HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2025/07/08 (2024-2026) DRAFT Committee on Governmental Operations
and External Affairs
13th Session
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii
July 8, 2025
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental„Operations and
ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers,
Hilo, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair
Mr. Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair(came in later)
Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member
Mr. James E. Hustace, Member
Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba,Member
Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member(came in later)`
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member
Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member(came in later)
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called
by the Chair:
Hugh Ono: Bill 64 (334); and
Bill 65 (362), in support.
Curtis Beck: Bill 64 (334), in opposition; and
(representing Big Island Bill 65 (362), in support.
Engineers Association)
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. For the record, Mr. Onishi has joined
us. Mr. Clerk, we're going to go out of order this morning. We're going to do the
appointments and nominees first, so that they can be on their way. So, could you
please start with Communication 356.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members,
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
of Business: the following items were taken out of order:
Comm. 356: APPOINTMENT OF RYDER BEECHLER TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION
From Council Member James E. Hustace, dated June 5, 2025.
(Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda
and the nominee came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
Vote on Comm. 356: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend confirtation of the nomination
(Approved) of Mr. Ryder Beechler to the Youth Commission. Seconded by Mr.
Inaba and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kimball, Onishi, Villagas, and Chair Kagiwada—7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder
and Kierkiewicz—2.
Excused: None.
Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative ofthe nominee's background
and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
Comm. 363: NOMINATION OF WAYNE T NISHIJIMA TO THE VETERANS
ADVISORYCOMMITTEE
From Managing Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated June 19, 2025,
requesting the Council's review and confirmation.
(Now, At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda
and the nominee came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
Vote on Comm. 363: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination
(Approved) of Mr. Wayne T. Nishijima to the Veterans Advisory Committee.
Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villagas,
and Chair Kagiwada—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background
Page 2
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
Comm. 364: NOMINATION OF ALAN OKAMOTO TO THE LIQUOR COMMISSION
From Mayor C. Kimo Alameda, dated June 19, 2025, requesting the Council's
review and confirmation.
Requires Council
Confirmation by: August 2, 2025 (Section 134(k),
Hawai`i County Charter)
(Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda
and the nominee came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
Vote on Comm. 364: Ms. Galimba moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination
(Approved) of Mr. Alan Okamoto to the Liquor Commission. Seconded by'
Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villagas,
and Chair Kagiwada— 8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background
and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
Comm. 365: NOMINATION OF BERNADETTE C. K. URBAN-SMITH TO THE POLICE
COMMISSION
From Mayor C. Kimo Alameda, dated June 19, 2025, requesting the Council's
review and confirmation.
Requires Council
Confirmation by: August 2, 2025 (Section 134(k),
Hawaii County Charter)
(Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda
and the nominee came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
Vote on Comm. 365: Ms. Galimba moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination
(Approved) of Ms. Bernadette C. K. Urban-Smith to the Police Commission.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Page 3
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi, Villagas,
and Chair Kagiwada—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background
and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment.
RESOLUTIONS: The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
Resolutions.
Res. 233-25: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I AT ILO TO SUPPORT
THEIR CONTINUED COOPERATION WITH THE HAWAI`LPOLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR THE FURTHER.PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS
Authorizes the University of Hawaii (UH),and the Hawaii Police Department to
enter into an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for police officers
to enroll in the Bachelor of Arts in Administration of Justice Program.
Reference: ' Comm. 371
Intr. by: Council Member Kagiwada (B/R)
Motion to Approve: 'Ms. Galimba moved to recommend adoption of Res. 233-25.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
CHR." AGIWADA: Thank you very much. We have the Police Chief and
Major Evangelista here, as well as our Corporation Counsel. Would you like to
come up and'share a little bit about this resolution?
(Note: At,this time, Hawaii Police Department Major Evangelista,
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. EVANGELISTA: Hi, good morning. I'm Major Jeremy Evangelista with
the Hawaii Police Department Administrative Services Division. Our
Department seeks to partner with UH Hawai`i at Hilo to provide continuing
education opportunities for our personnel.
With this program that we envisioned partnering with UH, our personnel can earn
their bachelor's degree in administration of justice through asynchronous
learning. So, they can fit it in with whatever work schedule they happen to be on
at the time.
Page 4
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
This, obviously, is going to lead to a better educated workforce. And it's also
going to better prepare our people for leadership and advancement opportunities
within the organization.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Wonderful. Thank you. We have Corporation Counsel as
well as the Chief here. Do we have any questions or comments, Council
Members? No? Okay, great. Thank you for bringing this forward. I'm very
supportive of our officers and Police Department employees advancing their
education. And I think this is a great opportunity.
I just had one question. There's nothing about paymentx really, in this. How will
that be handled, or is UHis this a free program, or do we pay for the
individuals.
MR. EVANGELISTA: It would not be a free program. Part of the MOU would
be that UH would prepare invoices.
CHR KAGIWADA: Okay. So, will the department be paying for those?
MR. EVANGELISTA: Sep,the student would actually be responsible for
payment. I do remind the Council that the County has a'tuition reimbursement
program that the student could perhaps;take advantage of.
CHR. IA+GIWADA: Excellent., Well, I hope that they get the support to do that,
because it'is a great program and would love for them to take advantage. Thank
you very much for bringing this forward. With no further questions or comments,
all'those in favor in approving Resolution 233-25 and sending it to Council with a
favorable recommendation,please say "aye." Any opposed?
Vote on Res.233-2 ; The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 233-25, was
(Approved)' carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR KAGIWADA: We have nine members in favor. And please for the record,
Council Member Kierkiewicz has joined us. Alright, we are going to jump down
to Bill 65 at this point. Thank you very much.
Page 5
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Bill 65: INITIATES AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE
CHARTER OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I(2024 EDITION), RELATING
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Creates a Public Works Commission with the authority to hire and fire the Public
Works director and other oversight responsibilities related to the Department of
Public Works.
Reference: Comm. 362
Intr. by: Council Member Kimball
Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 65 on first
reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. So,,the bill before you is very much a simplistic
boilerplate for the concept of having a commission related to the Department of
Public Works that would hire the DPW (Department of Public Works) Director.
So, it would function very similarly to the Police Commission that we just talked
about.
If we were to move forward on this,there are somethings that I would suggest we
examine more carefully. But in light of our discussion about Bill 64, I did just want
to present this as one of the options that we could consider utilizing to make the
director position somewhat more attractive,by being a merit-hire versus a political
appointment.'
I'm not sure if Council Member Kierkiewicz was able to prepare a bill at some
point in the future that would look at one of the other alternatives which is
separating out the department, which I think is also worth considering. But wanted
to put,this forth for the purpose of discussion.
When we get to Bill 64, I think that this is a complicated and important enough
issue that what we may want to do is consider all three proposals within an Ad Hoc
and come forth with some sort of unified piece of legislation. I would not suggest
that it makes sense to put three different options on the ballot.
Sol happy to answer any questions. But again, this is very much a simple
boilerplate. And I think, hopefully, we can have a meaningful discussion around
the concept. Thank you.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you very much. And I just want to let the Council
know that we've been kind of alerted by LRB (Legislative Research Branch), that
both Bill 64 and Bill 65 coexist. They cannot both be passed, really. So, they're
kind of in opposition or they do not work well together.
Page 6
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. BROWN: Madame Chair, if you don't mind,just real quickly to elaborate.
And I think there are challenges for both of Bill 64 and 65, as written out to come
forward at the same time to go to the ballot; not saying it is totally off the table.
But I think there are some potential conflicts there. So, I think as the body has
more discussion, it may be something to consider that both of them going to the
ballot may be a challenge. But we're still looking into that.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. And so, I think I feel, you
know, there is some potential relevance to maybe having an Ad Hoc. But would
anybody else like to add comments or questions on Bill 65, specifically. And I
know there's also a couple amendments here. Oh,that's,for Bill 64, okay. Alright,
anything on Bill 65? Yes, Council Member Vil'legas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable and taken aback, I
suppose, on the order of things being presented today in this committee. As
Bill 64 hasn't been discussed and gone over. And now, a bill that is, basically
we're being told, incompatible with. So,Wewould have to choose either one,
should one of these be decided. So, I'm a little uncomfortable with the navigation
of the presentation of this:
CHR KAGIWADA: Can I just''explain why I chose to do that? We had a good
discussion on Bill 64 already. There were no amendments. Well, we have these
two from Council Member Kimball now. Arid I was told that we can't really
discuss them together. So, I thought it was important that we have the information
of Bill 65 before we discuss Bill 64. So, that's reason of the change or order, or
not the change or order. But that's the reason for the order that I've taking them.
