HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2017-06-05 2016-2018 Special
Hawaiʻi County Council
Special Session
th
14 Session
Hawaiʻi County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaiʻi
June 5, 2017
INVOCATION: Kahu Brian Welsh of Haili Congregational Church gave the morning’s
invocation.
CALL TO The special session of the Hawaiʻi County Council was called to order at
ORDER: 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Chair
Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair
Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member
Ms. Maile David, Member
Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member
Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member
Ms. Eileen O’Hara, Member
Mr. Herbert “Tim” Richards, III, Member
Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member
PLEDGE OF (At this time, Mr. Kanuha led the Council in the Pledge of
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance.)
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the next order of business, Statements from the Public on
FROM THE Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
David Clark: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
Toby Hazel: Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91); and
Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293); comment.
Maya Dolina: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
(Representing Pele Lani Farm)
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Richey Riggs: Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91); comment.
(Representing Roots Skate Park)
George Klare: Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91); in opposition.
Joyce Alberta Folena: Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91);
Bill 12, Draft 3 (Comm. 92);
Bill 35 (Comm. 288);
Bill 36 (Comm. 289); and
Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293); comment.
Gregory Smith: Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91);
Bill 12, Draft 3 (Comm. 92);
Bill 35 (Comm. 288);
Bill 36 (Comm. 289); and
Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293); comment.
Michele David : Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293);
Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91);
Bill 12, Draft 3 (Comm. 92);
Bill 35 (Comm. 288); and
Bill 36 (Comm. 289; comment.
Ken Slaughter: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
Jon Olson: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), in support.
Emily Naeole: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
Margaret Wille: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293);
Bill 11, Draft 2 (Comm. 91);
Bill 12, Draft 3 (Comm. 92);
Bill 35 (Comm. 288); and
Bill 36 (Comm. 289; comment.
Ariel Murphy: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
Devaki Klare: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293); and
Bill 35 (Comm. 288); in opposition
Noelie Rodriguez: Res. 213-17 (Comm. 293), comment.
(Representing the Global HOPE
Organization)
Page 2
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Recess: At 10:25 a.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I’d like to call this meeting back to order. At this time,
we’re going to take Bill 12 out of order. So Mr. Clerk, please read in the Capital
Budget bill, number 12, Draft 3.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order:
Bill 12 RELATES TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF
(Draft 3): FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2017, TO JUNE 30, 2018
Proposed Capital Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, includes 62
projects requiring a total appropriation of $196.757 million.
Reference: Comm. 92.17
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
First Reading: May 18, 2017
Note: Comm. 92.34, from Council Member Sue Lee Loy dated June 5, 2017
transmitting a proposed amendment to Bill 12, Draft 2, was circulated.
Vote on Bill 12, Draft 3: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 12, Draft 3, on second
and final reading, and to close file on all related
communications. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
Comm. 92.18 From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, transmitting proposed amendments to add
(Memo. No. 1): the Leilani Avenue Shoulder Improvements project in the amount of $250,000.
Motion to Amend: Ms. O’Hara moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.18. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I have had complaints from the Leilani Subdivision residents
about the lack of shoulders on the boulevard. This is a County boulevard,
although it is not up to the County standards, as many of the adopted boulevards
in the subdivisions of Puna, that have been adopted by the County, are still not up
to standard. So this is an attempt to bring it up to standard. I ask for your support
on this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, are there any other questions or discussions on
this? Okay, all those in favor say “aye.”
Page 3
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.18 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.19 From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, transmitting proposed amendments
(Memo. No. 2): to re-appropriate the Public Works Department’s Lako Street Extension to Aliʻi
Drive project in the amount of $13.08 million.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Kanuha moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.19. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Mr. Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Briefly, we’re just re-appropriating the monies and
putting it back on the CIP list. Lako Street extension, again, is in—kind of
between Kailua Village and Keauhou. Since I’ve been on the Council, these
mauka-makai connectors were extremely important, not only for the ease of
access and the circulation through the village, but it times of emergency they’re
really, really critical to get people off of Aliʻi Drive.
So just putting it back on the list, and I know there’s been talk about a developer
in the area to possibly develop that road, but just to make sure that we have it on
the list for future construction, I think is important. So I ask for your support.
Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, is there any other discussion, questions? Seeing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.19 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.20 From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, transmitting proposed amendments
Page 4
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Memo. No. 3): to re-appropriate the Public Works Department’s Nani Kailua Extension project
in the amount of $17.2 million.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Kanuha moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.20. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. This is, again, another re-appropriation. Nani
Kailua extension is in town; and again, this is another mauka-makai connector,
connecting the makai areas to the mauka areas. Very important especially in my
district, as well as it connects to Karen’s district, I’m pretty sure. But just a
re-appropriation. Hopefully in the future we can get this underway. So I ask for
your support. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all
those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.20 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.26 From Council Member Karen Eoff, transmitting proposed amendments to add
(Memo. No. 4): the North Kona Water Source Development – Waiaha II project in the amount of
$2.619 million.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Eoff moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.26. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. This project is in line with the Kona Community
Development Plan regarding water needs for growth areas in North Kona. It’s
also in line with the General Plan. It was brought to me through communities
expressing the need and I’m just grateful that—they wanted to have our County
government show support for this project. This isn’t the total cost of the project,
but funds are supposed to come in from many other sources. So this just is our
contribution to show support for this project. And I ask for your support for this
project. I ask for your support. Thank you.
Page 5
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.26 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.27 From Council Member Tim Richards, transmitting proposed amendments to
(Memo. No. 5): re-appropriate the Parks and Recreation Department’s KALO Gymnasium
project in the amount of $2.5 million.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.27. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. This is a re-appropriation of something
that’s been previously on the CIP, and it’s for a gymnasium concerning Kanua o
ka ʻAina Learning ‘Ohana. There’s some (inaudible), I just wanted to be sure we
kept it—last appropriation—so I wanted to be sure we kept it on our CIP budget
going forward, because I think we can get something worked out. So I ask for
your support.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all
those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.27 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 6
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Comm. 92.28 From Council Member Tim Richards, transmitting proposed amendments to
(Memo. No. 6): re-appropriate the Environmental Management Department’s Construct Green
Waste Facility at Hāwī (Kaʻauhuhu) Transfer Facility project in the amount of
$500,000.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.28. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Again, this is a re-appropriation for a
greenwaste facility in North Kohala. It’s moving towards what we’re trying to
accomplish, get our solid waste under control. So this will help us to better
manage that coming in. So I ask for your support.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.28 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.29 From Council Member Tim Richards, transmitting proposed amendments to
(Memo. No. 7): re-appropriate the Parks and Recreation Department’s King Kamehameha Park –
Gym Roof Repair and Other Improvements project in the amount of $490,000.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.29. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: This is for the County park in North Kohala, Kamehameha
Park. We’ve had a lot of things go on there. Hisaoka Gym is what it’s referred
to. My understanding, some of that work’s been done but there are some other
things we need to get done. There’s also a stand, the old wooden stand that
probably dates back to pre-statehood is gone, and it, in part, is for construction of
that. So I ask for your support.
Page 7
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.29 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.30 From Council Member Tim Richards, transmitting proposed amendments to
(Memo. No. 8): re-appropriate the Parks and Recreation Department’s Kapaʻa Beach Park –
Solar Power Electricity project in the amount of $110,000.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.30. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: This is another park in North Kohala along the coastline, in
between Mahukona and Puakea Bay, kind of along the coast there. It is about as
far away from electricity as you can possibly be. Having solar power there
would be a great thing, so I ask for your support. Again, a re-appropriation.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you very much. Any other discussion? Seeing or
hearing none, all in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.30 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.31 From Council Member Tim Richards, transmitting proposed amendments to
(Memo. No. 9): re-appropriate the Parks and Recreation Department’s Waikoloa Community
Center/Gym/Emergency Shelter project in the amount of $500,000.
Page 8
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.31. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: This is for the Waikoloa community in South Kohala. This is
for a community center. That is a growing community. They’ve been looking
for a community for a long time. This is a re-appropriation. Hopefully when our
budgets allow this, we can get this thing done, because it’s really something the
Waikoloa area needs. I ask for your support.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.31 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.32 From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, transmitting proposed amendments
(Memo. No. 10): to add the Public Works Department’s Hawai‘i Belt Road Improvements
(Honalo Junction to Onouli Road) project in the amount of $6.4 million.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Kanuha moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.32. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. This is just putting on the CIP list improvements
to Hawaiʻi Belt Road in between Honalo junction and Onouli. Don’t ask me
why it stops there. But in this area, heavily traveled. A lot of people trying to,
you know, either it’s going to be sidewalk improvements or road improvements,
but I think definitely needs some upgrades to this area.
I do want to say mahalo for Public Works working with us. They really were
extremely helpful in getting these numbers, and just want to appreciate you guys
in helping us with this project, or at least putting it on the CIP list. So I ask for
your support.
Page 9
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.32 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Comm. 92.33 From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, transmitting proposed amendments
(Memo. No. 11): to re-appropriate the Public Works Department’s Royal Poinciana Drive
Sidewalks and Drainage project in the amount of $600,000.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Kanuha moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.33. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Just is just another re-appropriation for Royal
Poinciana Drive. There is a school in Royal Poinciana, Kahakai Elementary
School, which I went to actually. But Royal Poinciana was never meant to be a
mauka-makai connector. It currently serves as a mauka-makai connector, and
there’s only a few on Aliʻi Drive for again, public safety access and because it’s
such an old street, there’s no sidewalks, there’s very little drainage.
So this is kind of like a work with the Safe Routes to School type of thing, to get
the kids to walk safely in the neighborhood to Kahakai School. So it was really
important to advocate on the public safety aspect, so that’s why I just wanted to
put this back on the list, and hopefully in the future we can make it happen. But
thank you, ask for your support again.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all
those in favor say “aye.”
