Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2017/01/24 2016-2018COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 2n° Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i January 24, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 2:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Kona, by Ms. Maile David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile "Medeiros" David, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (via videoconference from Hilo; carne in later) Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from I lilo) Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. I Ierbert 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 Comm. 53, and came forward when called by the Chair Larry Felder .lames J. Akan Matt Clark COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 7.2: FINAL MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTII ENDED AUGUST 31 2016, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Collins Tomei, dated December 15, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). FC -2 January 24, 2017 Vote on Comm. 7.2: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 7.2. Filed Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - I. Excused: None. Comm. 14.4: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: DECEMBER 1 - 15 2016 From Finance Director Collins Tomei, dated December 28, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Vote on Comm. 14.4: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.4. Filed Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - 1. Excused: None. Comm. 152: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AU'PHORIZED: DECEMBER 16 - 31 2016 From Acting Controller Kay Oshiro, dated January 4, 2017. Vote on Comm. 15.2: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 15.2. Filed Seconded by Ms. O'Hara and carried by the following voice vote Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - 1. Excused: None. Page 2 FC -2 January 24, 2017 Comm. 43: SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY OF INDEBTEDNESS AS OF DECEMBER 1 2016 From Finance Director Collins Tomei, dated December 15, 2016, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 47C-3, as required per the issuance of $15 million of bond anticipation notes on December 1, 2016. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 43. Seconded by Mr. Richards, CUR. DAVID: Discussion, Council Members? Mr. Richards. MR. RICI (ARDS: Just had a question, as far as the thought process behind the $15 million. CHR. DAVID: Oh, excuse me. Okay, excuse me. Could I please—I believe Mr. Tomei and Deanna, from Finance, are in Ililo? Could you please come up? Mr. Richards has a question for you. (Note: Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Good afternoon. Deanna Sake, Deputy Director of Finance. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon, Ms. Sako. Tim Richards here, calling to ask for an explanation of the thought process for the $15 million bond. MS. SAKO: So yeah, we issued bond anticipation notes. So, as the Council approves various bond authorizations we don't borrow it until the monies needed, and then at that time we would issue bond anticipations notes to fund the cash flow. They're a little bit cheaper in interest rate, and then we don't have to worry about arbitrage. Then once we have accumulated enough bond anticipation notes, we'll go out and actually sell bonds and take those in a 20 -year period. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, follow-up? CHR. DAVID: Sure, go right ahead. MR. RICHARDS: So, it's not really a bridge note. This is anticipation of financing coming forward? MS. SAKO: Right. We borrow as we need the cash flow to fund the capital projects. So, for example, if we had some of the Parks projects going on or any of the roads projects our treasurer monitors the cash flow needs, and then we borrow to have enough cash available to pay our bills to the contractors. Page 3 FC -2 January 24, 2017 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Cl IR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Sako and Mr. Richards. Anyone else, any questions? Seeing none, all those in favor filing Communication 43 please say "ave." Vote on Comm 43: The motion to close file on Comm. 43 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - 1. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, please, Communication 53 Comm. 53: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION'S EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR 2016-2017 PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION STEWARDSHIP GRANTS From Parks and Recreation Director Charmaine L. Kamaka, dated December 28, 2016, presenting five applications for funds to provide stewardship of various County properties acquired via the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation fund, including evaluation and recommendation for each applicant and associated project plan. The following entities have applied: Kawa (Ka`u), Tax Map Keys: 9-5-016:006 & 025; 9-5-017:005 & 007, (Applicant: Na Mamo O Kawa) (Funds requested: $48,850) (Applicant: Ilawai'i Wildlife Fund) (Funds requested: $13,200) (Applicant: The Honu Project) (Funds requested: $24,665) (Applicant: Team Hawaii International Athletics) (Funds requested: $354,190) Waipro Lookout (I Iamakua): Tax Map Key 4-8-004:006 (Applicant: Pbhaha I Ka Lani) (Funds requested: $94,500) Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 53. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. (Note: At this time, Parks and Recreation Director Charmaine Kamaka, Property Manager Humana Ventura, Finance Director Collins Tomei, and Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 4 FC -2 January 24, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Discussion, Council Members? Before I do that. Ijust want to make a note that Director Kamaka as well as Mr. Hamana Ventura is here in the Kona office; and Director Kamaka is in Hilo, along with Deputy Director Deanna Sako and Director Collins Tomei, for questions that you may have. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: Yes, we heard testimony from Na Mamo O Kawa and I just wanted to ask either Director Charmaine Kamaka, or Mr. Ventura ifsomeone who could the answer the question. I had a question on how do we change the "no" to "yes," and I think there's a way to do that on the recommendation, if I'm not mistaken. [just wanted clarification on that. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kamaka is there. MS. POINDFXTER: Ms. Kamaka is there, okay. So when Pohaha I Ka Lani had that same situation that Na Mamo O Kawa has, where it didn't come back with a positive recommendation, it was kind of like unsure because they didn't have some information to make a good decision. And because the application was in, in time, it wasn't going to be denied because they met all the criteria applying. But if you did—like with Pohaha I Ka Lam, they gave the information, so it could be clarified so that Parks and Recreation could make a positive recommendation, and that's when I was able to do a resolution to select them. Is this same situation that Na Marro O Kawa is in? MS. KAMAKA: Good afternoon. No, actually what we would recommend is that they resubmit a new grant next year. MS. POINDEXTER: Oh, because l'It go back and check because I don't know if Mr. Ventura remembers the Pohaha I Ka Lam one, when it came back with a negative recommendation, because it didn't have quite the information to make a good determination, but yet it was allowed to he able to address [hose questions. I was able to put a resolution forward to select them, so I don't understand why it wouldn't be considered, the same type of situation. MR. VF.NfURA: Thank you. Good aftemoon. Hamana Ventura, Property Manager. Regarding you question, Council Member Poindexter, I think if we look back into the communication, what occurred last year is that, as I recall, is based on communications that, yes, I believe that they were allowed to amend their application, but I could be wrong. I would have to go back in the communication to comply with the terms as set forth, whereby you were able to do a resolution and move forward with it. Suffice to say that what come through on our end are only recommendations based on the best available information that we had. What goes forward is really UP to the Council as far as approvals and so forth. So, I think, as I recall last Page 5 FC -2 January 24, 2017 session is that you folks, as a Council, have decided to make some adjustments to allow the applicant to clarify the applications so that they were able to move forward. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. So. Ijust wanted to get clarification on that, to let Na Mamo O Kawa know maybe it's still possible because it would be up to maybe their Council district representative to bring their resolution forward or not. I just wanted to get abetter understanding of that. So, thank you. Thank you very much. MR. VENTURA: As t recall, that's what occurred. MS. POINDEXTER: And I'll go back to look at what was talked about in some of the minutes to see if this could happen in this situation, as well. Thank you. MR. VENTURA: Okay. Thank vou. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter, Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANIJHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Aloha, Charmaine. Can you just give us a brief background about what's going on here so we have some idea? I mean I read the whole thing butjust for the public's sake. MS. KAMAKA: Well, we reviewed the applications. We did our evaluation, and we're recommending that Kawa, Ka`u, Hawaii Wildlife, and Pohaha I Ka Lani for the Waipro Valley have the ability to complete their projects according to plan. MR. KANUHA: Okay. You're just presenting to the Council. Next steps would be for the Council to—? MS. KAMAKA: 'the Council to decide which grants to issue or not. MR. KANUIIA: Got it. "thank you. CHR DAVID: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Anyone else? Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: I just had a general comment to follow -tip with what Director and Mr. Ventura had just explained. I'm not sure if all the Council Members understand this process because some of us have been through it. But, for several years the Maintenance Fund has been available for funding stewardship projects and maintenance of our Open Space purchases, so the fund is available to finance. Department of Finance and Department of Parks and Recreation, they may access it at any time for certain types of studies or Page 6 FC -2 January 24, 2017 maintenance on the parcels. That doesn't have to come to Council. That's just a fund that's available to them. It was set by Charter. But, the Stewardship Grant is another way of utilizing community members to help take care of our Open Space purchases. This grant process was little bit rough getting off the ground in its first year because there was uncertainty about how the grants were going to be submitted, how they were reviewed, so it took a little bit of time to get off the ground. And then, I think the first go around was still a little bit hard because Parks was tasked with reviewing all the applications, but they were vague criteria. It was kind of a bigjob for Parks. I think they hired a consultant or contracted somebody to review them, and it took up time loo. In 2015, towards the end of 2015, I had a very passionate interest in protecting these Open Space parcels. I personally felt that we needed to do more to make sure that we're not just acquiring land without having or inviting the communities to help us to maintain them. I didn't want to see the whole Two Percent Land Fund be criticized for that reason. I met with Mr. Ventura, and Alex, and the commissioners to see where the issues were and how we can maybe help the process along. So, I did make some changes to the Code. I didn't want to touch the Charter. But working with language in the Charter, we moved some of that language into the Code and then did some structural changes and some clarifications of the process. Once grants are submitted, after that bill was adopted, then the Stewardship Grants, where we first reviewed by the Public Access, Open Space commissioners, so we felt that they had a close relationship to the land and to the community groups who had advocated for their protection, and they would be very much, you know, more informed about what kinds programs and projects needed to be done and how these groups could complete their proposal. This is new, too. This only got implemented in this last year. So, the eommis'sion, this last go around, took the first look at the grant proposals. "I hey also are allowed to do site visits, interviews, whatever else they feel is necessary to get a good idea of what's being proposed, and if it can be carried out, and how the money can be spent in keeping with the criteria that we have by law. My understanding is that did take place this time. Those recommendations went to Parks, who further review, and then submit this document to us. The fund itself, I think its a quarter percent of our tax dollars, right? MR. VENTURA: The quarter percent of real property tax is collected. MS. EOFF: Quarter percent of real property tax dollars is put into that, and it caps at $3 million. I think there's a note somewhere here that we have about one point something million in there now, and if we continue to use it then that money continues to be deposited into it; but if ever reaches $3 million. it will be capped. Page 7 FC -2 January 24, 2017 So. I really hope that and I did make to the commission, this last time I attended their meeting, because I know they still are having some issues with groups understanding