Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2025/09/02 (2024-2026) DRAFT Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs 17th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii September 2, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Operations and ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 9:01 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba,Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz} Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onish , Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair 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: Curtis Beck: Bill 64 (Comm. 334), in opposition. Floyd Eaglin: Bill 64 (Comm. 334), comment. Cory Harden: Res. 288-25 (Comm. 461), in support. Hugh Ono: Bill 64 (Comm. 334), in opposition. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, and thank you to all the testifiers. With that I'd like to ask the Clerk to please read in Communication 462. GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 462: NOMINATION OF MACI L. WILSON TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS From Managing Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated August 1, 2025, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: September 20,E 2025 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County,Charter) (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda and the nominee came forward t6 address the members of the Committee.) Vote on Comm. 462: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination (Approved) of Ms. Maci L. Wilson to the Berard of Appeals. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba;Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz,,Kimball, Onishi Vi�llegas, and Chair Kagiwada— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 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. 463: NOMINATION OF DAVID'N. KUAHIWINUI TO THE KA`U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Managing birector William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated August 13, 2025, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: September 26, 2025 (Section 13-4(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.) Page 2 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 Vote on Comm. 463: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination of (Approved) Mr. David N. Kuahiwinui to the Ka`u Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`ii-Klei,nfelder— 1. Excused: None. Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. KAGIWADA: Can we'please go to Resolution 288-25, please. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 288-25: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, THE COUNTY OF KAUA`I, THE COUNTY OF MAUI,AND THE.CITY,AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTERING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ACT 96, SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI`I 2025 Seeks to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate a uniform administration of transient accommodation taxes on cruise ships across the State. Reference: Comm. 461 Intr. by: Council Member Kagiwada(B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr, Inaba mewed to recommend adoption of Res. 288-25. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR KAGIWADA: We do have our Finance Director and DCC (Deputy Corporation Counsel) Wong here to speak on this. I will say, I've already been told that they're going to be asking to hold this or to postpone to the Call of the Chair. Because of the lawsuits that are currently going on that may have effect on how this goes. So, if you'd like to know a little more information about this right now, they're here to answer questions. But if not, I believe that's what they intend for us to do. Council Member Kierkiewicz has questions. Council Member Kierkiewicz. Page 3 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Just a question for the Finance Director. Director Nakagawa, so, this is to enter into an agreement for the green fee, essentially. That's what it's called,publicly, this additional TAT (Transient Accommodation Tax). I understand that there are lawsuits that are impending. But I'm curious what the County's role is in helping to shape how these funds are used. I know that there Green Fee Committee that's been mobilized by the State. I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, they only have island representation. On that committee is Janice Ikeda, which is great, but I wonder how involved our County is in, again, helping to shape how this.funding is used. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Diane Nakagawa came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. NAKAGAWA: Good morning,Diane Nakagawa, Finance Department. Just to answer your question. You know, we've been focused with this MOU on the recent legislative changes that allow us to collect this fee from the cruise ships. So, in the interim, there has been the logistics,of being able to do this collection and working with the other counties on how that ould work. For example, if cruises are on different islands on the same day, and some of the logistics of that. So, that's what°We've beeAlocused on in working and looking at any p6tential revenue sources that would come from that. As far as looking at if we would take and use this additional revenue collection in different ways, we have not discussed that at this point on to our TAT collection revenue. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No I wondered, there's a committee that's been mobilized statewide to talk about how this additional TAT could be used. And I just wondered, does our County have a presence and a seat at the table? MS. NAKAGAWA- At this point, I mean, I have not been involved, but I can check with the Mayor's office on how to place in that discussion. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I'm definitely going to advocate for that, because the whole premise is for the Transient Accommodation Tax to go towards Destination Management, but also, quality of life, right? Quality of life is impacting because of over-tourism. And we just want to make sure that whatever the problems we are facing as a County because of tourism, that there's solved for in some way with this funding. Page 4 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. NAKAGAWA: Sure. I can say that you know we are right on the heels of our next budget kick-off. So, we've had some discussions internally about exactly what you're speaking of funding particular R&D (Research and Development, and what that could mean,just preliminarily. And you know, looking at this funding, which is a little extra revenue as well and what that could go this if this goes through. MS. KIERIEWICZ: Okay, I'm going to be advocating for you to have a seat at the table. My understand is the Statewide committee is supposed to produce are report by December, ahead of the next Legislative session. So, not a lot of time, but I just want to make sure that our interests are advocated for. Thank you for being here. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I did have a,just a response to that. I was interviewed by somebody, a consultantfrom the Governor's Office about things in my district that might be eligible or of interest. I don't know if you have or looks some of the other folks have as well. I also had a meeting with the Mayor a couple weeks ago, and he was meeting that day with the Governor to share some Hawaii Island priorities. So, I do know that we have, to some extents have been in the conversation. But I agree with you,we need to continue to make our uoice heard loudly, because there's definitely a need on this island,for that sort of Destination Management support. T'm'curious and this may be Corporation Counsel question. Even though there is the lawsuit goingforward, would it not make sense to proceed with the Memorandum of Understanding,understanding that we would not actually be able to implement if the lawsuits were to prevail. But in the case where the lawsuit wouldn't,the cruise ships would not be successful; then this would already,be in place. It seem far for me to wait until after the lawsuits have been resolved rather than proceeding with the agreement now. Is there a reason for that? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Keyra Wong came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS'. WONG: Good morning, Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel (DCC). Thank you for the question. So, two parts to the lawsuit. One is that the plaintiffs are alleging that it's unconstitutional. At the same time, they're also asking for a court order to stop the counties from implementing it altogether. Page 5 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 That is an expedited hearing. I don't know what the status of that is yet. Our litigation team is reviewing the lawsuit still. But I do think whatever disposition, it could have an effect on the MOU. So, I think the best advice moving forward is to postpone maybe to the Call of the Chair. Because it also could affect the language in the MOU. MS. KIMBALL: Understood. However, does this not, I mean, this is us giving the authorization for that intergovernmental agreement, not necessarily unless I'm wrong approving a specific MOU. MS. WONG: It's not. It's authorizing. But I do think the trend of this Council has been to know particular details about the agreements that the Mayor is entering into. So, that's a place where that might come from: MS. KIMBALL: You know, I'm almost inclined to enable the Mayor's Office to enter into this MOU. It's fairly specific about what's intended to cover. And then, if there's an injunction or whatever,ie that that would happen, I think of it, sort of our tobacco legislation where we have the code, but it's preempted by the State at this time. So, we can't enact it. Similarly, it seems that it would be most expedient to approve this authorization and then you're ready to go, depending on'the outcome of the lawsuit. Obviously, you would be prevented if the cruise ships prevail. But in the event that theydon't, at least we'll be ready to go. That's my thought. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you Council Member. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: "Thank you, Chair. Just a couple questions. First on,just for my own edification, what taxes are currently collected by cruise ship lines either at the County level-, specifically, at the County level, and then maybe at the State.,Because this is the first time that Transient Accommodation tax would be applied to cruise ship lines, correct? And so, do you know if there are other taxes being collected to that regard? MS. NAKAGAWA: I don't know off the top of my head, but I could get back to you on that. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, thank you. So, definitely curious about that. What is being applied to those entities. The second one is more really more of a logistics thing because we're entering into an agreement with all the other counties and the State. Are there similar resolutions being brought forth before those Councils as well at the same time? Page 6 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. NAKAGAWA: Yes, I believe so. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, so all of this will happen at the same time. You're requesting that we postpone this. Is that kind of being in the same method; same request being made to those Council Members currently too, as this lawsuit unfolds? MS. NAKAGAWA: I can check on that. So, the lawsuit was filed. We received it late last week. So, we're just trying to figure out the right approach to move forward. I did ask our TAT manager to check with the other counties and the State. So, if you give me a minute, I can check to see if we've received any information on how they're moving forward as well. I believe we were first out of the gate. So, let me go check. CHR. KAGIWADA: Anything else? MR. HUSTACE: It's definitely related,to that. Because I'm curious if one county agrees and the other county doesn't agree,you know, that make-up of different councils, how that would unfold as well. And maybe that moreDCC Wong if you have any insight on that perspective? MS. WONG: I don't have a direct answer. I guess it just depends on the other counties and how they want to move forward,in seeking the respective counsel's permissions. If things could be expedited you know, seeking a breach of deadline, and going straight to Council or whatnot. I do know that the proceedings for an injunction are expedited for that very reason. Because we want to know as soon as possible, the outcome. Are we going to be prevented from implementing this, or are we going to be allowed to go forward? R. HUSTACE: Thank you, Director. MS. NAKAGAWA; So, we've reached out, and the counties and the State will be meeting tomorrow morning to discuss a way forward. With the timing, we'll just move forward. MR. HUSTACE: We were first out the gate, you said. MS:'NAKAGAWA: I believe so. So, we're trying to reach out to make sure we're consistent. But they are meeting in the morning tomorrow. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, thank you, Director. Thank you Chair. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. Page 7 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I guess, DCC Wong, I just wanted to ask if there's any potential jeopardy in approving this. It seems fairly, I don't know, on a dime, like just giving permission. But is there any sort of downside risk to approving this at this time? MS. WONG: At this time, I don't think so. But I think it is a more conservative approach because we don't know what the outcome is going to be. So, ultimately, I think it's up to this body, if we want to act on it now. It's providing authority. And if, worst case scenario we're stopped from implementing it, then of course, the MOU might be in effect. But I do think it's a more conservative approach to wait to see what happens. But ultimately, I think it's up to you folks. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. MS. WONG: The reason why Maneis saying we're kind of the first'County because we had been working, I don't know, for over a year,probably and getting the Administrative Rules done in implementing this, and a lot of the counties—we just had our all-State county with the Deputy Director of Taxation come and talk to us about the issues. So, we're just trying to get ahead and be proactive and start implementing all of these changes. Then last Wednesday, we were served with the lawsuit. MS. GALIMBA: Okay, thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you., Council Member. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, DCC Wong, first I want to say, thank you for being ahead of the game and for catching this right out the gate. I think that is a reflection of initiative and"leadership. And you know, I suppose I'm six to one or half-a-dozen or the other right here today. Part of my mind thinks that if we postpone, not to the Call of the Chair, which kind of puts it out there in neverland,,but to the next meeting. Then perhaps in the next two weeks, some of these meetings could happen, and more clarity could be provided. Because from everything I'm learning, this is something that I do want to support, and I don't want us to get side-tracked. And while I appreciate the wisdom of being conservative and not exposing the County to any undue risks or vulnerabilities, it doesn't seem that in this case, this particular MOU does that for us. So, those are just some ideas I have here and would be interested in your feedback on that, as opposed to postponing to the Call of the Chair; we postpone for two weeks, which allows more time for some of these answers. Page 8 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 I'm interested also some of the questions that Council Member Hustace asked about the other counties. As a collective, we are stronger together as counties in making a statement and making sure that we stand together in the best way possible. So, don't really have an answer for you on my vote per se at this time, but just kind of where some of the options are coming forward that seem like might be viable. So, I yield at this time. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member.; Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I think for this, we're not approving it today. So, perhaps we move it forward, and in the two-week interim we might learn more. And if we need to postpone at Council, we can do that and have it trigger-ready at that point. But I think that might be the better route. So, I'll be supporting it today moving forward. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else? Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you,Madame Chair. I like what you have. Because we don't really know what's going to happen, right? We pass this today, it could change. So, to me, it's better to find out what the resolves are, and then we make a clean MOU, come in front of the body that we can approve. So, I would recommend that we listen to our Counsel, and we postpone it maybe not to the Call of the Chair but to a certain date, Ms. Villegas had mentioned, right? Give it two weeks, or depending on your recommendation. Because you said they're supposed,to expedite this, right? MS. WONG: "That's correct:" I don't think it's going to resolve in two weeks. I think I can have-more information for you in two weeks. But maybe a four-week postponement would,be"better. MR. ONISHL So, I'll just recommend maybe we postpone it for two weeks until the next meeting. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Alright,just for my clarification, kind of following on what Council Member Kierkiewicz was asking about with the Committee and the State portion of the TAT. So, there's a State portion of TAT and a County portion of TAT. Is it your understanding that the County will be receiving the County portion of the TAT directly? I guess my thought when I read about it was that the State Commission that Council Member Kierkiewicz alluded to was for the State portion of the TAT. So, it would be good to have some clarification on if that commission is going to Page 9 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 be giving some direction or thoughts on our County TAT as well, or if it's just for the State portion of the TAT. So, that's another question. Hopefully, we could get answered before we meet again. Thank you. Alright, it sounds like we have a couple of different options here. We have the ability to vote on this now; move it forward to full Council. We have the ability to postpone until the next meeting of this Committee in two weeks; or we can postpone to the Call of the Chair. So, I heard several possibilities brought up. So, I would leave it to the body to maybe go ahead and make a proposal and see where we get with all those. Unless anybody has any more to say on this right now. Did you have something to add to this, Council Member Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: I was just going to say, I support Chair Inaba's suggestion to just pass it out of Committee today, and thenhave it held in Council if we need to. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL I would like to make a motionao postpone Resolution 288 to two weeks from now. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Onishi moved to postpone Res. 288-25 to September 16, 2025. Seconded by Ms. Vi1legas. CHR. KAGIWADA: Any discussion on the motion? No, okay, all those in favor phase say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Res. 288-25 to September 16, 2025, to Postpone: was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved),, .Ayes: Committee Members Onishi, Kierkiewicz, and Villegas —3. Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kimball, and Chair Kagiwada—5. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. MR.BROWN: The motion fails. CHR KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. Do we have another proposal? No, okay. We will vote on the resolution. All those in favor of sending Resolution 288-25 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, please say, "aye." Any opposed? Page 10 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 Vote on Res. 288-25: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 288-25 was (Approved) carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—7. Noes: Committee Member Onishi — 1. Absent: Committee Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfel er— 1. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: The motion passes. Thank you so much. Please, Mr. Clerk, can we go to Bill 64. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. 