. Perfect. Thank you so much. Just want to make sure that when we go out and get this information, we are able to use it and it sounds like we are able to. So, I am totally in support and thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz, for bringing this forward. Chair, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Yes. Wow. I got a phone call from Community Policing this morning as he was reading the newspaper, in strong support of this bill. One of the recommendations was,please increase the fines. He didn't seem to feel that $100 was enough of an impetus for people to pay attention. You know, two lots over, from where my house is, for fifteen years was inhabited by squatters and it was domestic disputes,people trying to run other people over with cars, like—and it was horrifying. It was dangerous. They went after my daughter one day on the trail with their dog. You want to see me go a little triggered? But it was really challenging. So, you know, the Community Policing Officer said today, you know, there are four homes that he goes to almost every other day. My email box is full of issues Page 9 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 with a number of homes that are in plain sight that are right there. Some of them, half burned down. But how do we navigate this pathway of responsibility for private property homeowners, or as the case may be, bank foreclosures? Because that's what's happening in a number of properties in District 7. The banks are in New York, the east coast somewhere, and this house just sits as a line item on a balance sheet, or a spreadsheet of some kind. But for us, it affects the safety of our neighborhoods and our communities. So, I'm really grateful. This is something that's impacting all over the island. I am also grateful for people who are recognizing homes like this, getting in touch with the banks, purchasing them, cleaning them up. You know, all those different things. But the opportunity for there to be this database that carries all this information—and in times of emergency, you have a means of contact. I also think—I just start thinking about the Department of Water Supply. And we don't have a map yet of all the TMKs (tax map keys)that have all the water allotments of water credits. How do we, as a County, take these opportunities of information? Steward them responsibly so that our constituents and community members don't feel at risk of any form of violation or privacy issues. But that we—I just see this as an opportunity for breaking down silos which is another one of the, you know, words always thrown around. But that we take this opportunity, with this information and how we map out our County, and we use it to strengthen our connectivity, our support of Community Policing, our support of private property owners, and homeowners. Because what's happening in some of these properties is a dire risk. And one person's laissez-faire irresponsibility, with the property and what happens there, negatively impacting all those around them. They're not more important than the well-being, health, and safety of everyone around them. So, once again, today is like a day of heavy lifts. And you, bringing forth this one, which has got to be a tricky dance of semantics, property rights, information technology sharing,protection, and what not. But I will be supporting this wholeheartedly and from the Community Policing that serve in District 7, we also thank you. This police officer, of course, wanted to see even more voracious and ferocious actions being taken. Which, I don't know if that's in the parameters or scope of our authority,but it's time. It's time for this issue to—for accountability to be taken. We hold those accountable that go too far, or you know, outside the confines of health, safety, and well-being for our community in other capacities, and this—I think this is within that realm. And I think it would really—it would provide an opportunity for more accountability and even going back to a more fundamental and deep-rooted cause. This land is precious. The resources are priceless. And so, places that are being neglected to such a state that then other people are inhabiting them and contributing to the further demise of the properties. There are health hazards. There are environmental hazards. There are—yes, I could go on and on. It's late in the day. Just want to thank you and I will be supporting this today. I yield. Page 10 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MS. KAGIWADA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. My questions are for Corporation Counsel. Thank you. I think this is moving in the right direction that I have some real legal questions here. I'm looking at Section 14, the notification of potential or existing impacts. It's saying that should the County become aware of any potential or existing impacts, that they shall make reasonable efforts to notify the property owner. Well, I wonder if we don't. I wonder if we don't have enough staff, Civil Defense is fighting a fire, there's some things going on. You know, I might point the finger at you and say, "You didn't make a reasonable effort, to me." So, how do you protect the County when someone comes at you and said, "You did not notify me when you should've." MS. WONG: Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I think that was the point of including the language, "shall make reasonable efforts," because I think originally it didn't allow for that flexibility. Because you're right, there's going to be times where we might not have enough staff, or we might have another lava flow and there's just no time to contact these people. And so, I think the reasonable efforts will take into account the circumstances of the County, RPT (Real Property Tax) at that time, and evaluating whether or not they can contact these people—what other circumstances are they under at that time to make contact with these people. MS. EVANS: Personally, I'd like to see more, like substance, to that section. I think we're telling people you notify us, if you don't, we're going to fine