the criteria, submitting the proper documentation, and as you can sec, even in this report, there's some uncertainty on how it was reviewed, or what was rejected and for what reason. I would like to keep working with the commission to figure out how. 1 know they're going to look at the application itself, which I don't know whether that requires any Council action, but that's something that I know will be looked at. We're really hoping that we can help this process become a little more seamless and inviting, not only to the community groups and the nonprofits but for the departments to handle it in the best way. None of the properties that are applied for are in my district, but to those Council Members who have these parcels in their districts, then my understanding is that it would be wise to take the recommendation of the department. However, if there's something, as Ms. Poindexter brought up, that was just a glitch or a misunderstanding, you know. I guess there's a possibility of working through that. But, those are some of the things we have to keep looking at. I just wanted to thank the Waipi'o groups and all of the people who submitted grants. And, for those who have carried their projects, it's just so amazing that we encourage this type of stewardship and pay for the things that need to be done on these parcels. Each parcel has its unique feature, so there's nothing like set for each, you know, it's all been moving criteria. But, we do have to look at the criteria; it's my understanding, because there's some things that may need to be allowed that are not allowed at this point. So, I don't know, I'm just hopeful. I'm willing to work with Finance, and Parks, and the commission as probably we all are, to make sure this process can be handled better and better in the future. So, I don't know; I hope that helps. 1 worked on it a lot so Ijust thought I'd offer my understanding. Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff, for that historical background for our new Council Members and the old ones. Refresh our memory. So, Director Kamaka, would you care to say anything more about this process? Well, given the comments that Ms. Eoff had said, I wanted to know if director had any comments about the process that she'd like to make. MS. KAMAKA: My only comment, Councilwoman, is that we take PONC (Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission) recommendations. Based on the applications we received, the written applications, we reviewed them. We make a determination as to whether or not we think that the organization has the ability to complete their proposed plan, and that's the sum total of what we do. Page 8 FC -2 January 24, 2017 CHR. DAVID: 1 see. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. O'Hara MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair; and thank you, Ms. Eoff, for the explanation, that this is great helpful background. I have a procedural question, I guess, and that is we have a single communication before us, but we have five applicants. Do we vote on the five applicants separately or just on the communication? CHR. DAVID: I believe --Mr. Clerk, that was the question that I had. Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. MR. HENRIC KS: The communication that you have before you is purely informational. It's the recommendations of the commission; followed -through with Parks and Recreation requires independent action of the Council, at another time, to put forward an award for the Council's consideration by way of a resolution. MS. O'HARA: Okay. Okay, that helps explain it. Thank you for the explanation. It appears that the recommendations are favorable for two of these organizations, and there were some questions relating to Na Mama O Kawa, which I believe the testifiers answered. So, I believe the information that was absent from their application has since been provided so that may resort in a positive recommendation for that group. The other two I've seen there's still work to do in terms of coming forward with a complete package and information needed, if that's how I understand this and then it will proceed up the latter, yeah. Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else? Council Members? MS LEE LOY: Madam Chairman, I have a question. CHR. DAVID: Sure. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. This is for actually Mr. Ventura. 1 was just taking a little bit of a step -back related to the PONC funds. You know, this is a fantastic idea when it first started, but now have some lands and now we've got to maintain them. So my question to you, Mr. Ventura, is what's the projected trend of maintenance costs for these lands? And as we go forward and purchase more property, what kind of—and if it's just a guess, I get it; what that percentage growth would look like. Page 9 FC -2 January 24, 2017 MR. VENTURA: Well, we've just acquired an additional 3,000 acres to bring our total lands acquired under the program to a little more than 4,400 acres approximately. The cost to maintain these parcels are probably greater than they were this time last year due to the sheer volume of our acquisitions. However, the stewardship funds themselves are designed to help offset the cost of maintenance by using nonprofit groups. Various entities that have cultural, historical, varying degrees of interest in these properties to take on some of the tasks; that if it were designated as a park, would be more costly. So the percentage is definitely going to be a lot greater than it was in the past, but far less, well, far less impactful than if they were designated as parks. We're talking minimal types of improvements, because we re talking more of maintenance of public access, easements, cultural areas, areas that have been designated for wildlife habitats, and so forth. The groups that we have that have indicated an involvement or an ability to want to work within these confines, we have a fund that is set-aside to address these issues already. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. One follow-up question and I can absolutely appreciate the stewardship that goes on. Are they modeling some of that after the Aha Moku programs that the Department of Land and Natural Resources are using or all of their plans kind of unique to each individual parcel? MR. VENTURA: Well, today we've had, including last year, six applications, and truth is they seem to have their own flavor. There's no one thing that runs through the application process because one applicant may want to deal with the cultural aspects of a particular parcel. Another applicant may want to deal with the archaeological features or the history of the parcel or deal with endangered species. So I can say, based on what little we've had so far, since the introduction of the program over the last couple of years, that they all have their own flavor. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. 