So, we have all the information when we discuss Bill 64.
ASS. VILLEGAS: Okay, point taken. I'll yield at this time.
CHR,KAGIWADA: Okay. Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. To Council Member Kimball, if I may. On
the account of the makeup of the commission itself, as it's kind of written. Nine
members,but not of any sort of geographic tie, correct? So, kind of an open-board
across the County?
MS. KIMBALL: May I respond Chair?
CHR KAGIWADA: Yes, please.
MS. KIMBALL: Yes, again, boilerplate. So, if the body felt like that was a need
for geographical equity, I think that's certainly something that bears discussion.
The reason I chose to not include it at this stage was, we have some engineering
Page 7
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
experience, architecture experience, construction. It may be difficult to get that
and geographic equity at the same time. So, it seemed like the professionalism
was a higher requirement or a more pertinent requirement, I would say than
geographical distribution. But again, open to an amendment on that.
MR. HUSTACE: Also,just your thoughts on of the number of nine. Just looking
for your thoughts on some of these things.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I mean, you're always going to want to have an odd
number. The number "nine"would provide a good tnix of different professional
backgrounds. Again, boilerplate coming froth—I actually use the language around
the Police Commission.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Council Member. The only other thought I had, and
I think it kind of answered itself,already. And we've seen Administration bring a
lot of nominees forward. So, one concern I hady and I even broughttip just a
moment ago about the Agricultural Advisory Committee. And we have all these
boards and commissions, and I think we've had some challenges filling boards and
commissions over time. But it seems that Administration's really trying to fill out
some of these vacancies. So,I don't know if`there's really an issue there.
But if you had any thoughts Administration on these kind of particular
requirements for individuals across the County? And I don't know if there would
be an issue, but I was just curious about that;
MS. KIMBALL; I haven't had a conversation specifically with the
Administration,but I will say in the interim, you know, in discussing Bill 64 as
well as this one,I've spoken to some members of the engineering community and
the architectural community, construction community, and there are a number of
folks are willing to step forward in this capacity. So again, there's always
challenges. It's a volunteer position with a lot of kuleana. So, you know, hard to
say atthe end of the day. But from the public standpoint, there's an interest in,
from whatI've received in serving in this capacity.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Council Member. Chair, I'll yield for now. Thank
you.
CA KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, Council Member. Council Member
Kdeali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I like the idea. I think
what's it's being alluded to is that Director requirements being a professional
engineer being in direct opposition to what's being accomplished in Bill 64. And I
am stepping away from this requirement being something we need to be working
towards.
Page 8
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
I feel opening the capacity of that person to be more of a well-rounded individual
versus just being an engineer. So, besides that, I like the idea. I mean a simple
amendment could drive us in the direction of Bill 64 and Bill 65 being compatible
in my mind. So, that's my thoughts. Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Anybody else before I go
back tooh, Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. At the least meeting I did mention that
a commission might be something where wecan work with instead of having the
Charter amendment being to reduce the qualifications of the director.
In regards to Council Member Hustace's amount of commissioners, I feel nine is a
little bit too much. I think it should be reduced down to maybe five. But then,
also to me, I think the Administration,and the Mayor should be in this commission
to select that person.
So, like with the State Government, the Governor on like different unions, I guess
contracts, the Governor has four votes; the Mayors have one vote. The Governor
needs five votes in order to,get that legislation or agreement passed. So, we could
do something like that with this moving forward. Where the Mayor has two votes,
and then we have three at-large members on the commission. And we would need
three to pass, or we could have seven where the Mayor has two votes and we have
five at-large." 'Then you'll need'four votes in order to pass it.
Also, Ifeel that there needs to be something in here about how many years they
can serve. Because I think if they can have where it's not only a four-year term,
and they could look at,at, getting 10 years. I think that we can find better
qualified people.
Because if you know'in'government, a lot of private people. They come to
government for their retirement, which is their medical. And they need to put in at
least 10 years, right? To get that, at least 50 percent. So, we need to give more
incentives for those that are out there that might want to apply for this position.
So,just my'thoughts. I think this still needs to be worked on.
Sol L Would like to, I guess, have the author maybe work with the community
more you know, the professionals, in trying to come up with something better
and also working with the Administration. So, the Mayor can also be on board and
support this, right? And so, I would recommend if we could maybe postpone it.
You know, rework it; get it more defined. And that way, I think the bill will be
much better. And I think we can move forward. So,just my thoughts. Thank
you.
Page 9
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. Yes, I think this is going in a good direction for
mainly two reasons. Having the kind of continuity that is, I think, really helps us
to have better infrastructure for our island, because we'll just have that director.
We'll have more job security. And so, that will also allow us to get better
candidates. So, I this is a good direction to move in
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, I won't be supporting this bill in its current form. I thank
you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder for your statement about this.
Essentially, Bill 64 was brought forward to solve an issue that was very relevant
and obvious to all of us.
It was the inability for us to find qualified candidates based on the PE
(Professional Engineer) qualification to be and serve as an appointed director for
the Department of Public Works. Through our conversations, what's also come up
is, quite frankly, the Department of Public Works is almost too big for anyone to
manage.
The requirements of being an engineer relates to some of the roles and some of the
people they manage. However, most of those people have a supervisor there of a
management role. They are professional engineers. So, it is a very broad and big
department.
f see wisdom in,exploring—I'll admit I don't have the bandwidths to take it on.
But the potential future separation of DPW to allow for two different director
roles. And for those directors;perhaps at that time, depending on what divisions
fall under a certain director;that PE requirement, it would be wise to have it stay
in place. But I've heard this conversation for decades, even prior to my serving in
this role.,
My concern with Bill 65, is the conversation was brought forward to solve a
problem. And I see Bill 65 as actually overcomplicating things at this point, kind
of overstepping our lane. I think, you know, if something all-inclusive in looking
at fundamentally changing our way our largest department is managed, and its
leadership is appointed. That would be the time to really look at the department
and split it up.
But right now, I just can't support somethingI just think we're overcomplicating
it and we're overstepping our lane based on the issue that was brought before us,
and it could be simplified. And that, I think, was the solution forth and why I will
still be in support of Bill 64 over Bill 65. And with that, I yield.
Page 10
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member
Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kimball
for bringing this forward. I really appreciate the opportunity to have robust
dialogue, particularly, when it comes to charter amendments. Because we are
making a recommendation to the voters about the direction of where we want to
take the County and its various functions.
I concur with Council Member Villegas, in that I think what is being presented in
the vehicle of Bill 65 might complicate things. But'I want to get your prospective
because there's a lot that I don't know based on what's presented here.
One, does the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) allow for a commission to appoint
a director, or is that something that solely rests with the Mayor? And I.bring that
up because when I was exploring the hiring of the Civil Defense Administrator,
Chapter 127A specifically says that itis a Mayoral=appointed Civil Service
position. So, I was just curious what HRS says or doesn't say about the
appointment of the director.
MS. KIMBALL: The FIRS'is silent.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It's silent, okay. Thank you. I was also curious about why
you felt the need for Public Works commission. Not just for the hiring piece. But
when I look at the various divisions that make up Public Works right? We have an
Administration and Automotive,Building, which handles the permitting process.
Engineering, Highways, Traffic. Was it any specific function that caused you to
think yOu know what,we need to send input in oversight. What was that?
ASS. KIMBAL;L: I don't think it's actually necessary for all functions that
currently resi'do'under DPW. Specifically, the divisions that have a component
with an engineering requirement or that involve the interpretation in particular of
the Building Codes Because like many laws, they're not actually black and white.
So, in addition to the hiring practices the commission would engage in, I could see
them also be the body that adjudicates when there's a question about interpretation
of the Building Code or other engineering codes.