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 (PE)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 must be in public works or construction, or a related field. Reference: Comm. 334 Intr. by: Council Member Inaba Recommitted: August 6, 2025 (Note: Comm; 334.16 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball, and'334.17 from Council Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated August 29, 2025, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 64, were circulated.) Motion to Approve: Mr.'Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 64 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair Kagiwada. We referred this back to Committee from Council. There's two amendments today, both pretty similar. One from Council Member Kimball and one from myself. So, I'm going to move to amend Bill 64 with the contents of Communication 334.17. Page 11 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 64 with the contents of Comm. 334.17. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. This is something that—an idea, I think that Council Member Kimball shared being that if the Director is not a professional engineer then the Deputy Director needs to be. So, this amendment adds the term, Director and Deputy for this section and adds that they can be having a degree in Business or be an attorney licensed to practice in,good standing before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. A new Section,(b)being added, stating that a deputy director of Public Works shall be a professional registered engineer when the director does not have such certification. So, the only difference between this amendment here and the one being proposed by Council Member Kimball is that the other amendments state that the deputy director would have authority over Engineering responsibilities. It's up to the will of this body. I guess I get a little concerned if we're stripping the director of certain responsibilities. But I carp:definitely hear the concerns of not having either of the appointed two leadership positions having the Professional Engineer license. So, those are the two options before us today. Happy to hear more. And again, this is a work-in-progress trying to solve a problem we're facing here and opening up'the pool while maintaining public health and safety. So, happy to hear from you folks on this amendment. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBAL;L: Thank you. So, as Chair Inaba mentioned, you know, one of the significant differences is between these two amendments before you, and thanks for the leeway to discuss them both together. But is that, in the one that I'm putting forth, that the engineering responsibilities would fall under somebody who is a licensed professional engineer. And I think the reason for that has been made clear. I mean I think that's required by our statute and it protects the County in terms of public health and safety. There is one other minor difference, which is that the bachelor's degree has to from an accredited institution within the U.S. (United States). Just to be clear, there are different,particularly when we're talking about architecture and engineering, there are different criteria outside of the United States than there are within the U.S. So, I would prefer to have the other amendment Comm. 334.16 considered. I will say, and this is perhaps a little bit odd. I think I've made it pretty clear that Page 12 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 I'm not in favor of this Charter Amendment, in general. And so, I still will be voting against the measure, but I'm trying to work constructively with the body to put in language that I could live with if this were to proceed. The one fundamental flaw I have about this is if we can find somebody to be the deputy with a PE, then why can't that person just be the director? And one of the concerns that I have is that a director would be hired and then there would be a delay or no effort put forth in bringing in that deputy., And we would still be in the position where we don't have somebody in charge with a professional engineering license. So, another tweak potentially would be that if the director does not have the PE, then the deputy needs to be hired simultaneously, so you do have a PE in that position all the time. But again, I think it is important. And I've stated articulately as we've discussed this bill, to have that qualification,for the director. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, on the amendment? Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you,Madame Chair. Mx.-Ono, can you please come up? I need you to raise your'right hard first, and I will pass you the ball. So, listening to discussion, you being a former Director of Public Works, being of a professional license, if this amendment goes through, and say, the there's a director that's not licensed; then'they hire you as a Deputy Director that licensed what'kind of a working relationship do you'think you could foresee happening? (Note: At this time, Hugh Ono came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. ONO : I don't see any difficulty. It's a personality matter. But assuming that tie personnel of these can coexist, it should work. However, it was interesting about'Ceunc lwoman Kimball's comment that if you hire a deputy why can'tthe deputy be the director? So, that weighs heavily in my mind. MR. ONISHI: So, basically, it would be personalities, right, where the director would be unlicensed. So now, if we have this, and then it was still mentioned that if we can find a deputy, then why can't we find a director, correct? MR. ONO: Correct. That's why my attitude grows strongly about that. MR. ONISHL For those that are under, like in the different divisions. I always mention about like how Building Division, you need to be licensed; Engineering,you need to be licensed right? Page 13 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 So, if say, we do not pass this amendment, and so, there's nobody that's going to be licensed, what kind of relationship you think that would have? MR. ONO: Well, it can work. But, like the doctors take the hypocritic oath, so they're sworn to do the best for their patients. And it's the same thing with professional engineers. There is that clear difference that we think in terms of not with everyday matters. Because most everyday matters can be managed. It's just when those matters that concern engineering, and there were several articulated in the forcefield analysis that was submitted to this Council. They show specific examples where management overruled the PE decision. The Challenger flight that exploded with Elison Onizuka is one of them, probably the most prolific one. And in a case of a working relationship, it's like Neil and I, we work wonderfully together. You know, and if he was my director and I was the deputy, we would still work well together. Because we had the synergy between us. So, it really,comes down to how well