Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCHSW 2026/09/01 (2024-2026)Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being I I" Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i September 1, 2026 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and ORDER: Well-being was called to order at 12:21 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Chair Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Vice Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (came in later) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 184: AMENDS CHAPTER 14 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE USE OF NATIVE PLANTS IN COUNTY LANDSCAPING Requires the use of native plants in County landscaping. Reference: Comm.1023 Intr. by: Council Member Kierkiewicz Motion to Approve: Mr. Hustace moved to recommend passage of Bill 184 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. ONISHI: Go ahead Ms. Kierkiewicz. PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I apologize in that delay. This is a very simple concept when the County is landscaping county property, prioritizing the kinds of plants that belong here. So this through Code will establish a county policy to incorporate native Hawaiian plants into our parks, into our public facilities, open spaces, streetscapes, and rights of way, whenever practical and appropriate for the site. This is not an absolute mandate. We recognize that every location is different and departments need flexibility in considering things like public safety and engineering requirements, and climate and irrigation needs, and maintenance, and costs. And so, again, this is just to put out there for our county departments to take into consideration planting native species on county sites so that we're leading by example. We're telling community members to plant native and to, you know, strengthen, bolster that needed eco-system. That's something that we should be doing and leading, as a county. I also see this as an opportunity to educate when `ohana and keiki go to different county facilities and they see and recognize these native plants. That is an opportunity, I think, for them to understand the ecological and cultural importance. So there is an element of the bill that does encourage some interpretive signage and educational materials where appropriate. And then, finally, with the accountability piece as part of the annual budgeting process, departments would report out some of the strides that they've made to incorporate more native plants into their department's operations. So, happy to take any questions. This bill was reviewed and vetted by both Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Public Works. They may or may not be here today to answer any questions, but I do want to make sure that folks know that there was coordination with the administration on this legislation. Thank you. CHR. ONISHI: Okay. Any other members? Okay. Hearing or seeing none. Oh. Mr. Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Chair. I just want to thank Council Member Kierkiewicz for bringing this forward. I know it's been in some conversations in the past with like the Youth Commission. Just trying to look at opportunities to, you know, really improve our county properties with our native plants. And really bring that awareness of these kinds of species that, you know, are struggling in some conditions and some spaces. So it's really important to kind of really incorporate this into our landscaping aspects in our parks, in our county facilities. So thank you for bringing this forward. And I do look forward to the conversation at Page 2 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 budget about what is being delivered upon in those spaces. That'd be interesting to see. So thank you so much. Thank you. CHR. ONISHI: Any other members? Oh. Chair Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member, Onishi. I think —I love this, Council Member Kierkiewicz, and I'm just thinking out loud here of ways that we might be able to include non-invasive lei plants as well, that might not fall under the category of native plants, as it's currently defined. But as with all around the island, making lei is a tradition that we carry on and some of those plants may not fit within the native plants but would provide great value to community. Thank you. I yield. CHR. ONISHI: Any other members? Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair I just want to acknowledge that mana`o from Council Chair. So, I'll be putting forward a friendly amendment at Council to include those non-invasive lei materials. Thank you. CHR. ONISHI: Thank you. Okay. Any other members? If not, the only comment I have is having these native plants and having where it doesn't dig up our sidewalks or roadways. Because they have some of these other trees that get so big, their roots, you know, just damage the sidewalks and so forth and people trip and fall. But yeah. So all those in favor of approving Bill 184 and moving to the full Council with a positive recommendation, say "aye." Those opposed? Vote on Bill 184: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 184 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Onishi — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. ONISHI: Okay. Before we introduce Bill 189, I'm going to turn over the Committee to my Vice Chair, Ms. Kimball. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Onishi relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Kimball. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Please let the record reflect that I have assumed the chair at 12:27 p.m. Mr. Clerk, do we have any testimony on Bill 189? Page 3 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 Bill 189: AMENDS CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 25, SECTION 14-151 OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO CLEARING UNSAFE FLORA Specifies that a department designated by the mayor may investigate and certify complaints of unsafe flora and specifies that an appropriate expert may be consulted in such cases. Reference: Comm.1041 Intr. by: Council Member Onishi Motion to Approve: Mr. Onishi moved to recommend passage of Bill 189 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member, Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Thank you. Can I get Mr. Sinclair from Corporation Counsel and Director Segawa. Members, so, in every district we do have these issues where the neighbor or a vacant property has these overgrown trees and it's close to the border of the property lines and it's, you know, it's dangerous to an existing home or building or even like, roadways. And so, we looked at this, our County Code, and there were things in here, well, this one thing in here where we wanted to kind of, make it more clear. And so, I'll have either —Director, you want to go first? Because I did meet with them. We had a lot of major discussions with Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. And also, we had Corporation Counsel working with all this. And so, you want to go first, and we can have Corporation Counsel, Mr. Sinclair, after that. Go ahead. (Note: At this time, Department of Public Works Director Wesley Segawa came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SEGAWA: Wes Segawa, Director of Public Works. Good morning, Council Members. I guess Councilman Onishi is asking the DPWs (Department of Public Works) position on this particular bill. Is that your question? MR. ONISHI: Yeah. MR. SEGAWA: It's a tough pill to swallow, but we can live with it. MR. ONISHI: Okay. Good MR. SEGAWA: Okay. MR. ONISHI: Mr. Sinclair. Page 4 PCHS W-11 September 1, 2026 (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Ferguson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: I don't really have anything to add besides from the fact that, you know, the amendment is legally sufficient, and it does clarify the process that is in place and it was really fun working with you guys to help you guys with this amendment. Thank you. MR. ONISHI: And basically, like Mr. Sinclair mentioned, to clarify, because when you look at it, if someone is going to make a complaint, by right it's supposed to go to the Mayor's office. And you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, right. And then from there, the Mayor would appoint whatever department to go and investigate. But then, when the investigate —and given more history, so back when I was on the Council, we did have this problem, and so we did pass legislation and also for budget, I think to, for Public Works to hire an arborist. But I don't think now, in that budget, there is, right, that position? Is that correct, Director? MR. SEGAWA: You said, the arborist position? MR. ONISHI: Yes. MR. SEGAWA: We are working on that job description, for the arborist position. MR. ONISHI: Okay. So there's no, there's not a position now? MR. SEGAWA: My understanding, we don't have a position right now. MR. ONISHI: Yeah. So back then, I remember we did pass some legislation to include that, yeah. And so now it's gone. So now, what would happen is, when a complaint would come into the Mayor's office, hopefully to the Mayor's office and not to Public Works, which sometimes it goes directly to Public Works, right? Engineering Division would get that. Then they would send their inspectors. And correct me again, if I'm wrong, to go investigate these unsafe trees. Then they would make a report and then they would come back to the department, right? And then they would have to decide if or what would be the next step. So with this legislation now, you'll have the Mayor or a designated department, correct? Mr. Sinclair. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Correct. Page 5 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MR. ONISHI: And then, in consultation with an appropriate expert, because we didn't just want to put arborist, because then, it would kind of make it more restrictive. So we did that. And with the consultation, then they could decide on what they could do with that unsafe tree, I guess. So, I'm hoping to get your guys' support, and I think this will help every district out on any complaints that going be coming in. So I'll yield at this time. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. I'm not sure of the three of you, who was first. Council Member Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much for being here, Director, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I'm confused as to what this bill actually does. So are you telling me, in over the 10 years we've had this in our Code, any time that someone has followed the process, and I have documentation in my office where they have filed the required three letters, are you telling me that the Mayor's office of the time never did anything with it? Like, I'm struggling to understand why this is necessary. Why the Mayor cannot just forward it to whoever in the County will be handling these requests. I don't know how this will actually solve the issue, which is, can we actually pay to cut all these trees down? Because there are thousands of requests that are coming in island -wide, every year, for over a decade. So please help me to understand what this actually does. MR. SEGAWA: I can speak — MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. SEGAWA: For my brief exposure to this, but the big concern has been entering private property to remove trees, whether it's pruning or removing trees, because an adjacent owner feels it's a threat to their own safety and health. So my understanding is, because it's entering private property, the County will not enter private property for that reason. So we're trying to find another means to correct that. However, when the trees are encroaching over the County's rights -of -way or properties, that's when we have authority to remove trees. And that to my understanding, is common law across the country. It's like, if you're a private owner; if your neighbor's tree is encroaching into your property, you anchoring fruits or whatever, you have a right to go and remove that portion of the limb or tree that is encroaching over your property. Page 6 PCHS W- I I September 1, 2026 Okay, so what this does, I think, is trying to give us authority to intervene and perform that responsibility on behalf of the owner. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, that authority is already in our Code. I am, and perhaps, you know, if Deputy Corporation Counsel, I'm wondering if you could help me clarify what exactly is standing in the way of implementing the Code now. Because saying it can be a department handling it, instead of the Mayor, in my mind, it doesn't really solve anything because the Mayor's a CEO (Chief Executive Officer); he or she directs departments. So I'm struggling to see how this is going to fix the long-standing issue of absentee owners, are not taking care properties, Albizia's growing wild. There's really no accountability mechanism. No incentive for them, there shouldn't be an incentive really, maybe be some sticks in this situation. But they have a responsibility to take care of their property. So how are we going to force them to do that? MR. S ALAS -FERGUSON: Well, I'll just answer the question you posed earlier. Like, what does this amendment actually do? So as the Code is written right now, somebody files a complaint, it goes to the Mayor's office. The Code says the Mayor will investigate. Then the Mayor certifies certain things, and the Mayor will send a notice to that person to remove that hazard. But the practice is, is that these complaints are mainly about trees, is my understanding. They go to the Mayor's office; they forward it to Public Works. Public Works, Engineering Division, who aren't —they're not tree experts, they're mainly Civil Engineers, is that correct? MR. SEGAWA: That's correct. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: They would go out there and they would just measure the height of the tree, and if the tree were to fall, if it was tall —if the tree were to fall, they were like, okay based on the height of this tree, if it were to fall, it could cause damage to the property, and then they would issue a notice to remove it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So all of that's happening right now? With the current process? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: That was the practice, and then after Council Member Onishi, Vice Chair Onishi, sorry, and DPW and everybody, they met multiple, multiple times; it came to light that Public Works, they're not tree experts. They can't really determine whether a tree is healthy or not, or it's going to fall like some imminent threat. So they came to a compromise, I think. Public Works decided that when they get a complaint, they would hire, they'd get a price term agreement to hire an arborist to determine whether or not that tree is a Page 7 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 hazard. And then, based off of that, then they would send a notice. So they would have an expert to determine that. And so that's where this amendment came up. The amendment says that the Mayor or the designated department, because it could be somebody else besides Public Works, because there is —they could be investigating whether it's a broad health issue, maybe it's a, I don't know, something that they need to talk to Department of Health. There is a crime hazard, maybe they need to talk to HPD (Hawai`i Police Department) about that. So, the concern was —what this amendment does is it gives the Mayor to —the Mayor still has the authority to declare something an imminent threat. Say, for example, a tree is about to fall; you don't need an expert to determine that, that tree is going to fall. But when it's assigned to a department, they don't have the expertise, so what this does is it requires the department to consult with the relevant expert to make that determination, whether it's with consultation with HPD or the arborist. But it's still, as it's written, even after all that's done and the notice is sent out, it's still, the County has discretion to remove it or not. And Public Works, in the meeting, said that they plan to get an arborist on the price term, so if they need their expertise, they can have the arborist certify that that tree is a safety hazard, imminent safety hazard, and if so, they also plan to have a price term agreement for tree contractors to remove trees if it is a hazard. Is that correct, Director? MR. SEGAWA: That's correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So you're telling me that in all these years, we never thought to just get an arborist on a price term agreement? Like, we were legally not allowed, as the County, to do that? Because it wasn't explicitly stated here. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: No. The County — MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Because you guys have utilized this Code before. I know that Public Works, maybe like three times, has used this to remove a tree. So again, I'm struggling to understand what this is actually fixing, and maybe it's more of an internal operations within the County problem that we need to solve for. That might be rhetorical, but Director, feel free to take a stab at that. I think this is a very sensitive issue at this time. Where we've just seen the impact, again, of Hurricane Lala. That wasn't just sustained to the Ka`u area. But many communities around Hawaii Island were without power because these trees, which have not been managed by a variety of partners; County, State, utility, private property owners, right? We didn't stay on top of the issue. And so, folks were without power, some are still without power because of a lack of coordination to manage our vegetation. That is the real issue. Page 8 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MR. SEGAWA: Yeah. Councilwoman, Kierkiewicz, you're bringing up a good point. I think there's a lot to learn from this last Kona Low and this Tropical Storm Lala that came through. If you saw the photos, a lot of the trees and vegetation that came down, and, you know, just collect debris, collected down in our towns in Ka`u, all came from private properties, a lot of it, or properties that the County does not own. Our roads were clear, but a lot of this timber that came, some timber was so huge that our equipment could not pick it up to remove it. So now I start to wonder, how does this particular bill apply to those private owners also. You know, County of Hawaii, our Public Works Department does not have enough capacity at this time to just respond to a lot of these calls that we get. If we do proceed, we're going to need funding and we're going to need human resources to do this. But, you know, this is a wide awakening for us from these two storms we just experienced, and we can see the damage. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, I'm just going to say, we woke up in 2014 when Tropical Storm Iselle hit. MR. SEGAWA: Yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And folks were without power for weeksx in the Puna and Ka`u region. MR. SEGAWA: Right. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That is when we should've learned our lessons. That is the genesis of this legislation. The problem is, we haven't figured out, internally, how we move on that. We haven't figured out properly resourcing. Now is the time, I think, to be pulling money from the State and Federal partners, to take care of this. If there is a pot of money available that private property owners can lean into, to take care of this, I mean, it's so important, because we've got two more storms on the way, the intensity of these storms are increasing, we're going to see them more frequently. And the County, I think, has a tremendous responsibility to extend some leadership over this issue. MR. SEGAWA: Councilwoman, Kierkiewicz, I totally agree with you. And we should be working with our partners in the utilities. You know, Hawaiian Electric Industry has similar issues and other utilities, their distribution systems, as well as, you know, our cable television and other utilities that we deal with, whether it's above ground or below ground, and you're right. We should've been pulling together, because, you know, HELCO (Hawaiian Electric Light Company) has already a program where they cut trees that are encroaching on their lines. And I don't know how this interfaces with what they're doing. But you bring up a good point; we should've been working on this years ago. Page 9 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: A lot of work ahead. Thanks for your willingness to do the hard work and, you know, to your point about DPW. Neil and his team are incredible, they catch all kinds of different balls that might drop. MR. SEGAWA: You're right. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And we cannot ask them to do more, so it'd be great to figure out what we can do, not just as the County, but with some external partners to get a handle on the issue. Thank you. MR. SEGAWA: Yes. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thanks, Chair. Is there someone here today that could speak for the Mayor's office, specifically? So the question I have, Council Member Onishi, on this one is, I'm curious on the number, you know, prior to Lala. Curious on the number of like, complaint driven, you know, receipt of, you know —but it was going to the Mayor's office, though, right? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Then forwarded to Public Works. MR. HUSTACE: Yeah. So I'm curious what Mayor's office has been receiving up until this point. I don't know, if, Director, if you can answer that. If you've been receiving, that being transmitted from the Mayor's office. (Note: At this time, Engineering Division Deputy Chief Melanie DeMello came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. DEMELLO: Good afternoon. Melanie DeMello, Deputy Chief, Engineering Division. As they spoke to —so the Code is currently written that the Mayor's office receives the complaints. Historically, though, they have come to Department of Public Works, so we do intake the complaints. Occasionally, we will get them from the Mayor's office forwarded to us, to our division. MR. HUSTACE: And what are those, what does that number kind of look like on an annual basis? MS. DEMELLO: On an annual basis, I would estimate we get maybe a hundred or so, unsafe flora complaints on just a very rough average. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. So, do you think that's all or majority of the complaints that the Mayor's office is sending your way? Page 10 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MS. DEMELLO: I would assume that anything currently that comes to the Mayor's office would be forwarded to our division. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. So we can assume that, maybe, you get a hundred percent of the complaints then. And, on an annual basis, about a hundred complaints you've received in the office, and the action taken on those hundred, what does that look like? MS. DEMELLO: Right now, Sinclair briefly spoke to, you know, we try to do the best we can without an arborist on staff, so we do have our inspectors go out. We do, if right now, we were going off of height of trees, so if it's deemed, per internal procedures, that it possibly could be a hazard, we have cited those property owners, with a notice of violation. MR. HUSTACE: Have we seen any —so they've been only been cited then, basically. That private property owners been cited by Public Works, saying that this needs to be —action needs to be taken on this tree, vegetation, that's going to possibly cause harm? MS. DEMELLO: Right. Letting them know that it is on their, it is their liability as the property owner to cut down the trees. MR. HUSTACE: And has there any been, have you seen any post action by going and looking afterwards and saying, okay, now, they have received this notice, do we send engineers back out there to take a look again and see that work has been done? MS. DEMELLO: Sometimes they do take action and a lot of times they will let us know when they have cut the trees so that we can go back out and close the violation. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. And then what would you say, on those average, about a hundred a year, how many have followed through with that citation done on the work that was needed to be done? MS. DEMELLO: That I will have to go and confirm what the percentage is. That is something I can get back to you on. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I guess I'm kind of asking some of these questions in case, you know, maybe it just needs to be Public Works. Because the Mayor's typically going to designate —and so, if it's going to the Mayor's office, that's one thing, but it's really going through Public Works, to do the work and do the investigation. And if you are going to be bringing on an arborist to actually do that, the proper investigation of these potentially dangerous and harmful trees, you know that maybe the appropriate Page 11 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 wheelhouse of Public Works. But, just for the sake of conversation, that's what I'm thinking at the moment. Thanks, Chair. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Hustace. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So yeah, following up, obviously, this is kind of sore point for some of us. I know just last year, at least two complaints that came to my office, that I, you know, try to work with by following the Code and going to the Mayor, and the Mayor redirecting us to DPW. So, it's fine to have this clarity, I think. But I think this is basically what you've written here is already happening. I think going back to Council Member Kierkiewicz's point is, what is stopping us from actually doing this? Like what is stopping DPW from doing this? And I want to point out Section 14-152 of our Code, which allows us to collect the cost of doing the work from the property owners, if we feel the work is necessary and we need to do it. So, have we done that? Have we gone in, done the work on private property, collected the cost back to us? Have we utilized this section of Code before? MS. DEMELLO: To my knowledge, no. I know that there are concerns, I can understand the question, like you said, this amendment is more clarification on the existing procedures. Far as how we move forward on that, you know, I think one of the big concerns has been, you know, obviously the cost, right. And as I've just said, we got —if we see about hundred or so complaints a year, if no one was to take action on that, then the cost now comes to the County. How we address that might be a different conversation, but there was some conversation about that process, right. That's in the Code, the liens, I believe one of the concerns was that, you know, the County would, of course, still have to front that bill, so to speak. That effort, those resources, with the hope of reclaiming it through the lien process, which —I don't know if Corporation Counsel wants to speak more to that. MS. KAGIWADA: So we haven't even tried to use this yet, to your knowledge? MS. DEMELLO: I haven't been involved in one where we tried to use that process because of those concerns. MS. KAGIWADA: This is why we put this in the Code, right? Was so that we could deal with some of the cost issues. DCC (Deputy Corporation Counsel), I don't know if you want to jump in here and give some information. Is there something legally holding us up from doing this process that we've put in our Code, that allows us to go in, take care of the issue, and then recoup our costs from the property owner? Can you speak to that, please? Specifically, Section 14-152, of our Code. Page 12 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: I don't know of a time or a situation that the County's actually used that provision. So it would be a test case. We haven't, I don't think we've tried it yet. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. That's kind of frustrating. Here is a method for recouping the costs that you say, the cost is the reason we're not doing it, and here's a way to do it and we've never even tried it. So, I guess I'm still trying to grasp, why haven't we tried it. Is it because of this private property issue or what is stopping us from doing this? Do we know? Is it a legal issue? That's my question. Do we have legal issues with this part of our Code? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: There's always going to be legal issues when the County —Renee, do you want to —you know, I don't want to go too much into executive session topics but, generally speaking, whenever the County is going on to somebody's property and cutting down their trees, trees are property, and doing something to their property, legal issues can always arise. Every situation is going to have its own facts, its own arguments, its own situation. But my understanding is that past administrations just, number one, didn't have the resources to do this; they didn't have an arborist, they didn't have the time, money, resources just weren't dedicated to this. And then, on top of that, there was the legal issue of, like, the County going on to private property and removing something from somebody's property without their consent. And then there's a bunch of other laws, too, that allow private landowners to resolve this amongst themselves. I think the position has always been that this is a private matter, and unless there's some really extenuating circumstances, the County just didn't do it. I think there may have been a few situations in the past, and I don't know exactly what they were, where the County might have cut some trees. But it was involving, I think, like a public road, which we have the right to do that anyway, if it's coming over a public road. So yeah, there's legal issues there, but the Code, as it's written, it gives the department authority to remove a tree on an occupied lot. An occupied lot would have much more issues. Unoccupied lot, less so. But yeah, as far as I know, we haven't done it, and we haven't gone and tried to collect. So it just hasn't happened. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: You want to add anything, Renee? MS. KAGIWADA: I'll just say, yeah, so in June of 2025, and September of 2025, we had two issues come to our office. We tried to work with the, you know, departments, we tried to get these done. I don't know if anything ever happened to them. Maybe something did. Maybe something didn't. We also did try to point them towards, you know, working with, you know, Ku`ikahi Mediation, or other things if they couldn't get resolved. But it does kind of bother Page 13 PCHS W-11 September 1, 2026 me that we bothered to put this into Code and then we just never even tried to utilize it. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Sorry. One more thing I forgot to mention. There was, you know, you asked if there's legal issues. There was always the legal issue of imminency. There are a bunch of legal issues, I don't want to go into all of them, but that one is pretty obvious, imminency. Like, we didn't, the County really didn't have experts to determine, "Eh, this tree is about to fall any second right now." So I think that's what they did in the past. They just kind of did more of a broad stroke to get people to comply to remove these trees. I think that's a real difficult thing for non -experts, even for experts, I think, to say, "Eh, this tree is going to fall any second right now." MS. KAGIWADA: Sure. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: I think those would be the obvious ones. But there are a lot of cases. Like we just had one recently, where we send out, not me, sorry, I'm so used to saying we. I just advise the County. Where Public Works send out a notice and eventually, they ended up clearing the lot, right before this storm. Anyway. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. I mean, but to — ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member, Kagiwada. Just before you go on, because we are already behind schedule, I want to kind of reign this back into a discussion of the bill that's in front of us and specifically the change in language there rather than the broader implementation. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Sure. I guess my last comment is just, once again, I don't think this language, it's fine, whatever, but it doesn't really do anything to the issues that are at hand here, which is, I think, more interdepartmental and getting the work done that's already on the books, so I don't have problems with the language. But I do have problems with the fact that we're not doing our best effort, especially around hurricane season and stuff. So, thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Again, kindly asking that you keep your focus on the topic of the bill. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I heard that part. It is a very complex issue. I've been thinking about this a lot. And you have to give, you have to go back to 2014, even before that, to grasp why this is important. You just look at the last storm, that's fine. But you don't understand the implications of 2014, and what happened across the entire Island and then now. And why this bill has so much weight, it should be discussed at length. Not even just this bill, but this idea. That's where we are. Page 14 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 My question for you folks, I mean I'm thinking about this in a lot of different angles, and I'm not sure who wants to answer this. We had a previous resolution come in front of the County that allowed the County to work on a state right-of- way and do the work and then charge them afterwards. That's how they cleared the land by the airport. I'm asking that because, when we have state highways, where they have trees that pose an imminent danger to our infrastructure, which is what this bill is kind of dancing around. Can we address the State or do work on behalf of them and then charge them afterwards? If you were to look at that previous resolution and this bill together. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Yeah. I'm sorry Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, I'm not familiar with that resolution. But I'm assuming that was a resolution that allowed the County to enter into intergovernmental agreement with the State, sharing resources and money so that, that would probably be a specific, I'm assuming it was a specific area or timeframe. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: My memory was a broad -brush resolution that allows us to do work when the State isn't. That's how I took that resolution. We see a problem, we address it, we charge the State back. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: So yeah, I remember a resolution that allowed that. And that was specific to roadway improvements to the roadway itself, not with trees. Was this like many years ago? So, but yeah, I've seen that memorandum over the understanding between the State and the County. But yeah, I think it would be a good, if that is the case, regarding trees. The County could enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the State to cover trees. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The other part of this is, which strikes me, is I think, we get the complaints. So the Mayor may get some, some folks in the community still thinks stateland is countyland but, they also think the state highways are the County's concern and they reach out to us to fix the state highways because they don't know their appropriate jurisdiction and their appropriate representative is the State. HI DOT (Hawai`i Department of Transportation) or even just their Council, sorry their State Representative or their State Senator, they call us. So we're passing those. Do you guys see that track of information? MS. DEMELLO: As far as receiving complaints from County Council Members, yes, sometimes, for unsafe flora. And State, I'm not sure if we receive quite as much but yes, County Council we do get those forwarded. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. My other question is the utilities. This has been playing in my mind. Utilities have their own easement. But trees grow on private property that can go onto the easement or onto County. Does this bill help with utility easements? Page 15 PCHS W-11 September 1, 2026 MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: My understanding is that the utilities, if they have an easement, they would be, they can go in and cut the trees within their easement. They can maintain their easements. But I think it will just be built into the easement. They don't need permission from anyone to clear trees within their easements. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So to the maker, sorry, I thought about this for so long. Like 12 years long. Maybe we'll touch bases off after. I think, to me, what I'm hearing now is, you get complaints, but you're probably getting complaints about little trees. The little things. Somebody's roots growing into the neighbors yard. But then you get these big complaints, like albizia's across the entire Island. State Highway 11 with, eucalyptus growing on both sides that's over a state highway, private property, and utility easements that threatens all of our infrastructure, but nobody wants to address it. Complaints go to the State, nothing gets done. And I know that, because I've watched them go through my office and see nothing and see no response, and even the response was limited. So this is supposed to be the savior and a help for people. And yet, what I'm hearing is, it's not. We had a arborist position created by a past representative for the Council, I don't know how many years ago. Do you have an arborist currently in DPW? MS. DEMELLO: No. We don't. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Can I just make a comment on that? So, you know, all of Council Member Kagiwada, Vice Chair Onishi, Council Member Kierkiewicz, you know, they've all expressed their frustration to Public Works that, you know, there's this statute, I think that's why Vice Chair Onishi initially contacted Public Works, is, "Hey, there's this statute, but you guys aren't cutting any trees. What's going on?" That was the initial start of the conversations. And DPW, to my understanding, is that their position was, you know, we're not experts we don't know what trees are going to fall. But what they want to do now going forward is have that price term agreement to consult that expert when needed and then have a contractor on call to cut those trees if needed. So, my understanding is that they're actually moving towards doing something if warranted and necessary and determined by an expert to be required. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Versus having an employee, who's an arborist. Actually do a 90-day contract or a bid out for a contractor who can be an arborist and certify trees are a danger. MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: I think the reality is that they haven't had an arborist in years. I think there was funding in a position they could never get one. So the better approach is just to have them on call. If Public Works needs an arborist decision, they can have them come out, give the decision, and then if the arborist says, "Ah this tree is not an imminent threat," then nothing. If it is an imminent Page 16 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 threat, then they would send that notice and then they would have —because also Public Works, to my understanding, is they don't have the resources. They're not tree trimming. They do tree trimming on the roads, for small things. But I don't think they have the capacity and expertise to take down these bigger trees. And so the solution was to have tree contractors on call for price term agreement if needed. That way they can go in and do it. And then, if they do go in and do that then, you know, recouping the costs from the landowner, that would just be something that our office would do. And it would be a test case because I don't think we've done it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think the biggest issue I ran into, Mr. Onishi, is just the economy. If someone issues a complaint, this is my guess, is the Mayor guys are getting complaints. But when the bill comes back, it's $26,000 to clear the trees in your lot that overhang your neighbor or utilities, your average homeowner can't afford that. So if the Mayor's office goes to the public and says, "Hey, by the way, we got 90,000 lots across the island that all are going to be in the range of $5,000 to $30,000 in fees to cut down trees." And you're going to stop everybody with penalties unless they do it immediately and they can't afford it. That's a problem. Now, the other side is, when the trees get blown over, and it knocks down infrastructure and clogs our roads, then it becomes a hazard we got to deal with. I love the sympathy of the Bill, but I think you, when jump into something that is deep. I love it, though. Okay. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Any further conversation. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Great questions to Public Works and to Corporation Counsel. I had all that same questions to them when I first started this. And so, this is just the start of how we are going to correct this Code. And this right now, going give Public Works or whichever department, Police, Fire, Parks and Rec, whatever. This, I guess, the power to hire someone that's qualified to determine what is dangerous to the health and public safety. Right now, they don't have that at all. It's not even written in here. So you're using unexperienced or experts making decisions, which could make the County more liable, right, Corporation Counsel? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Could you say that one more time? MR. ONISHI: So, with this, because right now, County doesn't have the resources, right, of any experts, of who can determine what's in danger, right, to the public, health, and safety. So with this, going help each department in hiring someone, because they don't have employees that has the expertise. Correct? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: Yeah. So, Public Works doesn't have an arborist. So this clarifies that, when they make that determination, they have to consult an expert. Page 17 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 MR. ONISHI: Right. And so this is what's helping. This is just the start of how this Code got to be amended. And there's a lot that has to be amended. Because even in the Code, it mentions about "may." So the County "may" do this work, right? It's not "shall." So that's another thing that we got to discuss within the administration and the departments of, Okay, what do we want? But, like I said, this is just a start, so I'm hoping for your support in passing this. I yield. Thank you. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Anyone else? With that, I'll just quickly weigh in on the content of the bill itself. And thank you for introducing it so that we could have this robust discussion about a particular problem that is something, as you say, that affects everyone's districts. I will come back to Council Member Kierkiewicz's statement, in that I agree, I'm not exactly sure what this is solving. And I also think there's actually an unintended consequence here. My first question would be to Corporation Counsel. Does the Mayor not already have the authority to delegate a particular consultation to a department as CEO? MR. SALAS-FERGUSON: I think he does. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. So, the Mayor already has the ability under this process to designate the department, whether it's DPW or any other, to undertake this work. It still has to be the Mayor for the rest of this section and the following Section 52, where it's the Mayor that provides notice. So, going back to Council Member Hustace's point, if we wanted it to just be all within DPW, we need to change that section as well. In which case, this bill, since it specifically calls out Section 151, it's not going to be an appropriate vehicle to change both of those. The thing that I think is an unintended consequence here, the language reads; if the Mayor or the designated department in consultation with an appropriate expert. Because that isn't —there's no "may" in there, it means that anytime that it is delegated to a department, they are required to consult with an expert. Now, keep in mind that this section isn't just about trees, it's anything on a vacant property that could affect health and safety. It could be the fact that it's full of guinea grass, it's all dried out, right? You don't need an arborist for that; you don't need an expert for that. And so what I actually worry about with this legislation, as it's worded right now, is it creates a requirement for a consultation with an appropriate expert, when there currently isn't one, and I can certainly think of numerous scenarios where Page 18 PCHSW-11 September 1, 2026 we wouldn't need one. So I won't be supporting this as it is. I think you're on the right track to solve something, and I'd love to see it in a different bill, taking into account the conversation today. Alright, anyone else? Okay, all those in favor, please say "aye." Actually, I'll ask for a roll call on this please. Vote on Bill 189: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 189 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Onishi — 6. Noes: Committee Members Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, and Acting Chair Kimball — 3. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. KIMBALL: Alright seeing no further business on our agenda. The time is 1:10 p.m. and we are adjourned. Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Acting Chair Kimball adjourned the meeting MENT: at 1:10 p.m. Approved: KhAr a- ta - qt23(t4, Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Chair (Date) Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being om Page 19