There was in the past a commission that actually served to the same function of the
Board of Appeals but isolated from the Planning Director. So now, both the
Planning Director and Director of Public Works appeal that their decisions are
under the Appeals Board. I could see that functionality moving when there's a
decision of the director to this commission as well, which you know, given the
complexity of some of the appeals that might relate to DPW, I think actually
Page 11
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
makes sense because you would have that expertise. Does that answer your
question?
MS. KIERKIWICZ: Yeah, that's incredibly helpful, and I think you're going to
love what Council Member Hustace, and I are bringing forward. Many of you
have mentioned the desire to explore, you know, separating out some core
functions the Department of Building handling the permits in its own sort of space
with the commission to help advise on codes. I'll pause there because it hasn't
been introduced yet. But I appreciate your hard work on this and hope that we can
keep the discussion going and really put something forward to the voters that we
can all stand behind. Thank you Chair, I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba.'
MR. INABA: Thank you. Not insupport primarily because of the Public Works
Commission. I think the power to appoint by the Mayor and confirmed by the
Council is a system that generally works. And in the last Mayoral Administration
we saw where we needed some change in the department. And the Mayor was
able to initiate that change quickly.
I do think that it is beneficial to keep that ability to act quickly with the Mayor
rather than trying to find a commission,to staff and then ultimately having nine
people trying to determine the future of a department. So, cannot support this bill.
Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Anybody else on Bill 65? Council
Member Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder, please go ahead.
MR. KANEAU'I-KLEI FEL➢ER: Just one random comment. In the Public
Works Commission, the members' background, it may be beneficialI thought
about this for a long time. It's not going to be long probably, but it might be
beneficial not to allow members of the bargaining units to be involved in that.
Because if the bargaining units are involved in appointing in this bill a director
who will then be deciding on contracts and other things, it just creates to me, an
issue that isn't in the benefit of the public. It's just a thought as you look at what
would be required if the bill was to move forward for each member of the
commission. So, thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead, Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: I just wanted to make a couple of quick points of clarification
and then get some answers from my colleagues here. Again, like I said, this was
formulated as just a boilerplate, as simple as possible. And so, in terms of like the
requirements for the DPW director, I just kept what was consistent. I do think that
Page 12
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
if the body feels like the PE requirement is a significant constraint that is an
amendment that could be placed with respect to the actual qualifications.
So again, the idea really here is just to present the idea of a commission for the
purposes of discussion. If Council Member Onishi could clarify the 10 years, were
you saying that would apply to the time that people would serve on the
commission or an appointment of the director?
MR. ONISHL Appointment of the director. That would be like an incentive for
getting that qualified person. Because like I said iri they past, private applicants
were coming and looking for that government retirement. Sick leave and Medical.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay, great, thank you. And then with respect to the Mayor
potentially sitting on the Cominissinn,the reason for Mayor versus Managing
Director, if I may? Just wanted to get clarification if there was an interest in
having maybe both the Mayor and the Managing Director rather than giving the
Mayor two votes.
CHR. KAGIWADA: I think back to Council Member Onishi. Back to your
original statement of the two votes for the Mayor.
MR. ONISHI: So basically, that way, the Mayor would have a say with who the
selection can be, right? Whereas if like how we do the Police Commission, right?
We're selecting nine members. The commission is the ones that can hire and fire
the Police Chief,right?
We all know with these commissions that we have, not all of them are working
how they're supposed to be working, right? We have problems with the situation.
Because if you talk to Rank and File, they can tell you what the problems are. So,
this way the Mayor still'has some teeth into this decision.
MS. KIMBALL: Alright, thank you. Appreciate the feedback and interested to
see what Council Member Hustace and Kierkiewic have to present. What I'm
going to propose at this time is a motion to postpone this to the Call of the Chair.
So that,we have that time to see what else can be put forward to this.
I do think that perhaps the ultimate solution here is some sort of compromise or
you know, amalgamation of all the proposals put forward. Bur to that end, again
would like to have this body seriously consider the formation of an Ad Hoc that
would meet with the Administration; that would meet the professional engineers
and actually compile that. Maybe it's Council Member Onishi, I don't want to
propose that. But I think we could probably come up with the best sort of uniform
solution. With that, I'll make a motion to postpone to the Call of the Chair.
Page 13
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Just a minute, I want to add something before you do that.
On the Ad Hoc, I would just say, I want to make sure that everybody that wants to
participate in this discussion participates. And Ad Hoc limits it to four. So, I
would just make sure we have a good pulse that that's you know, it may be
slower and a little more arduous to debate these things here, but yes, it's in public
and it also allows all nine members to contribute. So, I just wanted to throw that
out there.
I'm glad you'll be postponing because I would like to not take this off the table,
but obviously, it still has a lot of work that needs to+be done. Council Member
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, do you have another item?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes just a quick one.,, believe years ago I
heard that other counties in our State do have like an infrastructural working group
or infrastructure committee, which'I forgot which entity was corning in to discuss,
but they were talking about how they had been working with that committee at
different counties, and it was beneficial to them. And eyebrows were raised that
we don't have a committee.
So, it might be worth looking into what exists in,other counties here in Hawaii,
and see what they do for this,kind,of committee that becomes that mix between
Council, government,private interest, and whoever else might be participating.
So,just food for thought.
CHR, KAGIWADA: Thank you for bringing that information forward. With that
if you'd like to make a motion.
Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 65 to the Call of the
to Postpone: Chair. Seconded by Mr. Onishi and was carried by the
(Approved) following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
dneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KAGIWADA: We have nine in favor. Thank you so much. We will go to
Bill 64 now.
BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances.
Page 14
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Bill 64: INITIATES AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 6-2.2,
OF THE CHARTER OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I(2024 EDITION),
RELATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Replaces the requirement that the Director of Public Works must be a registered
professional engineer with the requirement that the Director have a bachelor's
Degree in engineering, architecture,public administration or a related discipline,
or a degree in law. Adds the requirement that at least two of the five years of
required administrative or managerial experience mush,be in public works or
construction, or a related field.
Reference: Comm. 334
Intr. by: Council'Member Inaba
Postponed: June 17, 2025
(Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member
Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, to recommend passage of Bill 64 on first reading )
(Note: Comm. 334.1 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 3,
2025; and Comm. 34.2 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated July 2,
2025 transmitting proposed amendments relating to Bill 64, were circulated.)
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Mr. Inaba, anything to share?
MR. INABA: Thank you. I think we had good discussion, and I think Council
Member Kimball might have some amendments.. So, I'll yield at this time.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, Council Member Kimball, would you like to bring
forward an amendment?
MS. KIMBALL: Sure,thank you Chair.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 64, with the contents of Comm. 334.1.
Seconded by Ms Galimba.
CHR KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIM 3ALL: Yes, this proposal puts forth some language that just clarifies the
requirements in terms of providing a list. So, retaining a requirement to have a
Professional Engineering license or a degree in engineering from an accredited
Engineering school, a credited Architecture school; master's degree in public
administration, or a license to practice law in good standing before the Supreme
Court, which is someone who has passed the bar in Hawaii.
This was one of the two suggestions that I got in communication with members of
the Engineering community. Specifically, there's two things, the other amendment
addresses the other issue. But one of the two primary concerns was that there was
Page 15
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
educational knowledge around ethical code as it applies to the building public
infrastructure and public health and safety.
So, providing a little more specificity with respect to the actual requirements was
one solution to insure that the director have that if they did not have a PE license.
So, happy to take any questions anyone may have.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Any comments or questions from members on
the dais on this? Yes, Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. I iJannot support Bill 64 even with this
amendment. Because unless we change the requirements for Building Chief and
our Engineering Division Chief, which is needing a PE. I'cannot see how a director
is going to be able to oversee those two positions when they are basically, more
qualified than the director, right. And so, unless we remove those requirements for
those two different positions, then I think this can work. But as of now, I cannot
support the amendment or even the bill. L yield, thank you.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Any othercomments or questions on this
amendment? Yes, Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. I do appreciate a little bit more specificity, but then
again, the point of the bill is to allow for a greater pool. And to Mr. Onishi's point,
we do have the requirement for our Engineering Chiefs to have that engineering
background because they ultimately serve to overs these certain divisions.
What we're trying to do here and what we've been experiencing in terms of not
being to find adirector, I think we need to head in the direction of having as big a
pool as possible with the experience. So, the language in Bill 64 currently
regarding two years of public work, construction or related field, gives us the
broadest pool of candidates to choose from.
