Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2017/01/04 2016-2018COMMITTEE ON FINANCE I" Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 4, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 12:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Maile David, Chair. R(1T T CAT r Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards III, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak in support of Bill 6 (Comm. 39), and came forward when called by the Chair: Art Taniguchi Duane Mukai Tom Goya COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the of Business: Council Members, the following item was taken out of order: FC -1 January 4, 2017 Comm. 37: NOMINATION OF MAE SATSUKO IKEDA TO THE PENSION BOARD From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 14, 2016, submitting for Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Vote on Comm. 37 (Approved) Requires Council Confirmation by: January 29, 2017 Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Ms. Mae Satsuko Ikeda to the Pension Board. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 38: NOMINATION OF JERRY HAMAMOTO TO THE PENSION BOARD From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 13, 2016, submitting for Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: January 29, 2017 Vote on Comm. 38: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Jerry Hamamoto to the Pension Board. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Recess: At 12:35 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:48 p.m. Page 2 FC -1 January 4, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Okay, Council Members, I think we're ready to reconvene out of recess on Finance Committee. I reconvene our recess. It is now 1:48 p.m. Mr. Clerk, I think we'll start at the top of the agenda. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Comm. 1097, please. Comm. 1097: REQUESTS DISCUSSION WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND (2014-2016) RECREATION REGARDING COUNTY -PAID OVERTIME AS PRESENTED IN THE HAWAII TRIBUNE HERALD ARTICLE, DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 From Council Member Aaron S. Y. Chung, dated September 20, 2016. Postponed: October 19 and November 1 and 15, 2016 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. David, seconded by Mr. Paleka, to close file on Comm. 1097.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I just wanted you to note that we do have a letter from Council Member Ruggles; that she will not be joining us for the rest of the afternoon due to family emergency. And, Mr. Kanuha, I believe is in the building and should be here shortly. Okay, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. MR. CHUNG: I understand that Ms. Ruggles is going to be asking for a presentation by the Department of Parks and Recreation for an overview of all of the projects island -wide, so I think I can incorporate my concerns into that presentation. Having said that, I think there's a motion to close file and a second. I guess we just got to take a vote on that? CHR. DAVID: Okay, if that's your desire? MR. CHUNG: Yeah, and I already talked to the Department of Parks and Recreation. I told them they didn't have to come. CHR. DAVID: Okay, great. So, given that, all those in favor of closing file on Communication 1097 say "aye." Page 3 FC -1 January 4, 2017 Vote on Comm. 1097: The motion to close file on Comm. 1097 was carried by (2014-2016) the following voice vote: Filed Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kanuha and Ruggles - 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Alright, Mr. Clerk, Communication 7, please. Comm. 7: FINAL MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2016, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From former Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated October 28, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 7. Seconded by Ms. Eoff CHR. DAVID: Ms. Sako, would you please come to the table? And, I would like to ask, before I take any discussions from the Council Members, as a courtesy could you please—there are several different things going on here. So the Final Monthly Budget Status Reports, could you please give us a brief summary of what those are for our new members? (Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Sure. Deanna Sako, Deputy Finance Director. They typically come with a blue cover. Basically, it's the financial statements, each month, for the County, and the June 30th one always takes a little longer because we have to actually completely close the books. You will see it's divided into primarily three sections: a golden rod section, which is the revenues for the County and how they're comparing against budget; the white section, which is all the expenditures for the County and how they compare against budget; and then the back lighter yellow pages are the balance sheets for each fund that we have, and we do have several funds. It's kind of a way government accounting works. So generally, we'll present this each month, usually a little quicker than this time, but we were doing the annual fiscal year close as well as getting it on the agenda takes a little while. But if you guys have any questions, I'm more than happy to Page 4 FC -1 January 4, 2017 answer them; or if you really want to learn more details, I am happy to sit down with you at a later date, as well. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Deputy Director. Any questions, Council Members, on the Monthly Budget Status reports? Nope? We all got it. Alright, all those in favor of filing Communication 7 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 7: The motion to close file on Comm. 7 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kanuha and Ruggles - 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, Communication 7.1. Comm. 7.1: FINAL MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 31, 2016, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From former Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 1, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 7.1: Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 7.1. Seconded Filed by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kanuha and Ruggles - 2. Excused: None. Comm. 14: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 1 - 15, 2016 From former Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated October 27, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14. Seconded by Ms. Eoff CHR. DAVID: Discussion, Council Members? Mr. Chung. Ms. Deanna Sako, thank you. Page 5 FC -1 January 4, 2017 (Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. CHUNG: You know whenever the Hilo Municipal Golf Course comes up, catches my attention, right? MS. SAKO: Oh, yeah. Sorry, was there one on here? MR. CHUNG: It says here, the Purpose, "Set date for completion of the concessionaires' and related areas; address utility requirements; modifications due to field coordination issues," in the amount of $260,192.29. Is that like a code phrase for overtime, too? MS. SAKO: You know, I honestly don't know. This is exactly what's on the contract routing form. MR. CHUNG: Okay. I'll bring up later on. MS. SAKO: But yeah, if you can talk to James or to the department head. MR. CHUNG: Okay, thank you, Deanna. That's all. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Aloha, Deanna. Happy New Year. MS. SAKO: Hello. MR. RICHARDS: Another freshman question. Change Order, can you explain that to us, please? MS. SAKO: Yeah, that's actually a good idea. A change order is we have all the contracts that come through the County. It could be for a number of different things, whether it's operations, or construction, or what not. But, a few years ago it was passed so that we would provide a Change Order report; so each time we change one of those contracts, whether it's changing the scope, changing the time commitment, or even extending an option year, those would be reported to the Council. So, we do it twice a month because we're required to report within 30 days. In this case, like the Hilo Municipal Golf Course, it's a construction contract that had a change order. Although some of them, like the first two, we actually just exercised our option year on a Price Term Agreement, which is still an amendment to a contract or a change order but it didn't actually have any dollars involved with it. Sometimes you'll see the same thing, there might be zero dollars Page 6 FC -1 January 4, 2017 involved if we actually give a vendor additional time to perform. Maybe it was a grant agreement or something that they need more time to complete. MR. RICHARDS: Follow-up? CHR. DAVID: Yes, sure. MR. RICHARDS: So, is there a percentage of a total contract? It doesn't matter dollars, just any change is reported? MS. SAKO: Every change is reported. On the report itself it has the execution date of the change order, the project title. I'm not going through every column, don't worry. But, it has the original contract amount. The original contract date, so you kind of know how long this contract's been around for. And then the next column has the change or supplemental agreement number, so that will tell you what we're up to. Most of these are ones. There's one that has a six, so we've had six change orders, and then the change order amount. But the next one has that percentage of the original contract, just to kind of put it in perspective. So, some of these, why they might seem large, is actually—the second to the last one, for example, is a 69 percent change order, but really we received the additional funding that we're passing on to the vendors so they can do more with the program. So the explanation in the last column is kind of important, as well. Finance kind of help to facilitate this report, but we primarily do the certification of funds. Well, we generally like to think we know more or less what's going on. We may not have all the answers. So if there's a big one, to either call us ahead of time or contact the department so that—like with Mr. Chung's question, sometimes I'm not sure of the specific details, but we try to do our to do our best to kind of keep track of what's going on. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Ms. Sako, thank you. So again, freshman question. When I read to these spreadsheets, I don't see like a percentage complete. Is that now how these are developed? MS. SAKO: No, these are just for the actual change order itself. So, it's not necessarily a report on the progress of the construction projects. We do have a Capital Projects Status report that we haven't been sending lately but we could start it sending again. But even on those, in our comments, where we try to keep track of the status, we don't necessarily have a specific percentage completion. But, we could try and work with the departments if that's important to everybody to facilitate that. Page 7 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, maybe just because I'm used to seeing these little bit differently. From a project management perspective, it's good to know the initial cost or contract amount. And, it's also excellent to see the change orders and the percentage of that original change order but it's also good to know what kind of progress we're making with these change orders. I also noticed on this one column, and if you can make it bigger. Like, 14 font, that would be helpful. MS. SAKO: You know, the Code require so much information. It's hard to make it fit, but I'll work on that. MS. LEE LOY: I see they're all "open." It says, "Project Status open." The project status is open. MS. SAKO: Yes, that's just because that's all Purchasing is aware of MS. LEE LOY: Okay. MS. SAKO: Let me see, just for the construction projects, probably, we'll see if we can get some—if not the specific percent complete, maybe a range. MS. LEE LOY: A range. That will be helpful. MS. SAKO: You know, it's about 75 to 80 or, you know, something like that. I'll see if we can. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, if we could get a range. It actually speaks a little bit to something we spoke about earlier today, you know, good information makes us make good decisions. And if there is an opportunity to understand a little bit better where the project is, and if it's going in an unfavorable way, maybe we can call the department back in, have a status update. MS. SAKO: And that is kind of the purpose. MS. LEE LOY: Right. MS. SAKO: So like if you're reviewing ahead of time, and you see like there's a specific project you have questions about or we're on change order number 25, I don't know which area would be, please feel free to call the departments, and they are willing to be here. Public Works does realize they change orders on this particular report. They asked—they had other commitments, so I said I would try to speak to most of them. So, I did ask them a couple questions ahead of time to try and be prepared. But if you guys do know, if there's a special project then please feel free to call the departments and have them be present. Page 8 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. LEE LOY: Right. And one final thing, I don't know how the other Council Members work, but I know for my district if I set an expectation for our constituents or, hey, it's going to be done in two more months, it's helpful. It helps them stay tolerant of whatever road conditions they're dealing with whatever detours they're dealing with. MS. SAKO: Right. MS. LEE LOY: And, specifically for Hilo Municipal Golf Course, that road's been closed to thru-traffic for almost a month now. MS. SAKO: A long time, yeah. MS. LEE LOY: It happened ideally at a good time, because it was Christmas and school was out, so some of that was good timing. But the other part of that is that particular community is still struggling with a very long detour. MS. SAKO: Right. MS. LEE LOY: It would be helpful for us and maybe for other Council Members that have projects in their district, you know, to let their constituents know. MS. SAKO: Yeah, other than this change order report there is not a lot of unfortunate communication that comes back and forth about the projects. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. Thank you. Ms. Sako, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Ohara. MS. OHARA: In following-up on Ms. Lee Loy's comments, good information is great. And when we have operational contracts, where we're exercising option years, it might be helpful to know what option we're exercising. Let's say we have two MS. SAKO: You mean like year one, two, or three, or four? MS. O'HARA: Two or three, or four. MS. SAKO: Your two out of three or MS. O'HARA: So we know how close we are to negotiating a new contract, for instance. That would be very helpful information, as well. Page 9 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. SAKO: And just as a point of clarification, because we haven't changed our forms yet to collect this data, you might not see this change implemented until a few more reports. MS. O'HARA: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Any other, Council Members, questions? I'd like to make a note that Councilman Kanuha has now joined us. So if there's no further discussion on this item, all those in favor of filing Communication 14 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 14: The motion to close file on Comm. 14 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Communication 14. 