you $100. And yet, if we notify you, and we can't get around to it, we don't have any—what's our responsibility? It's like you give us something, what's the expectation? You know because I think we do build expectations. So, I'm a little concerned. I'm very concerned, actually. Because we're asking people to have that one-on-one with us. It's like, if you're not here, you need to play ball and let us know how to reach you, email, and you know, whatever. And guess what, but we might not be able to get around to it. And so, what is the expectation when we tell people,you got to give us your contact. MS. WONG: So, I think that we are requiring, like a phone number. That's easy to pick up the phone and dial. I don't think that's hard to do, but I can't speak for Real Property Tax with their situation. I understand that concern, but I did want to mention, in Section 3, I have requested to add this language in there to protect the County for that reason. But I understand what you are saying with respect to what we're asking people to give us this information and we have it and now we're not doing anything. But I think the information that's requested, it should be utilized because of, like I said, it's a phone number. It's easy to pick up the phone and call. Whereas right now, we have a mailing address, maybe, that'll go undelivered or returned. So, it's the different dynamics but I think with Page 11 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 the phone number and email address it's a lot easier to make that contact. But I'm not going to speak for RPT. MS. EVANS: Right, right. But I think it's important because I've been working with the Planning Department because I have an illegal junkyard and the only thing they have is contact information. So, they're writing the owner, that's over on O`ahu. So, they can call, and they can write an email, and they can send registered mail but, you know, they got to identify that it's coming from a—you know, there's an identification, right? We're trying to reach you, but that doesn't mean they're going to respond. So, we're not getting a response. You know, even though all those things are being done and the owner lives over on O`ahu. We're not getting any response on something that is clearly an environmental hazard. So, I'm kind of trying to figure what this gives us because we're asking for this for a reason, right? That takes us to the next step. So, I'm kind of wondering what the next step is, right? I mean I'm trying to figure out, you know, you give us something, we give you something back, which might lead to this. And so, I'm just trying to follow it and I'll tell you why. Why I'm asking this line of questioning is because I was involved when we did the short-term vacation rentals and required people to give us an agent and their phone number if they were out-of-state owners. And that was a long discussion at the State Capitol about, how do you require people to give us— have an agent, that they have to pay for, if they're not around. And you know, requiring them to have it or we fine them. And the hook was—is they were doing business, right, because it was short-term vacation. So, they were collecting income. So, we could make that a requirement of doing business in our state and that's how we got over that hump. But it was a very long lengthy discussion that people were really resisting and fighting as like, "What do you mean you want our information? We don't want to give you our information." So, I see real value in this, but I also see that a lot of the public—there could be some real concerns about sharing that, and why am I sharing it, right? So that's why I'm asking, what is the expectation, you know, of why we're asking. So anyway, I got zinged at five minutes. Okay. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, would you like to add anything? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, please. Thank you. Back to Corp. Counsel, I have a couple of follow-up questions. And for Ms. Kierkiewicz, this has been something she has been working on for years and I understand—I completely understand why we're doing this. My questions though, to Corp. Counsel, I mean everything we've ever seen when we collect people's data, there's always an opt out, and that seems to be pretty consistent to me. I mean, any marketing, any kind of email collection, data collection, they all—there's always an ability for a customer to opt out. The Real Property Tax Division Page 12 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 seems to know where everyone lives—every year we send out our tax notices. So, my question is, how are we doing this? And do people—do the constituents of our County have the ability to opt out of this or are they required, if this law goes into effect? MS. WONG: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Keyra Wong. The way the language and the bill is currently written, it is required. There is no ability to opt out and I think the public purpose behind requiring it is to be able to contact them in these situations of vandalism, immediate hazards, disasters, right, the lava flow. So, I think if you guys don't want to and allow people to opt out instead, that's a policy decision you can make. But currently the way the bill is written, it's required. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understanding the way the bill is written, in federal and state law, are we allowed to require people to give information to any agency, government or not? MS. WONG: Chapter 92F—HRS 92F-19 allows the agencies within the County to share this information. So, unless there's a specific other federal or state law that you are citing, I'm not sure. Based on my research, I did not find anything that would prohibit the Council from adopting this bill. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. To share or to collect? MS. WONG: Both. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then to the description of agency, meaning any office, department, board, commission, or other governmental unit of the County—and ensuring that we do not provide these numbers to people. Because it does state in the bill, and I like this part a lot, the contact information collected and maintained is not for the purpose of making information available to the general public. Some people don't want their number, or their address, or anything posted. And we have that ability within Real Property Tax, that the department will collect the information, but it's not posted and made public. So, this part is very important to me, in section (d), under, "Owner contact information required." But that description of agency, which is touched on in this section, in section(d), basically means, anybody in the County, even boards and commissions. And so, ensuring privacy for our constituency, and looking at the language in"agency" or "agencies,"those people having access to the information—are we protecting our constituents? MS. WONG: I think you're correct, that's what the definition of"agency" states. But under 92F-19, there still needs to be a legitimate reason for any office, department, board, commission, or other governmental unit of the County Page 13 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 to be requesting this information. They don't automatically get it. They're going to have to justify the purpose for which they're requesting the information. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, from my office, I couldn't call or email the department of real property and say, "Hey, I want to check in on this property," I have to have a valid reason? MS. WONG: Yes. You need to have a valid reason. You don't get it out right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And that would go for anyone else— commissions, boards? MS. WONG: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm trying to think of what boards and commissions would need to access property information. MS. WONG: I'm not sure, off the top of my head. But I think the way the definition was written was to mirror other definitions of the agent as it's— agency as used within the County. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you for that. And then as far as the fine, is this a daily fine? Is this a monthly fine? Is there a time deadline for this fine? Or is it just a$100 capped forever? Or does it accrue daily? Are there more guidelines in Section 1-10? I mean— MS. WONG: There aren't more guidelines in Section 1-10. But I would suspect that the Administrative Rules flush out when and to whom fines would be assessed, and how. I don't think the intent was for $100 per day. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. I'm not sure what the intent was. I know it's to incentivize or get people to complete their information. That makes sense, but wondering because there was mention of being jailed for 30 days or providing $100. So, I just wanted to clarify that before we make this a part of our Code. MS. WONG: Yes, I think, if you're looking at Section 1-10 of the Hawai`i County Code it says, where there is a violation of a provision of this Code for which no penalty is provided, the person violating the provision shall be subject to a fine of not more than $100 for each offense, or to imprisonment of not more than ninety days, or both. So, I had suggested, if there's going to be a fine, that we specify it in this section. Because otherwise it subjects people to Section 1- 10, which is $100, or jail, or both, and I don't think the maker of the bill wanted to go that far. Page 14 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that makes me a little bit more comfortable. So, $100 fine, but no imprisonment. That's not going to happen to people if they don't provide their information. Correct? MS. WONG: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. Okay, now to the maker. I like the bill. I like where you're headed. I do have some concern about the definition of agencies and wondering whether some of these folks—I mean, I can see the Police Department, Prosecuting Attorney, Fire Department, Civil Defense, needing some of this information for where people live, what their addresses are, phone numbers, that kind of thing. Boards and commissions and—or other governmental units seems a bit broad. And it might just be me. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Council member, Deputy Counsel, Cody Frenz, looks like she wants to add something. So, I think—I feel to help answer your question, if that's okay? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Wong. MS. FRENZ: Thank you. Deputy Corporation Counsel, Cody Frenz, again. So, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, if you look at Section 14, the provision that's titled, "Notification of potential or existing impacts", that's the spot in which the word "agencies" is actually used. So, using the definition described above, for example, Leeward Planning Commission, Windward Planning Commission, LUC (Land Use Commission), any other board or commission that actually might have that information come before it—come within its purview, they could provide and relay that information. So, I think it's critical to look at how the word "agencies" is actually used within the proposed bill to understand the intent in which that definition is applicable. So hopefully that—so in other words, I don't think it will necessarily be them asking for information. It's defining that they will be providing information to a department—a relevant department, who would thereafter, based on that information and guidance, make a request based on a valid reason. I will presume they would have likely investigated that themselves first. But if you look at that definition and how it's actually used in the proposed bill, I think that would answer or address your concern. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you Ms. Frenz. Can you then—is the word "County agencies", as used in the first section, in(d), does that definition not apply to that use of the word agencies? MS. FRENZ: So, County agency. The appropriate County agency shall make reasonable efforts, is how that particular definition is used in the provision that I was just referring to. So, that then speaks to the reasonable efforts that the Page 15 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 County would be able to make, given whatever varying circumstances were present at the time, right? Which is why we have the reasonable efforts in there. So,that's how that particular definition applies to that provision. They're not interchangeable. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is (d), you're talking about? MS. FRENZ: I'm talking about notification of potential or existing impacts, specifically. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, no, I follow you on that one. But the one—the section before that, in(d) where it says, the contact information collected and maintained may be utilized or shared between the appropriate County agencies. MS. FRENZ: Yes. Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And their owner contact information required. CHR. KAGIWADA: The author is able to maybe address this if that's okay. Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder for raising that. Like Deputy Wong had mentioned, we had tried to mirror, in this definition, what already exists within County Code. But I hear what you're saying in terms of how this information could be accessed by bodies made up of members of the public like a board or commission. So, I'm happy to actually remove this definition and include in the section of Code, where we refer to County agencies, say a County governmental unit, such as a department or agency. So, that we're very crystal clear on, it's official government units that are able to access, utilize, and share the information. I hope that's helpful. Thank you, Chair. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that would be very helpful, and maybe for me, not so much. But I know there's people in the community and a couple have reached out just saying they don't want their information shared with anybody. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And having it be open to the general public, and different boards and commissions, begins to bridge a certain line in my mind. So, yeah, I'd appreciate that follow up. To the maker, I like the fine where it stands now. I couldn't support it if it was to go up. But I see the Page 16 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 incentivization. So, I appreciate this though. I think you've done a tremendous, positive motion towards addressing a lot of the issues we have in our community island wide, and I'll be supporting this today. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I guess, my question, I'm still a little bit unclear. I know we just had this conversation between Council Member Inaba and the makers. And it's in relation to the use of this information, which the title says, vandalism, immediate hazards, and disasters. And I don't think that there's anything in there, the bill itself about—I could be corrected on this—that would then broaden that to, you know, zoning violations. So, I guess maybe Corporation Counsel, can you come up again and just reclarify that? I mean would that—given the title, and I am a little worried about some of the things that Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder is worried about, I guess. Is just— the justification that would be required. If it's gathered under this bill, with those specific purposes, would a written justification saying that we wanted to go after this person for a zoning infraction, would it be legal, given that the registry is created under this bill? MS. WONG: Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel. So, I think if the request is for the purpose of administrative enforcement, public safety, and law enforcement purposes, so long as they meet what's defined as an emergency, vandalism, or a disaster, then yes, they can request for the contact information. But this doesn't preclude Planning or DPW from enforcing other violations of the Code that it might have in its toolbox, right? This is just one tool to add to the toolbox. So, I think, you know, Planning and DPW,there's other sections in the County Code that allow for them to move forward with administrative enforcement. But I do think that if somehow, they don't have it, the contact information that we are requesting for here, if there's a tie into an emergency, a disaster, or imminent hazard, vandalism, then yes. They would meet the requirements of receiving this contact information under the bill. MS. GALIMBA: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be clearer about that. Which you know, it has its good and its bad sides. But I think it's good to be very clear about that because there are, I'm sure folks that would be sensitive about it being, you know,just requestable for any reason. But needs to be sort of these pretty tight set of reasons that would make a justifiable request. I guess the other question that I have, and this is more, I think, for Director (Administrator) Miura, is about personal information, protection, and policies. And I know you already protect quite a bit of personal information and also provide quite a bit of Page 17 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 personal information. So, perhaps you could discuss your policies around that. Also, I'll just get it out there too. Do you think that you would need sort of more software resources to implement this in a way that's safe? Thanks. MS. MIURA: Real Property Tax Administrator, Lisa Miura. So, I think there is two parts to it. Do we need additional software? Our current software for our mass appraisal system already has the capability to track it and we've been adding in all the new addresses and phone numbers. As we get them, people write in for many different reasons. So, we don't need an additional software there. The only thing we would look at is doing the screen sweep if we had it on the internet. So, they enter it one time and we can import it safely into our system. But that's something our website vendor can already do. We just have to make sure we're okay going through