With that, I can't support this amendment,just because I think it's running counter
to what we're trying to accomplish here. And that's to provide the County with the
biggest pool of qualified applicants possible. Thank you, I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Anybody else? Council Member Villegas.
M . VILLEGAS: Having been a manager myself, and I had to learn a lot about
myself while being in a managerial role. And I do have agree in Business
Management. Something that just pops up for me is the difference in when
you're a manager—I just remember it being pointed out and making a lot of sense
to me that there are managers of people and managers of project or activity or a
specific action that is approving.
Page 16
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
So, I see there being ideally you'll have somebody that has the expertise and is
that engineer, that PE. But I've also seen within this department, the need to be
able to manage people and ensure that you have the right people with the
appropriate qualifications to ensure health and safety for infrastructure
advancement and building as well as abilities to all the different things that
happen within this department.
So, that's just something that comes to me, and it seems,to be one of the
fundamental challenges that we're having in this conversation is this role for the
director. Does the director, and I have had experiences where a prior director has,
and I was deeply grateful for his engineering knowledge,and PE skills, because he
was able to all baloney on a project claiming engineering viability and
authenticity, But he didn't have PE to see that. That was a pretty obvious thing.
And he also had a staff and a team who could stand there and point those things
out to him.
So, I don't know, but it is that the director is actually the one making the
decisions on projects or approving of things from that PE lens. So, I'm trying to
find some clarity in the mud here without inadvertently compromising health and
safety for our community, but also you know, here we sit in a pickle. We can't
find a viable candidate for the director that holds a PE license.
So, that means you've got to work with whatyou've got to work with. And I've
seen tunes when a prior director under the first Administration I worked under,
there was a l6t of conflict and controversy over somebody with a PE that was
brought back that was a terrible manager. And it was really detrimental overall to
the department.-
So, I'm tryirtg'to navigate through personal experience witnessing the uniqueness
of our County,government; of our vulnerability for nepotism and manipulation of
systems based on:personal relationships. Yeah,just how we get to the best
option'. And I tend,to want to simplify rather than complicate in this arena. So, I
yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else before we go back. Council
Member Kerkiewicz.
MS'KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Appreciate the discussion, but I'm not going to
be°supporting the amendment. I support Bill 64 as presented. You know, I've said
before and I'll say it again, that having these licenses and degrees don't necessarily
make you a good manager. And at the end of the day, what we want a director to
do is to motivate and to hold accountable the employees of the department that are
responsible for carrying out its mission.
Page 17
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Again, the intent of this bill is to insure that we have a wide pool of applicants for
the Mayor to select from to lead this department. And I think that this amendment
would certainly get in the way of that. So, can't support it. Thank you, I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, on the
amendment.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. On the amendment.
Yeah, I like Bill 64 as it is. So, I won't be supporting the amendment, but I do
appreciate that thought went into it. Thank you.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I am in support of the amendment. It does clarify
basically what is already there. But having some more specifics,'I think is really
important. So, on the amendment, supportive and that's all for now.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody,else before going back to Council
Member Kimball? Council Member Kimball. ,
MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. I can appreciate-that the intent of the legislation
is to widen the pool of potential'appjicants. And you know, if that were the only
consideration, then we would remove any requirements and just say that anybody
could be appointed.
But the important thing about the Director of Public Works is that there are other
provisions, statutory from HRS, that requires that all Public Works projects be
overseen'by an engineer.
If you recall the bridge and covert audit, one of the things that came forward was
thatFederally-funded projects of that sort need to be overseen by an engineer.
And we were okay,because we had an engineer as our Public Works Director.
Similarly, our own Building Code has a list of responsibilities for the DPW
Director that would actually require the expertise of a professional engineer.
The Director has the ability to appoint a deputy or designate somebody to make
those decisions which is relevant to the next amendment. But it is not as simple as
just to say that we want to extend the pool of potential applicants. There are
requirements for this position that are important. First and foremost,just being
ultimately public health and safety.
Again, these proposals don't expand actually, what is set forth as the
requirements, they just clarify them to the extent that, for example, you can have
degree in web architecture, right? I mean that's a BA (bachelor's in arts) in
Architecture. But it's not architecture in the way that we mean it in this case.
Page 18
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
You can have a degree in Bioengineering. It's engineering, but it's not
engineering as we mean it in this case. And that is part of the reason for this
clarification. Just to Council Member Onishi's point.
I can't support Bill 64 either because of these requirements. However, my
thought was, well there seems like there's support. I want to make it something I
can live with. And so, these two amendments are two things that would make me
at least be able to live with the outcome if this were to getthrough. Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, seeing,no more lights on the
amendment, you know, I hear the arguments that these degrees don't necessarily
make someone a good manager. I think we should consider what does make
somebody a good manager and trying to infuse that wherever we can. But I don't
see how any of these degrees take away from the potential of being a good
manager.
I think given the state of our infrastructure and the need for some very important
engineering projects coming up, I'll be supporting this amendment. But once
again I really want to see what's some of the other ideas about potentially, that
Council Member Kierkiewicz alluded to might be coming forward. So, and with
that, we can take a roll call Vote on this amendment please.
Vote on Motion The motion to amend.Bill 64 with they contents of
to Amend: Comm. 334.1 was carried by the following roll call vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball,
and Chair Kagiwada—5.
Noes`, Committee Members Inaba, Kierkiewicz ,
Onishi,'and Villegas —4.
Absent:. . - None.
Excused: ' None.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball, would you like to
introduce your second amendment?
Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 64, with the contents
of Comm. 334.2. Seconded by Ms. Galimba.
CHR KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you. So, as I mentioned earlier, there were two
major concerns that were brought up to me by the members of the engineering
community when I had some meetings between the last hearing and this sone.
Page 19
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
The second one is probably the more significant of the two. It is the concern that
the director without a PE license would have the authority to override the decision
of an engineer in the department without that expertise. And so, this amendment
is designed to require the director to delegate any decisions, which is allowed
under Chapter 5, the Building Administrative Code to a person that holds that
professional engineering license.
This is not a hypothetical. This is something that has happened in other
jurisdictions where a licensed professional engineer has made a recommendation
to Administrative body. That was overwritten by somebody that didn't have that
expertise and you have infrastructure that caused a public health and safety
tragedy. And you know, we don't have any of our representatives share that
example.
But this is a proposal to protect against that. I did ask our Director of Human
Resources and our Corporation Counsel to be here today to kind of weigh in on
this.
You know, the ethical code that applies to a PE would require them to step down
if they felt the decision was made that was not in'accordance with public health
and safety in engineering requirements. That is part of the ethical obligation
within their code.
So, I asked Corporation Counsel and our Director of Human Resources to be here
maybe to speak a little bit to the kind of recourse an engineer within the Public
Works Department would have with respect to disagreeing with the decision by
the Director when that Director didn't have a PE.
So, I don't know, Corporation Counsel, you did have a response for me that you
shared via email that you wouldn't mind sharing with the body. Then, Director,
I'm not sure f'you have anything to add to that? But I feel that this is an
important protection for the engineering members of our Public Works
Department to ensure that they are able to uphold their own ethical requirements
as PE's. Thank you.
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Renee Schoen
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MS. SCHOEN: Good morning, Renee Schoen, Corporation Counsel. So, if I
understood your question correctly, it was whether or not there is a mechanism in
place for employees to appeal a decision of a director who does not hold a
professional license? So, I'm not aware of any current mechanism in place.
Council Member Kimball did mention the Board of Appeals, but that board hears
appeals from the public regarding final decisions of the director as they relate to
Page 20
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
variances and use of alternative materials, things of that nature. And then the only
other appeal-type process would be employment-related. And those would be
covered under relevant collective bargaining agreement process or internal
complaint depending upon the employee's status.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you very much. And then, HR Director, if you wouldn't
mind. You know, in a situation where an employee had a concern about a
manager making a decision that was in violation with our own personal
professional credentials and licensure, what sorts of protection do they have under
HR rules and regulations in that regard to be whistle-blower?