1 have just one last question, and maybejust, I'm hopeful, part of the funds I know is to help protect our watersheds. Over the years I have yet to see something like that. So, maybe going forward with your committee, if there are parcels that are further mauka, that would help protect our watershed, because, really, I mean without that water and the recharge for our aquifers, some of the parcels down makai that are being protected by these stewardship programs will get more challenging, so just a little food for thought, Mr. Ventura. Thank you. MR. VENTURA: We're totally on -board and in full agreement with that. But, we need applicants to come forward. We're not the applicants. We're the ones who administer the program. We would like to have more applicants to come forward, whether makai or mauka. We totally are on -board and encourage all applicants to bring in what they can to meet the criteria so that we can help preserve and protect. That's the baseline of this program, is to be able to preserve and protect our island home Page 10 Fat January 24,2017 CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, is that? MS. LEE LOY: Yes,. thank you very much. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Ventura, for that explanation. Ms. Poindexter and then I'm going to go to Ms. O'Hara. MS. POINDEXTER: And, thank you for that, Council Member Lee Loy, because I did speak with even with the Game Management Commission, because talked about the mauka lands and protecting some of our hunting areas and forest areas. That would be tied into the water issue, as well. I don't know what had come about with the Game Management Commission, but 1 guess they were looking into that, as well. So, thank you. MR. VENTURA: Yeah. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. It's again a procedural question, just because I'm not familiar with the rules pertaining to this Maintenance Fund. It appears that matching funds are a requirement or are they not, and if so, is there a certain percentage required of matching funds? How does that work? MR. VENTURA: I don't believe that matching funds are a requirement. I know we would like to see the matching funds, but 1 can't say off -hand without having the Charter in front of me. But, I don't believe that it was a requirement. MS. O'HARA: "l hank you. Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else with questions? Oh, Ms. Leff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: I'm just going to comment. Matching funds isn't a requirement but it's encouraged, and also volunteers, community volunteers, is also, yeah. For instance, the O oma parcel, which I really worked on for quite a number of years, until there was a willing seller there is no way the County can acquire lands anyway. Whether it be watershed or whatever, it would have to be a willing seller. At O'oma, there's been a lot of stewardship projects. That'sjust a stretch of beach. There's not too much that needs to be done there. I think the County may have dipped into Maintenance Fund for some Flora and fauna studies. Other than that, the community has done mostly all volunteer work with adjoining property owners, to keep the beach clean and do just minimum maintenance of trimming shrubs, keeping the trees trimmed up, and the road safe. But, a lot of the parcels Page I 1 FC -2 January 24, 2017 don't really require a huge amount of money for maintenance because community members can just volunteer. MR. VENTURA: That's true. MS. EOFF: I think is there a requirement for a Friend of A Park agreement for something like that? My understanding is that MS. KAMAKA: No, there is not a requirement for that. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Cl IR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Is there anyone else wishing to? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Just a quick question. If I understand this communication from Director Kamaka, this recommendation for the five different things, that is the recommendation coming forth from PONC, and she is communicating that? That is my understanding. CHR. DAVID: Director Kamaka, would you like to respond'? MS. KAMAKA: Actually, PONC makes their evaluation, submits it to us, and then we re-evaluate the evaluations or the submissions, and PONC's evaluations, and we make our own recommendation or evaluation for you, for the Council. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards and Director Kamaka. Anyone else wishing to speak? Alright, before I take the vote, Ijust would like to thank Director Kamaka and her staff for stepping into this very quickly; and Mr. Ventura and Alex and their team for all their work on this PONC Stewardship Grant project, or grant application project. Also, all of the applicants, because I really believe, also what Mr. Ventura said, that these people that come out and volunteer, you know, I think we need to do our best to help them succeed so that we can all move forward and protect our lands. Thank you very much. Going for the vote, all those in favor of the filing Communication 53 please say "aye." Page 12 FC -2 January 24, 2017 Vote on Comm. 53: The motion to close file on Comm. 53 was carried by the Filed 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. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. 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: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Poindexter, to recommend passage of Bill on first reading; and a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Poindexter, to amend Bill with the contents of Comm. 39.2.) (Note: Comm. 39.3, from Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy dated January 18, 2017, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 6, was circulated.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Since we have motions, Ms. Lee Loy, would you like to proceed? MS. LEE LOY: Yes. Thank you, Chairman. My understanding, too, part of the deferral was to get a little bit more feedback. I know Council Member Richards was also involved in taking a look at the proposed language, under Communication 39.2. This is what I continue to want to move forward. I will yield for more discussion. Thank you. Page 13 FC -2 January 24, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. So just to be clear, the clerk just made it clear to me that we are now in discussion of motion to amend Bill with Communication 39.2. That's what you want to do then, Ms. Lee Loy? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, that was my understanding on how we left it at our other meeting CHR. DAVID: Right. We left it at that, but I noticed we do have a communication in our folder, Communication 39.2, I mean 39.3, yes. So if you want to continue discussion on Communication 39.2, we're going to have to either discuss—which amendment would you like to discuss, 39.2 or 39.3 at this point and time? Because if you want to discuss your new proposed amendments, we need to deal with the existing motion, either withdraw it or MS. LEE LOY: Oh, excuse me. Sorry, Communication 39.2. Part of that reason was because Council Member Richards wanted some extra time, and I just want that conversation to be heard, and his thoughts behind that particular proposal. CHR. DAVID: Okay, so you still want to discuss 39.2 before you make a decision on how to proceed, whether it's proceeding with point two or? MS. LEE LOY: That's correct. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Alright, then we're clear. We're going to be discussing 39.2 right now. Mr. Richards, I believe Ms. Lee Loy said had you some questions about that particular communication. MR. RICHARDS: Yes. Councilwoman Lee Loy and I had a great conversation concerning all of this stuff The concern coming forward was I understood the intent but I think we have to recognize we had testifiers at the previous committee meeting highlighting the concern for our Sister Cities. We were trying to craft and verbalize the best way to be sure we recognize, show the respect that was needed towards our sister -cities in any type of celebration; considering that these are actually quite important ties for us and being very sensitive to the needs and cultural needs of maintaining those relationships as it pertains to the celebratory toast. So with that, Councilwoman Lee Loy and I had this conversation, and going back and forth, long discussion Point of Clarification: MS. POINDEXTER: Point of order, well, point of clarification. Chair, are we going into 39.3 or we're still on—because 39.2 doesn't make reference to some of the things that you're speaking of I don't know if it would be appropriate to withdraw 39.2 and justif they want a motion in 39.3. Because I'm looking for my 39.2, and I cannot even find my39.2. We don't have it. Yeah, can CHR. DAVID: We're going to take a short recess. Page 14 FC -2 MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: We're in recess. Recess: At 3:05 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:09 p.m. January 24, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Welcome, we're out of recess. And now, Council Members, everyone has a copy of Communication 39.2 in front of them. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Now we can proceed. Mr. Richards, continue. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. Coming back to our conversation concerning 39.2 and the various evolutions of the conversation has taken, again, coming back to the intent of what we're trying to do is define what is the appropriate use of the funds, public funds going forward, while still respecting the importance and the level of importance that we deem for our city sister relationships. That being said, I think we had a good example of that this last week, in celebrating with our relationships with the sister -cities. Coming forward, my concern was that if we limit ourselves too much, we may actually, culturally and/or offend our sister -cities by not respecting what we need to get done when we make the traditional toast, so that was where my concern came forward. In my conversations with Councilwoman Lee Loy, we discussed this back and forth and, again here we come to our procedural question, after further discussions and hearing all sides of the conversation, I came back with being very comfortable with amending Communication 39.2. How do we do this? And, going to 39.3. CHR. DAVID: Well, I believe Communication 39.3 was submitted by Ms. Lee Loy. It's up to Ms. Lee Loy, if she wants to proceed with 39.2. If not, she needs to either withdraw that motion or make a new one to amend with 39.3, and then we'll be in discussion of 39.3. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yes, thank you. I just really wanted to get the feedback. That we were headed in the right direction, with our conversation that I had with Council Member Richards, and like he said, hearing all sides of the coin, respecting the process, respecting the protocols, and maintaining those relationships that really do provide an economic springboard for both sides in the sister -city program. So. I was just looking for a little bit more discussion, of from other Council Members. Because both Council Member Richards and myself had our own conversation about that. CHR. DAVID: Well, thank you. I'll just ask the other Council Members if they have any more input on 39.2; and if they don't, then would you withdraw 39.2 so Page 15 FC -2 January 24, 2017 we can discuss 39.3? Or, we can vote on 39.2. Whichever you want to do, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Sure. One second. CHR. DAVID: Would you like me to take a short recess? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, Chairman. Just a few minutes. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. We're in recess. Recess: At 3:13 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:20 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Alright, Council Members. I think I saw Ms. Lee Loy. There she is. We're out of recess. Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. You may go ahead now. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to understand it a little bit better procedurally. So, I'm comfortable just moving it forward under 39.2, and choosing to move that matter forward, and just see where the rest of the Council Members lie with that. CHR. DAVID: So you are ready—if Council Members still want to discuss 39.2, before Ms. Lee Loy moves forward with the vote, asking us to vote on Bill 6, as amended with 39.2, any discussion on that yet? Seeing none, alright, on the motion to amend Bill with the contents of communication 39.2, all those in favor say "aye." Alright, maybe—let's do a roll call. I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk. Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill with the contents of Comm. 39.2 Failed failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Kanuha, Lee Loy, and Richards, - 4. Noes: Committee Members Eoff, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David - 5. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. The motion fails. Now, we're going to go back to Bill 6. Discussion, Council Members? Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you. The reason I voted "no" on the amendment, and I'm leaning towards voting "no" on the bill, is becauseI had a long conversation Page 16 FC -2 January 24, 2017 with our auditor, when we first made this change, I think it was Mr. Eagan's bill, to add this language to the code, the way it stands now. Even that, she said was a little bit uncomfortable to her as an auditor, and other counties in Hawaii, they do not allow the purchase of alcohol with public funds, period, for any reason. I was comfortable with the way the bill reads now because we state that, "except by authorized exception," which means there is a little bit of leeway in there; so in certain situations, a Council Chair or Mayor could authorize an exception to the flat "no," no use of public funds for purchase of alcohol. I was comfortable with that. I feel like, now, any change to that in the direction that this Bill 6 is taking. it kind of opens up loopholes and questions. More questions than I feel comfortable with. I understand the significance of sake at the Sister city events, et cetera; but to put the limit at the proposal of $100, to me, if the host of that event had to spring for that $100 on their own, I think that's not too exorbitant, so doesn't really seem like a meaningful change there. I mean there's otherI think the visitors sometimes bring the sake, maybe our stores or whoever's helprestaurants, whoever's helping host the dinners, could maybe contribute? I think there's other ways to achieve the ceremonial importance of these dinners without changing our law, I guess is what I'm saying, and without too much taxing of any individual host. So, I feel more comfortable leaving the law the way it stands now. Where, we have a directive that there is no alcohol to be purchased with public funds; and yet, if there is something very reasonable, a Council Chair or Mayor may consider an exception to that. I would think that whomever we have elected to those positions would be responsible in their decision with authorizing an exception. So, that's been my—although I appreciate what Ms. Lee Loy is doing. I wanted to support her efforts, but I also—the more and more thought about it and spoke to the auditor, I just feel like, right now, leaving the law as it stands is a better message that we are sending to the public, whose funds we are talking about. So, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Any other Council Members? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate all the work that Mr. Richards and Ms. Lee Loy put in on this proposed amendment to the Code. I, too, spoke with the auditor and had a good meeting with her last week. I think it was very important to add point number one, which was done relatively recently by some of the members of the existing Council, because that is something she was very concerned about, we have to state that any use of these public funds shall be done for a public purpose. I think that is very, very important to have in there. Page 17 FC -2 January 24, 2017 The purchase of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, but I think there does need to be an exception in there. I like the way the original wording read rather than the proposed amendments, because once you start adding specific events or specific groups, et cetera, et cetera, it does tend to make it—open to interpretation, and limits on the expenditure, that sort of thing. I think, I trust, our elected officials to make a sound decision on this matter. So I would prefer to leave the language as it exists, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I voted "no" because I actually, personally favor the language in 39.3 because it's more specific. It's only specifically for the Sister City ceremonial protocols. And, I like that it has a limit on the amount that can be spent. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else? Mr. Chung, did you want to speak? MR. CHUNG: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. MR. CHUNG: From what I hear, the people who are opposing to Ms. Lee Loy's amendment actually thinks that what's provided presently is sufficient. I mean am I wrong? CHR. DAVID: Is this a question to a Council Member in particular? MR. CHUNG: No, unless I'm mistaken I'm just going to continue. I'm going to just continue on that assumption that from what I heard everybody says that what we have presently in the Hawaii County Code is sufficient; but if that's so, why are we reacting to alcohol purchases? The reason why we're reacting to it is because of what happened in the previous administration. Let's call a spade -of- spade. One of the problems there was there's no checks and balances. Nothing specified, saying that you can authorize alcohol purchases by the respective heads, whether it be the Mayor or the Council, so that's the end all, I think that is what's we're supposed to try to address. I have a hard time understanding the logic behind what's being said. I've got to admit I'm not totally enamored of what's being proposed, because I still believe that what is needed is some kind of, what I referred to earlier, checks and balances. For example, if the Mayor is hosting a particular function or is going to be maybe hosting one or two people, where he anticipates maybe a drink or two being had, that person will now get the prior approval of the Council Chair, just a matter of signing off, so at least there are several people being held accountable for this. What happened in past, as far as I can tell, it wasn't the use Page 18 FC -2 January 24, 2017 of alcohol or the purchase of alcohol, it was the abuse of that purchasing power/. And. the inability of anyone to step up and say, "Hey, wait a minute, what is going on here," because the buck stop at a certain place. Right now, this is a further reaction, Ms. Lee Loy's bill is a further reaction to the Mayor's and the Council's stated policy, unilateral policy I might say. Mayor, of course, he's one man, but we have the Council Chair who's also issued a policy, and it's only from one person. No consultation with any other of the other Council Members. I think you folks know how I feel about this, and I have got no problem but I just dished out of my pocket for Sister City's celebration, $368 bucks. I'm not really happy about that but I do it; right? I don't think we're talking about Sister Cities and making exceptions for them, but that's really focusing too much on Sister Cities. If somebody said "toasting with sake," it's making it look like all of these Sister City events are just parties, everybody's getting drunk, and everything, no, that's why I don't think we should look at that way. I think we have reasonable exceptions, but a system of checks and balances. People are objecting or going against Ms. Lee Loy's bill and saying that what we have in place is good. I can't believe my ears. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. I'm going to go to Ms. Poindexter and then Mr. Kanuha. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, okay. Yes, I had the policy, where I said no alcohol purchases at all, period. But if you remember the last conversation we had at the Council discussion, was listening to all of the Council Members and seeing if I could redo my policy and include the Sister City protocol. After talking with the auditor, she did tell me that it still had some wiggle room. She wasn't really comfortable with that. But if I had a "do not exceed amount," that may tighten it up. Then I went upstairs to Council Chung's office to ask his office, you know, what would the proper amount to exceed, but we never got to go beyond that point. So, I'm willing to --of you guys are wanting to leave the ordinance the way it is, then after listening to all of the Council Members and their input, I don't mind revising that policy that I put out as well. So, I'm just offering that, and with the recommendation of what our auditor had said about putting in a limit. So, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just to go off with what Mr. Chung stated earlier, about the checks and balances between the Mayor and Council Chair. I swear I read it before. I don't know if it changed or not, but the Code had that it was in the code, where the only authorized exception was given to the Council Chair to sign off on the Mayor and vice versa. No? I swear that was there somewhere, until it changed. Or, I don't know if it changed or when it Page 19 FC -2 January 24, 2017 changed, but I read it. I remember reading it sometime. That's why I was trying to look at our current code now how it's written, but I didn't see that in there. So, I don't know if I'm just making it up, if I was dreaming this. But, what Mr. Chung stated earlier about the checks and balances, it's totally right -on. That's how I thought it was the whole time. The Chair would sign off on expenditures from the Mayor, with regards to, I think, alcohol, I don't know. But, I do like it that way. I'm still listening to everybody on what is the appropriate venue to go to, or appropriate bill or amendment, but that is it kind of the where I'm headed. So, thank you. . CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. It was just pointed it out. MR. KANUHA: Point out what? MS. POINDEXTER: Ms. Poindexter, would you like to make a statement? MS. POINDEXTER: Yes. I think number four did say the purchase of alcoholic beverages is prohibited unless provided by authorized exception. That is in the Code currently. MR. KANUHA: Yes, just for clarification. I understand that. It was more the fact thatI know in the beginning it says for each respective branch of government, Council Chair decides for legislative, Mayor decides for administrative side. Where I was going was, with this current code, you know, I think if there was an authorized exception, the Chair would decide what to sign off on. The Mayor'sno, the Mayor's side and vice versa. CHR. DAVID: Would you like to? MR. KANUHA: I don't know, I'm just stating that. But, that's kind of where I was going. CHR. DAVID: Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I think I understand where—thank you, Chair. I think I understand where Mr. Kanuha is going with this in terms of checks and balances. Given the current Code, just simply says, "unless provided by authorized exception." It doesn't explain what that authorized exception is anywhere. I agree that there does need to be a check and balance, should we encounter another situation like we did in the last administration. So, it would be a good idea to add that in terms of the Chair signs off on the Mayor's request for an exception or vice versa. But I don't see that language in front of me, so I anticipate voting "no" until the language is really, really clear. Page 20 FC -2 January 24, 2017 I don't want to start being real specific with the various exceptions. Because in my experience, that does lead to the creation of loopholes and we might be leaving out the situation, have the Sister Cities as an example, we may not be covering all situations in which an exception is needed. So, it's not that, I want to say "carte blanche" to any and all future Mayors, I know we won't have any problems with our existing Mayor on this particular point and I don't expect any from our chair, but we cannot look into future and see who will be making those decisions. I think a little check and balance might be needed here, but the wording before us is not that check and balance. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else? Council Members? MR. CHUNG: Yes, me again. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. I really do thank Ms. O'Hara for those comments; because she is right, what I had just stated is not really contained in this amendment. But really, Ms. Lee Loy's amendment is really a reaction to things that were happening administratively, both at the Mayor's office and at our own Council office. But if anybody is going to move on this thing I would make one more suggestion, that any alcohol purchases be reported somewhere, either to the Finance Department or to the Council, Fiscal Department, forthwith, right after it's done. It will be made available, itemized, and also available to the public. That's what really caused some problems here. I'm just looking at why we're doing this at all, and it was the lack of reporting, no checks and balances, and not really defining what an authorized exception would be. I just wanted to make those closing comments. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Eoff MS. LEE LOY: Madam Chair. CHR. DAVID: Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Eoff had heroh, go ahead. You can go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I really do appreciate all of the feedback. I just want to step back. Bill 6 is a prohibition on alcohol purchase, plain and simple. It is the law. If adopted, it would be a complete prohibition on the purchase of alcohol with tax money. The current law that we have in place provides exceptions, and it's that exceptions in the law that is not defined. Separate and apart from that, we have administrative policies. They are not laws. They are just administrative policies, an Executive Order, if you want to call. Like I asked Molly Stebbins and Ms. Nims, "How often can an internal Page 21 FC -2 January 24, 2017 administrative policy change," and their response is, "At any time." With a stroke of a pen, an internal policy can change without any public input. So Bill 6, as written, is a complete prohibition on alcohol. I took steps listening to the testimony and other Council Members to better define those exceptions. I put that amendment forward. Now, we're back at—and that amendment was denied. Now we're back at Bill 6, which is a complete prohibition on alcohol, so that is what we have before us right now. What I'm hearing is better checks and balances. What I'm hearing is reporting authority, reporting requirements. I'm going to stay right here, at a complete prohibition on alcohol. It fits the current policies that is being used right now by our administration and by our Council Chairperson. That's going to be the threshold from here on out. So if other Council Members want to go back to the existing law, that's fine. If they want to provide their own amendments or their own exceptions, I'm welcome to that also. But with Communication 39.2 being denied, we're back at the original