it, with our current contract the way it is because, one, we don't want to overpay for anything and two, we want to make sure the data's still protected. In regards to the phone numbers and addresses we already have, we get requests all the time for—excuse me, I shouldn't say addresses—email addresses and phone numbers, we already don't provide it. So, the only time we do provide it is for emergency purposes only. So, if someone walked over—and I think this would help broaden and clarify who can request it. But if I just got a phone call from another County agency asking for it, we don't provide it. Police is one— Police and Fire and Civil Defense are three areas that we will definitely provide it too already. We are hoping with this that maybe we could maybe provide them access, so if it's after hours, they're not having to call me or Keita personally, that they could get in through a read-only access. But there's times where something comes up and we've currently been creating our own Excel spreadsheets, typing in all the information, and providing it to them, password protected. So, we're looking at other options but we're not quite there yet. I think we were trying to see how far we were going to get with the bill before trying to price everything out. But I don't know if that helps you answer your question. MS. GALIMBA: Yes, it's helpful. I guess from what we're talking about though,potentially it would be a little bit more involved process than just a call. It would probably have to be at least an email right, with the justified reason so that there is a record. MS. MIURA: Correct. We don't provide it via phone call. Right now, they have to put in a request via email. I need it in writing, and we keep that on. If it's questionable, we do run it through the Finance Director, but she's given us certain authority. And usually, you get used to working with Police, Fire, and Civil Defense, and know the normal people or routine people, who are going to call for certain things. Or if there's a disaster happening, our Finance Director or Page 18 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 Deputy Director's already reported to the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) and so they will notify us that way. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. One more question. So, is it just you and Keita Jo that would have this—access to this information? Or does it go down? Or would you authorize someone to work with the—? MS. MIURA: Correct. We have analysts. So, there's three analysts, a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) Analyst, and they could all do an extract of the data. We're the only ones that get to get called 24/7 without charging overtime. So, we're the ones that get called. MS. GALIMBA: Yes, I think that's—that's all my questions,thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba, back to you. MR. INABA: Okay, I'll be quick. In the first section, I'm just thinking if we state, the contact information collected and maintained by the division may be utilized or shared between County Agencies. We don't need the word, "the appropriate" because 92F-19 HRS guides what is appropriate. And when we get to the next section, I do agree with Council Member Evans' statement regarding "the shall". Yeah, the intention is that we are going to notify. But again, so per that section, first of all, I'm wondering if we retitled the section and make it clear that any of the uses including the administrative enforcement, public safety, and law enforcement purposes are within this section because that's when we're able to use it to notify. The previous section is regarding collection and maintenance of that information and passing it around within the County. So, I'm thinking it would be best if we don't limit ourselves within this notification section. We make it inclusive of everything that we potentially could, including planning violations, anything like that. Just to sum up that section, immediate hazards, any emergency, or disaster, those things I mentioned above, the County may notify the property owner, rather than saying an appropriate agency. Who's to say what the appropriate agency is if there's, you know, police and fire there and neither—we can just maybe say, "the County". Just my thoughts there but, I think that pretty much covers—tries to simplify and make sure that we grab what we're trying to cover here. But if anything I said was off base, Corporation Counsel, please do chime in. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Alright, back to you, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I heard you talk about the Public Works Department, so I went back and read the title and it says, Vandalism, Immediate Hazards, or Page 19 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 Disasters. And so, vandalism makes sense, disaster makes sense, but I'm having an issue with immediate hazards. I know when we first started the bill we were talking about squatters and obviously responding to wildfires, or something that might be going on. But if you look at the definition of immediate hazard, it looks like you're doing—it's a reach into Public Works determining that a building isn't following Code, or someone is constructing something where they haven't gotten their building peiunit. I just think immediate hazard, in that definition, is opening up a can of worms. So, I would just ask that you review the immediate hazard language and make sure what the real intent is, and that we're not broadening what the real intent of the bill is. I'd ask the author, again, I'm thinking you're looking at vandalism and squatters, and helping the fire department, the police department, but that kind of expands it into maybe the building department. So,just be careful, I'd just—I'm having issues with that language, that definition. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'll be very brief. To the author, with the second section, Notification of potential or existing impacts, if the "shall" is changed to the "may," I think the entire paragraph becomes superfluous and unnecessary. I don't think we need to authorize ourselves for that function. So, if it's not appropriate as a"shall," as a commitment to what the County will do and it's a "may," I would remove it entirely. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Did you want to respond specifically to anything before I kind of give my two cents? Okay, great. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair,just one more comment in Hilo. Sorry. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To Corporation Counsel, is any of this affected by the Privacy Act? MS. WONG: Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I don't think it—I don't think this violates the Privacy Act. But if there's a specific section you want to send to me, I can look it over and we can talk offline. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No. I mean, I'm asking you folks because you are the lawyers. I'm no lawyer, but I do know that we have a Privacy Act, and that is a federal law which oversteps State and County by a mile. So, I'm just making sure that we're in our ability as a County to require people's information under the threat of a fine. Page 20 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MS. WONG: I believe the County Council has the proper authority,yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Do you yield? You all done? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. Thank you, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. Alright. One specific thing that I just want to address, which was Council Member Evans' comment about immediate hazards. I actually like that. I feel like there were a couple things that Council Member Kimball mentioned, unsafe flora, dangerous dogs, things like that. To me, that's the only place that would allow the possibility of sharing that information, under a kind of immediate hazard. If there was kind of something there. So, maybe it needs to be tightened a little, but I want to keep that for that if possible. Because I think this is an issue of not being able to find property owners for lots of different issues that the County has. So, that's just my two cents on that. And then,just to the intent, you know, when I heard you explain— talk about the bill at the beginning, and when I first read it, I totally was like, yes, it makes total sense. We need this communication. We need to know we can reach homeowners. I did, when I started hearing, you know, all the testifiers talking about it and Council Member Lee Loy, referring to it as a squatter bill, a squatter's bill, or something, as well as the law enforcement letters, that really seem to kind of hit that piece hard. I just started thinking, you know, some of these issues are a direct result of not having enough places for people to live. And that our taxes are too low for vacant homes. That's another thing, right? These banks, other people, if those taxes were high, they wouldn't keep those. So, I just feel like, you know, we need to make sure we're not doing unintended consequences here, and putting expectations, for the public, that we're going to—that this bill could take care of issues around squatters, homelessness, things like that. And you know, the police are going to get in there and clean it up, and all our issues will be solved. So, I just want to be really clear that unintended consequences could be, you know,just moving bad behaviors out of certain areas and pushing them to other areas of our county. I feel like we've experienced that with downtown Hilo, and down in Kona, where we've pushed people out of some of our other spaces. But yet, you know, abandoned buildings or parks or wherever, and they've gravitated towards areas where they can feel a bit safe. So, you know, it's nothing that you can probably address very specifically but I think we have to, as we're talking to the public about it, be wary that we're not thinking this is a solution to all. Like I said, I really like the idea of making sure that we can communicate with people, and emergencies, and all that stuff, that makes perfect sense. Anyway, that's my two cents. It sounds like—would you like to kind of wrap us up here? Page 21 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I do. I really appreciate everyone's support and really, you know, like great feedback. I thought this was a really productive discussion. I'll start with some of the comments that you had mentioned, Council Member Kagiwada. I'll just say this, and if you look at the testimony that's coming from the different departments. I actually spoke to some folks over the last week, when they found out this was going to be heard today. Neighbors aren't calling the cops on good squatters. You have some people that are actually going in, making improvements, contributing to the neighborhood, we're not targeting them. But there is a real situation where our prosecutors cannot prosecute criminal activity because we cannot get in touch with property owners to confirm if that is a legitimate tenant or not. So, it's really about making sure that we have infotniation to ensure that properties are protected, but that property owners are being held accountable and responsible for the activities that are occuring on their properties. I think the immediate threats definition that Council Member Evans brought up is the catch- all for things like dogs, and dangerous flora. Again, this is a definition that currently exists in our Code, and I don't want to tinker with it. Because then we would be out of alignment with other mentions in the Code. So, I'd like to keep it as is. I'm going to clean up what Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder flagged related to agency, that's a really easy fix. And I can certainly—as Council Member Kimball mentioned, it's very definition heavy. I know, I was going through this ordinance, I'm like, "where is the actual ordinance section?" I think we can move some of those definitions into the Code to make it a little bit more meaty. Council Member Villegas brought up water, and that is a really interesting thing. I was