Page 10
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.33 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Do we have any more communications?
Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the
contents of Comm. 92.34. Seconded by Ms. O’Hara.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Pardon the tardiness for this one. This
request came from the Department of Public Works. The work for this
appropriation is for our harbor. The vision there is to redesign the harbor entry
and provide sidewalks that a number of our cruise ship people use to walk from
the harbor down Keaukaha to Banyan Drive, use the connectivity from Banyan
Drive with our parks and trailways to get down to downtown Hilo. This is a huge
economic generator to invite the people from our cruise ship industries to walk
throughout our entire Hilo area.
This also is being championed by our Blue Zones project, and this really is an
incredible link on how we take public monies and facilitate economic generation.
So I’m really looking forward to your support on this. This is the harbor, this is
the heart. It doesn’t only serve Council Districts 2 and 3, it serves all of East
Hawaiʻi. I urge your support. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to Amend: The motion to amend Bill 12, Draft 3, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 92.34 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 11
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we are back now to the main motion, Bill 12, Draft 3, as
amended. Do we have any discussion on that before we take the vote? Council
Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to acknowledge all the Council Members and all
the administration for putting projects on our CIP. We know not all of them can be
funded all at once, and some have priority over others, but projects remain there for
several years. Some of these re-appropriations are just ones that lapsed, but others are
new projects. And I think as we vision the future of our island, that these projects, it
means a lot to get them on this list, because it gives communities a rallying point, it gives
focus to discussions as we move forward with bond money, and I just really appreciate
this process and thank everybody for not only helping us with our items, but to continue
to look at where our priorities are in order to make our whole island not just an economic
driver, but a beautiful place for our citizens. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Okay, seeing or hearing none, Bill 12,
Draft 3, as amended, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Bill 12: The motion to pass Bill 12, as amended to Draft 4, on
(Draft 4) second and final reading was carried by the following voice
(Adopted) vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So we’re going to move to the top of the agenda, but
because of the unusual circumstances of having multiple legislation which all
affects the budget, we’re going to be reading Resolution 213-17, and Bill
Numbers 11, 35, and 36 into the record so that we can have an open discussion.
So we’re not going to be taking any motions at this time and we’re just hoping to
narrow it down to something that we can all support, at which time then we will
go into a recess so that it will give the staff some time to put the amendment in
place and in writing.
So the Finance will be available to assist with running the numbers as we discuss
different scenarios affecting the real property tax rates. So Mr. Clerk, will you
please read in Resolution Number 213-17, and Bill Numbers 11, 35 and 36.
Return to Agenda: The Chair directed the Council to return to the agenda.
Page 12
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions.
Res. 213-17: DETERMINES THE REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES FOR THE COUNTY
OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2017, TO JUNE 30, 2018
The rates are based on the Mayor’s proposed operating budget (Bill 11, Draft 2)
which raises all classes of property except the affordable rental housing class by
approximately 6.5 percent.
Reference: Comm. 293
Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter
Waived: FC
Public Hearing: May 16, 2017
; and
Comm. 293.1: From Council Member Aaron S. Y. Chung, transmitting a proposed amendment
declaring the Council’s intention to revert the real property tax rates for fiscal
year 2018-2019 back to the rates of fiscal year 2016-2017, and encouraging the
Council and Administration to reduce the operating budget for fiscal year 2018-
2019 based on the 2016-2017 real property tax rates.
; and
Comm. 293.2: From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, transmitting proposed amendments to
change revenues and revenue percentages based on the amended rates within
each class of property.
Note: The following communications were circulated at the meeting:
Comm. 293.3: From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, dated May 25, 2017.
Comm. 293.4: From Council Member Jen Ruggles, dated June 2, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 293.5: From Council Member Tim Richards, dated June 2, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 293.6: From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, dated June 5, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 293.7: From Council Member Valerie T. Poindexter, dated June 5, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
THE DAY: the Day (Second or Final Reading).
Page 13
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Bill 11 ESTABLISHES AN OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF
(Draft 2): HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2017, TO JUNE 30, 2018
Proposed Operating Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, includes
estimated revenues and appropriations of $491,241,880.
Reference: Comm. 91.8
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
First Reading: May 18, 2017
Comm. 91.20 From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, transmitting proposed amendments to the
(Memo. No. 1): General Fund expenditure accounts by decreasing the Clerk-Council Services
Salaries and Wages by $56,328 (removes funding for Legislative Specialist
position and reduces funding for Administrative Assistant to the County Clerk
position), decreasing the Corporation Counsel Salaries and Wages by $40,128
(removes funding for Legal Technician I position), and decreasing the Building
Inspection Salaries and Wages by $128,544 (removes funding for one Building
Inspector position and reduces funding for an Electrical Inspector position), and
increases the Contingency Relief account by $225,000.
; and
Comm. 91.21 From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, transmitting proposed amendments to the
(Memo. No. 2): General Fund revenue and expenditure accounts by increasing the Fund Balance
from Previous Year account by $225,000 and increasing the Contingency Relief
account by $225,000.
; and
Comm. 91.35 From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, transmitting proposed amendments to the
(Memo. No. 3): General Fund revenue and expenditure accounts by increasing the Real Property
Tax by $232,687, increasing the Contingency Relief by $225,000, increasing the
Mass Transit-Other Current Expenses (bus stop equipment and construction) by
$2,451, increasing the Transfer to Public Access/Open Space Preservation Fund
by $4,654, and increasing the Transfer to Public Access/Open Space
Preservation Maintenance Fund by $582.
; and
Comm. 91.36 From Council Chairwoman Valerie T. Poindexter, transmitting proposed
(Memo. No. 4): amendments to the General Fund expenditure accounts by decreasing the Office
of Management Salaries and Wages by $37,725 (reduces funding for the
vacant/funded Executive Assistant III position); increasing the Kona Prosecuting
Attorney Salaries and Wages by $29,340 (funds a Legal Clerk I position); and
increasing the Health Benefits by $859, Retirement Benefits by $5,281, and
Employer FICA by $2,245.
; and
Comm. 91.37 From Council Member Karen Eoff, transmitting proposed amendments to the
Page 14
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Memo. No. 5): General Fund revenue and expenditure accounts by increasing the Driver License
Program Income by $24,900, and increasing the Driver License Other Current
Expenses, Miscellaneous Contract Services (Data Processing-SID (State)) by
$24,900.
Note: The following communications were circulated at the meeting:
Comm. 91.38: From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, date June 1, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.39: From Council Member Jen Ruggles, dated June 2, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.40: From Council Member Sue Lee Loy, dated June 2, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.41: From Council Member Tim Richards, dated June 2, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.42: From Council Member Valerie T. Poindexter, dated
June 2, 2017, transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.43: From Council Member Dru Mamo Kanuha, dated June 5, 2017,
transmitting proposed amendments.
Comm. 91.44: From Council Member Tim Richards, dated June 5, 2017.
Comm. 91.45: From Public Works Director Frank Demarco, dated June 5, 2017.
Comm. 91.46: From Council Member Valerie T. Poindexter, dated
June 5, 2017, transmitting proposed amendments.
Bill 35: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 19-90(e), HAWAIʻI
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) RELATING TO
THE MINIMUM TAX
Raises the minimum real property tax from $100 to $200, and raises the
minimum tax for those who receive a home exemption or a totally disabled
veterans exemption from $75 to $150, $50 to $100, and $25 to $50; all per
graduated scale based assessments. Also eliminates the minimum tax for
properties assessed at a market value of $500 or less.
Reference: Comm. 288
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
First Reading: May 18, 2017
Page 15
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Bill 36: AMENDS CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 10, SECTION 19-71(d), HAWAIʻI
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) RELATING TO
HOMES
Adds two new exemption categories for real property owned and occupied as a
principal home: (1) for homeowners between 75 and 80 years old; and (2) for
homeowners 80 or more years old.
Reference: Comm. 289
Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R)
First Reading: May 18, 2017
MS. LEE LOY: Chair, there are still a number of other communications that
we—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, we cannot read those into the record yet, because
they are not on the agenda. So we’re going to be able to discuss it. So what’s
going to happen now is I’m going to give the opportunity for the Council
Members who put forth amendments. So like, I’ll tell you the order. Council
Member Chung, Council Member O’Hara, Council Member Ruggles, Council
Member Kanuha, and Council Member Lee Loy.
We have what we call our “pinkies,” and these are communications that came in
and are not on the agenda but I believe that they’re at the table as well, for people
to see. So the Council Members will get to discuss that as well, but it’s not going
to get read in because it’s not on the agenda.
So moving forward now—and then we’ll go into—once everybody gives their
summary presentation on what they’re proposing, and then we’ll go into a big
discussion. So you’ll have five minutes each to do that, and then we’re going to
open it up on the floor for everyone to participate. Is that okay? Okay. So we’re
going to start with Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I make a motion to approve the
contents of Communication 293.1. If I could just get a second for discussion
sake.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, we’re not motioning anything in.
MR. CHUNG: Oh.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We’re just going to do discussion. So you can just give a
summary of what you’re proposing and then we can open it up later for a bigger
discussion.
Page 16
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: Okay. You know, I don’t expect this to pass at the beginning, if
at all. This something that is probably more appropriately approved after
everything is incorporated into our present operating budget. But basically, it’s as
our former colleague Margaret said, it’s not unlike what she had proposed years
ago, and it was approved by a previous body, and it’s a declaration. It’s a non-
binding declaration, because we are after all dealing with a resolution which has
no force and effect of law, except for the rate increases. But it’s a declaration of
this Council’s intent, if all of you are so inclined to approve it, that we try to find
ways of cutting our different items within the operating budget and finding
different revenue sources so that we can fund our operating budget without
placing all of the burden on real property owners.
