Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2026/05/19 (2024-2026)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 2611 Session j Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii May 19, 2026 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 11:36 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Vice Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the nexYorder of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Alright, Mr. Clerk, if you could go to the top of the agenda. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 752: REQUESTS FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WAIWAI NONPROFIT GRANTS-IN-AID AWARDS From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated February 11, 2026. Postponed: March 3, 2026 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace, to close file on Comm. 752.) LAAC-26 May 19, 2026 ; and Comm. 752.1: From Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, dated March 12, 2026, transmitting applications from eligible nonprofit organizations. ; and Comm. 752.2: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated April 30, 2026, transmitting recommendations for Waiwai Nonprofit Grant Organizations for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. CHR. KIMBALL: Alright, just to remind everyone, the motion is already on the floor to close file on this communication. We can discuss process at this meeting. If there are any deeper questions with regard to the content of the recommendations, the vote should be postponed to the next hearing, and we can have that conversation. Before I go forward, I do want to mahalo Council Member Inaba, Council Member Hustace, and Council Member Kagiwada for their efforts in scoring and participating in the process of selecting our Waiwai Grants for this next fiscal year. Any questions on process from the body? Are there any interested in postponing to have conversation about the recommendations or just move forward? Doesn't it look like it, so we'll just go and take the vote. All those in favor of closing file on Communication 752, please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Comm. 752: The motion to close file on Comm. 752 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz — 2. Excused: None. Comm. 904: REQUESTS FORMATION OF A PERMITTED INTERACTION GROUP REGARDING THE WAIWAI GRANTS From Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Chair Heather L. Kimball, dated April 30, 2026. The Permitted Interaction Group would evaluate and review the 2026-2027 application process, discuss any code amendments and provide recommendations for improvements to the 2027-2028 application process, develop a scoring rubric for the 2027-2028 application process, and make recommendations on the six-month process report and review process. Page 2 LAAC-26 Motion to Close File: May 19, 2026 Mr. Hustace moved to close file on Comm. 904. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. KIMBALL: So, this is our process that we do every year where we go through the process and then we have an opportunity to form a PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) to do an analysis of the process and make any improvements. We actually accelerated the timeline on this; this year, so we would have a little more runway to potentially look at some additional Code amendments in addition to what Council Member Inaba has already proposed today. So, I would like to take some volunteers to serve on this Ad Hoc. I would certainly recommend that folks that were engaged in the process continue with this aspect of it. Council Member Inaba. Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to form a Permitted Interaction Group pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 92-2.5 to include Council Members Kimball, Hustace, Kagiwada, and myself with Council Member Kimball serving as Chair of the Permitted Interaction Group; and the scope of this interaction group being those listed in Communication 904. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. CHR. KIMBALL: Alright, motioned by Council Member Inaba, seconded by Council Member Hustace to nominate himself, Hustace, Kagiwada, and myself as Chair, for a Permitted Interaction Group to address the items in Communication 904. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say, "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion to The vote to approve the Permitted Interaction Group was Approve the carried by the following voice vote: Formation of a PIG: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Kierkiewicz — 2. Excused: None. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Comm. 904 to the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Mr. Hustace. Page 3 LAAC-26 I May 19, 2026 CHR. KIMBALL: Motion to postpone and close file to Call of the Chair. All those in favor? Any opposed? Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Comm. 904 to the Call of the Chair Postpone: 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. KIMBALL: Next item please. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 567-26: AUTHORIZES THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN, BEING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF TAX MAP KEY: 1-5-009:012 AND 058, SITUATED AT KEONEPOKO IKI, PUNA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT BEACH ROAD, A PUBLIC ROADWAY Authorizes the Corporation Counsel to initiate proceedings for the taking, acquisition, and condemnation of private property for the improvement and widening of Government Beach Road. Reference: Comm.886 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball (B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend adoption of Res. 567-26. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR. KIMBALL: We do have members of the department here to give us some information. I'd actually like to ask you to come forward and just give us a brief overview of what's happening here before we begin our deliberations. (Note: At this time, DPW (Department of Public Works) Engineering Division Melanie DeMello came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. DEMELLO: Hi. Good morning, Melanie DeMello, Deputy Chief for Public Works Engineering Division. So, this resolution before you is to acquire or accept by eminent domain, a couple of parcels for Government Beach Road. Page 4 LAAC-26 May 19, 2026 Right now, there's an existing 10-foot wide right-of-way. What we're looking to do is acquire 40 feet more to give us a standard minimum width of 50 feet for a Government roadway, County roadway. This will also help fix an encroachment issue on these particular properties. So, that's the reasons of why we're here today. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you very much. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Madame Chair. So, question. So, it seems like you guys couldn't negotiate with the landowner and what was the reason? MS. DEMELLO: So, there were a number of discussions that took place over the years and basically, that's correct. We did make an offer for this 40-foot acquisition. We did an appraisal; made an offer to the property owner but were unable to reach an agreement and offer. So, that's why we're here today to go by eminent domain. MR. ONISHI: Usually when you do like a road improvement, usually you take both sides of that roadway; like property from both sides of that roadway. So, this seems like you're just taking one side. MS. DEMELLO: Yes, you know sometimes we do, right? A lot of times we take both sides. In this case, there's an encroachment situation on this particular side, so that was the basis of trying to acquire this side of the road. MR. ONISHI: But did you folks look at trying to —oh because of the alignment? MS. DEMELLO: Yes, to line up the physical road with the right-of-way, the encroachment is on this side. So, that's why we're looking at that one side of the road versus both. MR. ONISHI: So, no way you guys can take some of the property from the other side? MS. DEMELLO: It wouldn't resolve the existing encroachment issue to go on the other side. MR. ONISHI: So then, it's an existing road that you folks are going to widen? MS. DEMELLO: This will give us the ability to potentially widen, yeah, to what would now be 50 feet. So, yes, there would be that potential to widen as needed. MR. ONISHI: Then, is there any possibility, and maybe this is for Corporation Counsel, any possibility of that landowner coming back to go to court to try and block this? Page 5 LAAC-26 May 19, 2026 (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Ferguson came forward to address the members of the Committee) MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: For one of your questions, I actually went on a site visit, and the makai side, I think, of the portion is like a ditch. So, I think that's part of the reason why the road is where it's at right now. So, what it is, is the County has a 10-foot right-of-way. MR. ONISHI: On the makai side? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: No, the County has a 10-foot right-of-way, and on the makai side of that 10-foot right -of way there's a ditch, a big drop off. MR. ONISHI: It could be filled or could be —I mean, it would cost more for construction. But I'm just saying, like fairness. Like I said, usually most of the time when you do a road widening, you try to take both sides of the properties of that roadway, right, to make it fair instead of just taking one side. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: So, and this will answer your question I think when I explain this. So, there's a 10-foot right-of-way, and I think around 2014, the County paved it, and they paved a little bit outside of the right-of-way. MR. ONISHI: So, it's our fault. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Yeah, we paved onto the mauka property. And for years, the County has been trying to negotiate with the landowner. The landowner is an LLC, and it's never come to fruition. So, in order to just resolve the issues, we have to go to condemnation, and condemnation is where the County, the department. MR. ONISHI: Now, my question is about, is there a possibility of that landowner going to court. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: So, actually, this resolution is authorizing the Office of the Corporation Counsel to file a lawsuit in court. So, we have to go to court. If we cannot reach a settlement, you know, between this being passed and going to court, we'll file a lawsuit in court and action for condemnation. And then the LLC will be required to —they already have an attorney, and we'll negotiate in court, a settlement. MR. ONISHI: They could countersue? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: No, so the County has authority to take private property for public purpose, which is what we're asking today. MR. ONISHI: If the court agrees? Page 6 LAAC-26 May 19, 2026 MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Yeah, you know, but taking property for a roadway is almost indisputable; that it's a public purpose. MR. ONISHI: But like you mentioned before, the County made a mistake and paved into their property. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: That's a side issue. MR ONISHI: Yeah, I know I'm just saying. So, the fight in court for condemnation is the valuation of the land, generally. You know, the owner is going to say it's worth this much, you're not paying enough. And then the court will decide that. So, we're hoping to resolve everything either before court or in court. MR. ONISHI: Okay. Go ahead. MS. DEMELLO: I just wanted to add one thing if it helps shed light. There is already an existing 55-foot-wide road widening easement on this property. So, even though it's not part of the right-of-way right now, it was clearly slated for future road improvements. So, at this time, we're just taking the 40 feet. But that was already mapped out. MR ONISHI: So, with this widening, there must be other property owners along this roadway. MS. DEMELLO: Yes. MR. ONISHI: So, the other landowners agreed already? MS. DEMELLO: This before you is just with one; two lots, same property owner. So, yes, we're just dealing with this property owner at this time. MR. ONISHI: So, are you folks going to be coming back to us again for other properties or you folks are all set? MS. DEMELLO: I think right now we're looking at taking care of this one that has the encroachment and if there is further discussion for the other property owners, then I guess you know, we may have that discussion at that time. Right now, we're just focusing on this one. MR. ONISHI: Usually too, when government does widening of roadways, they do it as a whole project. So, they contact all the landowners to make sure they all agree. Okay, so I just wanted to clear up the air a little for the public to understand, too, of what's going on. Page 7 LAAC-26 May 19, 2026 MS. DEMELLO: Yeah, I can understand that question. You know, I think with this one because of the particular issues at this property because of what was done previously, it's something we want to resolve right now. But I do know what you're saying with normal projects, if it was slated for the entirety of a roadway, right, you'd go to all at one time. MR. ONISHI: Okay, thank you, I yield. Vote on Res. 567-26: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 567-26 was carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: ADJOURN- MENT: Approved: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder Kierkiewicz, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Resolution 567 is forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation. Seeing no further business on the agenda, we are adjourned. The time is 11:51 a.m. We are back on schedule. Thank you. There being no further business, Chair Kimball adjourned the meeting at 11:51 a.m. Heather L. Kimball, Chair Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee HK/dt (Date) Page 8