1, please. Comm. 14.1: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 - 31, 2016 From former Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 15, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Vote on Comm. 14.1: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.1. Filed Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. Comm. 14.2: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 1 - 15, 2016 From former Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 2, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.2. Seconded by Ms. O'Hara. MR. RICHARDS: Quick question. Page 10 FC -1 January 4, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Ms. Sako, on this one we have, second to the last, contingency grant for Anuenue playground, $15,000. Is that money been awarded or is it sitting there waiting to be awarded? How is that? MS. SAKO: No, we actually issue the contract to Friends of the Future, and it has been awarded. It looks like they just needed additional time to complete the project, so I think we extended it for a month. MR. RICHARDS: And then they'll be reporting back to you, is that how that works? MS. SAKO: This one was under R&D (Research and Development). So, yes, they'll be submitting a report to Research and Development to explain how the funds were spent and how they were utilized. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Council Members? No? Alright. All those in favor of filing Communication 14.2 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 14.2: The motion to close file on Comm. 14.2 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Communication 14.3, please. Comm. 14.3: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 - 30, 2016 From Finance Director Collins Tomei, dated December 13, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Page 11 FC -1 January 4, 2017 Vote on Comm. 14.3: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.3. Filed Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Communication 15, Mr. Clerk. Comm. 15: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 - 31, 2016 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated November 3, 2016. Vote on Comm. 15: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 15. Filed Seconded by Ms. O'Hara and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Communication 15. 1, please. Comm. 15.1: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 - 30, 2016 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated December 6, 2016. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 15.1. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. DAVID: Discussion? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: One more freshman question, Transfer of Funds? So we don't have to ask again in the future. MS. SAKO: No, it's okay. MR. RICHARDS: Two years. MS. SAKO: So, did you want me to explain? Page 12 FC -1 Vote on Comm. 15.1: Filed ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS: BILLS FOR ORDINANCES: January 4, 2017 MR. RICHARDS: Yes. MS. SAKO: Basically, this is a report. And, I think, it's per Charter that the Mayor is allowed to transfer funds within a department, but we have to report to Council. So, you will see it, roughly twice a month. Same thing, we have to report within 30 days. However, transfers don't necessarily happen all the time, so only as needed. So, there might be periods where you won't see the report. So, we just summarize the transfers and attach them. They've all been completed and posted to the charge accounting records, however this is a summary. If you do have questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? No? Alright, all those in favor of filing Communication 15.1 please say "aye." The motion to close file on Comm. 15.1 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: And, we've done Communications 37 and 38. Going on to Bills for Ordinances. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Bill 6. Page 13 FC -1 January 4, 2017 Bill 6: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 16, SECTION 2-98, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Prohibits the use of public funds to purchase alcoholic beverages for social or entertainment purposes. Reference: Comm. 39 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy Postponed: January 4, 2017 (Note: Comm. 39.2, from Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy dated January 4, 2017, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 6, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 6 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yes. Thank you, Chairman and colleagues. I think what I want to start with you are—I've shared with you Communication 39.1; and then a second communication, Communication 39.2. Earlier this morning, we had some testimony from individuals from the Sister City program. When I put this information together, specifically the prohibition of the purchase of alcohol, I really didn't consider some of the ceremonial protocols that we have with these intergovernmental agencies. In my head the definition of "entertainment" was really more amusement. Just kind of without regard for dignitary visits. It was just more social in nature. Listening to the individuals today, Tommy Goya, Art Taniguchi, and then Duane Mukai, who have been very active for the last 20 years, I had an opportunity to reconsider. really don't want to prohibit those intergovernmental ceremonial protocols. I clearly heard, you know, everybody is supporting the idea of not using public funds for the purchase of alcohol, but if we could somehow create some type of carve -out to ensure that those protocols stay intact. I believe that if there's an opportunity for the Mayor's office, or for the Chair, or for the legislative body to create more stricter policies, we can also have those things. But what I what I want to get to is some place, where we're very clear, we're not using taxpayers' money for social amusement. There really is an end benefit. So what you have before you, not only in Communication 39.2, was a little bit of an expansion of what I wrote. Page 14 FC -1 January 4, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, if you'd like to discuss either one of your communications, would you like to make a motion to amend your bill at this time, so we can discuss your communication? MS. LEE LOY: Well, yeah, so let's start with that. Thank you for allowing me to just kind of provide the foundation of where I was coming from. So, I'd like to amend my motion to approve to include Communications 39.1 and 39.2 for discussion. CHR. DAVID: We're going to have to do one at a time. MS. LEE LOY: Oh, okay. CHR. DAVID: Well, I'm going to pick 39.2. That has more stuff there. Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 6 with the contents of Comm. 39.2. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. DAVID: Now you can go ahead and discuss. MS. LEE LOY: So, for right now I'll just yield. Basically, what I did is carve out some very narrow language as it relates to those types of government to government relationships or ceremonial protocols. What it does include, is for Sister City activities, intergovernmental ceremony activities, or cultural protocols for dignitaries that are authorized by the Mayor or the Council Chairperson. So, I yield right now for any further discussion on that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Richards. Point of Order: MR. RICHARDS: Actually, I'm going to look to our County Clerk as a point of order here. We have one motion and a second motion. Do we have to back out of one? Or, it can be a friendly amendment? CHR. DAVID: No, she's amending the original motion. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, alright. Well, given that circumstance, actually I was concerned about that when I read your bill, as far as the ceremonial going forward. I mean I understand the intent, but I am concerned about not allowing things that are really in the County's best interest. So, I commend you for putting this forward. I need a little time to think about it, because the unintended consequences are what I'm concerned about. Like I said, I commend Councilwoman Lee Loy's intent on the bill, but I want to make sure we approach it appropriately, because I heard loud and clear what our testifiers said today and they're spot-on accurate. So, I just offer that. I want to make sure we do this right. Page 15 FC -1 January 4, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Oh, thank you. Yeah, I'm in support of this amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. It really comes down to how the individual Council Members feel about alcohol purchases. I mean if you guys say "no alcohol purchases," well then obviously you can't support something like this. Well, let me give my pitch for why this thing makes sense. First of all, I want to applaud Ms. Lee Loy for addressing this issue first of all. We've had policies issued lately by both the administration and the Council. But this really sets into law, what the overall policy is regarding alcohol purchases. Purchases, use of County funds, altogether. We often have ceremonial get-togethers. I referred to a 20th anniversary Sister City relationship get-together that's coming up. I've been to more than a few of these and other types of ceremonial get-togethers. We might try to be trendsetters in the United States or Hawaii but it's really hard, I think, to explain to people that, "Sorry, this is a non -alcohol event because we cannot spend money on alcohol, so there'll be no toasting except with water." I don't know, maybe that's what our vision of having relationships with other countries or other dignitaries is; but, to me, it just doesn't fit in with what we should be doing. For example, for an upcoming get-together I've already committed to footing the bill for the alcohol. It's not going to come out of the County coffers. And this thing, if we looking at it, even on the low, 30 attendees, we're looking at just corkage now, anywhere where from $10 to $20 per; as $300 to $600 out of my pocket. I'm not too happy about that, and when my wife here's about it, she'll be very upset. That's not even counting the alcohol that I have to purchase. It's not going to be much, probably like about four or five bottles of wine; maybe some beer, put it on the side; and then if people want to have drinks, they can go. So, we're looking at about anywhere from $300 to $700 bucks, okay, out of my pocket. That's kind of commitment I'm going to put forward for this Sister City celebration. But, I think it's kind of crazy. We all have our own good judgment as to what constitutes proper use of governmental funds and improper uses, and this isn't a reaction to something that happened. You know, we don't have to refer to it. But it should be common sense; we have to be dictated by our own good judgment as to how we spend money, okay? I just wanted to make that point. Thank you very much, Ms. Lee Loy. It's not going help me out this time. But perhaps it may, you know, for Philippines. Maybe the Sister City relationship doesn't have to come out of Ms. Poindexter's pocket. But anyway, thank you very much. Page 16 FC -1 January 4, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Mahalo, Mr. Chung. Council Members, any? Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Ms. Nims, would you please come forward? (Note: At this time, Legislative Auditor Bonnie Nims came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. EOFF: The reason I asked you to come forward is because I kind of want to go back a little and have a little historical perspective on how we got to—even the way the Code reads now, regarding Section 2-98, Adjustments and Exceptions and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just going to say little bit upfront and then I want to hear something from you. That section previously had little letter a, b, and went straight to c. During the last term, we initiated a bill, I think it was Mr. Eagan that added 1 through 7 there, is that correct? I was trying to look back at his bill and all of those were underlined so I didn't know if that was all added language fromI mean it was after your recommendation that we do something to tighten up language in the code regarding the use of public funds, since that had become an issue, or brought to our attention that it was too vague, or we needed to clearly define. I had my staff send me a copy, I think it was Bill 78, Draft 3, and it looks like all, number 1 through 7, there was all underlined language. MS. NIMS: Without having the bill in front of me, that sounds accurate. MS. EOFF: Okay. And I think some of that was under your recommended language? MS. NIMS: Correct. MS. EOFF: First we had a memo from the Mayor regarding policy for alcohol purchase and then one from our Chair, and now this. MS. NIMS: Right. MS. EOFF: So I'm wondering, in your opinion, sometimes making a law makes things more troubling, and the policy and the memos may be enough to ensure that we all understand what a public purpose exception would be. MS. NIMS: It can be. There is a disconnect between law and policies. It can add to confusion. Especially, you know, law, it's always on the books. You can always go look it up. Policy you may have to hunt around for. Our new employee is aware of the policy and things like that. And if there's an inconsistency, well, which one do I follow? Which is the hierarchy for—which is the employee held accountable to? Are they held accountable to the policy or to the law? So, those are things that you have consider, is consistency between those two, just to help to eliminate any confusion. Page 17 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. EOFF: Maybe I would need Corporation Counsel to explain that because that's where I'm having a problem. I'm reading the Mayor's policy, I'm reading the Chair's policy, and it does seem to have some inconsistencies between them; and the bill, even without the amendment, but either way. MS. NIMS: Typically, Federal is the overarching, then State, then local, and then policy, so you can always go more stringent than the hierarchy but not less. You typically, at least from an audit perspective, look at the most stringent. So, from my perspective, I would look to the policy, since that is the most stringent currently of, in particular, P -card purchasing regarding alcohol. MS. EOFF: Have you seen this memo as of December 12, from the Mayor's office? MS. NIMS: I've read it briefly, yes. MS. EOFF: That, to me, the only exception there is for the Police Department, for certain types of training. MS. NIMS: Correct. MS. EOFF: Otherwise, he would not authorize any purchase of alcohol with the use of public funds? MS. NIMS: That was my interpretation, yes. MS. EOFF: And then the same with Chair, although there's nothing that would be an exception. MS. NIMS: Correct. MS. EOFF: The Chair's memo tells us that there will be no purchase of alcohol beverage with public funds, right? MS. NIMS: I believe so. MS. EOFF: So those two policies are more strict than the code currently reads, because in the current Code, even without Ms. Lee Loy's amendment, the purchase of alcohol is prohibited except by authorized exception. MS. NIMS: Right. MS. EOFF: And if they don't authorize any exceptions, then the purchase is strictly prohibited. MS. NIMS: Exactly. Page 18 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. EOFF: Period. MS. NIMS: Yes. MS. EOFF: So I'm willing to entertain the bill and try and look at how we can put this into law, but I really don't want us to then—then what do we do with the policy, memos? MS. NIMS: Right. MS. EOFF: I don't know how I deal with those. MS. NIMS: It's complicated. MS. EOFF: MaybeI don't know if Ms. Stebbins would like to help me out or help us out? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Molly Stebbins came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STEBBINS: Good afternoon, Council Members. Molly Stebbins, Corporation Counsel. So I think Ms. Nims explained well, sort of the hierarchy between the various sources of law and policies. The current policy is drafted by Council Member Poindexter and by the Mayor, or in the context of the code being written as is. Now, I don't know if the Council was to more narrowly define what type of exceptions would be allowable for the use of funds to purchase alcohol, whether that would in turn cause the policies to be adjusted to reflect that. I think if the policies were to stay as is, even if you change the code, the policies of both the Administrative Branch and the Legislative Branch, it's been expressed that, for the Legislative Branch there is not going to be a situation where there would be an authorized exception; and on the Administration side, that one exception was defined as being for law enforcement purposes. But again, it seemed like maybe there would be like some dialogue there, where if the Council is narrowing the scope of the type of exceptions that would be allowable, then perhaps the policies would be adjusted to reflect that. But, that's really—that's a policy call, so that's not fair for me to say. MS. EOFF: Alright. So, to me, I was clear on where we were at, when we had the laws the way it reads now and then we heard from the people who would have to approve the authorize exception saying, "no, we're not going to," so I understand where we're at. And, it was—Mr. Chung did too because he had to Page 19 FC -1 January 4, 2017 agree to spend his own money upfront to purchase for an event. That maybe in the past we could have used public funds, or would've, I don't know. So, I guess what you're saying is just have to—if want to adopt a law that is being proposed or something, then we would just have to see what the policy—or the Mayor and the Chair do about policy. If they stick to their policy, we still live by that; and if they're willing to change because of the new law, then that's another thing that could happen. MS. STEBBINS: Yes. Currently, we're in, and this would remain in the revised bill, the ultimate discretion is given to the Council Chair or the Mayor to authorize whatever exception. So unless that were somehow changed, then like you said you do know what, at least right now, what position of the Mayor and the Council Chair is in regards to that. MS. EOFF: We can still make a law that's contrary to a policy? MS. STEBBINS: In general, yes. A law is going to supersede a policy, correct. The County Code would, and this isI'm sorry, I was just speaking general principles. Yes, the code is going to trump a policy. MS. EOFF: So if we changed the law, per Ms. Lee Loy's bill with the proposed amendment, we would automatically be nullifying the policy? MS. STEBBINS: No, because I think Ms. Lee Loy's amendment still says that it still leaves the room for the authorization, ultimately to lie with either the Mayor or the Council Chair. MS. EOFF: It strikes out, "unless provided by authorized exception." MS. STEBBINS: Sorry, I'm looking at the different versions of this. MS. EOFF: Well, this is her amendment. But if you read how the bill would read, at the back. MS. STEBBINS: Right, well, I mean that's a question for Council Member Lee Loy. I noticed the language, the last phrase references "authorized by the Mayor or Council Chairperson," so I was reading that to mean that that's where the ultimate authorization still lay. MS. EOFF: Right, for those purposes. Which, is similar to how it was before, but with the memos or the policies that they've already provided, then that's the only conflict, because they're not going to. Page 20 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. STEBBINS: Right. And I wouldn't say it's really necessarily in conflict; but again, I think maybe it's worthwhile having just discussion with the Council Chair and with the administration. MS. EOFF: The Mayor. MS. STEBBINS: With the Mayor, about, well—if we were to narrow the allowable scope of exception, what would your position be about authorizing it in those situations? And it may be that the policy decision is still "no, we're not going to be in favor of that." MS. EOFF: Or maybe they would say "yes." MS. STEBBINS: Right. MS. EOFF: Yeah, we'd have to kind of engage in that discussion as well. MS. STEBBINS: Right. MS. EOFF: Okay. Okay, thank you. That clarifies my questions. MS. LEE LOY: I'm willing to hear from the other Council Members, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff, and thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: And thank you, Sue, for bringing this forward. Because I didn't know you'd bringing this forward, when I was talking with Molly and then later on found out you're working on bill, so that was great. And mines, yes, is each Council Chair has the ability to make it stricter, from what this provides. I'm looking at what would I support, and after hearing our testimony this morning— and then feeling bad about, you might be in the dog house. I don't want you to be in the dog house with your wife. But I'm willing to go as far as saying, and I appreciate the testifiers, you know saying, "with the exception of Sister City cultural protocols for dignitaries," just at that detailed level. Because I couldn't see "except for Sister City activities," which would we would go and go party with Sister Cities and then buying all this alcohol. But if it's for the cultural protocols for the dignitaries, I guess the cultural protocols for the dignitaries and guest. I don't know if we should say "and guest." You know when we do the Kanpai, when we do the toast, everybody has the sake, yeah, and that's their cultural protocol. So, I'd like to say that I'm open and I would like to work with Council Member Chung on—once we see where we go with it from here, to help—to try and adjust Page 21 FC -1 January 4, 2017 the policy that I've put forward so that we can respect Sister City cultural protocols. So, I'm open to that. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Let me clarify some things that Ms. Eoff brought up. I think Bonnie and Molly both filled it very well, and I agree with them 100 percent. The policies that have been issued by both the Chairman and the Mayor are not laws. This is a law, and it trumps everything. I mean all of these informal types of policies. The reality of the situation is that the Chairman is going to make the approvals for a particular expenditure, as will the Mayor, under these policies. But, it could also—the policies could arguably be ended when each of these people leave their office. So, it can be stricter; it can afford stricter protections then what's provided in an ordinance because ultimately it's going to be these guys signing off, right? But it cannot be looser, yeah? Having said that, and I support this whole heartedly, and certainly I think Chairman Poindexter and Sue can get together and figure this thing out. Because let's say, I don't think this is going to happen. Because what Val said, for cultural, something, or other; but let's say Former President Obama comes here, it's not for cultural or Sister City, right? But hey, if he wants to have a drink, hey let him have a drink, right? At the County's expense, I don't think anybody would have any problem with that, but it would be precluded under what was just presented. I think really, though, the way to address this, even if I'm 100 percent behind this measure and its amendment, is that whether it be a P -card or whether it be formal expenditures out of our accounts, we have to make these itemized report available to the public and an explanation. If there's alcohol involved, explain why. And, let the public be the judge as to whether it was proper or improper. But, it has to be done forthwith. Whenever you do these expenditures, got to be done and available to the public within, let's say, five days or ten days, or whatever the case may be, yeah? The media, or whoever, or the public shouldn't have to be groveling to get information regarding these expenditures. That's my thought, anyway. Because really, what are we protecting against? I think the audit said the County was squeaky clean. I know what we could have been protecting against, but I don't know what we are presently protecting against, yeah? Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy. Thank you, Mr. Chung. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you, folks, for all that feedback. I really do appreciate it. I do want to ask of Molly or Ms. Nims. And, I appreciate the policies that have been presented by both the Mayor and the Chairperson. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how often could those policies change? Page 22 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. STEBBINS: They could change MS. LEE LOY: Tomorrow. MS. STEBBINS: They could change tomorrow, that's a good way of putting it. MS. LEE LOY: Exactly. And that's what I'm trying to get to, is more of a very stable framework that the public can trust; that this piece of legislation would have to go through a public review process. What the Mayor and our Chairperson put forth, which are stricter than the policies that I'm proposing, could change tomorrow, and then change again next week by the stroke of a pen, with no public input. Am I correct in making that assessment? MS. STEBBINS: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: So that's all I'm trying to get to, is a framework that the public, the taxpayers can trust. That if it is amended, we can still have stricter policies by the leaders of both the administration and by the Council. But they also should have some certainty that it's not less restrictive than the law, and that's what I'm trying to get to. So as I listen to what's being proposed here, I'm really willing to work with more of my colleagues here and begin to refine the language a little bit. I do think we had strong testimony this morning from individuals who have worked to maintain those Sister City relationships; and how important those protocols are, I don't want to be that person to step away from that. I think those things are very important, especially for government to government relationships. I'm just trying to find a balance between that, and a framework for our taxpayers to trust how their tax monies or tax dollars will be spent. So, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other Council Members? Before I ask you what you want to do, as far as your bill, as amended, Ms. Nims, given what you've seen today, or the new addition on Communication 39.2, exempting Sister City activities, ceremonial, cultural protocols, does that fall in line with your audit on the P -card? How does that lay with your recommendations as far as the P -card audit that you conducted? MS. NIMS: Currently the way that a bill is written, it would not comply with our audit recommendations. Our audit recommendations were based off a State criteria that unfortunately did not explicitly but implicitly stated that alcohol was prohibited. When we talked to the State Procurement office, they said "No, no, we're not allowed to purchased that." You know, it's clearly implied that alcohol is a strictly prohibited item, so we deemed that as a best practice or a criteria and measured the County against that. So our recommendation was to have alcohol strictly prohibited, period. Page 23 FC -1 January 4, 2017 Whenever you get exceptions, people find wiggle room. Unfortunately, as an auditor, I've seen a lot of wiggle room and a lot of people getting very creative; so by having absolutes, it helps ensure that County money is spent for County purposes. CHR. DAVID: So then that begs the question then, on our State level then, how do they do with their ceremonial issues and their intergovernmental protocols? MS. NIMS: I can't speak for State of Hawaii. CHR. DAVID: I know you can't. MS. NIMS: I can't speak for other states and other local governments, and it's paid for by their own pockets. CHR. DAVID: Really? MS. NIMS: I know Washington state is strictly prohibited at all levels, and they have a lot of Sister Cities, Japan, China, and it is all paid for out of their own personal dollars. CHR. DAVID: That's interesting. Still not clear on what to think right now, but the discussion is certainly intriguing on this topic. Ms. Eoff, I'm sorry. MS. EOFF: Since you did ask that, back to the way the language of the law is now, alcohol is strictly prohibited except by authorized exception. MS. NIMS: And that was—what we recommended taking out was that "except for" and just have "alcohol is prohibited." MS. EOFF: Period. MS. NIMS: Period. MS. EOFF: How did we get that in there before, then? MS. NIMS: That was before our time, and it was never removed. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: So if we would vote on amending Council Member Lee Loy's bill, then as a Council Chair I could still refine it or limit it to just a portion of what this bill is, like I had spoken about earlier. So if it's left in, you know, except for Sister City activities, intergovernmental ceremonial activities, or Page 24 FC -1 January 4, 2017 cultural protocol for dignitaries, I could, yes, at any time I could switch back and forth, let this all go or I could limit it, as well. So I could say in the policy going forward, "with the exception of the Sister City cultural protocol for dignitaries," and not say "Sister City activities". You know, activities, when I'm looking at Sister City activities, that means if we have a celebration with the Sister Cities and have a open bar that the County pays for versus the ceremonial piece only. You get where I'm going with that, on the language? MS. STEBBINS: Yes. As I read the amended version in Communication 39.2, the discretion that it leaves you as the Chair is to authorize on a case-by-case basis those Sister City activities, intergovernmental ceremonial activities, or cultural protocol for dignitaries; so within that authority, that discretion that it gives you, you would have the authority to narrow the scope of what you would say would be an authorized exception. You couldn't broaden it. You're limited to those itemized types of events, and it would be your discretion to say that you were narrowing it even further. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. And the reason why I did put that policy forward, oh well, we're not even discussing 39.1 so I won't go there, we'll stick on 39.2. You know, I could work with this. I appreciate the amendment and the discussion. So, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Deanna? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KANUHA: Good afternoon. MS. SAKO: Hello. Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. MR. KANUHA: Thank you for coming up. Did you have anything to add? MS. SAKO: Well, I was going to try and clarify what Councilwoman Eoff said earlier is correct, one through seven were added. So that section about "unless with authorized exception" was a new amendment. The last time it was amended. The "unless provided by authorized exception" was put there because we wanted to be clear that we do have training purposes for the police recruits, and we didn't want to accidently prohibit that. Since it's not social and entertainment, I think the new amendment still covers that. Well, I understand the State's rules. I mean we do have some purposes such as recruit training, where we do want them to know what appropriate alcohol use is. I mean have being able to test people to know the different levels so they can do it for DUI (Driving Under the Influence). Page 25 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MR. KANUHA: Okay. And so we already know what the Mayor's position is by this policy. I don't know if that is the same stance with regard to this bill? MS. SAKO: I have not talked to him since the Sister City testimony this morning to, you know, like clarify how his feelings would be. I heard what Council Chair said. We can talk to him and see what his feelings would be towards that. But initially it was no alcohol; just training purposes, as necessary. But, definitely the door is always open from our discussion. MR. KANUHA: For sure. I'll yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: I have a question. Deanna, you had stated that it's used for the new recruits on alcohol MS. SAKO: They don't drink it. They watch other people drinking. MS. SAKO: Okay. But who are we purchasing the alcohol for to drink? MS. SAKO: Volunteers, that are driven home by the Police Department afterwards. I'm not saying it's the best system, but we really do. MS. POINDEXTER: We have volunteers to come in to get drunk and then the police test. MS. SAKO: They're able to test and determine. MS. POINDEXTER: Wow. MS. SAKO: But is cheaper than having false arrest and other lawsuits placed against us. MS. POINDEXTER: Too bad there isn't one place that they could go to training. Yeah, I find that a little disturbing. MS. SAKO: But they don't go like too far, but it's just to tell one glass versus two glasses. You know, that kind of thing, so yeah. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter, for that question. Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: So that is one example of an authorized exception? Page 26 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. SAKO: Yes, it is. MS. EOFF: Would be granted by the Mayor. But under an authorized exception, it could be that a request could be made—even with the law that the way it is now, alcohol is strictly prohibited. Somebody could make a request for a Sister City ceremonial gathering to be able to purchase sake, would that be considered if it was agreed, upon by, I guess the Mayor and/or the Council Chair, would that be considered then an authorized exception? MS. SAKO: Present memo or County code? Sorry. MS. EOFF: I mean, yeah, aside from the fact that we have these memos, but just as far as the law? MS. SAKO: Yeah, but right, because it's stillI believe the lead is still the Mayor or Council Chairperson could authorize. MS. EOFF: Would authorize it. MS. SAKO: Yeah. MS. EOFF: Yeah, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around whether we need to change the law, because to me the law allows us, actually if the Mayor and the Council Chair are willing to approve, it allows us to request an exception for use at a Sister City gathering, the way the law reads now. Or, is that wrong? MS. SAKO: I think you're right. MS. EOFF: It allows us in what we're trying to accomplish already. MS. SAKO: I think it allows it. I think people are trying to clarify so that the public feels better about what kind of exceptions might be allowed so that it's not for anything and everything. MS. EOFF: Just defining certain things. MS. SAKO: I could be wrong, though. Yes, but that's my understanding. MS. EOFF: Maybe I could ask Ms. Lee Loy that question, if that's okay? I'm just trying to understand why we're doing it or brought this forward? But is it to clarify now, just those few exceptions that we would then allow, that's why you think it's important to change this language, right? MS. LEE LOY: Yes. And, we have Molly here, and then Deanna, who's kind of gone through this a few times. One thing is there is a process, correct, Deanna? I Page 27 FC -1 January 4, 2017 believe it's talked a little bit about how the department head, the Mayor—I mean there's a process, when you are using the funds, correct? MS. SAKO: If like an exception? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. MS. SAKO: Yes. The alcohol is strictly—only the Mayor can authorize that. Other expenditure exceptions have been delegated to the Director of Finance to approve, and we do keep the record of those types of exceptions. MS. LEE LOY: Right. So to help Karen, yeah, it would be really refining what those exceptions are. Again, it's back to—we can have stricter policies. Any Chairman, any Mayor, even any department head—somebody from Parks could say, "As a Director of Parks, it is the policy of the Parks Department that we won't—I'll make a stricter policy." You can have a stricter policy, but in absence or in lack of a policy we then go to the municipal law, which is what we are doing here. MS. EOFF: Well, I think it is good to define what are authorized exceptions, I'm okay with that. I think we have to be careful how we craft that language. MS. LEE LOY: And again, I am open to working with others. If we can hold this maybe as a placeholder, you know, for people to offer other comments, and maybe bring it up at the next hearing, I'm open to that. At the end of the day, though, I really believe, not only myself but all of the colleagues and everybody within the County, is looking for a balance and that we are using our tax dollars in an appropriate way. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Eoff, are you done? MS. EOFF: Oh, sorry. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. And, thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, to me it sounds like we're all talking story about the same thing and it's just going to take some word sniffing and definitions. Quick example, intergovernmental as oppose to intragovernmental, I get a little concern that we may be excluding something that we may want to exclude. So it sounds like Chair and Councilwoman Sue need to get together, talk story a little bit, massage this, and then I'm going to bring it back to talk story. I don't know if it's my position to say that, but I just did. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Poindexter. Page 28 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I don't think it's up to the Chair on how the Council wants to do their bill because this becomes the ordinance. This becomes what is law. For me to discuss with her so that I can just pull off of this on what, as a Chair, what I would allow for expenditures during my term as Chair, I think would be based off of what the ordinance is. So it would be the entire Council to decide what this ordinance should be, knowing that the Chair can limit it. And the limitations, the reason why that is put forward, is just being proactive to give you advance notice, don't go spending on your P -card or whatever because it will not be accepted. But I think Council Member Eoff said, the way it reads now, it's really broad and opens it up for even more, and what Council Member Lee Loy is doing is trying to restrict it a little bit more. Then, what the Chairs have the ability to do is restrict it even more from there. So, I just wanted to say that. So, it's up to the Council how we want to word this to be broad or a little bit more tight. Then again, after that, I'm open, as a Chair, to look at, you know, like what the public had talked about, what kind of situations would be allowable. But, I'll yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. Eoff, did you have your light on? MS. EOFF: I was just going to ask Ms. Lee Loy one more question. Would you be willing to work a little bit more on the amendment before move on it? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, yes. MS. EOFF: As you do that, and I'm not really prepared to offer all the language. But something that just occurred to me, it might be important to add is that "are authorized in advance by Mayor or Council Chairperson," or something to that effect, so that we know that we're not just going out there, and people using public funds because they all of a sudden think they can fit into this definition. But, it's something that's prearranged, preauthorized. MS. LEE LOY: And that's reasonable. It's like when your kids go to the movies, right, you ask, "How much money, what movie," you know, you just sets that expectation. I think that's fair. MS. EOFF: And like I said, would kind of, maybe inherent in the process, that it would happen in advance. But, maybe good wording. I'm not sure. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: I thought about that, about the preapproval. One of the concerns I have is things come up, and we don't want to limit things. Our Chair Page 29 FC -1 January 4, 2017 sits on the chair because we support her direction and opinion, and I think we have to allow some latitude there, otherwise I don't want to pin someone into a corner with all the positive intent, and I understand the intent of getting that trust and having a firm foundation for the trust. That being said, I don't want to pin someone in their corner because we're trying to do something to them, maybe that's being a little bit polianic. But, I think we have to have trust in some of our leadership to make the right decision at the right time. I think that's why we have humans sitting here and not just books, right? We make the latitude discussion. So given that, is this appropriate, Committee Chair, to say I'd have to work on language with Councilwoman Lee Loy? CHR. DAVID: Sure. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, I'll volunteer. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: So, Ms. Lee Loy, before you entertain what I anticipate to be a motion to postpone, maybe to the next meeting, give you time to work on this, I just have one question if you would allow me to ask Ms. Stebbins? MS. LEE LOY: Sure. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Stebbins, given what Ms. Nims had said, about her recommendations is based off of the State requirements, if we do this, how does this ordinance affect her recommendations as the auditor? I don't want to make ourselves in a difficult position because it's a recommendation that came from the auditor's office. Or, does it even? MS. STEBBINS: The auditor's recommendation was just that, a recommendation, and it was based also on a State recommendation and practice. But, that being said, I don't believe that the way the code is currently written, which does allow for authorized exception, understanding that you're always operating within the scope of any expenditure of public funds, including for alcohol, needs to serve a public purpose. So, you always have that guideline in place. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MS. STEBBINS: Although it's not what the auditor recommended, I don't think that there's anything illegal the way the code is written or how the proposed amendments that are being put forth. CHR. DAVID: Great. Thank you for that. I just wanted to clarify that. And if anyone else has anything? Mr. Kanuha. Page 30 FC -1 January 4, 2017 MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. That's really what's this is all about, whether it'sif we're going to allow alcohol as an authorized exception as a public benefit? That's really the question. That is the main thing behind this. I don't know, ifDeanna, if you said that the Mayor is only one that's authorized for the exception of purchase of alcohol? Is that what you said? MS. SAKO: For the administration, the way the policy reads, is that only the Mayor can authorize that. That's not something that's been delegated to, like the Finance Director, to where some other items may have been. MR. KANUHA: Got it. MS. SAKO: So all of that would flow through the Mayor. MR. KANUHA: Got it. I just wanted to clarify that. MS. SAKO: Just one fast thing to add, is part of the recommendation was to prohibit it on the P -cards, and the P -card rules do now prohibit alcohol. But that's not to say we don't have other ways to buy alcohol for these types of ceremonial events and Sister City events. MR. KANUHA: Yeah, okay. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Okay, Ms. Lee Loy. Take us MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I'll take you guys home. It is late. In an effort of full disclosure, under Section B, I did amend the Mayor or Council Chairman to read the Council Chairperson, which is reflective of what's in our Charter; so I just wanted to bring that up. Like I said, in full disclosure that what I'm going to be asking is that we—I think the motion was to discuss. Okay, so now a motion to CHR. DAVID: Postpone. MS. LEE LOY: postpone communication oh, Bill 6. CHR. DAVID: Bill 6 with the contents. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, Bill 6, and then allow for collaboration to incorporate a language from Communication 39.2, and have it, I guess, and heard at our next committee meeting on January 24, in Kona. Page 31 FC -1 January 4, 2017 Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 6 to January 24, 2017. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favoroh, go ahead. MS. EOFF: I just wanted to say it's been a good discussion. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, it was free. CHR. DAVID: I agree. Okay, all those in favor of the postponement to the next meeting in Kona, on the 25th, say "aye." MR. MAEDA: 24th. MS. LEE LOY: 24'. CHR. DAVID: Oh, 24th? Sorry. Any opposed? None. Vote on Motion to Postpone: The motion to postpone Bill 6 to January 24, 2017, (Approved) was carried by the voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Ruggles - 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Before we entertain a motion to adjourn, I'd like to make for the record the nominations of Ms. Ikeda and Mr. Hamamoto, when they came up, I failed to inform them that they did not need to appear for Council; but I did talk to them while we recessed, so I just wanted to be made on the record that they do not have to appear at Council. Alright, so hearing that may I please have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:01 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair David - 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Ruggles - 2. Excused: None. Page 32 FC -1 CHR. DAVID: We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Approved: / Ms.— Finance Committee M D./na January 4, 2017 2 ?Oi (Date) Page 33