You know, I have to say the agenda when I looked at it doesn’t correctly
characterize what the intent of this is, and I hope it’s not a fatal flaw or anything
like that, because it says “to reduce the operating budget for fiscal year.” That’s
not what I said. I’m not focusing on the amount of the operating budget, I’m
focusing on ways of streamlining our whole budgeting process.
But having said that, you know, that’s the intent of my amendment and depending
on how things shake over the next several hours, I hope I can get support of this
body. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Council Member Chung. Council Member
O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I’m speaking to Communication 293.2 at this point in time, yes?
Okay. We were given a budget that the Mayor had worked and worked and
worked. For those who don’t know about the process at the County, the Mayor
requests every department make cuts. Over the last eight years, the departments
have been asked to make cuts after cuts after cuts. This has been going on
because of the economic doldrums that we have found ourselves in. The
economy has actually picked up. It may not have caught up with us in Hawaiʻi,
and I have always joke about the fact that Hawaiʻi’s economy kind of cycles a
couple of years behind, say, the mainland economy, but that’s just the way it is.
I understand the need for increasing revenues, much of which is outside of our
control, meaning this is again a year for negotiations of union wages, and the
County has fought very hard to keep that at a minimum, but we also recognize
that our costs of living are raising, are going up, and our union workers were
awarded an increase, not what they asked for, but they were awarded an increase
this year and next year. This is all part of the process of running government.
Also, we were seeing a decline in taxes from the State, the TAT as we refer to, the
Transient Accommodation Tax, was cut back even further than it has been in the
past, and this may be a trend that we will see continuing into the future, especially
from what we’re seeing at the federal level and budget cutbacks that are going to
Page 17
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
hit Hawaiʻi hard. We’re talking anything that smacks of welfare economics is
under attack by the Trump Administration.
So the State is going to have to draw its purse strings very tight in order to deal
with some of the cuts that are coming. So I think we can anticipate less taxes
coming from the State to the counties in the future. There are methods that we
can move on, including an overhaul of our property tax code, which I think is
very much overdue. We’ve talked about it for 20 years and I think it needs to
proceed. But dealing with the Mayor’s budget, not wanting to make significant
changes or increases or decreases, because there really is very little place to take
away. We talk about additional revenues, but we need to implement procedures
to put that in place.
So with that in mind, I tried not to maneuver the budget away from the amount
that he was trying to get to with his real property tax rates. In so doing, I did
lower the homeowner’s rate and the agricultural rate, and took up that slack in
some of the other categories, trying not to do any great harm to any particular
class.
Every dollar in tax burden that we put on our resident’s shoulders and businesses
hurts. It hurts me to do that. So we have to do this in a very judicial, reasoned
and measured way. I had asked Finance for the model for calculating the tax
rates, and our Director wisely said, “Well, if I give it to you, I need to give it to
everyone.” I’m afraid that may have opened a bit of a Pandora’s Box, but in
another way I think it’s really, really good that the Council Members all get
involved in this process, directly involved, rather than just looking at .pdfs and
hard copy of budgets and trying to make sense of it. You need to get your hands
in there and start working it.
So I did work it, and the rate modifications that I have moving forward as
Communication 293.2 are pretty much in line with the existing budget of the
Mayor’s. I couldn’t come up with the exact dollar amount because real property
likes the tax rates to be either a zero or a five, it’s nice and cosmetically nice. It
makes it very hard to hit an exact dollar amount. Coming with a little bit of an
overage, I put that back in a manner is divided equally amongst the nine district.
So that’s the gist of my amendment to the Mayor’s tax rates. It’s a smaller
increase for agriculture, a smaller increase for homeowner’s, and a slightly greater
increase for most of the other classes. Affordable rental is kept flat at the same
rate the Mayor proposed, and I kept his conservation property’s rate as well,
because I think we want to encourage conservation. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and do you want to continue, since you have the
floor? I’m going to make an exception for you to continue on all of yours so that
Page 18
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
we can move to the next council member. So if you could move to, I guess, your
Communication 91.2.
MS. O’HARA: (Comm.) 91.2 is an effort to restore the contingency funds that
the Council relies on to do projects within their districts. While the Mayor has
said that he restore the contingency funds in his second budget, it wasn’t to 100
percent and he’s aware of that. So this is to add the additional amount so that it
brings our contingency funds up to the 100 percent that we originally had. It’s not
my favorite method of doing this, and I think a cleaner method of doing that
would be the next communication, 91.21, which would take those funds from the
fund balance of the County. That’s another way to do that restoration to full
value.
Memo 3 (Comm. 91.35), is what is attached to Communication 293.2, where I’ve
adjusted the revenues from the real property tax rates and taken the little bit of
overage that was created and used that to restore the contingency funds. That’s,
in my opinion, the cleanest way to do that. So those are the three memos,
Communications 91.2, 91.21 and 91.35, that I submitted. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. I see that Council Member has a
communication also. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, mine is Communication 91.37,
and I was actually asked to do this, requested by the Finance Department. It’s
pretty much a housekeeping, because the increase, $24,900 increase, is offset by a
$24,900—the expenditure is equal to the increase in revenue. So this is due to a
change in the State system for State ID program, and it’s new software that we
pay the city. My understanding is we pay the City and County to utilize it, and
then we get refunded by a grant from the State. So it’s a reimbursement. I don’t
know if that explains it well enough, but if there’s any questions, I think they
could be asked later. But that’s the gist of it. It doesn’t really change the bottom
line anywhere.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: First I want to say I appreciate all the options that we have on
the table, and I think it’s good that we’ve all brought a different perspective to
solving the same problem. And in the long run I know we’re shooting for the
same goal, which is to do right for the people of the island, who live here, who
contribute to our economy and raise families here.
I’ve introduced this amendment (Comm. 293.4), because I’m concerned that
across the board increases on all property owners are regressive, and as one,
Dr. Rodriguez, a testifier mentioned, Hawaiʻi already has some of the highest
regressive tax systems of our nation. So the plan that I’ve introduced is meant to
Page 19
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
go hand-in-hand with exemptions, and that protects low- to middle-range homes,
businesses, and our disadvantaged populations. Our office has obtained
spreadsheets for certified values from real property tax for 2018, and we’ve
explored nearly 50 tax scenarios with exemptions. This was our best scenario. It
has the best spread that we could find. And we found that we can balance the
budget without raising the minimum tax, and without raising it on homeowners,
and without raising agricultural rates, while protecting small businesses and
residents in the long run. We can do this by increasing rates on specific classes
while providing and exemption.
So my amendment is meant to go hand-in-hand with exemptions, which a
supporter and a testifier fortunately submitted for your review, and without
exemptions, a percent increase in some of these marginal tax rates, they’ll be
experiencing the same marginal tax increase—I’m sorry, poor people will be
experiencing the same marginal tax increase as rich people will, which is why the
exemptions are in there. And this follows the same principles that we use for
homeowners so that we don’t affect our homeowners disproportionately, and why
we have a $40,000 exemption for them.
So I’ve used those same principles to apply for the business and industrial classes.
Businesses like Basically Books or Suisan wouldn’t feel the effects, and in fact,
their property taxes would be slightly reduced. The same principles for apartment
so that we can protect rentals that are not condos and timeshares, which make up a
lot of the apartment class.
At a time of massive wealth and income inequality in our nation, we need a tax
system that is based on ability to pay in some way. With this scenario, coupled
with exemptions to make sure that a $200,000 rental home isn’t having an equal
increase in taxes as a $1 million or $30 million rental home.
So I have numbers, I run them on how all of these increases impact each class. I
can pull up each TMK, so I would be happy to answer any questions anybody has.
I just want to make sure that our tax increases are not putting burdens on those
who can least afford it. In the long term, this is a plan that will protect
homeowners, protect people who live on ag land, and protect the disadvantaged
and nonprofit property owners who currently are qualifying for the minimum tax,
which this plan would make doubling unnecessary. So I appreciate your
attention, and your serious consideration. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I’d like to request a personal privilege,
please? I’d like to address our colleagues from the testifiers stand, please?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, sure.
Page 20
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Note: At this time, Council Member Lee Loy moved from the dais to the testifier
table to address the members of the Council).
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair and Members of the County Council. I know
this is a little bit of a different optics, which is why I chose to sit here. I have
introduced Communication 91.40. I need to share the answer to the question
why; why I prepared Communication 91.40, which amends Bill 11, Draft 2. I
hope I can actually capture a lot of what we heard today in public testimony and a
lot of the options of what we have by way of different tax proposals. What
Communication 91.40 does is create a safety net, and is intended to address public
health, public safety, protect our kupuna and our keiki, and if we fail to act
fiscally responsible this year, the financial shortfalls will be compounded. We
face the reality that the TAT (Transient Accommodation Tax) tax continues to be
syphoned off by the State. Syphoned to a point where we can no longer rely on it
as a revenue source. Despite six years of record revenues from the tourism
industry, we find ourselves with multi-million dollar debts.
The amendments proposed in Communication 91.40 set the table for what I hope
will become a keystone of the hard work and the commitment ahead for all of us.
What lies ahead, shared sacrifice, economic and revenue potential, and a safety
net for Hawaiʻi County.
First, shared sacrifice. My communication proposes payroll cuts for elected
officials, the Office of the Mayor and all nine of us. We should lead by example.
If we ask others to sacrifice, so should we.
Second, economic revenue potential. Of the vacant or newly created positions
requested by this Administration, this amendment maintains those positions that
are directly related to protecting and reviewing our largest source of revenue, real
property tax. We need to get the right people on the bus in the right seats. In
2012, the Legislative Auditor provided a report evaluating property taxes. This
report provided 40 recommendations, and the Council in 2012 adopted it by
communication. I urge the Administration to use this report as a roadmap. The
positions maintained by Communication 91.40, use it to look for new
opportunities. Use it to be an economic potential and revenue generator with our
most important revenue source, real property tax. But most importantly, begin to
realize a revenue that cannot and will not be syphoned off by the State. We need
to protect this.