(Note: At this time, Human Resources Director'Sommer Tokihiro
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MS. TOKIHIRO: So, the regular whistle-blower rules would apply., But I would
agree with Corporation Counsel Schoen that there's no other mechanism in place
for disagreeing with a decision of a director.
MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you both for being here. So, you know, I think
that speaks to the importance of requiring the delegation of engineering decisions
to a member of the department:that has a professional engineering license in the
event that the director themselves dries not have that sort of certification. And
with that, I yield.
CHR.KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Members of the dais, if you would
like to comment or have a question on this particular amendment? Council
Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I'm vehemently opposed to this
particular amendment. I know of too many instances during my time here on the
Council where County engineers are to blame for certain projects going overtime
and overbudget. And I will never allow a director to ever advocate his or her
authority to an engineer. Thank you, Chair, I yield.
CHR KAGIWADA: Other comments on this particular amendment? Council
Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: I concur with Council Member Kierkiewicz. I cannot support this
amendment. Thank you.
CHR KAGIWADA: Council Member Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I would like to ask Mr. Ono to please come
forward. You seem to have something to add to our discussion, and I do value
your opinion.
Page 21
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
(Note: At this time, Hugh Ono, came forward to address the
members of the Committee.)
MR. ONO: Hugh Ono, past and now retired Public Works Director. But I have
an excellent example that recently happened. Fortunately, it did not affect safety
and health of our public. But if you recall the recent change at Ali`i Drive to
change it to a one-way traffic, this was a desire by the public and business public
in Kona; and something that we the Administration,wanted to do. So, we agreed
to do it.
Our professionals in the Traffic Division had already predicted that it would not work.
So, we armed the Administration with the information so they would be aware why it
would not work.
Here's where the professional engineering comes in and the traffic study showed that
the que that would result from that wouldbe unacceptable. And that's exactly what
happened. So, I just want to share that with you. It's just good information. But in this
case, it never harmed public health or safety. Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you.. Council Member'Galimba.
MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, and just hat Mr. Ono, I would assume that you
would be supportive of this. I guess I'm going to be the polar opposite of Council
Members Kierkiewicz and Inaba. I think this'is essential and to not have it, would
be potentially to expose our citizens to risks of health and safety.
I'm not an engineer, but like the opposite of an engineer. But I have high regard,
I mean engineers have been helping us to build infrastructure for literally
thousands of years. So, to not have the ability for an engineer to make decisions
ori,our Public!Works could lead to some really devastating results. I mean,
luckilywe really haven't had that happen. But they've happened in other places.
I mean dams that break. That actually happened on Kauai, and there was I'm
sure no engineer involved.
I mean, I leave getting things done, but sometimes if you just do it, and you just
make a big pile or earth or rock, and it gets exposed to forces of nature,
devastating things can happen. Even just—I've had some personal experiences.
On"a ranch, we don't have engineers, and luckily you know, we're very far from
people. So, if things fall apart, it doesn't really matter too much. But health and
safety is not generally a problem. We just lose some pasture to erosion.
I think especially given the kind of climate change pressures on infrastructure,
that we will see in the future, I think having the best education; the best personnel
to make sure that our County infrastructure is safe is critical. Thanks.
Page 22
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else? Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. You know, I'm just going to talk, I
guess, about my experiences as being a consultant working with Public Works
getting permits. So, my clients, when we applied for building permits, and we
went through the system.
We talked to the reviewers; we talked to the supervisors; we talked to the
Building Chief, and things wouldn't move; or the things we were discussing
about, they couldn't see the picture. So, then, we had.to go to the Director. And
we had to go and talk to the Director of our situation and explain everything.
Then the Director made a decision in our,favor:
Because it made sense, and it was still to the Code. We didn't violate anything,
and that's where we got the application process moving forward.-So,to me, it's
hard to just leave it with certain people.
With this body maybe like six years, there were a couple road projects that were
done in Hilo. And it was designed, I think,within house. And there were some
problems. And you folks had to I guess, allocate more funding for one of the
projects, right?
So, to me, there needs to be that leadership,at the top and also in that certain
division,right, to oversee these projects that'the County does and also with the
public when,we talk about building permits, right? And how this whole system is
being done and the review process. So, we need people there, and we need the
leadership, which is the top person that can have that common sense. So, again, I
cannot support this, and like I said;I cannot even support(Bill) 64. Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Anyone else? Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I think this amendment would just make
things more difficult. We're trying to attract more candidates to apply for this
position, and this would have the opposite effect. I do want to point out that two
other counties do not require their directors to have professional engineering
licenses, that's Kauai County and Maui. I believe Maui just requires that you
have a minimum of five years of administrative experience.
So,just putting it out there. No need to reinvent the wheel. Again, we just want
to make sure we have folks that are applying for this position because it really is
tough wok. Thank you, Chair.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
Page 23
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, again, I think the concerned expressed by Council
Member Kierkiewicz and Council Member Inaba speak to exactly why I think
that this is necessary. You would not want a Public Works project to be decided
upon based on cost and time along. We're talking about, at the end of the day,
public welfare and public safety; and this diminishment of the importance of
having the professional experience to make these decisions, I think is systematic
that you see in all levels of government right now.
But when we're talking about public projects; roads, bridges, coverts, dams. You
know, these things require that engineering lens and I think it's very important
that those decisions with regard to these important pieces of public infrastructure,
are given to folks that have the professional expertise to make those decisions and
not overruled by political will or the desire toN get things done cheaply and fast.
That's not the lens in my mind that we should view Public Works#rojects. So,
again, in Chapter 5, the Construction"Administrative Code, it does allow for the
Public Works Director to assign a designee to be the authority having jurisdiction.
So, that provision is already available in the Code. This would just require that
for—in the event that the Director does not have a PE to insure that that happens,
thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, seeing no further lights, I'll just say
that I see this as a, I guess an important fix to an imperfect bill in my mind. I
really believe that the buck stops at the director level, and the director should have
the knowledge necessary to make those really important, you know, holding all
the people's lives,in their hands decisions around engineering issues. And if
we're going to go the route of not having our director have those important
skillset;and knowledge. I don't know that I love this fix.
Butnot having,anybody who makes the decision have an engineering degree
seems even worse than having to reassign the responsibility to someone below
director level. So'. I will reluctantly support this amendment. But similar to
Council Member Onishi, I do not support the overall bill. With that may we have
a roll call vote,please, on the amendment.
Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 64, as amended with the contents
to Amend: of Comm. 334.2 was carried by the following roll call vote:
Failed
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kimball,
and Chair Kagiwada—3.
Noes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba,
Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz ,
Onishi, and Villegas —6.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 24
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. BROWN: The motion fails.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Back to the main motion. Council
Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Motion to Reconsider: Mr. Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to reconsider the vote
Taken on Bill 64 with the contents of Comm. 33 .1.
Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR KAGIWADA: Council Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder go ahead.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: In review of my decision, I realize my
intention from the beginning was to open up our pool of professionals coming in
to apply for this position, and in my vote I realize I went the opposite way. So,
my apologies to the group. But I will be reconsidering my vote on' that. That's
the reason for the request, thank you-'- -
CHR KAGIWADA: Anybody else on thexeconsideration motion? Alright with
that, vote on the reconsideration. We should,do a roll call vote.
Vote on motion to The motion to reconsider;the vote taken on:Bill 64, with the
Reconsider: contents of Comm. 334.1, onJully 8, 2025 was carried by the
(Approved) following roll call vote:
Ayes: Committee,Members Inaba,
Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—6.
Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
And Kimball-3.
Absent: None.
Excused.:, ,None.
MR. BROWN: The reconsider vote goes through. We are back to Bill 64 before
we took the,original vote, to amend with Communication 334.1.
CHR KAGIWADA: Let's see, anybody would like to comment. Council
Member Inaba, go ahead.
MR. INABA: Thank you. I stand behind my first position, and we do have
joining us in Kona Chambers, Managing Director Brilhante, and I believe, Deputy
Managing Director. So, I just wanted to give them the opportunity to chime in on
this amendment, or if there are any questions from the body. But again, I will not
be in support of this amendment. Thank you.
Page 25
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Managing Director Brilhante, did you want to add anything
at this time? Okay. Deputy Managing Director Nishimoto, is that who I see
there?