motion, which is to approve Bill 6, as proposed. I just want to make it real clear. I know everybody might be a little confused. They're wanting to add their own pieces of information, and I am open to that. I did my part with 39.2, apparently it wasn't good enough. And, I yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Okay, Ms. Poindexter was first and then I'll go to Ms. O'Hara. MS. POINDEXTER: Yes, that's why I think when Council Member Jen Ruggles said she wanted to support 39.3, you know, it said "with the exception of authorized Sister City ceremonial protocols, but that amount shall not exceed $100 per event." When I spoke with the auditor, she was thinking that would kind of—it wouldn't have the wiggle room because you have an amount that wouldn't exceed, so that tightened it up. With testimony we've heard and we've been through this past weekend, not only with Shimaoka but with Fukaoka, that we had, how important those protocols were. So, I like the 39.3, as well. I don't know if—but we cannot discuss it yet until—Council Member Lee Loy, since it's your amendment, if you would want a motion to amend Bill with Communication 39.3, I'd love to see the discussion on that and where it takes us. Thank you. I'll yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. O'Hara, no? Okay. MS. LEE LOY: Madam Chairman? CHR. DAVID: Yes? Yes, Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. So I'm going yield to the clerk at this time, and I just want to understand procedurally, because I understood procedurally if we voted for the motion on Communication 39.2 and that matter failed that we Page 22 FC -2 January 24, 2017 would be back at the main motion, which is Communication 39, Bill 6; and to further amend, that would not be possible. I just want to understand procedurally, is that accurate? CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk. MR. HENRICKS: No, and if I represented that, I'm sorry. I apologize. No, once we are back at the main motion, any secondary motion is available, including 39.3. If 39.2 had been approved, than 39.3 would not be available; but because 39.2 was not approved, we still have a blank slate, and therefore, 39.3 is available. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. You know what, I'm going to ask for a motion to defer this so that other Council Members can provide their own input as far as communications or amendments to the proposed Bill 6, as it reads. I'm looking for a second. MR. RICHARDS: I'll second. CHR. DAVID: Excuse me, your motion is to postpone or to defer? Postpone? MS. LEE LOY: I'm going say postpone because I'm just not sure how busy other Council Members are and when they'll actually propose amendments. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, and you'd like to postpone to what date, on your motion? The next meeting or to the call of the Chair? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I think I'm going to pick call of the Chair. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Alright, then there is a motion to postpone to the call of the Chair made, I need a second. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 6 to the call of the Chair. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. CHR. DAVID: Discussion on the motion to postpone, please? Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. I think that is a good idea to postpone it, and I will support the postponement. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Anyone else? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: I concur. I will support the postponement. Page 23 FC -2 January 24, 2017 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Ruggles? No? Okay. All those in favor of the motion to postpone to the call of the Chair please say "aye."? Vote on Motion to Postpone: The motion to close file on Comm. 53 was carried by the (Approved) 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. CHR. DAVID: So, Bill 6 is postponed to the call of the Chair. Mr. Clerk, can we move on to bill 7, please? Bill 7: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-73, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2016, TO JUNE 30, 2017 Increases revenues in the Environmental Management Kula`imano and Papa`ikou Dewatering & Barminutor Replacement project by $2.7 million, bringing the total amount to $3 million. Funds for this project shall be provided from State Revolving Fund ($2.7 million) and would be used for construction. Vote on Bill 7: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 7 (Approved) on first reading. 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. Bill 8: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-73, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2016, TO JUNE 30, 2017 Adds the Environmental Management Kula`imano and Papa`ikou Dewatering & Barminutor Replacement project for $300,000 to the Capital Budget. Funds for the project shall be provided from General Obligation Bonds, Capital Projects Fund — Fund Balance and/or Other Sources ($300,000). Funds would be used for project design. Reference: Comm. 64 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Page 24 FC -2 January 24, 2017 Vote on Bill 8: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend passage of Bill 8 (Approved) on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter 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. Bill 9: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 12-129, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR A STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING QUALIFIED WASTEWATER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII Amends Ordinance No. 12-129 to reflect the change in the monetary amount of $11,322,000 indicated in the ordinance title and Section 1, and in Exhibit A, Draft 2, which has been replaced with a new exhibit labeled as Exhibit A, Draft 3 (Kalaniana`ole Interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation Phase II ($8,622,000), and Kula`imano and Papa`ikou Dewatering & Barminutor Replacement ($2,700,000), for a total of $11,322,000). Funds would be used to expand the project scope to include barminutor replacement and other minor system upgrades. Reference: Comm. 65 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Bill 9: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend passage of Bill 9 (Approved) on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter 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. CHR. DAVID: Alright, we need to a motion to adjourn. Someone, please? Page 25 FC -2 January 24, 2017 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:00 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kamma, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Approved: Ms. Maile Finance Committee MD%na CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Members. We are adjourned. /a y adr-7- (Date) Page 26