Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCIA 2024/09/16 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Infrastructure and Assets 17' Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokdlole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii September 16, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Infrastructure and Assets ORDER: was called to order at 9:45 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Acting Chair. ROLL CAT.T.- Present: Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Acting Chair Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Member STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: BILLS FOR ORDINANCES The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. Bill 184: AMENDS CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE 2 AND ARTICLE 3, OF THE HAWAPI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE USE OF COUNTY STREETS; AND ESTABLISHES A SPECIAL ACTIVITY PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES Establishes a process to obtain a special permit and regulations to conduct temporary commercial activity on a County street, and increases fees from $25 to $50 for any permit issued for the lawful use of County streets. Reference: Comm. 944 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba and Ms. Kierkiewicz Postponed: August 20 and September 3, 2024 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to recommend passage of Bill 184 on first reading.) Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 184 with the contents of Comm. 944.3. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. So, as we had discussed in our previous meetings, this amendment —first of all, will walk us right through. In Section I of the amendment, we are specifying clearly that signage authorized by a special activity permit shall be displayed in accordance with any conditions of the permit, and that any of this signage does not impede or inconvenience the public or any persons in the use of the county street. Moving on to Section 2, this is kind of one of the more significant changes based on our discussions where we are expressly permitting and determining certain areas that this type of activity will be allowed. So, we're basically setting up a schedule here with the districts and we are creating that framework so that the Council, moving forward, can identify via bill or ordinance, which streets would be allowed to be used for commercial activity based on this special activity permit. It also says that the Council will request the recommendations of both the Chief of Police, the Director of Public Works, and any other public officials deemed to be appropriate for streets. And that those two, both the DPW (Department of Public Works) Director and the Chief of Police provide a recommendation within 45 days of the request by the Council. Lastly, for Section 3, there are some exemptions. So, those who are wanting to conduct displaying, vending, or selling of food and beverages or merchandise who are nonprofits or educational institutions, can do so without having to secure a special activity permit, and that this type of fundraising is to support a specific program, project, or event, or other benefit directly related to the purpose of the nonprofit or educational institution. All other requests then, folks would have to go and apply for a permit. Apologies, the actual last section of this amendment removes the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. allowable times, and it leaves that discretion to the Director of Public Works in the permits that folks can go and apply for. So, we do allow going past, especially in the summer hours we're starting early. And again, just put this together based on the conversation that we've had, so, I ask for everyone's support in passing this amendment. If there are any questions, both Council Member Kierkiewicz and I can attempt to answer. Mahalo. Council Member Kierkiewicz, if you have anything. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair, may I? ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Page 2 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. Council Member Inaba and I really appreciate the opportunity to address concerns that have been brought forward by this body. We took inspiration from the framework, the process that we created when we were working on the commercial bicycle tours operation by creating an index for where we are determining, in this county, where we would be allowing folks to apply it for special activity permits. This gives every single one of us, as council members, to directly engage with our constituents to determine which locations, which streets would be most feasible for these activities. I did want to ask Corporation Council, J Yoshimoto, if he could just weigh in on the amendments that are being put forward, only because this takes a bill in a slightly different direction. And just to remind folks, it is currently illegal to be vending on any county and state roadways. What we are attempting through this bill is to create a safe and legal process for people to be able to do this on an ongoing basis and in special circumstances. Corporation Counsel Yoshimoto, great to see you. Thank you for being here. (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good morning, Committee Members, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Thoughts, do you have a specific question that you'd like me to address? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: There was an e-mail from Judge Strance. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I'm not aware of that e-mail; go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. She sent it last week; I believe that you were copied. Just wanting to make sure that — MR. YOSHIMOTO: Which email is that? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: From Thursday. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Thursday, okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: We weren't coordinating with her on these particular amendments, so just want to make sure that based on your reading of what we are presenting today, we are in the clear to proceed with this. MR. YOSHIMOTO: I have not reviewed the amendments prior to this meeting, I'm just looking at it now. So, I'm notable to give you a definitive clear this is okay. Generally speaking, and looking at the bill now, just some thoughts, maybe I'll start there. Section 22-2.6, you know, in the past —currently, this provision Page 3 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 has been used to basically give pretty straightforward parameters as to when or when people can or cannot post signs in the county right of way. So, this particular bill, what I'm thinking about is, in the past, DPW has relied upon Section 22-2.6 to basically say, "Hey, you can't put political signs in county right- of-ways." The reason I bring this up is that I'm not aware of any other provision in the Code that addresses political signs. So, I'm just needing to process whether these amendments would somehow affect or impact it. I don't think so, but when we're saying —you're mentioning it's taking a different direction. So, I think this is better than it was before. So, the plan basically then is to put specific areas where the special activity permit is allowed? Is that — MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That's correct. It would give council members an opportunity to work with Public Works to identify which county streets would be most appropriate to allow for special activities, and we would be able to do that through ordinance. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Through ordinance, okay. Then as far as the language, "shall not impede or inconvenience the public or any person in the lawful use of a County street." So, when I read that, I ask myself so, what does that mean? I mean basically, you want a law that is clear enough so that the layperson can look at it and say, "Okay, I can follow this." or for DPW, "This is clearly not allowed." So, I'm not sure, I'm thinking that could be clearer, but I don't have an immediate suggestion right now. Yeah, we probably need more time to look at the amendments and provide further input. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Just to recap for everyone, right now, anybody that is applying for a special activity permit if the ordinance was to pass as is, would have to identify where they would want to be vending on a road. Folks often don't understand the difference between a county or a state roadway, by having a list of roads where it is approved and appropriate, this would remove any confusion in the application process, and these roads would have been vetted by safety personnel within Public Works and the Police Department. They would sign off and say, "Yes, this vending would be appropriate in these locations because it would not provide an additional hazard within the community." MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay, when you say additional hazard, you mean generally speaking like a distraction, right, because as you're driving on a street, many times we're attempted to look on the side if someone is trying to get your attention. You know what I mean? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That particular distraction as well as people being able to safely turn or pull off on to the side of the road. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Right, so there would be parameters that would be established by DPW to make sure — Page 4 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Public Works would evaluate the feasibility of these county roads to host special activities. MR. YOSHIMOTO: So, then they'd be allowed to make like administrative rules to set again —again, I guess what I'm trying to say is for the public, okay, we have this permit, we can do this but is each permit going to be on a case by case basis or it's going to be you need to keep 20 feet clear from the roads so no one will you know, because distracted driving, right? I mean people look away for a second and all of a sudden, they're plowing into the side of the road. That's my fear, is if people or vendors are there, innocent bystanders, things like that, have we created a situation that is as safe as possible? That's my concern. So, what is the MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I can't speak for Public Works, but I'll just point to the fact that we're creating this framework where we can identify, as council members, in partnership with Police and Public Works, which county roads are most suitable for these types of activities. We'll take all the safety guess work out of the equation and just identify where it's most appropriate. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Not sure if anyone from Public Works is here and wants to answer Corporation Counsel's questions. Thanks, J. I yield. CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Any comments from —okay, Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I like the direction of the amendment. I like the thought that went into it. I do, based on this discussion, do see some need for further refining Section 22-2.6 because there are other signs that get out there and that's true, the political signs are one. The other thing is I'm just noticing that some people are just advertising on the road. You know, like turn a half a mile up and there's food or lodging or sometimes people just put signs up. So, I just want to make sure there's maybe a little more clarity in that (Section) 22-2.6. That's all I have. Thank you, I yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Anyone else in Hilo? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, please. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Absolutely in support of. I think the framework is exactly where we need to be. Just a question to the makers and if this is Page 5 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 something we want to house in this framework or leave it to Public Works, is an expiration date. My concern is that people will secure a permit and then they will have it for a life span for some unknown amount of time, which then kind of creates this defunct commercial area. I was just wondering if that's something we want to address here or if it's something that we want to address in the rules at it relates to securing the permit. Absolutely in support of. I do like the idea of an expiration date because we can actually check back in on those particular permittees and maybe even address concerns or issues that come up. But, here to support, here to help, just willing to move this forward and think about how we have a check -in period with the permittees. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair? ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Just in response to Council Member Lee Loy's question, the special activity permit is good for a duration of one year, which I think would allow Public Works to evaluate if they should continue to allow permits in that particular area or limit the number of permits that are issued. Thank you for that question. Thank you, Chair. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, excellent response. I yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes, further to add to that, just to clarify, the permits could be granted for up to one year. So, I'm not sure what DPW's preference is going to be if they want to do a shorter six-month period when we first get this program rolling just to allow for some flexibility on our end. But the Code would restrict the permits to up to one year. So, could be less than one year in some cases. Thank you, Chair, I yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you for clarifying. Anyone else? MS. KAGIWADA: Chair? ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Corporation Counsel, I'm just wondering would this affect anyone who is not doing commercial activity like people campaigning for political office, anything like that? You talked about people getting distracted on the side of the road. Are we going to be policing where people can do sign waving or where people can —that kind of thing. I'm just wondering would that be a factor here at all, or can we clearly denotate a line that that doesn't have anything to do with these commercial activities? Page 6 PCIA-17 September 1.6, 2024 (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: That's my concern right now because as the law currently is written, we interpret the law to basically state, for example, for political signs, they cannot be placed in a county right of way, similar to the state. But again, I am not aware of any other county provision that would be on point. So, what we need to look at is making sure that these changes would not impact that, or the Council could simply have a specific provision similar to the state where we can make really crystal clear as to what is allowed in terms of political signs, because that's a common thing where people can just leave it there. So, that's different from someone expressing their freedom of speech in sign waving in a right-of- way where that has deemed to be okay. So, to answer your question, I don't know right now. I'm looking at it right now and seeing —yeah, I'd have to get back to the Council. And I'll talk to Ms. Strance about it too further. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Yeah, because I'm thinking there are other like not campaign related sign waving that organizations do to try to get information out to the public about certain issues, things like that. So, those kinds of things too. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Right, like as an example, fundraising for a car wash or some other kind of nonprofit or community events which, generally speaking, seems to be okay. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. Or we have people sign waving trying to fight against domestic violence certain times of the year when that's an issue that's being highlighted and things like that. So, just want to know where all those things kind of stand in this. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yeah, that's a great question. That needs to be considered because again, we don't want to have any unintended consequences where someone will have a different interpretation. But the direction is definitely better. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thanks. I'm supportive of the commercial activities and everything, but just want to make sure that we're clear on some of these things. Thanks. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Anyone else in Hilo? MS. KIMBALL: Chair Villegas? ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Is that you, .Heather? Page 7 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. On the amendment, thank you, Council Members Kierkiewicz and Inaba for putting this forward. Wanting to know if the anticipation is, like with other schedules that we have, I'm thinking about the parking times, for example. These would be a list of sections of streets, not necessarily the whole street. I'm getting a nod of a yes from Council Member Kierkiewicz. Okay. I think I like the way this is going as well. I'd like to perhaps, and this is in line with what I said at previous hearings, in Section 22-3.3. 1, determination of allowable areas, I think we might be able to and should put in some additional criteria here of no-go areas. And some of the things that I'm thinking about are proximity to parks or facilities where people should be getting the vending permit at the park; proximity to schools or other places where there'll be a lot of traffic crossing the street, intersections, maybe a certain distance from intersections. I still think maybe we want to stick to streets that have a lower speed limit. But yeah, I'd like to see maybe an item (c) here, and I'm happy to put something forth, but want to leave it to the makers for some input that would have a list of areas that are not going to be determined to be allowable. Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Anyone else? MS. EVANS: Chair? ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, I just, based on the last comment by Member Kimball, it'd be interesting to know if that could just be done by rulemaking; that when they look at the rules on this special activity permit for this specific purpose that through the rulemaking, how do we decide where it goes or where it does not go. Would that happen through rulemaking? I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not sure it needs to be in Code. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you. With that, I'll just finish up with a couple of things. I have a number of questions relating to this. I honor the intent and I'm grateful for the intent and the attempt to try and create parameters for small vendors to make some money. My challenge is, and this is a question for the makers or perhaps for actually Corp Counsel. We have signs all over the place on county properties that say no commercial activity on county property, and now we're creating a space for this to actually happen on county property. Do you see any conflict there? Mr. Yoshimoto? Sorry, I wasn't clear. (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 8 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 MR. YOSHIMOTO: Madam Chair, sorry, I wasn't sure if that was directed to me or the makers. I think it was directed to both. I think Member Kierkiewicz wanted to respond. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, if I could just ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Actually, I prefer to hear your answer first. I apologize for my confusion, there, Ms. Kierkiewicz. It was at first to the makers, but I'm going to go ahead and put it to Mr. Yoshimoto. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Okay. My understanding is you are —well basically, there are commercial permits that are allowed, whether it's farmer's markets. I think there are other permits allowed by Parks, depending upon the activity. There's a permit that's allowed there. Also, there are vendors at park facilities or park areas which, in thinking about it and today's discussion, Council should probably look at what policy direction it wants to take this in terms of establishing some type of direction or guidance that the public can understand. What I mean by that is for example, someone would have to obtain a permit to do vending in a park. So, if we allow commercial activity or commercial permits near that, to Council Chair's point, that might be a conflict because I don't know what the bid amounts are for the opportunity to vend in the park versus here. Is there an amount that's set for the permit? For parks, yeah, but for this particular bill? $50? Okay, $50. Okay, so, it's done both ways now, and this is an extension of that, but I'm not sure in the bigger picture how everything needs to fit together. That's kind of my concern as far as looking at how the pieces are coming together. Anyway, I hope I answered the question. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, you did in just saying you have some concerns there, which I also share. As great as the intention is, so the designation of the streets that would be available to be used is created by the Department of Public Works. However, enforcement would then fall to Police and the planning inspectors because they are currently responsible for illegal commercial activity inspections. I have some heartburn about this many departments having to be involved in something like this, so the real feasibility of managing a project like this or some changes like this. I also have some challenges and wondered, so, if you have a permit holder and this is the side of the road, is there a reserved space or is it first come, first served? We've had lots of conversations here about concerns about sprawl. I just —where these things are going to be on the sides of the roads, I just go back to the greatest, highest good for a community and not just the small business owners who we want to support, who are vending on the side of the road, but we just opened up county parks for farmers' markets as places for that. Page 9 IMAIIM&A September 16, 2024 There are numerous shopping center parking lots and events happening all over town, at least I know in Kona, all the time, which provide venues with other facilities to support this kind of small business activity. So, I just have some concerns from a legal standpoint, which it sounds like there are still some more answers that need to come from Corp Counsel. I have some questions about each of the departments that would be directly affected and then be required to be held responsible for this. And I'm concerned that we would accidentally open Pandora's box and a whole other can of worms when perhaps there's an opportunity to provide a pathway for these vendors to participate in vending activities in spaces that have already been allocated and dedicated for these uses. I also thank you for your questions, Council Member Kagiwada, relating to political activities and sign waving and all that. Once again, there's a whole other thing. As we navigate a campaign season where there are candidates who respect the legal placement of signage in approved areas and private property and those that just disregard it, which adds another burden to these departments for having to go and pick these up and whatnot. So, there's just a lot that I think the intentionality of a simple solution, I really appreciate, and you guys have dug deep and tried to navigate all the potential loopholes and button things up so the greatest highest good can be supported here. My recommendation would be to keep it in committees again and potentially bring Planning and community policing and DPW back to the table and to get a solid answer from Corp Counsel. Those are my feelings on it today. So, thank you, everyone. Ms. Evans, one more comment? MS. EVANS: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your comment. You bring up something about an unfair advantage. I mean I know out where I'm at in Puako, clearly, this one location where the food truck vendors are at, I mean it's just an amazing location. It's like primo location for commercial activity for food. Wouldn't want to give unfair advantage by giving them the primo corner but they are on the primo corner without a doubt. There might be something for you to consider is that whatever we do with food truck vendors that you limit it on any given area; there's no more than three or two food trucks because you don't really want to turn it into a kind of a row of —I mean, again, unfair advantage snaking sure that we're creating a commercial activity area. We don't really want to do that. What we want to do is give these food truck vendors and the community an opportunity to say they have really good eaten food at a pretty reasonable price and probably very convenient too for a lot of folks. I think you bring lip a good point for us to consider like how many in a given area; like how many trucks might be a maximum that's comfortable where we don't really feel like we're starting to compete with shopping centers or retail Page 1.0 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 centers or other commercial activity areas. Anyway, I do see what's happening on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and these three truck vendors have a primo location. Thank you very much. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Evans. On the amendment, let's go ahead and take a vote. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 184 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 944.3 was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Acting Chair Villegas — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Back to the main motion. Council Members or the makers? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, Chair Villegas, I have a question, please. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Yeah. MS. KIMBALL: My question is just with respect to Section 22-3.3 of the bill, item (a)(6) for Corporation Counsel. Just want to ensure, I know that this is kind of boilerplate language with respect to liability for the county. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Sorry, Ms. Kimball, could you repeat those numbers just a little slower? MS. KIMBALL: I'm sorry, this is Section 22-3.3(a)(6). It's the certificate of insurance and whatnot. Just wondering if you can speak to whether or not this clause is sufficient to protect our liability. I mean my biggest concern with all of this remains safety and of course, part impartial to that is our own liability. So, if you can, Corporation Counsel, can you speak to that real quickly? (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: J Yoshimoto, Assistant Corporation Counsel. Yes, Council Member Kimball, I would recommend some changes to Section (6), primarily because insurance coverages, they can change over time depending on circumstance too. So, if there is some other type of language, I would suggest Page 1.1 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 that there's something that allows discretion for increasing the limits, maybe setting a minimum, but also consult our risk manager as well. So, maybe that's something that we can further work on because yeah, times change and a million is a lot maybe ten years ago but maybe today it's not. So yeah, short answer, would like to consult our risk manager and also have some language that allows some flexibility because it could depend upon the activity too. I mean I'm not sure how this is going to be utilized. So, in a bigger activity with a bigger impact, you might have more coverage. So definitely, can be improved. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I'll maybe leave it to the makers to check with you and get some stronger language there. The other question I had was with respect to potentially adding some best practices. I don't know that this makes sense in any of the other existing sections that you've created in this bill. For example, I'm thinking in terms of if you're pulled off on the side of the road, distance from the side of the road to the place where people would stand to order, or maybe they have to be ordering from the non -street side. I just think that there's maybe some language there. I haven't really given it a ton of thought but again, safety being a primary concern. Similarly, the last comment I'll make about the whole bill is I would like to have DPW join us if they're not therein Kona. I am worried about their ability to take this on. And I understand it has to do with streets and whatnot, but I'm wondering if they are actually the right department to handle the permitting. I'm not going to propose an alternative right now, but I am a little concerned about adding that to the DPW workload. Maybe there's somebody from DPW there? No? Okay. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: No, nobody's here right now. MS. KIMBALL: Alright, that's just my last comment as I would like to maybe think about a little bit who —if anyone might be a better department to manage the permitting process. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Is that it, Council Member Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'm sorry. I yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: No worries. Anyone else at this time? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, please. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I continue to be in full support of this bill do think DPW is the appropriate department to manage this because of their Page 1.2 PCIA-17 September 16, 2024 expertise on understanding traffic flow. In addition to the maker, willing to push forward. Under Section 22-2.6, Signs and other advertising, I believe it's Chapter 3, Hawai'i County has a Sign Code. Maybe you can make the two of them talk to each other appropriately because that would actually be another area in which DPW is the appropriate permitting agency for a sign code. Maybe even if in the future, there might be tweaks to the Sign Code in the future after this where if it's below a particular size in which these vendors could do those pop-up kinds of signs, maybe that's a way to expedite a way through for them. Just my thoughts on the bill in its totality, but I continue to support and yield. ACTING CHR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Anyone else? So, I'll go ahead and wrap this up. Unfortunately, I don't believe this is ready for prime time. So, my petition to the makers would be to keep it in Committee but I haven't heard that from them. So, with that, we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote. Vote on Bill 184: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 184, as amended (Draft 2) to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Lee Loy — 6. Noes: Committee Members Evans and Acting Chair Villegas — 2. Absent: Committee Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:25 a.m., Acting Chair Villegas adjourned the MENT: meeting. Approved: ............. (Date) ana Assets SL/jm Page 13