you can work with your coworkers. .............. MR. ONISHL But for us as a body, that's where we need to account not only for what is happening or your relationship. I mean,it would be different in other situations with different administrations. So,that could cause chaos. So, what we're trying to do as a.body is notto cause that chaos. And to make sure that department is run professionally by individuals that are qualified. MR:ONO: Agreed. MR. ONISHL Okay, so, I guess my next question would be to the author, is that to this amendments,would there be a timeline for the Administration to hire that deputy with that license, or will it be up to the Administration to find that person. Because right now, there isn't a timeline for a deputy to be hired. So, we need to include'something in there if we're going to say, there needs to be a licensee,engineer for this deputy position. So, to the author. MR. INABA: The amendment right now doesn't have a specific timeline. I guess it assumes that the Administration will want to fill all of its appointed positions. And with the exception of the current vacancy of a director, we haven't had vacancies in these deputy positions. So, that could be something that we look into if we really want to make sure that. I mean we can further clarify this language saying that the deputy needs to be appointed with such qualifications prior. Happy to look into that as well. Page 14 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MR. ONISHL Okay, great, I would support that more if there was some timeline or something where it would be required by the Administration to have that licensed person. But again, and it was mentioned by Mr. Ono, if we can find someone at the deputy level, that is licensed, then why can't that person be the director, right? On the other amendment, which I don't think I can mention, but I don't want to have it too restricted, because then with the restrictions that are being said, that person might as well be the director. Those are my thoughts. I yield at this time. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate they both mentioned this, but thank you for further expanding on the degree of law and kind of identifying the attorney in good standing. So thank you for making mention of that. I'll leave it at that. Thanks Chair. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I appreciate this discussion;and Mr. Ono, I'm so sorry to call you back up. So, I mean, as Fni contemplating this, in you know, the conversation about, oh, how come the deputy with the license doesn't just become the director? We have seen situations where people at the helm of the department have absolutely no administrative or supervisory experience. Managing three people, and then managing 500 is a huge leap. So, I think that there are administrative capacities perhaps that a deputy may need to kind of strengthen before they can assume the role of the director. They may also not want to be the face of the department. So, I can see how this dynamic could work. But the question that I wanted to ask you, Mr. Ono, is about your time at the County and what it meant to have a professional engineering license and overseeing engineering projects for the County. What does that look like? Because you're no longer with the County. Our Acting Director does not have a license, yet the department is running. So, I'm just trying to understand, when you were here, what exactly were you doing that may not be happening right now or is being done by Corporation Counsel or someone else within the department? I'm just trying to understand where the license comes into play on a day-to-day scenario. Page 15 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MR. ONO: I can easily answer that. Because as the head of the department with a PE, the PE's are reporting to me, being in this case, the Building Division head, the Engineering Division head, and the Traffic Engineer. We would never proceed with any new activity without checking with the Director. I mean, they wouldn't wait for me to see it, they would come and consult with me first on the direction. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You need a license to license to provide direction? Are there actual plans that you're weighing in on? I'm trying to understand where the license comes into play. MR. ONO: Primarily, I'd have discussion about the initiative moving forward and whether or not to proceed or not; or whether we needed to tweak it, or improve it. So, that's how part of the routine part of the PE license comes into play with the running of the department. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, that's very helpful to know, thank you. DCC Wong, are you here in place of Corporation;Counsel Schoen? Okay. I know you're tracking this conversation, and so, to the best of your ability, help me to understand how things are,playing out in the department right now with the absence of Mr. Ono. Neil Azevedo, from what T hear and can'seey is doing a fantastic job serving as Acting Director. So, how are things moving forward, given that he doesn't have this professioinal engineering license? And this is weird to do so publicly, but this is the big elephant in the room, right? This is the tension that we're trying to work through, is should the director have a license or not? Because right now, the Acting Director doesn't have one. MS. WONG: Thank you for the question, Deputy Corporation Counsel Keyra Wong, From what I understand, things are moving. I'm not aware of any issues or any hiccups that, at least the DCC assigned to DPW has brought to my attention; I think we're surviving providing the advice that Neil's asking with respect to any legal questions. But if you need more specifics, I can reach out to the DCC assigned if you have more specific questions you want to know about. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No, but it sounds as if we're being extra diligent, I think, given that the Acting Director doesn't have the license, right, there's the extra due diligence that's happening proceeding with projects. And it seems to be working. Is there any extra liability that we are assuming here because of this? MS. WONG: Not that I'm aware of right now, no. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I appreciate the nature of this discussion. It's a little awkward, but this is a very bold move for our County, I think, to be taking. Page 16 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 And you know, I'm actually in support of the Charter Amendment as written. But if this is what it takes to get something over the finish line, I'm warm to the idea of supporting this amendment. Thank you both for being here. MR. ONO: Can I make one more comment? Recently, the Ali`i Drive, changing it to one direction to increase the number of parking stalls, we discussed it in the departmental level with the Traffic Division and our engineers. Traffic engineering analysis showed that the ques would be unmanageable. But my decision was to help this County proceed with it, because I did not see endangerment to public health and safety. Maybe inconvenience, but I did not see any endangerment. And that's why we decided to go ahead, let's try it. Because in the end we know we can always change it back. It was just,you know, pavement, marking, and signing; and that can be always corrected. So, thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. That's why it was a pilot to decide whether or not it would become a permanent traffic flow. So, thank you, Mr. Ono for being here, appreciate it. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member.' Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I forgot to make one additional point earlier, which is,you know, we've talked about the different models and the different counties. Maui does have a P?PW Director that has an engineering background; is not a licensed PE and is the Administrator. And so, that person does the administration, the HR (Human Resources) and the project management. But then the Deputy has a PE. So, this would be similar to that. Although I did mention that they have an Oversight Committee thatis required to have a PE licensed engineers on it. Againl you know, coming back to the difference between the two amendments here, one of the key concerns that I read in the testimony, and we've discussed through the various conversations, was that the engineering duties of the department,really need to be overseen by someone with a license. And so, the second amendment calls that out and says, well okay, if there's not a PE in the director, the deputy has to be a PE, and they oversee the engineering functions. The main concern there is that we would not want to see, as in the Challenger, a situation where the administrative person without the qualifications over-road the person with the professional engineering license, and that's why I think that's important. I do want to say, to Mr. Onishi's point, which I think is important, like this time element, right? That if were to take this model that the deputy were hired at the same time, if we look to the Charter amendment we passed previously, which Page 17 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 says that the directors needed to be appointed within a certain timeframe of a vacancy, you know, we are well passed that actually already with our current director. The reason I raise that is that we can in this Charter amendment,propose a timeframe. But what is the recourse if it doesn't happen? So, in this situation there's really no appropriate recourse. It's not like the Council gets to appoint somebody. It's just floating out there that this deadline has,passed and has not been met. So, similarly if we were to impose a deadline on the assignment of the deputy or to say that it would be simultaneous other than a lawsuit against the County, there really isn't a recourse for that action,not being taken. So, to just throw that out there as another little caveat. I think it's important, but I don't know how we enforce it or have it be meaningful. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. So, I alsowould prefer Comm. 334.16 because of the more specificity on authority. But I am,generally not in favor of the entire bill. So, I guess if it were to pass, I would like this to be the, you know, harmful sort of amendment. So,I just wanted to make my position clear on this, so we can move along. Thanks. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, on this amendment, I'll just say that I also have concerns that without giving a deputy director with the professional registered engineer qualifications the authority to make kind of the `buck stops here' decisions on engineering projects, I feel like it's very similar to what is already„in the bill, which is as Council Member Kimball mentioned, that the engineering decisions can be overruled by someone without an engineering degree. For whatever`reasons, be it political, or expediency, or saving money, or whatever it is, they cari'make those decisions, you know, in spite of someone with an engineering degree saying that's not the right decision. So, I guess I don't feel like this particular amendment goes far enough to address the issue. Alright, with that, we have an amendment here. All those in favor of amending Bill 64 with the contents of Communication 334.17, please say "aye." Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, can we do a roll call on this one, please. Page 18 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 64 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 334.17 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Onishi, and Villegas —4. Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Kimball, and Chair Kagiwada—4. Absent: Committee Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. MR. BROWN: The motion fails. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball, would you like to propose your amendment? Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 64 with the contents of Comm. 334.16. Seconded by Mr,Inaba. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I think we covered this inahe previous discussion. Again, looking to amend this in such'a way that if it does go through I can support it. But I'm still not supporting the overall bill. Thank you. CHR KAGIWADA: Council Member Galimba. MS'GALIMBA; Oh, sorry. I am in support of this amendment versus the other. But again,have some issues with the entire bill. MR. INABA I'm going to withdraw, and then we can clean that up, maybe nexttime. Okay},thank you. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else, on the amendment? No, okay. Alright, we'll take a roll call vote on the amendment, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 64 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 334.16 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—6. Noes: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Onishi —2. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. MR. BROWN: The motion passes. Page 19 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I would like to get a pulse on where we stand with this bill, as it's now been amended. I hear from Council Member Onishi, some interest in having a timeline established to make sure that,you know, we have that deputy in there with the qualifications. But I do intend to postpone this again to keep it here in Committee. And I want to hear what it's going to take for those who still have concerns with the bill as it's currently drafted to be able to support it. So, my staff is listening and ready to draft amendments for two weeks from now based on your feedback. Mahalo. CHR KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madame Chair. Can I have HR come up and then, I guess, Mr. Ono, again, former director. You can introduce yourselves. (Note: At this time, Human Resources 'Director Sommer Tokihiro, and Hugh Ono came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. TOKIHIRO: Hi, good,morning, Sommer Tokihiro, Director of Human Resources. MR. ONO: Hugh Ono, still the same guy: MR. ONISI; Thank you for coming. You know, my concerns were always about having,like the director unlicensed. But you're having your Building Chief and Engineering Chief being required to be licensed. So, on the HR side, how would thatwork? Because you have an appointed position person, and then you have civil service people that are licensed right? And conflict wise, there's a possibility. So, on the HR side, I would like to know or how you can explain to the public like how would we as the County or you as HR have to deal with this situation,in case there's conflicts. MS. TOKIHIRO: I guess, as in any other instance where there might be a conflict. You know, regardless of whether or not it is a question of license versus non-licensed, I mean,you could have conflicts. MR. ONISHL Because for me, I haven't really seen anything, you know, being in the County for 21 years, have seen something where you have, like a licensed person, right, at a certain level, and you have the appointed person who's not. Then you could have like I guess, agreeing unto what is public health and safety, or what is required. Page 20 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. TOKIHIRO: Yes, that's true. And I can only point to the other example within the County, which is the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) where the director is not required to be licensed. But subordinate positions do require licensure. MR. ONISHL Okay, and I'm seeing where Environmental Management, there was even an attorney that was in the director's position, MS. TOKIHIRO: Correct. MR. ONISHL Okay. Then, Mr. Ono my question to you would be, and I mentioned before, is that do you feel that if we say the license is removed from the Director of Public Works, would it be okay to have the.requirements for Building and Engineering Chief requirements for licenses be removed too? MR. ONO: I would take great exception to that; The PE's are the only ones that can stamp plans, okay. Otherwise,,plans.cannot be approved by a non-PE person. So, an engineer that goes through school and graduates with a Bachelor of Science or takes the PE Licensure exam and,fails he's limited. They can't stamp plans. In the Civil Service system of the State and the County, they cannot go pass a CE 3 (Corps of Engineers)rate. The engineer ratef goes up to level 7, and they wouldn'tbe able to go pass a CE-3. They would have to remain as their top level, MR. ONISHL So, what I'm hearing from HR and a former director, as long as we kee ,the requirement for like the Building Chief or Engineering Chief, and also with DEM, how their chiefs are required, right with the license. If they do make a decision that supersedes the director, then they should be able to move forward, correct? Because they are going to be thinking public health and safety and what they're sworn to deg basically, right, to follow all the laws. If they say, no, we have to do it this way, then the director should be able to listen and to say, okay, right? That's what I'm getting from you folks. MR. ONO: It should be that way. HR, it looks like you have something to say. MS. TOKIHIRO: The authority to operate the department resides with the director. And so, a subordinate position would not have the authority to move forward with that. MR. ONISHL Okay, so, that goes back to my original question. So, there becomes a conflict. So, then how is that worked out? Page 21 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MS. TOKIHIRO: There isn't a mechanism for that. MR. ONISHL Because it never really happens, right, within County or government? MR. ONO: I can answer that. The higher position always prevails. But just the potential could end up in a failure. MR. ONISHL Right, or someone getting injured., — MR. - MR. ONO: Then the higher position always prevails. MR. ONISHL Okay, so that's what my concern is, that preventive right? So, we want to be able to make sure that our I's are dotted, T's are erossed,4 right, before we move forward. And instead of doing,it, and then later onwe find out there's these problems, right? So, that's what I redly want to see happen and that's why I brought you folks up, is to get that clarified, right? So, now, for the public's knowledge, what we heard is that basically, it stops at the top, correct? MR. ONO: It does. MS. TOKIHIRO: Yes. MR.,ONIS I;; Okay, thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: "Thank you, Chair. Just a question for Mr. Ono. You know, Council Member Kierkiewicz started this conversation with you talking about that interplay`between those chiefs and the director. And I just want to explore that a little bit more;- You only mentioned that it was a discussion you're having with the chiefs? So take for example, the Ali`i Drive scenario. That chief presented aplan, documentation that they had stamped. MR. ONO: No, it's an operational thing. So, there are no stamped plans; it's a work order that goes out. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, got it. So, maybe provide me another example where there was a plan that they worked on that they had proofed, that they had stamped. Then it comes to the director, correct? Is there a secondary stamp and approval done by the director then because of that superior position and the PE license that they hold? Page 22 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 MR. ONO: Not to my knowledge. I've never seen it happen. MR. HUSTACE: So, it's more of a verbal approval of what they've done then? MR. ONO: No acknowledgement. MR. HUSTACE: There's no documentation showing that the director has reviewed these plans moving forward? MR. ONO: No documentation of such. It's a practice. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. And then there's a question, I think we've had some discussion previously about the Salary Commission. I'm not sure where that stands. Director Tokihiro,you heard'that conversation going�oil here at Council. Is that something that's on their agenda to talk about these director roles at some length? MS. TOKIHIRO: So, the Salary Commission convened last week, and Council Member Kagiwada appeared before the Commission regarding the concerns raised regarding the salary for the DPW director. MR. HUSTACE: How does that unfold the process now with the concerns brought my Council and the discuss'ion,we've had here about trying to provide parity between the public servant and the private sector? MS: TOKIHIO: So, that's are ongoing discussion amongst the Commissions. MR. HUSTACE: Okay, thank you Director. Thank you, Chair. CHR. KAOIWADA: Thank you. I'll just add to that. It seemed like the Commission is wvilling to look into this further. So, hopefully at their next meeting in September they will decide what direction they're going. Clerk, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. BROWN: Maybe at an administrative point,just from my experience at both Public Works and Department of Finance, the directors will not, like in this case, the directors will not sign off. If they didn't have the PE, they won't sign off on the plan itself. But if that plan were to ever go to any type of contract, that's when you would see the Director of Public Works or any other department head, they would sign off on the routing forms that ultimately go to Corporation Counsel and the Mayor. Page 23 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 But that is the opportunity when a department head, instead of just a verbal thing, there would be a written formal documentation where, if a contract were to come through, that's when a department head would sign off. I don't know if that helps or not. But just to kind of clarify. MR. ONO: You refreshed my memory. Yes, the director signs off on each and every plan that goes out of the department. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'll start off with a responselo Chair Inaba's ask. You know, I think there are two things really that would be helpful for me. One is that time constraint with the hiring of the director or the deputy. The second one actually is to look at Section 5-2-2 of the Code which delineates the responsibilities within the department and the authority having jurisdiction. My suggestion there would be propose something that would take effect upon this Charter amendment passing that would distinguish these other responsibilities of the director; these are the responsibilities of the deputy. Again,just for clarification. To the broader question, you know, L think the key in this is to kind of think about the lengthy time scale not just the situation that we find ourselves in or how things have operated over the last few months. Anecdotally, and without sharing any names, there was a time period'when our director did not have a PE. And it actually Was kind of dysfunctional at that time because the PE licensed staff kind of ignored what the director said because they didn't have the credentials, right? Soy part of this too is also ensuring that we don't hire somebody as the director and basically'set them up to fail, because the civil service staff are not going to respect'their opinion because they don't have the same level of credentials. So, you know, that is another consideration in all of this. For me, it's to make sure that this person is going to have the respect. And I'm not saying that anybody now does not,you know, have the respect of the civil service staff with those credentials. Again, one of the challenges with the timeframe piece is that the way that things are set up with an appointment and approval by Council, there's really no recourse that happens if that timing element is not met. So, to me, unless Chair Inaba can be really clever about it and find a way to build in some sort of recourse, then I'm not sure how effective that ultimately would be. But I'm interested to see what you might be able to come up with. And I'm willing to work with you on it as well. Page 24 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 So, that's where I land on this. You know, I'm willing to hold it here and continue to work on it, if that's the interest of the body. But in general, I still just oppose the concept. And yes, thank you, that's all. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright, I'll just respond to your question as well, Council Member Inaba. Yeah, I guess not having seen the specific amendments that it sounds like the engineering community came up with. Maybe this was some of them. But I'd like for us to get to a point where we have total confidence that engineering decisions are being made at a top level. And as a County we are really covering the life and safety. The engineering degree, I think, gives us just'�that one extra level of kind of feeling like we've done our due diligence as a County to have that person in place. Without that, I feel like we are a littlemore exposed. I think this amended version puts me at a little better at ease, but I'm still wondering if there are other things that maybe,I haven't seen or thought about that might help us be in a better place, that is the very top person didn't have that engineering degree we're well covered as far as liability, but also just making sure that we have the top people looking at those health and safety issues. So, I personally would really like to see what the Salary Commission comes back with because I think that's been pointed out time and time again as one of the reasons it been really hard to hire this position is that the salary is not close to the private sector. And so, for me, I'm kind of hoping we move along on that track at the same time. And maybe we come to a place where we feel like that is something we should try first before doing something that takes away qualifications from one of our most important leaders in the County. Sorry,that wasn't a super clear answer, but there's a lot of parts to this. So, appreciate the amendment and the way the discussion has been going. And understand that everybody wants what's best for our County here. And with that, I guess I will take it back to the maker to say what we would like to do. MR INABA: I'm going to move to postpone. But it seems there's been meetings among the professional engineers in the community, and I've asked for input. I've not received any input. So, I'm not sure where you folks are meeting; when you're meeting, who's meeting. But I would appreciate to be included in those meetings. So, we can have amendments that make sense to you folks. It's been months and I still have not been invited to one of these meetings. And again, we still continue to struggle with filling this position. Page 25 GOEAC-17 September 2,2025 So, I think for where we are right not, I'm going to attempt to bring some amendments next time. And if this body cannot find a way to move forward, then. Actually, I'll probably pull the bill. I think there's a need to make changes here, and we have to figure out what exactly that is. But if not then we'll continue to face these problems we've been facing in the limited pool that we have. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 64, as amended with the contents of Comm. 334.16, to September 16 2025. 'Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. KAGIWADA: All those in favor please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 64, as amended to Draft 2,to , — to Postpone: September 16, 2025, was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. That ends our agenda for this committee. ADJOURN- Seeing no further business, Chair Kagiwada adjourned the meeting at MENT: 10:39 a.m.' , Approved: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair (Date) Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs JK/dt Page 26