Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2026/07/07 (2024-2026)Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs 37t' Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii July 7, 2026 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Operations and ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 9:40 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice 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" Onishi, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Dane Kealoha: Res. 595-26 (Comm. 945), in support. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. With that, could we please start at the top of the agenda with Communication 946, please. GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 946: NOMINATION OF SHAWNA KAULUKUKUI TO THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor C. Kimo Alameda, dated June 18, 2026, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. (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. 946: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination (Approved) of Ms. Shawna Kaulukukui to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and 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. Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Can we go to Communication 947, please. Comm. 947: NOMINATION OF JONATHAN ZEICHNER TO THE HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor C. Kimo Alameda, dated June 18, 2026, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: August 1, 2026 (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-37 July 7, 2026 Vote on Comm. 947: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination (Approved) of Mr. Jonathan Zeichner to the Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and 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. Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, Mr. Zeichner. Can we will go to Resolution 594, please. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 594-26: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, WILDLIFE SERVICES, RELATING TO A WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE HILO SOLID WASTE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Reference: Comm.944 Intr. by: Council Member Kagiwada (B/R) Motion to Approve: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend adoption of Res. 594-26. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KAGIWADA: I'd like to call up members of DEM (Department of Environmental Management), who are working on this. You might want to speak to it. And I believe we might be having Jordan Linnell from USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Come on up and share with us about this resolution and this project. Thank you. Please introduce yourself and share with us about this project, please. (Note: At this time, USDA Wildlife Services District Supervisor Jordan Linnell came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 3 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 MR. LINNELL: Thank you for having me. My name is Jordan Linnell. I'm the District Supervisor for USDA Wildlife Services. As you guys are probably aware, there's been an estimate of about 150 to 200 feral swine that are currently at the Hilo Solid Waste Transfer Station. We've had a huge problem with sanitary issues there with defecation all over the area, as well as possible disease transmission with brucellosis, pseudorabies, and classical swine flu. And we're proposing conducting trapping operations outside of business hours to remove that threat to public health and human safety. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Is there anything you'd like to add from DEM's side. (Note: At this time, DEM Solid Waste Division Chief Mike Rivera came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. RIVERA: Mike Rivera, DEM Chief. No, I think Jordan pretty much summed it up. Most of the issues occur after hours. That's when the pigs come out and feed. So, if you look at our sort floor, at the end of the day, it'll be perfectly clean, and when you return at 5:30-6:00 a.m. in the morning, you'll see the trash and litter from the pigs. So, that's what we're trying to control and hope for your support. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much. Council Members? Council Member Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Cool opportunity. So, thank you. So, this is for one person, correct? The funding source? MR. LINNELL: Correct, it'll be one person with supervisory oversight. Technically, we'll have multiple people out there helping out, but the funding will be for one employee. So, in the meantime, we'll be using other employees to help out with assisting out the transfer station until this person is hired. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: There's a lot of animals that you listed in the resolution that we're going to take care of. MR. LINNEL: Yes Sir. There are feral chickens listed there. We got cattle egrets. So, we also have a team of wildlife biologist that work at Hilo International Airport. The Avian (Avian influenza or bird flu) threat has been really big out there where we get worried about cattle egrets flying over; hitting planes and causing damage, barnels pigeons as well; and those species have also been observed at the Hilo Transfer Station. So, we'll be reducing that threat to human health and safety there as well. Page 4 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I frequent the Hilo Transfer Station very often. It's a nice facility. I guess my point is, what I see there is people feeding animals consistently. And there's some big pigs that come in from the outside edges, both on the Glover's facility or Yamada's facility. They come in from that side and come in and get fed by the glass -cardboard recycling area. And then they're also coming in from the backside. I mean, the facility itself is huge. What is the plan for one person with a $100,000 to mitigate the amount of animals that are in the facility? MR. LINNELL: So, what we do is we set up various corral traps. We'll try and bait them, habituate them; get a bunch to come in at once; and then set that trap, capture them and then remove them. And then that person is going to connecting trapping operations as well monitoring. Then we also have thermal units to do nightwork as well when we're removing them using suppressed firearms. So, our agency is the only one that's allowed to use suppressed firearms and conduct work at night, which is why we're going to be doing this outside of business hours. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I would recommend maybe perhaps doing some public education on not feeding. MR. LINNELL: Well, I think the Mayor has already had that one initiative pass, right, about trying to stop the feeding. But right now, that's not really getting enforced. I don't know who would be the one responsible to enforce that, but we've had discussions about that. MR. RIVERA: Mike Rivera, DEM. We do know the folks that are out there feeding the animals, and we do try to conduct; I would say, enforce the rules there. But it's a very emotional item, and it's very challenging by ourselves. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't see a lot of people feeding cats there. I think we were dancing around that issue, but I do see a lot of people feeding the pigs and the chickens, which seems to be popular. And there are a lot. I see the same cars parked there feeding the same animals. It's totally random, and I like chickens. But I see the same chickens and I'm watching them. And I see the same birds coming out of the bushes to eat the food that's being dropped by people by the cardboard bins. That would be the one area that I see the most feeding happening at the Hilo Transfer Station. That area may need more enforcement by DEM. I think that would be our kuleana, not USDA's kuleana, to try and curb the amount of bringing in of animals to the area, that we can. While they've spent $111,000 to maintain an area that's extremely large that has a lot of different animals coming from a lot of different areas. Page 5 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 MR. RIVERA: I agree. We're aware of it. I do agree with you, and we're trying to attempt to do a better job as a division to control that facility. Because it is big, and we know the cars and the people that are involved. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Madame Chair. You mentioned about trapping. I was told that these pigs are smart. And so, I guess once you start trapping, the rest of them know. Somehow, they communicate with each other. So, what is the next process? MR. LINNELL: You're absolutely correct. So, what we try to do is we use these multiple corral traps to try and capture as many as we can at once. That way, they're not all educated right? Because before a lot of people were using those little box traps. You see those ones that only catch one or two pigs. You try and do that, the rest of them see that and they have windows. So, we have what we call the Pig Brig Traps where they kind of root underneath, and then they can't come back out. But we've caught up to 30 pigs in one of those before. And we also have corral traps that we're using with the drop -gate. So, we'll habituate them in, feed them in there for a week or so; then once we have the whole sound in there, 20-30 pigs; drop that gate, capture them. The other ones, they'll get a little spooked for a little while, but when their stomachs start to get rumbling and especially with mac nuts. MR. ONISHI: I like that you folks have the authority to use firearms which is good. When I was with the Governor's Office, USDA had that authority along Four Miles where they had in the pond, Mauka side of the ocean, those seagulls, white birds would all nest in there, right? MR. LINNELL: That's on our agenda to try to get over by the ponds and remove those as well, because they're constantly flying over and cross the runways. MR. ONISHI: Okay, good. Now, for the disposal of the pigs, are you folks going to —not transfer them and drop them off someplace else? MR. LINNELL: So, Hilo Solid Waste Transfer Station cannot take biological wastes. So, we had to plan to take them to Kona. MR. RIVERA: Mike Rivera, DEM. So, we'll coordinate with USDA and transport them over to Pu'uanahulu for disposal. Page 6 GOEAC-37 Vote on Res. 594-26 (Approved) Res. 595-26 July 7, 2026 MR. ONISHI: Okay, great, right on. Great job. Good luck. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, anybody else? Alright, with that, thank you very much for bringing this forward. Mr. Rivera, speaking to what Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder was saying, I've also seen video of actual DEM employees feeding the pigs. I hope there's going to be a lot of education and working with everybody, including the patrons who come there; the people who come just to feed and employees; even if it's just thrown out cookies so that kids can see the pigs —we can't have that. So, I hope there'll be some training and education for everybody along with this. MR. RIVERA: Yes, we will do that when this program comes out. And I wasn't aware of that too much. So, I'll make sure our staff knows about that. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, appreciate that. Appreciate you both bringing this forward, and I think it's going to be a test, and maybe we can use you in other parts of the County as well, great. Alright, with that, all those in favor of approving Resolution 594 and sending it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Any opposed? The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 594-26 was 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: Thank you so much for being here and we're moving on to Resolution 595, please. AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, FOR COST SHARING TO PURCHASE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE KEALOHA FAMILY LO`I IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEYS: 5-2-009:025 AND 5-2-009:026 THROUGH THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROGRAM Allows for the receipt of federally -derived matching funds for the acquisition of the Kealoha Family Lo`i conservation easement authorized by Resolution 513-26. Reference: Comm.945 Intr. by: Council Member Kagiwada (B/R) Page 7 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 Motion to Approve: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend adoption of Res. 595-26. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KAGIWADA: I'd like to call up the staff here, Ms. Arquitola and Mr. Schapiro to maybe give a little more information to the Council on this item. (Note: At this time, PONC (Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission) Program Manager Ben Schapiro came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SCHAPIRO: Hi, Ben Schapiro, Program Manager with the PONC Team. This is a great opportunity for the County to receive or partner with, as Dane mentioned in his testimony, to partner with NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) to receive matching funds or additional funding the potential future acquisition of this conservation easement. CHR. KAGIWADA: Terrific. And I think we have somebody online here as well. I'm not sure. Hi do you want to introduce yourself and just add a little here, if you'd like? (Note: At this time, NRCS Assistant Director Nicholas Saumweber came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SAUMWEBER: Absolutely. Aloha, thank you for Council for having me. My name is Nic Saumweber. I'm the Assistant Director for programs with NRCS in the Pacific Island Areas covering Hawai `i as well as our Island Territories in the Pacific. I'm just here to primarily answer any technical questions that you might have about what a program agreement is with NRCS. I will state this first and foremost, that our current program agreement is with HILT (Hawai`i Land Trust). And in order for us to close out an easement that is utilizing other funds where that funder is required to be a coholder, we need to have coholder on the program agreement. A program agreement does not obligate funds, it just establishes protocol for how the two agencies will work together in terms of submitting a project for proposals. As you well know, easements often take a little while to go from conception to closing. And that's because we need to make sure that all the legal requirements are in place. So, I'm here to answer any questions that the committee might have. But I hope that you will consider it and look at the opportunity that this actually might be an opportunity for the PONC itself to maybe enter into their own program agreement with NRCS in the future to utilize the PONC funds as well. But in this scenario, we're looking specifically at asking the County to join on to an existing program agreement that we already have with HILT. Page 8 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 CHR. KAGIWADA: Great, thank you so much. Members of the committee, any questions or feedback at this point? Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. No questions, just wanted to share that, thrilled about the collaboration and the partnership between our Finance Department, PONC team, HILT, and Mr. Kealoha there, and then our NRCS team as well. So, thank you for the possibility here and what could happen in the future. So, thank you so much. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yes, I also just wanted to thank the whole team that got this together. This is a really great example of, you know, working together to get the most resources gathered up to do things that we want to do. So, thank you to everyone who worked on this. CHR. KAGIWADA: Terrific. Thank you. I'll just say that I'm excited to see how this first one rolls out and look forward to potentially other agreements going forward for other parts of the island. So, thank you so much everybody on the team. And with that, all those in favor on approving Resolution 595 and sending it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Res. 595-26: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 595-26 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: Thank you so much. Thank you everybody. Alright with that, we're going to go to our last item, Bill 169. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 9 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 Bill 169: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 42, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION Requires that all qualifying lands ranked with a score of 70 percent or higher be included on the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resource Preservation Commission's recommendation list to the mayor; requires the finance director to make reasonable efforts to acquire authorized properties within ten years for properties ranked 90 percent or higher and five years for properties ranked less than 90 percent; requires the finance director to reassess any such properties not acquired within the designated timeframes. Reference: Comm.939 Intr. by: Council Members Hustace and Galimba Motion to Approve: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend passage of Bill 169 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Hustace, please go ahead. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. I'm thrilled and excited to bring Bill 169 forward for consideration. Mahalo, cosponsor Council Member Galimba, on this proposal that really culminates some discussion around the Ad Hoc committee that we had previously, and some of the review that happened therein about the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund, particularly on the acquisition side. You know, really the goal throughout that process was not to reinvent anything, but really identify really practical improvements that would strengthen the long-term administration that remains effective in the future. And throughout our review, one thing really became clear that the commission does an excellent job in evaluating and prioritizing properties. But there is no process for periodically reviewing properties that remain on the prioritized list after they've been selected by Council for preservation, but not yet acquired. So, over time, conditions change, opportunities evolve, and our priorities should evolve as well. So, Bill 169 hopes to address this gap by establishing reasonable timelines for acquisition efforts based on the property's priority score and requiring that the commission reassess the Council's selected properties that have not been acquired within those timeframes. These timelines are not intended to create rigid deadlines or forced acquisitions, rather, they establish regular checkpoints to determine whether a property remains a priority. Page 10 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 So, whether acquisition efforts should continue, or whether our limited resources are being directed where they can have the greatest impact going forward. So, this is designed to balance accountability with flexibility with the complex land conservation projects that they often require. The current prioritized list includes Council's selected properties that have remained at a consideration for many years. And some still represent excellent conservation opportunities while others may have changed due to ownership, surrounding land uses, funding opportunities, or other circumstances. Periodic reassessment simply gives the commission the opportunity to determine whether these properties continue to reflect the County's high preservation priorities. I also want to emphasize that this bill does not exactly do —it's not expanding the program or change how properties are evaluated, or appropriating additional funding. So, instead, it's strengthens just the administrative side of the existing program with the greater accountability, periodic review, and transparency. So, thank you for your consideration and the discussion? CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you very much. Member Galimba, please go ahead. MS. GALIMBA: I just wanted to thank Council Member Hustace for bringing this forward and including me in crafting it. And I just wanted to make one point that I think is important, is that this is not retroactive. So, it will be going forward. So, the properties that are already on list would not be automatically included in this process. Although there may be other ways to bring those properties up for reconsideration at the commission. I think they have the power to do that at any time, but this is a way for us to start that conversation and perhaps influence some consideration of those prior properties as well. And I yield for now. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Members? Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. I think I just need to make a better explanation on the timing element of (a) (1) and (2). In my mind, we would want to prioritize in a shorter period, higher scoring applications. Because according to the commission, should be prioritized because they're above 90 percent. So, if you could just provide some insight as to why it is how it is now? CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Hustace. Page 11 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 MR. HUSTACE: Thanks Chair. Appreciate the question, Council Member Inaba. How we saw it was that the projects that are 90 percent or higher thresholds may have just more extenuating circumstances. But ours is a priority, granted, right? The commission grants them at a higher threshold there. But there may be some underlying factors that may take it longer to acquire those properties. So, maybe a little bit harder to go after, giving them a longer runway and threshold to then be acquired, versus being reassessed within a shorter period of time, if conditions change. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. Perhaps we can hear from the department, just on your folks' thoughts on this legislation, please. CHR. KAGIWADA: The co -introducer also has information to add, if you'd like. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. I have a slightly different view on the reason we had the two tiers, complimentary. But the projects that were 90 percent are over. Generally speaking, in the process that I've seen at the PONC (Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission), those projects have a lot going for them. Number one, as Council Member Hustace points out in his rationale, but they also usually technically, from a real estate acquisition process have more going for them. And so, giving them a longer timeframe just says, number one, that we very much value them; and number two, they're technically more feasible, whereas sometimes the lower scores —not all the time, but sometimes can reflect some pretty serious issues around feasibility. So, my thinking at least on that, is that if there are those issues, we want to go back there and check on them sooner, because not a lot of sense of keeping them on there if those issues are not resolved or resolvable. And please go ahead if the department would come up. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. MR. INABA: So, yeah, if the department could come forward and just share your thoughts, please. (Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Malia Kekai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KEKAI: Hi, Malia Kekai, Deputy Director of Finance. I think, generally, we're just looking for more direction within this. It seems very general on what defining "reassess" means. Page 12 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 That kind of thing, I think we are supportive of the 70 percent. I think that that's already what the commission has put in place. So, that supports the direction that they're going in. But again, I think it's kind of defining a little more what this structure is actually doing. We looked at a lot of the historic numbers, and there weren't a lot of 90's, honestly. It's kind of hard to get into the 90's. So, it's a small number of properties within the last five years. There's been about 11 properties that scored in the 90's. So, if there needs to be two tiers, that kind of thing. I'll let you guys discuss on that. But I think that's really where we are, is kind of like, we do think that there does need to be some sort of process where they do go back and look at these properties because we have a good number that continue to sit there. And ones without reso's as well, right. So, I think this only addresses reso's . And so, what do we do with the ones that the Council never nominates? Does that have a time limit of where, the body never sees the need to put up a reso? Should those also be reassessed at the same time? MR. INABA: Okay, thank you, Deputy Director. I can understand what the intent is with the longer runway. But I'm wondering, the language is saying we give five years for lesser scores and ten years for higher scores. So, I don't know if we want to section out, like prioritization versus reassessment in having different timeframes, because if it is prioritized high, the language here is saying we give them plenty time, ten years to not do anything. Whereas do we want it to be five years, and at that time force them to come and provide what action has been taken in those five years to acquire. Because right now, we're talking about reassessment, but we don't have an idea of what was actually done by the department. So, I think that's maybe an important piece to this legislation, is having a report to show what was done to make reasonable efforts. We need some type of evidence to show what reasonable efforts were undertaken to acquire within whatever timeframe we're specifying. So, appreciate the intent, I just, I can't support it in its current wording giving so much time for high -prioritized parcels. I'll yield for now. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball and then Villegas. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I had similar questions around the two different tiers with respect to timing, because I think if the interest is making sure that the ones that are a higher priority are acted on sooner than presumably, you'd want a shorter time period than a longer time period. But if you're thinking Page 13 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 about it in terms of, it has a longer period; longer runway to be acquired if it's a higher priority, that makes sense too. I mean, I think, this is resolved one of two ways, either you just have a standard acquisition period per review, and you don't have two tiers; or you define something that identifies encouraged action on those high priority ones. And then, I mean, you basically bifurcate the two concepts, right? So that, you can address them independently. I think if I were to weigh in on a preference, I just wouldn't have the two tiers. I would just say, after a certain amount of time, regardless of the scoring, things get reviewed. And that brings me to my second comment, which is the uncodified section in Section No. 5. It mentioned that it wasn't retroactive, but I think that this would be a good opportunity to require a comprehensive review of outstanding properties. And so, perhaps rewording this section, giving obviously more time, because that's going to take a while, but specifying a process if you will. I think it is appropriate to do a point in time, kind of reassessment of all those that have been lingering for a long amount of time that haven't been acquired. And since that section is already there, I think with some massaging, that could incorporate that effort. Other than that, I'm not sure what the intent is by the makers by just providing an updated prioritized list. I mean if that's just the spreadsheet of what's on there and what the scores were at the time. I think one of the things that came up in the Ad Hoc is that there has been an evolution of scoring over time. And so, something from 20 years ago is not comparable apples to apples with something that was scored more recently. So, those are my two comments. I think, not quite ready for primetime, as our former Council Member Mr. (Aaron) Chung used to say. But I'm supportive of the effort, of course, in terms of our conversation with the Ad Hoc. So, thank you for putting this forward. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, thank you for taking this up. There's a lot of conversation around PONC lately, and there is actually a lot of anx in the community by the original creators of the PONC Fund and purchases. I concur and while I understand that you're trying to give them a longer period of time if it's more of a priority. Oddly enough, the challenge I'm having is that I have willing sellers; everything lined up to happen, and we can't get approval from the Page 14 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 Mayor's Office to do the appraisal. So, we can line all these things up, and we can have this process, but then it goes to Finance, and it goes to the Mayor. That's like that next step; is the appraisal needs to happen. And then, there's been a lot of confusion about when the County does an appraisal, is it the County's appraiser or can the landowner hire their own appraiser? And is the appraisal amount public knowledge, or is that something that can be kept private? So, there's a rabbit hole here that I appreciate these things being taken up, but I see a bigger kind of, and I don't know how we fix it from the Council standpoint, but you know, I see our great leadership in the PONC Office and even Finance oftentimes looking at me like, "Sorry, we can't do anything until we're given the green light to move forward with an appraisal, and we've got properties that are phenomenal historic purchases with world renown cultural practitioners and their organizations lined up to steward properties, but we can't get the green light to do the appraisal." This sends a message to a willing property owner, that it doesn't have to take ten years for this to happen. So, just kind of, some of the things that I'm —or 20 years, however long. And to provide you guys with some support. And how do we put some teeth into the incentive? Because you know, the PONC Commission can do all this work. You guys can have all your scoring, and you can have your priorities. But if you don't get permission to start the appraisal process, everything just sits, and sits, and sits. So, my two cents, thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Anybody else? Alright, I'll just add my two cents here. In agreement that I would really love to see bringing up to speed the existing list in some way. So, some kind of review process for the existing properties. That would be really great to get in line with, I think, what your intention is here. Also, was initially confused about the five-year, ten-year; understand where you're going for; I don't know that it needs —maybe they can just be five years, and everything gets looked at. So, there is going to be some confusion, I think, with the way it's worded right now from the public if we're all confused here. So, thank you for the work on this. I think you're going in the right direction. Just might need a little more massaging. So, with that, I'll turn it to the makers to decide what you'd like to do at this time. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the interest and the discussion pieces there on different aspects of this. So, thank you. We'll take that into consideration as we have further conversations. I also want to recognize that any assessment or evaluation by the commission puts more work on them for certain as volunteers of that commission. So, just trying to be careful also about their workload as well. Page 15 GOEAC-37 July 7, 2026 I know that the properties that don't have a resolution behind them, there's still questions about those. And some of them may have all sorts of conditions that affect maybe why there's no resolution on them as well. And puts them maybe in a whole different class of properties altogether. But I do appreciate insight here. Thank you very much. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Hustace moved to postpone Bill 169 to August 4, 2026. Seconded by Mr. Onishi. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright, on the motion to postpone Bill 169 to our August 4, 2026 Committee meeting, all those in favor please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 169 to August 4, 2026, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) 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: Thank you so much everybody. And with that we conclude our Committee meeting for the day. Thank you. ADJOURN- Seeing no further business, Chair Kagiwada adjourned the meeting at MENT: 10:31 a.m. Approved: s. Jen giw da, Chair (Date) Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs JK/dt Page 16