Finally, a safety net. A safety net that’s intended to address public health, public
safety and the protection of our kupuna and our keiki. For public health, this
amendment provides funding for the continued research on rat lung disease and
rapid ʻōhiʻa death. Rat lung worm disease, Hawaiʻi County has thousands of
people on catchment water systems, especially in the areas of Puna, Volcano and
Page 21
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Ocean View. Rat lung worm disease is serious, and we are fortunate to have the
best research team at U.H. Hilo. We need to support them with their research and
their efforts. It will go a long way for so many of our residents. Rapid ʻōhiʻa
death, our endurance is directly linked to the protection, health and vitality of our
native forests. Though ʻōhiʻa has immense cultural significance, creates a canopy
that fuels our watersheds, feeds our streams, recharges our aquifers, and produces
our water supply. This is our 45, regardless if we’re getting State funding or not.
Finally, public safety. Public safety is a core need for residents and visitors.
Communication 91.40 provides Fire Department, Police Department and
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office with $450,000 to fund this core need. $205,000 is
being directed to Puna police to address the concerns that we have all heard by so
many families in upper and lower Puna.
Finally, our kupuna and our keiki. The leadership at the White House has sent
alarming signals that our kupuna and our keiki are at risk. Communication 91.40
provides assurances with meals for our kupuna and keiki. We need, and it is our
duty, to take care of them.
It is my goal that this communication and this presentation sets the table, sets the
table for a narrative that all of us can take back to our communities on why we
made the business decisions on whatever real property tax rates and schedules we
adopt, but also how we choose to take care of our community. We must be
responsible and we must fix the financial problems, and I think that will be done
in this framework. It’s a multi-prong approach of shared sacrifice, economic and
revenue generation and potential, and creates a safety net for Hawaiʻi County. I
look forward to working with you collaboratively, which I trust will be two or
three hours from now, but I hope as we walk out of here, this framework, this
multi-prong approach, will move us forward, for everybody in every district. So
thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Okay, next is Council Member
Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Interesting process that we’re going
through right now. I’d like to direct your attention to Communication 91.41,
91.44 and 293.5. Yeah, if we can find this in the stack of paper. I think it’s
already becoming quite self-evident that Council Members are quite impassioned
about this process that we’re going through. Make no mistake, each of us has
spent many hours sorting through the paperwork to try and figure out what’s best
for our communities. I’ll speak for myself, my phone has been ringing off the
hook concerning real property tax increases, fuel tax increases, and the budget.
Just to briefly summarize, my proposal to the budget is to actually end up with a
$289 million budget, throttling back on our revenues from real property tax by
Page 22
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
about $6 million by reducing the proposed rates of about .20 cents across the
board, of the proposed increases. To offset that, my proposal also is to look at
mass transit, and we know we need to fix mass transit, but I don’t think throwing
a lot of money at mass transit right now is the way to do it. What I think we need
to do is evaluate what we need to get done and then act upon that. New busses I
think are important, but we have half the bus fleet not working. So I want to put
an extra $130,000 towards maintenance to get these busses up and running, and
then we can see where we’re going through that.
I’m not going to belabor, because we’re going to have a lot of work to get done
here and I have other Council Members coming after me. I support Councilman
Chung’s intent of reducing the tax rates back to the current rate for the next fiscal
year, because I think we need to pay attention to the budget. I’ve always listened
to my constituency very closely. Since the year 2000, our County tax budget has
increased by 150 percent. Our population has increased by one third, and having
another bump in our real property tax does not sit well with the constituents. I get
it, I understand. For all the arguments that we can hear in all the discussion, I
think where we are headed is for a long conversation to strike the balance that we
need to do in there, but we have to pay attention to our expenditures, not pay
attention to our income stream and allow the expenditures that we want to do to
force the income stream up. We have to control our expenditures, so first we set
what we’re going to get, then we figure out how we’re going to spend it, not the
other way around.
So my proposals again are to decrease the overall expenditures and some of the
sourcing will come out of the funds. About $4 million would come out of the
increase in the fuel tax. We have a little bit of a stutter step here, because I think
the way we’re approaching this is, well in my mind, backwards. I come from
private industry, and you do it all at once. You don’t do it by incremental steps,
because we’re missing part of the component. So I’ll be putting forth my
proposals as such, and I think we’re headed for a long day as far as working out
the compromise between all of us. So with that, I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. How do I begin? It’s just do
difficult to—I’m just going to go off of how we—and this is nobody’s fault, I
think it’s important for us to look at this process and see how we can do it better.
I think, I mean a lot of times, I mean, since I’ve been on the Council, this process
hasn’t been as complex as how it is now. So I think we need to re-evaluate how
we go through the budget for next year. This is nobody’s fault. I’m just speaking
as myself in going through this process.
You know, it almost seems like we’re at a huge disadvantage, and I think that for
next year, we really, really have to look at how we go through this. Because you
Page 23
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
know, this is almost like last minute to me. And dealing with everybody else’s
amendments to this, and really trying to dive deep and how this will affect each
and every resident of this island.
So saying that, I did propose an amendment, and it really doesn’t do everything
that I wanted it to do, because you know, like I said, I’m at a disadvantage here. I
didn’t vote for the original budget, not to say that it isn’t good or anything, it’s
just I didn’t like how we were going. I didn’t feel that we were doing the best job
that we possibly could. So I did put in an amendment (Comm. 293.6), I reduced
the overall RPT (real property tax) by $1.6 million, and change. I took out some
positions that I felt—I mean, most of them were funded, vacant positions. I know
in the meantime there have been efforts within the Administration to fill a lot of
these positions, and I’m not saying any of these positions are, you know, not to be
supported. I think, I just felt that if we’re going to be increasing taxes, we’ve got
to look at what we can do to reduce the amount that we’re spending. So I did as
much as I possibly could in the limited amount of time that we had to do some of
that, and then we can argue about the positions and whose currently—I mean, if
the positions are filled, fine; or in the process of being filled, great. But it was
something that I felt necessary to do. You know, reduce a little bit. It just didn’t
seem practical to me to increase taxes without doing some reduction, or as much
reduction as possible.
I also took out contingency funds. I know I’ve been advocating, we’ve all been
advocating for how effective it is that we do of these contingency funds. It really
benefits the community tremendously. But again, you know, if we’re going to be
raising taxes, I think a reduction in some of this, I felt, was necessary.
I also didn’t feel that the positions added to this amended budget was necessary,
again, if we’re going to be raising taxes while we’re adding more positions. Even
though I feel a lot of them are necessary, I advocated for the homeless coordinator
position, which I feel is a tremendous need in our community. But I think our
current Administrator is doing a tremendous job working with the homeless on
this island. So I took that out.
What else did I do? I didn’t do too much; but again, I’m not happy with the
process. I’m not extremely happy with my proposition. How we’re going to go
through this, I have no idea. But saying that, I know—just real quickly, I
appreciate Mr. Chung’s amendment to the resolution, to say that next year we’re
going to possibly lower. I remember Margaret doing that and I voted against it. I
think myself and Brenda Ford voted against it, I forget who else. But I felt that,
you know, just by talking about it and saying, “We’re going to do it,” you know,
just didn’t do it for me. So you know, that’s why I voted “no” on that one.
Because I knew that the future would be like, “Okay, see they voted for that last
year, but what are they going to do about it?” And I knew that we weren’t going
to do anything about it.
Page 24
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So anyways, that’s just my two cents I guess. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thanks. Eileen, you, before I speak on mine, you
have one more that you were going to speak on I think?
MS. O’HARA: Yes, it’s which one? Yes, Communication 91.38 is an
amendment to the Draft 2 of the Operating Budget. This addresses something that
Mr. Kanuha just brought up as well. This is a new position that’s being created in
a very small department, but a very meaningful department. Very important
department. I hold dearly the work that IT does for the County. I know that all of
our, what, 2,500 employees are not on computers, are not on internet, but quite a
few of them are. For a department that has 20, 22 employees, they do a fantastic
job for us. But there’s so much more they could do for us to create greater
efficiencies in County operations. I think the intent, as I understood it from
Ms. Ung, she is our Director of the IT Department, on this request for a deputy
director, was a need for someone who could serve as a liaison between
departments. Perhaps she’ll take that role and the deputy will do what she’s
currently doing, or however that was intended.
But I don’t see that as the best approach. If we’re going to be working within the
departments to improve their IT interface, we need someone in each department
who is that liaison. There is already somebody in each department attempting
that, they may need additional training, or we may need to hire technician level,
but not a deputy director. So I’m asking to remove the deputy director position
and instead allocate that money for other uses within the IT department. They
need additional hardware, they need additional software, they need additional
equipment and servers and et cetera, in order to serve the County better. So I’m
just reallocating that money within the department. So that’s what
Communication 91.38 is.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. So my Communication 91.36, it doesn’t
increase or decrease the budget. It just moves some money around and I first had
it taking from one of the positions from the Mayor’s Office and then shifting that,
a portion of it, to the Prosecutor’s Office. But I do have an amendment that, after
speaking with Mr. Okabe, knowing how important that position is to the Mayor
and the Mayor’s Office and for the public as well, that I decided to put another
amendment in to take it from the IT position, fund it with that, and then the
balance that is left over on the deputy IT position is to put the rest into, I think we
put it into equipment, but we did call the Director to see which area that she
would put it in. So I’m going to be shifting that. So I just want to let you know.
So there’s two communications on here that doesn’t increase or decrease the
budget. That’s Council Member Eoff’s, and then my amendment as well.
Page 25
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Okay, so opening it up so that we can start to try and narrow it down, who wants
to go first. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I’ll take the lead, because I finally found my spreadsheets. I’ll
tell you, with this pile of papers in front of you, it’s very hard.