on the phone with Water Supply, and I asked them,you know, a lot of times folks are moving into properties—and apparently, there is no need for Water Supply or HELCO (Hawaiian Electric Light Company) to require verification of ownership or rental agreement. So, that's something that Keyra (Wong) and I are going to be working on with Water Supply and the Board of Water Supply to see if there is something as part of their application process that they can require it. Again, that is a proactive step to make it a lot harder, to just move in and make house in a house that's not yours. But I don't think I can require that of HELCO. I can certainly ask them and give them a number of reasons why it would be beneficial. Administrator Miura was able to talk about the needs of their office, software and personnel wise, and it seems that we're covered. I wanted this bill to be deliberately broad, so that as we move towards implementation—that there was room to implement, because I think we could sit here all day long and think of a number of different scenarios on how this could be implemented. And so, giving you the flexibility within administrative rules to talk about implementation. Page 22 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 Let's see here. And then, I want to wrap up on the fines piece. I'm hearing some people saying $100 is enough. Others are saying, let's look at, you know, a heavier fine schedule. I want to get back to what we are looking to do here, which is just to require information. And I wonder if a higher fee schedule might be appropriate in a new section or an existing section of Code. The potential around, you know, for instance, if they're not reporting contact information here, there's a fine assessed, and if that persists, depending on how many criminal complaints are tied to that subject property,there could potentially be additional fines levied in the future. But I think that just—it goes beyond the scope of what we are trying to set up here. So, I want to put that out there because again, I'm on the fence about lots of fines and our ability to enforce that. Any thoughts before we wrap up here on the fines piece? CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead Council Member Inaba. You have another question? MR. INABA: I don't think I commented on the fines and I— CHR. KAGIWADA: Oh, okay. Go ahead. MR. INABA: I could see it going up. But I know that 1-10 (Section 1-10 of Code) says $100. So, whether we just don't refer to that section and let it go to its own and increase it. I think that might be the way. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I think it needs to be higher to motivate the behavior that we're looking for as well. Not much higher maybe, $250, $500, but I would think that in today's economy with inflation, $100 isn't what it used to be maybe when you started drafting this bill. That would be my recommendation. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That's really helpful feedback, Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: On fines, I think people on fixed income, $100 is going to be a heavy lift. So, I wouldn't go above that. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. I'll just quickly weigh in on fines. I don't know how many fixed income people have vacant properties they're not using at all but maybe, it's possible. I do think there was a question earlier of like, is it just a Page 23 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 one-time fine? Or is it$100? And you ask again, and they also don't, you know, give it to you. Or is it $100 a year? Is it$100—you know. So, maybe it stays at $100 but there's some follow up to do multiple $100 fines, or something like that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And that is certainly something that we are going to leave in the hands of Real Property Tax to do once they implement. Yes, Administrator? MS. MIURA: So, I do need to clarify. Sorry. Real Property Tax Administrator, Lisa Miura. For Corp. Counsel, in regards to the legality of us doing fines on non-real property taxes. And I think that is something we need to clarify or add to the rules. Setting up the whole appeal process for that fine, I don't—we're struggling to get our Board of Review positions filled as it is. I don't know if they'd want to take this on, or if that would be another, maybe more informal group that is formed. Because right now we only have the one board, and we don't technically have a board of appeals. We have a Board of Review for exemptions, denials, and so forth. But that is something that we need to fine tune a lot more and that would be with the Finance Director in the Administrative Rules. And I don't want to see a $100 fine either. To be really clear, if we can, it would probably be once a year because we just—in order to put a fine on, we have to do an adjustment to the record for each one. And I think that's going to be quite a bit of work. It sounds like an easy thing to do but anytime you adjust taxes, for anything, especially non-tax related, excuse me, we have to do an individual addition. So, we'll have to figure that out. I think in the first run, we should discuss whether we're going to give it maybe two years to get back to us, or the one year. But it will take time to get to everybody. And I believe we're trying to hit an assessment notice, where we send everybody an assessment because not everybody receives a bill. Just some thoughts. And that goes out in March. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks, Administrator. We wanted to take advantage of that particular mailing. So, considering the timing of this ordinance, and having an additional flyer related to the Council adopting this. And then sending people to an online portal or calling a certain number, which I will volunteer and staff, to collect that information so we can copy the database. And then from there, we can assess what other actions we need to take as a body, depending on what information comes through. I forgot to share earlier, and I just want to put into perspective the number of properties that are held by non-Hawai`i Island residents, it's nearly 40 percent. That is a significant amount. About 12 percent owned by outer island folks, 26 percent folks on the continent, a little over just under 1.5 percent foreign holdings, and a little under 200 properties are owned by banks. So, there is huge Page 24 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 incentive for us to be getting information. Because again, little over 40 percent are property owners that do not reside in Hawai`i County. And I think having this information will allow each of our county agencies and departments to essentially set up rapid response teams to deal with the various issues that arise. One of the comments that was made by the Chair earlier was about, you know, this is not going to solve all the problems. You're right. That's exactly what I said at the beginning of introducing this bill and I want to manage expectations. This is a critical step in helping to deal with them, I think, a little bit more effectively. But this is not going to solve every single problem that has been plaguing the County for decades. I think it's just a step in the right direction. Thank you. CHR . KAGIWADA: Alright. Any other last comments? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Super brief I would—I think it should be higher because it's going to be quite—. Yeah, it could be a little bit difficult to get to actually finding someone. So, all that effort might as well get a little more money. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright, thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, do you have—were you— MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I do have a follow-up question. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To Ms. Miura, how many people in the County don't currently provide information? MS. MIURA: I would say majority. The information that we have—if you're a homeowner, you're not required, but you were asked on the home exemption form, to provide the phone numbers now. Same thing with affordable rental and ag programs. So, if you're in a program, you provide it to us when you apply. But it doesn't mean that they're going to keep it current if anything changes. When you record a document with the Bureau of Conveyances (BOC), there's something called a Conveyance Tax Form and there is a phone number and email on the bottom for the buyers and sellers. And if the BOC, which again is a State agency, so we don't have authority over them, actually required everybody to fill that out, that would really help, but they don't. So, when we get it, most times it's blank. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'd be interested in knowing that information and according to 92-19 (92F-19 HRS), I mean it sounds like any agency within the state can share information. Ninety-two, 90, 91, whatever it is. Page 25 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 My point being, if we have a huge amount of people not sharing their information, then the fine becomes necessary. If most people in the county are already sharing their information, you know the good residents of Hawai`i County, and they're sharing their information already, and you have it, then the fine isn't so necessary. The people who are squatting are not going to be providing any information at all. And we don't—we're not looking for their information. We need the people who have the property. That's the ones we're looking for in my mind, or you know, the out-of-staters. So, if you can figure out how many people we're looking at, who aren't readily providing information, and albeit, we're looking for new information, email, phone number, that we're going to be collecting and compiling. I'm trying to gauge— that'll help me gauge the fine. MS. MIURA: At this moment, I would be shocked if we have more than five percent of this data in our information. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Wow. Five percent is what you got right now? MS. MIURA: Correct. Because like I said, when they did the homeowners— they're not required to provide us their email or phone number just a mailing address. We have it on there but if they don't provide it, there's no—we don't make them provide it in order to get the exemption. So, we get a lot of papers back with no information. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's just your homeowners exemption. So,that's not folks who are second homeowners, residential, out-of-staters, anything? MS. MIURA: Correct. They don't provide anything to us. They're not— they're not even asked to provide it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's helpful. To the maker, I still like the $100 fine. I think that will incentivize most of the residents of our county to get the information and get us started. We can always come back and look at adjusting that fine if no one is participating. But I think for the most part, most of us are good people, and we'll do what we got to do to make sure we're putting the right information in the right hands. And you'll never get the bad people to give you what you want. There is a question about how this will be enforced, in my mind. So, that's where I'm going to hold. A hundred dollars to me, is acceptable. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you so much. Alright. I see no other lights here. To the maker, you ready to proceed and deal with some of these issues in Page 26 PCHSW-8 December 19,2023 the next round? Okay. We have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 110 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Any opposed? Vote on Bill 110: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 110 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Lee Loy— 1. Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 5:18 p.m., Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba 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: We are adjourned. Thank you. Approved: July 11, 2024 Ms. Kagiwa a, Cha' (Date) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being JK/mp Page 27