(Note: At this time, Deputy Managing Director Merrick Nishimoto
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. NISHIMOTO: Yes, Deputy Managing Director Merrick Nishimoto. If it's
alright with the Council, if you could give us just a quick moment, Managing
Director Bill Brilhante is trying to get some documents.
CHR KAGIWADA: Okay. We're going to take a five-minute recess here.
Thank you.
Recess: At 10:45 a.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
CHR KAGIWADA: We are back in session: We are on Bill 64, and we are
discussing the amendment contained in Communication 334.1. Council Member
Kimball, do you want to say anything before we discuss.
MS. KIMBALL: Yes. I believe I'll yielctto the Managing Director and the
Deputy,Managing Director to weigh in on this, and perhaps speak since the basis
of this bill, in,general, is to increase the pool, if you could specifically speak to
the recruitment efforts that have happened thus far for this position.
CHR.'IAGIWADA: Managing Director Brilhante.
(Note: At this time, Managing Director William `Bill" Brilhante
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. BRILHANTE: Okay, good morning, William Brilhante, Managing Director
present here in Kona. Also, with me is Deputy Managing Director Merrick
Nishimoto, again also, both of us are here in Kona. Thank you very much for
giving us this opportunity to provide testimony regarding this proposed bill
submittal as well as the proposed amendment.
You know, this has been a really hard process, as I had mentioned two weeks ago,
you know, during my previous testimony, and it's been a hard process to find a
qualified, certified, licensed engineer who would be able to come in and is willing
to do the job under the current benefits that we offer with the position.
I know there's been a lot of discussion from local engineers. On the Big Island, I
think, there's a couple of them in the audience. But one of them and came in and
Page 26
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
worked for just a couple months, then retired. And the others never submitted an
application. So, you know, if any of them want to step up, we'll be more than
happy to entertain any of their applications to serve in this capacity to provide
public service. But absent that, it's been an arduous process.
We've been going, you know, statewide recruitment requests. You know, as I
mentioned, we've had several inquiries. But for whatever reason, nothing has
come to fruition. Whether it be, you know, the fact thatwhat the current salary is,
is significantly lower than what a professional engineer can make in the private
sector.
Not only that, but you know, a private sector engineer was to come forward, then
what they're coming into is a situation where there coming into an appointed
position. So, they'll have guarantee employment for the next three years, and
whatever happens during the next election, maybe a potential for four years after
that. But that's the extent of that.
So, we're asking them to give up all their security and all the work that they've
done with their private firm; to give that up and,come and work for the County for
a limited term or duration: And we've had success with finding individuals. So,
Warren Lee, for example who you know, fortunately for he came, and he
served the County. But that was after his ten years atHawaiian Electric. That's a
really unique situation. We just haven't had that type of applicant pool available
to us at,this time.
You know, we've seen where this position, more so than being a professional
engineer, this individual needs to be a professional manager. Public Works is by
far one of the largest departments in the County. You're dealing with six separate
divisions. And all the personnel issues that, you know, are associated that;
managementssues.
What we need in this position is we need a good manager. You know,
unfortunately, as we move forward, I'm looking at this amendment to Bill 64,
(Comm.) 334.1, and I see the requirements that it's identifying. And the
Administration's position is it's just too restrictive to be suitable and attainable in
the long run.
We're looking to find, you know, a well-qualified individual. And I think the
substance of Bill 64 meets the demand, the goal, and the necessity of the
Administration. Again, we want to find a good manager who has the sufficient
background and knowledge in order to defer to a professional engineer, if the case
necessitates it. But you know, we do have like we said, the Engineering Division;
we do have the Building Division. So, I think we have enough safeguards in
place currently so that we can get somebody very effective to do the job.
Page 27
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
A primary example is our current Acting Administrator Neil Azevedo. The
Mayor and I go to numerous public meetings; we go to numerous public events.
And I can honestly say that there hasn't been a single occasion that anybody has
raised a negative comment or negative concern with Mr. Azevedo's job
performance. It's been exemplary. You know, that's a great example as to what
this position needs, the type of qualifications. And you know,proof is in the
pudding. We see it in action, and we see it working.
Can we say that about the previous administrators who had their engineering
certification? I would argue, we couldn't. And I would strenuously argue we
couldn't make that same comment.
So,just going forward, and I just wanted to correct the record. I heard earlier
testimony where one of the previous testifiers mentioned the Traffic Division was
opposed to the one-way traffic pattern. That's blatantly untrue, and I have
confirmation from Neil Azevedo to that. And the Traffic Division:never opined
as to the effectiveness of the one-way,traffic pattern. If they had, we would have
given that strong consideration. But they never did.
So, that's why it was pilot program. The Administration decided to move forward
with it. And you know, like anything else, when:we came to the realization that it
wasn't effective, we were able to move away from,it and go back. And you
know, the problem hasn't been resolved to our satisfaction.
So, we're stir entertaining options we're still talking to property owners. We're
talking to the public, you know,individuals. And that is the specific way as to
how a problem needs to be addressed, again, for the benefit of the community.
So, L just wanted to correct the record. That at no time did we receive any input
from the Traffic Division that the one-way traffic pattern on Ali`i Drive was a bad
idea. Soy with that I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: The floor is still yours, Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to comment on one statement
made by the Managing Director, which is, you my amendments and my proposals
around this has nothing to do with Neil's work thus far as the Acting Director. I
think he had done a fabulous job, and I don't want to conflate the two issues. So,
none of this has to do with Mr. Azevedo distinctly.
In the letter from the Mayor to us about extending the time for the appointment
beyond the 60 days as required by the Charter, Managing Director has mentioned
that recruitment has occurred within the County. There were no applicants that
put their names forth from the County that you folks planned on expanding that
to State. And then,perhaps even nationally beyond that. Can you speak
specifically to the recruitment efforts that have been undertaken since that letter
was delivered to us?
Page 28
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. BRILHANTE: Yes. You know, we've been in constant discussion with HR
regarding the specific recruitment for this position. We've also met with various
engineers in the community. And we've reached out to engineers in Oahu; and
we've had feelers out statewide as to any possible candidates. And we've had
some discussions, maybe three or four candidates who have indicated that there
may be some interest.
But unfortunately, when you start to dot the "I's" and cross the "T's"that's when
we start seeing that you know, this position is not attractive enough to bring one
of those private individuals into the County.
So, we had an initial discussion with HR regarding the possibility of expanding
our search nationwide. Unfortunately; our concern with that is, you know,
Hawaii is a unique place. And a,lot of what we do in Hawaii, and a lot of the
business that gets conducted in Hawaii is through relationships. And it's through
cultural understanding. And it's through,you know;just the ability to work
effectively with the people in the community.
We're not specifically or a hundred percent sold that if we do bring that
individual from the mainland to the Big Island, if they would meet those needs.
They're not requirements, but they're secondary needs that we think that's needed
to be successful. You know,primary example of that, and I'm just throwing it out
there.
Butif you look at the Mass Transit directors. You know, I think there's been
several Mass Transit directors recently who've come in from the mainland. And
because of those elements that I discussed earlier, it just hasn't worked out. Ee
don't want a,merry-go-round effect for this office. It's too important, you know,
to have transient people come in for a year and then resign because it doesn't
work out.
So, that's our concern. We want to be able to find a well-qualified individual who
fully understands the extent of the job, the demands of the job and has the ability
to not only communicate with the public, but also to be able to communicate with
their staff. And that's what we're looking for.
MS. KIMBALL: So, has the posting been publicly posted online and or in
newspapers? Have you recruited from Engineering schools? Perhaps for folks
that were born and raised here went to the mainland for their education, and we
could potentially recruit them to come back. What has the actual process been?
Point of Order: MR. INABA: Chair,point of order. I think this is outside the scope of the
amendment that we're on right now. And perhaps we can have a communication
Page 29
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
introduced to get an update and have a good discussion on where we are with the
recruitment of the DPW Director position. Thank you, I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Let's just finish this up real quickly. If you could quickly
answer that one question and then we'll move on.
MR. BRILHANTE: That's information I don't have right off hand. I'd be happy
to provide Council Member Kimball with that information once I'm able to gather
it and collect it together. Sorry.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you, Managing Director, Please provide it to the
entire Council. Appreciate that.
MR. BRILHANTE: Will do.
CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, Council Member Kimball, anything
else?
MS. KIMBALL: I'll just conclude, you know on the amendment again, there
were two main issues in speaking to members of the engineering community with
respect to Bill 64. One of them was this clarification,around the language with
respect to the degrees required particularly (e), which was the language that
actually is identical to what applies to,our Corporation Counsel, that means, an
attorney who has passed the bar 'rather than somebody that just has a degree in
law.
Beyond that, I don't really agree that it constrains the definition of the
requirements for the Public Works Director. It just provides clarifying language.
So, with that I'll yield;
CHR, KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Anyone else? Council
Member Villegas, you're okay? Okay. Alright, I'd just like to wrap this up. I
agree, I mean the difference between having a bachelor's degree and a
Professional Engineering license, you know, there is something there. A
bachelor's degree in architecture or a degree from an accredited Architectural
school to me that makes a lot of sense and doesn't provide a high burden
A master's degree in public administration or related discipline as opposed to
degree in Public Administration seems like the same thing. I don't see how that's
an intense burden that puts on it. These are all just clarifying exactly what's in
the current bill. I don't see it particularly creating a higher burden than what's
already there. I guess I just don't see what the concern is. I don't see this
constraining anything,just clarifying. So, I will be supporting. With that I guess
we're ready to take the vote.
Page 30
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MS. KIMBALL: Chair, may I make one more manini comment?
CHR. KAGIWADA: Sure, go ahead,
MS. KIMBALL: I also think it's important to note that in Engineering or
Architecture, a degree is not always a bachelor's either.
CHR KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you for that. Alright, I think we're ready to
re-vote on amending Bill 64 with the contents of Communication 334.1. Roll call
vote, please.
Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 64 with the'contents of
to Amend: Comm. 334.1 was carried by the following roll call Vote:
Failed
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Kimball, and Chair Kagiwada—4.
Notes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,
Onishi, and Villegas —4.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
MR. BROWN: The motion fails.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright, we're back to the main motion. Bill 64, comments,
questions, thoughts. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I think commonsense
wise, I've been'thinking about this for weeks. I've seen a number of different
directors come and go. Mr. Ono, you're one of them. Mr. Brilhante in Kona, I
appreciate the comments, but t've appreciated everybody that's come in and
helped support the County regardless of what happens.
I think each person has a role to play, and each person has a perspective. And
everyone's perspective is a little bit different. In my humble opinion, I've been
both the lower galoot who's had to do the crappy work in a job site, and I've been
the manager. And I worked to other by working hard. But having a degree;
having a license didn't necessarily make me the manager exemplary. It really
became more, "Can you do the work, and do you know how to handle people?"
With a department of this size, I think it's close to 600 people, is that correct?
Yeah, roughly about 600 people. With the different scope of what Public Works
has to address, requiring them to be an engineer alone, as if that's going to solve
how they address 600 different people in a multi-facet department to me doesn't
cover what it takes to be a manager in that position.
Page 31
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
But knowing how to handle people; to work with Council; to work with the
Mayor; to work with the community to understand the broader aspect of what's
going on, as well as understand legislation. And then know the work; and also
then, how to deal with the prospectives of each different facet of the professionals
that we deal with here in the County. Whether it's engineers, whether it's
community members. Understanding their perspectives and being able to be a
go-between and then make a decision that's based on the highest and best output
from the County for our citizens becomes of the utmost:
That's why I lean away from having them an engmeer,and have them be a person
who understands how to deal with people and how to be,cognizant of what's
happening in the community and the broader perspective of everyone. So, that's
why I shy away from the amendment. And that's why I'm going to support this
bill.
So, I appreciate it being brought forward. I appreciate everyone's latitude in the
reconsideration. But I believe this will give us the broadest perspective that we
can achieve for this position and get the best thing for our people and our County.
Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Any other members? Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you,Madame Chair., Can I get HR to come up, please.
(Note: At this time, Human Resources Director Summer Tokihiro came
forwardto address the members of the Committee.)
MS. TOKIHIRO: Ili, good morning, Summer Tokihiro, Director of Human
Resources.
MR. ONISHI: You know, my discussion so far was about, if we have a director
that's not licenseds but then our Building Chief and our Engineering Chief needs
to be licensed, right? Well, part of the qualifications. What would it take for
them, those two positions to be like—lessen the qualifications without the
license?
MS. TOKIHIRO: So, it would an amendment to the Class specification for those
positions to look at the minimum qualifications.
MR. ONISHL So, that amendment would come from the Council?
MS. TOKIHIRO: No, it would be initiated by the department. Usually if a
department wants to change the minimum qualifications for a position, they
would indicate that to our classification and pay division, and then we would
review it.
Page 32
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. ONISHL Okay, the way you're saying, it's kind of something simple, or
will it take time to get this change. Because then you might have to look at other
counties and so forth.
MS. TOKIHIRO: So, we look at the minimum qualifications that are listed for
similarly situated positions in other jurisdictions. So, we would have it reviewed.
We would look at the information from Kauai, Maui, City and County of
Honolulu, etcetera.
MR. ONISHL Okay, so Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned already Maui and Kauai, the
Director of Public Works doesn't have to have any qualifications. So, we being
how our requirements are, so we're in a way maybe going,Qverboard. Because
then we could really lessen the qualifications?
MS. TOKIHIRO: So, there is no class specification for the Director of Public
Works. It's different than say, the Building Chief or the Deputy Building Chief
where they're part of our classification system, and we have a specific class
specification. So, that's why we were talking about the charter amendment.
MR. ONISHL Okay, and,I don't know if you have„any comments. But if we
have a director that is not licensed, and now we still:have these two positions that
are licensed, within HR, would there be any conflicts on decisions, directions of
how they operate?
MS_ TOKIHIRO: I couldn't comment on that, but I will say to this body, if you
look at say the Director of the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM),that director does not require to hold a professional engineering license.
But they,do have division chiefs and deputy division chiefs that do require an
engineering license. We do already have that structure within the County where
the director i not required to hold a license, but their subordinates are.
MR. ONISHL But therm in the past, like I know, Mr. Segawa is a licensed
engineer,
MS. TOKIHIRO: Yes, he is.
MR. ONISHL Okay, and the prior director of DEM, was he also licensed?
M `. TOKIHIRO: I believe he was licensed. But I don't believe it's in the
requirements.
MR. ONISHL So, but then that way, I think the respect wise for the workers
before, I guess gives them more.
MS.TOKIHIRO: Potentially yes.
Page 33
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. ONISHL Thank you very much for coming up. So, you know, I can see
having it less restricted with the qualifications. But we still need to have some
type of qualifications or requirements for our applicants. So that's why, I'm
totally in support of maybe having a commission created. So, that's why I
continue not support this bill. Because I think we've got to look at the long-term.
It was always mentioned, and I've been in the County for 21 years, and
sometimes we mention like we'll just wait until the director's gone, right, because
then we're going to outlast them. I've seen like from the top, it's like, okay, this
is what you've got instructed, but then, come that section, then they just delay it.
And then, they get reminded again, don't forget you got to do it, right? Yeah,
okay we'll get it to you. Then they delay, delay, and delay,right. Even with the
building permits, it happens in that way. So, I cannot support this. I yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you very much, Council Member. Council Member
Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Sorry, Council Member Onishi, but your
vote doesn't extend to those other MQ's (minimum qualifications). But I've been
silent on this for the most art, and I apologize I couldn't support the second
amendment, but it is that,chain-of-command issue about where the buck stops and
who's responsible for some of those things.
So, I'm still having some issues on limiting,some of these qualifications for the
director without really very precise language on the requirements we have for a
role that revolves around health and safety for our community and those sorts of
things., ,So, that's why I have some of those concerns. So, thank you everyone.
CHR KAGIWADA- Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
MS:KIMBALL., Thank you. You know, speaking again in response to
Managing Director's comments, you know, I think he highlighted the challenges.
You know,„you have professional engineers out there that have security working
in their private sector. They have a greater salary. They have that promise of
longevity that we can't offer for an appointed position. And you know, this is a
difficult job for sure. I'm sure, former Director Ono would agree.