This was submitted as Communication 293.3 I believe. I don’t see it in your
folders. Maybe it is. I believe it’s 293.3, best guess. Without getting my
computer turned on, I think that’s what I’m looking at. Do you guys have it? A
colored—yeah, okay. It may have been in the previous hearing folder and didn’t
get moved forward, but it’s helpful in having the discussion on what I attempted
to do with the changes in the rates.
So most of you probably don’t have it, that’s unfortunate. It’s hard to talk about
numbers, it’s really a lot easier when you can see numbers. So I don’t know if I
should just ask for—okay. I can talk from memory.
Again, this comes back to having a very measured approach. I appreciate all the
work everybody has individually put into budget. But I am concerned about a
number of things. I’ll start with Mr. Chung’s communication. Well intended,
absolutely agree that we want to try and reduce any potential harm to our
residents. Yet I don’t think it’s fiscally responsible to request a reversion to the
previous rates. For those in the public, we’re talking an increase of $17 million
with the rate increases the Mayor has proposed, and that was necessary to balance
the budget. It wasn’t because we wanted to add a bunch of services and new
positions. Yes, he added I think seven position which he felt were needed. I’m
working to reduce one of those right now.
But the point being is looking at what’s coming before us, we already know. The
union increase for next year is higher than it is for this year. We already know
that the trend at the State is a reduction in TAT, so to ask us to practice austerity
to the point of reducing our operating budget by that amount for next year, I just
don’t feel it’s fiscally responsible or even realistic. We need to provide basic
services to the public. What I would love to see is a change in the wording of that
resolution or communication to say, “not to exceed fiscal year 2017-18 amounts.”
In other words, let’s not be back here next year talking about property tax
increases. That, to me, would be fiscally responsible. That we would hold—
thank you, Mayor, for being here—the Mayor’s feet to the fire on. I don’t think
we can realistically push to have our tax rates reverted to the current year with
what we’re looking at in increased expenditures.
So I would love to see that amended, and I’m just going to speak to that one first,
and as Mr. Chung said, he thinks it should be taken up last and I kind of agree
with him. But I did want to say that first off.
Page 26
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
I didn’t attempt to add a lot to the budget, I just attempted to make the rates a bit
more fair and take the onus off of the homeowner class. It’s my impression,
always has been, that we are a rural community and we want to support and
promote agriculture. So I also reduced the agricultural class. The whole tax code
needs an overhaul. Our exemptions are poorly worded, which leads to abuse of
those exemptions. Our exemptions are often stated in nominal dollars. Nominal
dollars change. The value of money changes over time. The $40,000 homeowner
exemption that was passed in 1987-88, somewhere in that area, in 2017 dollars,
would be $80,000 today. So we can’t continue to put hard numbers into our tax
code and not expect to have to come back and do modifications. So, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I think this is going to be a long day. I
support what Councilman Chung says, and I will push back on Council Woman
O’Hara’s statement to a point. I think as far as procedurally going forward, we
have to decide what we want to do first. Decide if we’re going to figure out what
we’re going to spend, or figure out what we’re going to make. Because until we
do that, we’re going to be vacillating back and forth. Again, echoing something I
said earlier, our constituency has been speaking loud and clear. I don’t disagree
with Council Woman O’Hara’s statement about we don’t want a lemon, and we
do have some liabilities coming forward. But by the same token, I don’t think we
can just blindly go forward and use that as justification for increasing our budget.
It’s gone up substantially in the last 10-15 years, and we need to pay attention to
that, be mindful of that.
I do support Council Woman Lee Loy’s statements about being very fiscally
minded, very fiscally responsible. Again, supporting Council Woman O’Hara’s
statement about our real property tax code needs a revamping. Yes, we need to
revamp. The way I see this is we have a very complex task ahead of us trying to
balance the budget based upon moving targets. Every time I think I might get
close, it kind of shifts away a little bit, so we keep going back around in circles.
Department of Finance, thank you very much for all the help you guys have been
offering us. It’s difficult at best.
That being said, again I think we have to practice that fiscal mindfulness, and
everybody’s going to have to take a cut and be mindful of that going forward. I
see this year’s budget as basically a bridge budget. Not new bridges, mind you,
just a bridge budget, where it gives us a year to figure out 2018-19 and I think we
start working on the next budget in July or August at the latest and figure that out.
Because I think we need to revamp the real property taxes, and I think we need to
look at our spending to become more streamlined, more efficient. I don’t know
what that means yet. But the further we dig into this, the more complex it
becomes.
Page 27
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So we have to decide first, I think, to get through this budget, are we going to
decide how much we’re going to spend, or how much we’re going to earn, and
then that will dictate the other half of the budget. I yield at this point.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’m just going to make some
comments about this entire budget, and it will give all of you a glimpse as to
where I’m going to be coming from in terms of the various measures that are
being proposed. First of all, let’s look at how we got here in the first place.
It was almost like a perfect storm. I think we all understand that, right? Union
wage increases—and I have to take exception to what I read in the paper the other
day which was attributable to our honorable representative Cindy Evans. She said
what the County is not saying is that—you know, we’ve been blaming on TAT,
but what we’re not saying is that it’s also related to union raises. We’ve been
saying that for the longest time. I don’t know, we haven’t been hiding that. You
know, so I was kind of perplexed about all of that.
But it is, you know, it has to do with TAT, and we have been talking about that ad
nauseum. But I think, you know, we’ve come to the realization of late that it is
what it is. You know, they make the rules, and instead of just crying about it, it
seems we’re getting nowhere fast with them, we just have to deal with it, right?
And we’re trying to deal with it.
So TAT, union raises, and then retirement benefits, another huge, huge impact to
our budget, which wasn’t of our doing, it really was at the State level. I’m not
trying to blame them again, but you know, all of these things came to bear, so
now it’s just a confluence of bad stuff happening to us. So I kind of feel sorry for
you, Mayor Kim, and us at the same time. But that’s how we got to this point.
So what I tried to do, and I know all of you have tried to do that too, as reflected
in what’s been provided here in the various amendments. But I tried to look at
areas where we could cut. I met with Deanna and other members of the Finance
Department, and the three areas that I looked at were those areas that have
historically been the places where, you know, people can hide money: 115
accounts, right, Contractual Services; Overtime, and fund balance. When I really,
really looked those things over, I came to the realization that unlike in years past,
it’s really tough.
You know, the Administration has, to their credit, done a good job in cutting a lot
of the fat. Overtime maybe, you know, we still could do stuff, and you know, we
could try to encourage better management practices in that regard, but it’s really
not for us to do I think, at this point. So instead of trying to get $1 million in a
savings somewhere here and there—oh, and by the way, also with regard to the
Page 28
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
vacant positions, I’m in favor of that. Whoever comes up with that, I’m in favor
of getting rid of those things.
You know, there are some new positions, I know we’re going to be talking about
that EA (executive assistant) position in the Mayor’s Office. I think I’ve told
some of you in private, not in violation of Sunshine Law, that I learned many
years ago, not learned, but I was told as a young boy from our former Mayor,
Steve Yamashiro, that it’s been the practice that you don’t mess around with the
Mayor’s budget, because he is, after all, an elected official, and he doesn’t mess
around with our budget, and we both don’t mess around with the Prosecutor’s
budget, because he is an elected official as well. It’s just an unwritten law that
I’m telling everybody right now, that was told to me many, many, many years
ago.
So I’m kind of reluctant to fool around with that one, but at the same time, you
know, there’s another part of me that says—you know, Sue talked about what,
shared sacrifices, right? Now is really a hell of a time to be increasing, you know,
creating more positions, especially when we’re telling the public to sacrifice by
paying more real property taxes. So I’ve got to think about that. I haven’t really
decided on that.
With regard to Ms. O’Hara’s comment about my resolution, I certainly
understand that. But I guess hidden in all of that is that I’m not saying we’ve got
to bring the budget back to where it was before, and that’s why I made that
comment about maybe the agenda didn’t really characterize my resolution
accurately. I said we’ve got to find different sources of revenue, and I’ve made it
very clear for at least the last half year, that we should be looking at that GET
(general excise tax) increase. That is one possible source of additional revenues
that can help offset all of this. It’s a fair way of getting revenues, because it’s
based on spending and it’s not just because you own real property.
I wanted to make one last comment. What really concerns me, and it relates to
this topic that I just talked about too, you know, bringing things back in terms of
the real property tax rates. I really don’t mean this as any criticism to Mayor
Kim, but if it is, then cannot help. In 2002, I supported a tax increase, a similar
tax increase, a similar tax increase that was pitched by Mayor Kim. At that time,
it was intended to be a stop-gap measure. Two years later, I was gone. Not
because the public kicked me out or anything like that, because of the—but from
2002 over the next six years to 2008, and I might be wrong okay, my numbers
might not be correct and my memory of course, is not that good, but I think
instead of it being a stop-gap measure what happened is it enabled County to
grow from a budget of about $260 million to over $400 million. I cannot allow
that to happen on my watch again. That’s why I think it’s so important to at
least—you know, the amendment is a nonbinding amendment. But it’s something
to at least think about and put our feet to the fire. That’s all. Thank you.
Page 29
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I completely agree with most of the
statements that are being heard here today. Not only from my fellow Council
Members, but from the public. We have a cross section of representation, all nine
districts have different needs, all nine districts have different perspectives, and I
sat down for the last few weeks just like the rest of us did, working the numbers,
looking at where we can save money, and looking at where the mandated
increases are coming from. And as Mr. Chung stated, a lot of them are things that
we can’t do anything about. Mayor Kim has gone over this many times in the
public forums, but to put a number on it I think helps us understand why we’re in
such a quandary. Because there was over, I think when you add it up it’s $18 or
$20 million that’s something we don’t have any say-so over, which includes those
statewide union negotiated pay raises, that’s over $8 million; we are required to
pay into the Employee’s Retirement System which is set by the Legislature, over
$4.5 million; we have increases in rates which is our employer’s share to health
care, which is set by the State, that’s over $2.7 million; and we have other
post-retirement benefits that are mandated by State HRS (Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes), which is over $3.7 million. So once we look at that, there isn’t that
much additional monies being added to inflate this budget.
Now how we take care of those things, as Mr. Chung has stated, you know, and
by making a promise to try and revert back, it’s not completely impossible,
because I think he’s looking at raising other kinds of user fees or income that we
may be able to generate. That’s what we’re going to be have to be looking at in
this next year, because we know the cost of doing business here and the cost of
government is not going to go down. These are things that are going to carry over
to next year.
So that’s where the serious work’s going to have to be done after we get through
this process, is looking at ways to increase revenue without increasing property
tax. So given that, I also wanted to not raise the homeowner’s class, and even
some of the other classes. I tried doing the math, did it over and over again,
worked with Finance, there isn’t really any perfect way. As Mr. Kanuha found
out after, you know, even unfunding and eliminating lots of positions, you only
save between $1 and $2 million. Then that doesn’t do much in decreasing the
total tax burdens that we have to increase right now, possibly. I don’t really see
any way around it.
But yeah, I mean, what is the trade off? Because our communities are demanding
that services and County health and safety and all of the core services be
maintained at a high level, and we all want that. We want our island and our
community to be the best place it can be, which it does require spending money.
Page 30
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So I’m not coming up with a big solution here, I’m just stating some of the things
I learned by working over the numbers and attending lots of public forums and
listening to lots of proposals, asking people what will this increase mean to their
own personal budgets. You know, how much does this add in their property
taxes. Because it’s easy to look at the $65 per thousand, and some people, yeah,
maybe their taxes are only $1,000 a year, that’s only $65 more a year now. Of
course that increases as people’s property taxes are higher, which are most of the
people in my district.
So in District 8, we have very high appraised property values compared to mostly
everywhere else on the island. So the higher assessed value combined with the
6.5 percent increase, that’s a pretty big increase for a lot of people. They don’t
really understand that, and they don’t understand—as Puna’s been out telling us
they don’t understand why it seems that Puna’s not getting a lot of the things they
need, people in my district are crying to me and probably Dru and Tim here the
same thing, that why is West Hawaiʻi having the burden of so much of the
property taxes when, you know, we have to share that around the whole island.
So I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t really pit community against
community, you have to look at the whole island. And how we can best allocate
those resources is—
You know, we can bring forward our proposals, and they’re probably all great,
but the Mayor has brought forth a proposed budget where he’s determined to—
any increases or any expenditures. It’s really difficult. No one plan is better than
the other one, and I just want people to realize that this isn’t something that is
easily solved. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Is Jules in here? Oh, hey Jules. I just want to ask
you a question if that’s okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I was going to say, if anyone has any questions for any of
the Directors and you know, even our Honorable Mayor Kim, please feel free to
call them before us. Thanks.
(Note: At this time Information Technology Director Jules Ung came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MS. UNG: Good morning.
MS. RUGGLES: Good morning. Thank you for being here.
MS. UNG: Thank you.
Page 31
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: I just want to—there’s a couple of proposals here that would
defund the deputy position for your department. I wanted to get your thoughts on
how that would affect the department, and then also get your thoughts on Council
Members O’Hara’s proposal about putting that into equipment instead of the
deputy position.
MS. UNG: In speaking to all of you, and additionally a couple of you
one-on-one, I’ve said that I really respect your decision and how you vote, and
your birds-eye view and perspective. With that said, I have a very focused view
of my department and protecting the interests of my department. We are in a
unique position right now where we can look around the corner and forecast our
needs. Right now those needs are in systems equipment. Additionally, we may
have an expanded scope of responsibility coming down the pipeline.
In regards to the deputy director position as identified as number one in the
threatened hazard and risk assessment performed by Homeland Security in
December of 2016, just before the calendar year turned over, cyber-attack was
identified as number one. Right now we have an opportunity to be proactive and
allocate efforts, funding and resources to coming up with a very good strategy for
the County in a vision as to how we’ll move forward as a collective, collaborative
organization. Right now we’re made up of five distinct IT departments and there
is an opportunity to be more collaborative and be more proactive in our cyber
security efforts.
That goes along with the consolidation of technology and identifying
opportunities for shared technologies. That would in hand increase our access to
viable technologies and decrease costs.
MS. RUGGLES: Do you think that putting those funds into equipment is a better
use than a deputy?
MS. UNG: I can’t say that it’s a better use, but it is a very good use.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay. I just think that if we’re going to be adjusting
department’s budgets, and if we are going to be taking away a position that the
Director says is necessary to fill the goals of the department, I feel like we’re
setting precedent to say that we know better for their department than they do.
Which I’m not sure how I feel about that. I think that as the Director of IT, Jules
knows what she needs more than we do, and as every department. And if we’re
going to do this, we need to have good reasons to do it. So I appreciate you being
open minded and honest about it. Thank you.
MS. UNG: Thank you very much.
Page 32
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: I also want to say that I really appreciate Council Member Lee
Loy’s sentiment that you brought up, and taking this so seriously. Also what you
brought up about Rapid ʻŌhiʻā death and rat lung worm and the police. I know
that we share Keaʻau, which is really—well, we don’t really share Keaʻau, but it’s
in Puna. It’s really important, I just want to appreciate you for that.
For the RPT, I guess I could bring Finance.
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Collins Tomei and Deputy Finance
Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the
Council.)
So here we have a proposal to unfund the RPT Value Analyst for the Real
Property Tax office. When I met with Real Property Tax, we had a lot of
questions, because there were a lot of things that didn’t appear to make sense, and
they expressed the need for needing this analyst. So I wanted to just get your
thoughts on that.
MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. When we had the April
reviews with the Council, something we thought we heard was that we should
take a look at vacation rentals and add that classification. So to do that and to
separate those parcels, because that’s not something we currently track, that was
the position we added to be able to do that. So up to the Council, you know, but
that was something, you know, we tried to put in to help respond to the concerns
we heard.
MR. TOMEI: Just to make a comment. Collins Tomei, Director of Finance. You
know, the position is very important, not just for the vacation rentals, but once
that, let’s say, project is done, because you know, there are only so many vacation
rentals and there’s only so far you can go. Once that’s done, the person basically
shifts their attention to the ag property issues, you know, which was brought up
by a lot of people, even Margaret Wille had brought that up. So you know, we’re
also looking at it for the future. So, and you know, of all the positions, Real
Property Tax does provide income. They analyze, they look forward, they go into
a lot of depth. But please, yeah, fully support.
MS. RUGGLES: Right, from my understanding, they help fill the gap from some
people who might not be being so honest. Are there any other thoughts on that?
MS. SAKO: No, I think that’s just the compliance portion of it, you know, so to
be able to follow up and have adequate staff to do that.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. Thank you. I also wanted to ask the Department
of Public Works as well, Frank DeMarco.
Page 33
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Note: At this time, Public Works Director Frank DeMarco came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I wanted to get your thoughts on the position that is
proposed to being removed as well, and how it affects our ability to permit
buildings. Because I know it was a Building Permit Analyst, right?
MR. DEMARCO: Frank Demarco, Director, Department of Public Works. Yes,
there’s two positions coming out of Building Division that are proposed to be
unfunded. Actually, we filled those positions, and those individuals are to be
st
arriving on June 1, their start date. The reason why these positions are important
for all of us on this island is the backlog that we have on inspections. There’s, as
you’ve probably heard within your districts from your constituents, a lot of
frustration with the Building Division and, you know, the time it takes to get
through the building permit application process. Then once the permit’s issued,
getting these inspections completed.
One of the problems we have is, you know, we have so few inspectors that when
they go out on sick leave or vacation time, there’s nobody to replace them, thus
the lag time. So we filled these positions with that intent, to help facilitate
inspections, get better timing, and also for coverage for each other.
So thank you for that question. There’s some other positions—was it specifically
for building or can I touch on some of these other positions that are unfunded?
MS. RUGGLES: Sure.
MR. DEMARCO: Engineering III position, that’s also been filled. That
rd
individual will be arriving on July 3. So I’m looking for the Council’s support
to continue to fund that position, it’s important to us.
Point of Order: MS. EOFF: Excuse me, point of order. Could you refer to—I don’t know if you
know, but could you refer to which proposals are proposing to unfund the
positions you’re mentioning so we can—
MR. DEMARCO: As far as the building inspectors, that’s Communication 91.20,
and then for the engineering positions, that would be Communication 91.40. I
believe it’s also covered in Bill 11. So for Communication 91.40, Civil Engineer
rd
III, again filled; and individual to arrive on July 3. The other is Engineering
Support Tech IV, and that is open. It is a critical position. I’ve asked Alan to
make this presentation of why it’s a critical position. Alan?
(Note: At this time, Deputy Public Works Director Alan Simeon came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
Page 34
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. SIMEON: Alan Simeon, Deputy Director of Public Works. I also have—we
brought our bridge section employees with us, and also Cres Rambayon.
I guess I want to introduce first, how many bridges that we need to maintain, that
we need or are mandated to maintain in order to comply with federal aid
requirements. My understanding is that we have 128 bridges that are being
handled technically with two personnel. I want to also mention what are the
ramifications if we don’t have these bridges maintained properly and reported
timely. For one thing, safety of the public, of course nobody wants to have
bridges closed and there’s no access for the residents and for emergency
personnel.
The other thing that would happen if we don’t have these bridges properly
maintained and documented and timely submission of inspection paperwork, is
the loss of federal aid funding. There’s another way to have these bridges
inspected, and that is to hire private companies to have this inspected, like the
City and County of Honolulu are doing. They still have personnel actually CE
VII’s, two of them at least, to look at all these reports before submittal to the DOT
(Federal Department of Transportation) and for the Highways. Comparing to
ours, they have about maybe twice the number of bridges that they maintain, but
they do pay on an average $4,000 per bridge to have the inspection and all the
compliance submitted to the DOT and Federal Highways. Compared to ours
basically, again we have technically two employees doing this for 128 bridges,
and applying the $4,000 average per bridge, you’re looking at about $250,000.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you.