Se,I can appreciate for sure the challenges of finding a person eligible for this
position. I just cannot emphasize enough the importance of this decision that
we're making here with respect to the Director. And it behooves us to take our
time. So, I cannot support this as it is. I'm willing to continue to look at other
amendments that might be more agreeable to the body.
I'm also very interested in in the potential for the commission idea with some
modifications or relooking at the organization of the department as a whole. As
Page 34
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
mentioned, it's a huge department. It has very distinct responsibilities in different
divisions that don't necessarily overlap. So, I think there's merit for a discussion
there. I would encourage the body to again to put a pin in this until we can hear
from Council Member Hustace and Council Member Kierkiewicz. And perhaps
the solution here is ultimately some sort amalgamation of the three different
options that that we've kind of kicked around here.
I think that there is plenty of time before this needs to getfully through to be put
on the ballot for 2026. Given that the importance and the complexity of this, I
don't think we need to be expedient. I think we need to be careful and thoughtful,
and take our time and look at some of the other options in detail. Thank you.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Seeing no other lights, I'll just make a couple
of comments. Thank you to the Administration for being here. I heard very
clearly from the Administration that it's not that they wouldn't like people with
engineering degrees to come forward for this. That would be preferable, but
they're just really having a hard time finding those candidates.
As Council Member Kimball just highlighted you know, salary and it being an
appointed position, that doesn't have any job security are the two major issues of
why people are not able to step up when they have an engineering degree for this
position. So, I don't know if we've exhausted all possibilities of increasing the
salary.
I think'Council Member Onishi talked about possibilities of, if it was a
commission, and if the possibility of doing a ten-year or tenure kind of job would
allow,somebody to take this position and get their ten years with the County and
have some job security. I think that's a really intriguing idea that we should
further explore as well.
So', 1,won't be supporting this bill as it is right now. I hope we continue to talk
about that. Andl also want to see what Council Members Hustace and
Kierkiewicz bring forward. So, I'll go back to the author to decide, would you
like a vote on this at this time?
MR. INABA: Yes, we can move it forward, thank you.
CHR.. KAGIWADA: Okay, may we please have a roll call vote.
Page 35
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Vote on Bill 64: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 64 as amended,
Failed on first reading was carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,
and Villegas —3.
Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Kimball, Onishi, and Chair Kagiwada—5.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— I.
Excused: None.
MR. BROWN: Bill 64, as amended, moves forward"to Council with an
unfavorable recommendation.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Thank you for that robust discussion everybody.
With that we have two more items left on our agenda. Could we-go to
Communication 355, please.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return.to the order of business.
of Business:
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
(Note: Items in this category was taken up previously, out of order.)
Comm. 355: REQUESTS A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2026 HAWAI`I STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AND TIMELINES
Motion to Close File: Ms. Kimball moved,to close file on Comm. 355.
Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
CHR:KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball, would you like to kick us off?
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, given that we are already behind schedule, if you guys
make note of Communication 355.1, which is the calendar for the Hawaii State
Association of Counties to put our legislative package together. I'm going to
request that we move this to the next agenda so that we can have a more in-depth
discussion. We'll still fall within the guidelines of the timeline needed for the
package.
However, if folks can start thinking about the priorities for the next State
Legislative session; and if they have any bills so that we're fully prepared for that
next discussion I would appreciate it. I'll wait for any discussion, then I'll make
the motion to postpone.
Page 36
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody want to discuss today?
MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Madame Chair. I think past practiced has been, if
Council Member Kimball wanted to bring something foward again, we usually
don't postpone communicationss. We'll close file on this one, and you can
always submit a new memo or communication to be considered at the next
agenda. And then we'll get a point series so it'll be probably attached to it.
MS. KIMBALL: I will do that then. Thank you.
CHR KAGIWADA: Anybody want to comment today? All those in favor in
closing file on Communication 355,please say "aye." Any,opposed?
Vote on Comm. 355: The motion to close file on Comm. 355, was carried
Filed by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi,
Villegas, and Chair Kagiwda—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Last item is Communication 358.
Comm. 358: REQUESTS TE FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OR
"PERMITTED INTERACTION GROUP" FOR THE SELECTION AND
APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR COUNTY AUDITOR
From Council Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated June 17, 2025. The ad hoc
committee would review and evaluate applicants, conduct interviews, and score
applicants for a list,of qualified candidates and select finalists for interviews and
final decision by the full Council.
Motion to Close File: Mr..Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 358.
Seconded by Mr. Hustace.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. We did receive a letter from our County Auditor that
his last day with our County will be July 25t'. And to initiate the search for a new
Auditor, requesting the formation of an ad hoc committee. That we will work
through the process to solicit and review applications and ultimately make a
recommendation back to the full Council for action.
Page 37
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
So, I will serve as Chair of this ad hoc committee. Council Member Kierkiewicz
has requested to be a part of this committee, as she was integral in the previous
search. We have our Auditor here. Auditor Benner, is there anything you'd like
to share at this time?
(Note: At this time, Hawaii County Auditor, Tyler Benner,
came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. BENNER: Aloha, Council Members. I'm justhere as a resource and to
comment if called upon. I do want to extend my deepest thanks to all of you for
the opportunity to serve this community alongside dedicated public servants.
It's been an honor to work with each of you. I'm grateful for the respect,
collaboration, and cooperation that we've shared over the years_ I want to express
my sincere appreciation to the departments across our County. Your support has
been instrumental in achieving the goals that we've set.
To my staff, I can't thank you enough for y6ur dedication, hard work, and
support. You've been the backbone of our progress, and I'm truly proud of what
we've been able to accomplish together. Most importantly, I'd like to thank the
people of this community. The generosity, and kindness, and resilience that you
all demonstrate are some of the reasons that Hawaii County is such a special
place. The commitment to preserving and,enhancing our unique and special way
of life is nothing short of inspiring. And it's been my privilege to serve you.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the previous recruitment process, which was
thorough and open. The process allowed for a wide range of talented candidates
to be considered: And I trust that the selection of my successor will continue to
bring fresh perspectives and valuable insight. I hope the new leadership will
champion and continue transparency, effective government and meaningful audits
to further enhance accountability of government. So, thank you everyone. It's
been art honor to serve as County Auditor. I look forward to seeing continued
growth and success'of Hawaii County. Mahalo.
MR. INABA: Thank you, Auditor Benner. And yes, our mahalo to you for your
years of service thus far. So, yes, I again ask if anybody else would like to serve
alongside Council Member Kierkiewicz and myself. We'll begin the process as
sobn'as we stand up this Ad Hoc committee. And the term of office for the
County Auditor is six years and thereafter until a successor is appointed. So,just
wanted to get that information out there today while I can. Thank you so much. I
yield.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Hustace.
Page 38
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Just want to mahalo Auditor Benner as well
for his service and engagement with the County here. Mahalo nui, and I wish you
well in your next chapter. Thank you. And then, Council Member Inaba, I'll be
happy to serve on that Ad Hoc committee as well to support the efforts and as we
stand up and find a new County Auditor. Thank you for bringing this forward.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Hustace. Anybody else?
Council Member Kimball.
MS. KIMBALL: I just want to extend my mahaks to Auditor Benner. You've
done a fabulous job. I'm so impressed with the reports that you and your team
have put out, and you will be sorely missed. So, thank you for your service to
Hawaii County. I yield Chair.
CHR KAGIWADA: Alright seeing no more lights. Thank you very much
Auditor Benner, you have reallybeen of great service to our County and our
community. I really do appreciate all your efforts. And to Council Member
Inaba, thank you for bringing this forward. Looks like you have a team of three,
which is fine to go forward. And with that,Lthink we can go ahead and vote to
close file.
Motion to Postpone Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Comm. 358 to the Call of
the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Galimba.
CHR KAGIWADA: Any discussion? Alright, all those in favor in postponing
to the Call of the Chair, Communication 358? Any opposed?
Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Comm. 358 to the Call of the Chair
Postpone: was carried'by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Onishi,
Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz— 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. And with that, we are at the end of our agenda.
The time if 11:30 a.m.
ADJOURN- Seeing no further business, Chair Kagiwada adjourned the meeting at
MENT: 11:30 a.m.
Page 39
GOEAC-13 July 8,2025
Approved:
Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair (Date)
Committee on Governmental Operations
and External Affairs
JK/dt
Page 40