MR. SIMEON: Can I please say one more?
MS. RUGGLES: Go ahead.
MR. SIMEON: In addition to these assignments or work, they also participate in
the development, construction and inspection, all projects that involve bridges.
As of late, I want to mention Kapiolani Street extension project; we have two
projects that are ongoing under design, Hakalau Bridge emergency project, and
the Aliʻi Drive culvert, which last week or the other week was recently damaged
by an accident. And for future, we have the Four Mile Creek Bridge on Kilauea
Avenue. And also on the other projects, the expertise that these two personnel are
viable for our other engineers on their own projects. Because they do structures
and have that expertise. Thank you.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Thank you for the information. Did you want to
ask—oh, I still have—I’d like to call up Housing eventually, but if it makes sense,
we can all just—
Page 35
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. I think your time is—her time is up? Oh, you have
two more minutes.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay.
MS. LEE LOY: I have a question for them too, if it’s okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay.
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can I—? If she has a question for—how do we do this?
Do you want to—?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, it’s okay. I can just finish my two minutes after.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and I’ll come right back to you. Okay, Council
Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ruggles, for allowing me this
opportunity. I just want to focus on this conversation. Part of my communication
did unfund those positions, but I also heard they just got filled. So clearly we’re
going to have to figure how to adjust this. I understand the Building Department
and how critical that is to our construction industry. So for me, it was really
challenging to take a look at that unfilled or vacant positions, and I can consider
moving monies around to get this position back in, because it goes back to the
narrative that I shared earlier. It’s the potential economic generation that those
positions, and the public safety piece, that compliment that narrative.
I also understand that we’re going to be looking forward at the FEMA (Federal
Emergency Management Agency) map edits to our Chapter 27 (Flood Control
Code) and Chapter 5, the Building Code. If these positions help accelerate that
where we’re becoming more efficient and it’s turning into a revenue generator,
that’s what I’m trying to get the Council to narrate. That we’re going to support a
budget that supports an economic generator. Which is why, you know, I
maintained so many positions at Real Property Tax, because that is our hugest
source of revenues.
But on the flipside of that, you guys have fees and costs that go with the permit
submittal, and that’s a ministerial edit, and maybe to take some pressure off of the
General Fund, this is a potential area where the department may need to
reconsider its fee structure for its electrical permit and building permit and
plumbing permit. But it’s going to have to be done in an efficient way. Nobody’s
going to want to pay more for a permit if it’s still taking four to six months.
Page 36
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
I have one project, it’s potentially bringing in $12 million to Kohala, and we’re
still waiting for those permits. Those are jobs, that’s education. This is
unconscionable, that a project that is about to inject that much money into our
community has to wait six months. So if I can get that honest commitment that
putting these positions back with the narrative of an economic generator that helps
the entire island, I’ll reconsider it.
So that’s what I really wanted to share about just this one area, and because it is
contained in my Communication 91.40, you know, we’ve got to get good. We’ve
got to get good, and we’ve got to show the community what they’re paying for
when we raise their taxes. So thank you. Thank you for the time, Ms. Ruggles. I
yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, the floor back to Council Member Ruggles, two
minutes.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. That’s all the questions that I have for you.
Thank you. I wanted to ask Department of Housing.
(Note: At this time, Housing Administrator Neil Gyotoku came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
MR. GYOTOKU: Hi, Neil Gyotoku, Housing Administrator.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the proposal
that would defund the position for a Special Program Coordinator for the Office
of Housing and Community Development.
MR. GYOTOKU: First of all, I’d like to let you know that—
MS. RUGGLES: It’s in Communication 91.41.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
MR. GYOTOKU: I was going to say, the Office of Housing received 91 percent
in federal funding. We’re funded 9 percent from the County. This position was
thrown into our department, it’s wasn’t directly related to homeless issues. I have
an Assistant Administrator whose pretty much doing all of the homeless issues
right now, has very little time to do anything about housing.
I think the intent of the position was to work with the different community
organizations, but also work with the State government and nonprofits and try to
see if we can direct Housing homeless funds to the County of Hawaiʻi and
develop a strategy that Mayor Kim is now working on.
Page 37
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: Okay. Yeah, I know that your department plays a very large
role in supporting homelessness and disadvantaged populations, so I just wanted
to make sure that we understand the impacts if we do defund it.
MR. GYOTOKU: And all of our positions are contractual. None of them are
Civil Service, so we have to go after the federal funds or State funds in order to do
our work. I think this position right now is becoming very important and critical
in our community in our efforts to address the homeless situation.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you. That’s all the questions that I have for now,
and I just appreciate the time, and everyone taking the time to better understand
the impacts of what we’re looking at right now.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I don’t have specific
questions for you. Thank you. But I just needed to—I’m not sure how we’re
going to be proceeding from now, because right now I’m confused. We’re doing
everything piecemeal. So what I would like to express though, is somewhat
similar to what Ms. Eoff is saying, you know, in looking at the Mayor’s budget,
and in talking with Finance and Real Property Tax, for me it seems like a lot of
time and energy was put forward because we have to entertain the possibility, or
not even the possibility, of raising taxes, that a lot of effort, and a lot of sincere
work was completed to come up with a plan. I appreciate all the other plans, and
all the other amendments coming forward, because this, to me, I didn’t put any
through, because I just had a difficult time, number one, juggling the numbers for
the real property tax, because it’s not as simple as I thought it was. After you
figure, well I’ll just raise these three or these four and decrease those, and it’s not
as simple as that.
So I appreciate all my colleagues’ work on trying to do that, but for me, I have a
real serious concern about unfunding positions or taking positions away from
departments. I know that the intent is honorable, but I really can’t justify my own
feelings that the departments know what their needs are in staffing. When I was
Deputy County Clerk, I know that because a position is open, and no one’s in
there yet, it’s because there’s a whole process that you have to go through in order
to find the person, in order to do whatever is required for interviews. Sometimes
you don’t find the right person. So there’s a lot of positions that are being
unfunded here, or at risk.
So I’m just waiting to see what the other discussions are going to be, and I’ll be
frank right now, I just don’t feel that I’m able to unfund anybody’s position at this
point in time, because this is a very sensitive area. I know we have to balance the
budget, and I don’t claim to know how to do it, I’m just looking at all my
colleagues’ proposals. If that would solve the problem, in my mind, if we unfund
Page 38
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
these positions or cut positions, then how do we beef up serving our community
with less personnel, more people, and more issues to solve. So this is a real hard
thing to do.
I hope we can—I’m not going to ask any departments any questions specifically
right now, but I’d like to, before we, Chair, that we figure out how we’re going to
address these amendments so that we don’t call the departments continuously to
discuss everybody’s, you know. And I think that’s all I need to say at this point
until we figure out how we’re going to proceed. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and if you want to, I mean, you know, we can start
looking at suggestions on how do we look at it. Do we pick one of the proposals
and start working on that and amendment it? Or do we take what we see from
each to start making a new amendment, that at one point we need to start getting
to that point. Because we all know what we have before us, so we need to start
making up our mind now. Do we start on something new? Do we take what the
Mayor has? Or do we use something that somebody has put forward and we build
on that? And that’s what we have to decide. Just to let the people in the public
know, we’re probably going to take a lunch at about 1:30. Right now is 12:36.
So we’re going to keep on going until about 1:30. We have fortunately some
things to snack on here to keep us working, so I just want to tell you. Your
stomachs might be growling, but we’re going to continue to work till about 1:30.
So is there any suggestions on—? Council Member Eoff. Do you have a
suggestion?
MS. EOFF: Yes, I’d like to ask Finance a question. It will help us to know how
to go forward I think.
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Collins Tomei and Deputy Finance
Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the
Council.)
MS. EOFF: Good morning, or afternoon. But first, I think we do need to know
which positions have been filled or are being interviewed for, because I don’t
think we want to go ahead and unfund those, but also, there’s some proposals that
we have here that have proposed to decrease people’s salaries. I think even
elected official’s salaries. So I’m remembering when a previous term and the
Mayor Kenoi was having to even give furloughs, or we were having to take
furloughs to balance the budget, and I think at that time he requested that he not
receive a raise because the Salary Commission had determined that he would get
a raise. And he wanted to not take that in order to show support for everybody to
have to give a little and help this situation we were in out, but he was told he
could not, and instead I think he donated that excess portion of his salaries to a
nonprofit or something.
Page 39
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
But how do we deal with some of these proposals that have suggested that we
decrease salaries and wages. Can we do that, or is that a no-no as well?
MS. SAKO: Human Resources and Corporation Counsel are here to answer that
question as well, but you know, we follow what the Salary Commission gives us,
or the Salary Ordinance, or whatever collective bargaining unit agreement, to do
payroll. So you know, unless we have an authorization from someone to decrease
someone’s pay, we have to pay in accordance with whatever the Salary
Commission assigns.
MS. EOFF: Okay, so that may affect some of the other proposals here that have
that built into them as we go forward. So maybe that can come up later and we
can ask HR or Corp. Counsel if that’s what you’re suggesting. Okay, thank you.
I guess my suggestion is just that we eliminate or we find out what—and maybe
Finance—do you have thoughts, are there some things in here that we should
absolutely not be doing? I know we have discretion to do what we need to do, but
there may be some legal problems. So maybe we should siphon those out first, so
that we don’t consider things that we really can’t do.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, so one concern is—I think each department has concerns with
positions and the various positions, but one of the proposals is to reduce the
external audit, and that would reduce it lower than the contract amount.
MS. EOFF: Do you know what proposals those are? Sorry.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, 91.40, yes. Sorry.
MS. EOFF: Okay. That’s okay, thanks.
MS. SAKO: We do get reimbursed by the Department of Water Supply, so even
though the contract is higher, Department of Water Supply pays their portion.
But in addition to the contract amount, there’s an agreed upon amount that if our
number of major programs in a single audit is more than three, then we have to
pay for those additional programs. So I would guess that we’re cutting it by
maybe $30,000 too much.
MS. EOFF: Thank you.
MS. SAKO: We have to do it per Charter, so that was the only thing I was
worried about.
Page 40
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: Right. I’m sure you’ve been taking notes on things you’ve heard, so
it would be helpful, I guess, for us to hear that now.
MR. TOMEI: Can I make a plug for the Finance Department?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah.
MR. TOMEI: There’s another position that was slated for, I guess, unfunding.
That’s for the Finance Risk Management position. Now that position just became
vacant about the end of April I believe. So the timeframe has been pretty short.
Like Councilman David mentioned, this takes time for us to find the right person.
Also, if you put the right person in there like we had, the last person that was in
there, they basically saved us the expenses of their salary almost every year, just
by looking for the best prices. This person is actually shopping for insurance
rates and handling the claims, and you know, the last guy that was there, Scott
Knowles, did a fantastic job. You know, I mean he sets the standard. So I’d like
to just ask consideration for that one. Just a heads up.
MS. EOFF: Do you know what communication that’s in?
MS. SAKO: I was going to say, I think that one was in a few of them.
MR. TOMEI: Then one more position for Finance. You know, we have an
Accountant V, and again, person basically is in the Accounts Division, and that—
I forget how many millions of dollars they actually process. You know, so it is a
very special person, but at the same time, we’ve been very selective about going
about the process. So your consideration.
MS. SAKO: In addition to that, what he just said, for the Accountant V, they
have been short staffed, because we tend to cut Finance more than other
departments over the years, and so we are running up against our deadline with
the ERS (Employee Retirement System) to be able to transmit all of our records to
them electronically. So we kind of need them full staffed right now so that we
can focus our attention on that additional project.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. So can I now call on Council Member Lee Loy,
because she was waiting for awhile.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I do want to start with
Mr. Chung’s resolution. I, from the business sector, support the idea that—and
frankly, families. Families who have checkbooks, they don’t spend and then
figure out how we’re going to get money. They get their check and then figure
out what bill to pay. I actually think this would be one honest step to really
having government live within a budget. So to help, you know, Ms. David with
the positions, and you know, how the departments know their department’s well, I
Page 41
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
often ask myself how do you eat a 491 million pound elephant. And the answer is
one bite at a time. So we have to take meaningful bites that will increase our
revenue source. So we’re back, that circular conversation of we need to make
sure our real property tax system is working effectively and creating the most
revenue that we can.
That was my primary focus. That was the narrative. Some of these other
positions, I can reconsider, but there are others. I really don’t want to, partly
because we’ve got to learn to start living within a budget. I’d like to see, for the
fiscal 2018-19 cycle, that we actually set that budget before we actually go
through this process. That’s food for thought for the next time around.
But speaking to my communication, which I think is similar to Mr. Kanuha’s
communication, just not as harsh. I’d like to kind of maybe ask my colleagues
that if we’re moving in a direction of funding or not funding and putting them into
areas that actually help our community in more meaningful ways like feeding our
kupuna with the Meals on Wheels program that we saw—that’s pulled out. Or
some of the other programs, like help with public safety in Puna. I’d really like to
see that happen. I will never forget that one testifier who said she and her
husband tag team staying home because they have a fear of what they come home
to. That type of fear where you start modifying your daily life is not a community
I want to have.
So for me, if we can start massaging some of this through Communication 91.40
and start directing some of the funds in an area that will have a meaningful
impact, and like Ms. O’Hara says has some measurable, I’d like to see that. But I
will stand in support of Mr. Chung’s resolutions. I think it sends a clear signal for
what lies ahead for us and sets the table for us for our budget in 2018 and 2019.
So again, I want to get to a narrative, shared sacrifice, economic revenue
potential, and taking care of areas that are as risk from the white house. Thank
you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We’re going to start round two. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Thank you, Chair. I just want to get back to what Ms. David said
about not really feeling comfortable with eliminating existing positions, some of
which have probably been filled since these documents were put together. We at
the Council are not the operating arm. That is the Administration, and I respect
what they do with positions. I’ve also watched over the last eight years as we
have defunded positions and eliminated positions. Yet in that time, our
population has continued to grow very rapidly. We’re at 200,000 people on this
island at this point in time, and they need the services that the County can and
should provide in an efficient and effective manner.
Page 42
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So the only positions or position that I am seriously tackling in terms of
potentially eliminating is a brand new position, and that is the Deputy Director for
IT. I do question whether that’s the most appropriate use of funds for the IT
Department. I don’t want to take the money away from the IT Department, I just
want them to think about the most effective way to spend it. We have not
considered, for instance, contract hire. Contract hire for special projects,
management. Finance had a position there too that they’ve added. These are
open for potential contracts and short term contracts, and it doesn’t load on the
benefits, it doesn’t load on the retirement, et cetera. So I want to be very careful
about adding on new high end positions. But I’m not going to try and tackle each
department and ask for reductions in pay or ask for people who—you know,
perhaps we should talk to them before we start reducing their pay. I don’t know
how the Mayor might feel about that, for instance. But it’s just not a direction
that I feel comfortable moving in.
I would also—I’ve said I support in concept Mr. Chung’s resolution, but I want it
to be a real promise. I don’t want it to be a false promise. Last time it was made
in 2013, it did not have any effect on the next year’s budget. So I don’t want
people expecting something that I can’t deliver on. So I’m very careful about
passing language like that. I don’t know that we can deliver on that. We can
contain the budget next year to remain within the amounts that we collect with
this advancement in property tax rates. And our property taxes are now
60 percent or more of the County’s revenue. We need to find other sources of
revenue. How many times have I tapped on that? Grants, we need a grant
position. It’s not our job as County Council to create positions, but I have begged
the Mayor to do that. That would be one new position that I would not tackle in
any way, because we need more grant writing at the County.
So we need alternative ways of funding County government. I’ve made several
suggestions that seem to have fallen on deaf ears, but I will continue to make
them, and ask for us to think more wisely about how we collect dollars, especially
through our visitor industry. A good example, we have this wonderful market out
in Puna, the Makuʻu Market. I suspect most of you may have visited it at one
time. It’s become a huge affair. So huge it’s creating traffic snarls on
Highway 130 on Sunday morning, but aside from that, they collect $1.00 for
parking. The place was just overrun. So what did they do, they increased the fare
to $2.00. It’s still overrun. There’s still a traffic snarl on Highway 130. It hasn’t
impacted attendance at the market one bit from what I can see.
So this is just a lesson in how we really need to re-focus where we collect our
revenues. So thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
Page 43
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. So what I am hearing is that we want to
establish how much we’re going to generate and then figure out the budget after
that. I think that’s what I’m hearing. I appreciate all the comments from
everybody. Also, I appreciate Council Woman O’Hara’s comment about not
making a hollow promise, which is why I did put forth an amendment on 293.5
that did exactly that, reverting back, because I’m serious about that. Council
Woman Lee Loy’s comments about living within our means is what we have to
do, fiscally responsible going forward. So I don’t want to sit here and go round
and round and round. We’ve got to move forward for a lot of different reasons.
Primarily for the County. If we don’t come up with a budget, we’re going to get
stuck.
So I’m thinking we establish what we’re going to generate, and my—as far as the
communications, I’m .40, or excuse me, .41, so I’m the other one of them that’s
cutting positions. Everything’s on the table as far as I’m concerned, when we’re
having this conversation. The intent was to come up with the modality to have
the conversation, to figure out what we need to do. It makes no sense to eliminate
a position that generates revenue. I makes no sense to cut a position that actually
helps us become more efficient. But we’ve still got to balance the budget
somewhere in there. So I’m thinking that we need to establish the revenue, then
look at our expenses, and then probably come back and look at our revenue one
more time. But we’ve got to start someplace, and we’re not starting either side.
So I would ask Chair that if we could come up and just start talking about some
values, whatever they happen to be and then talk story about them, which will
define what our revenues are, will then define what our expenses could be, then
look at it from that perspective. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. You know, actually I’m going to make a comment,
but I wanted to give an opportunity to maybe Mayor and his Managing Director,
to come up here and give us their thoughts, you know, right before lunch. Maybe
they can talk and we can get a glimpse into what’s in their mindset. So if I could
call them up.
But also, I wanted to address some of these other things regarding the positions.
In a way, I agree with Ms. David and Ms. Ruggles that the departments know
what they need, but if we take that approach, there’s really no end to, you know,
the expansion of government because they need so much, right. I just think with
regard to these positions, especially the new ones, of they’re not grant funded, the
better way to go would have been—and I say would have been because I didn’t
propose anything—but would have been to grab those funds, sequester them in
some kind of contingency for lack of a better term, contingency account with the
Council, and then after the budget is through, have the departments or the
Page 44
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Administration come up and individually explain the need for these positions,
instead of doing it en masse during the budget process. It just confused the hell
out of everybody, especially because we’re dealing with all of these collateral
issues like tax increases and stuff. So I just wanted to make that comment.
But anyway, I mean, Mayor and Wil, do you have anything to say, having listened
to this stuff so far?
(Note: At this time, Mayor Harry Kim and Managing Director Wil Okabe
came forward to address the members of the Council.)
MAYOR KIM: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chung. I know this will
sound like a superficial, but you know how long I’ve been in County government.
I really appreciate and enjoy this exchange. I think all of us have said it indirectly
a prior time, except for Sunshine Law, we wish we could do this openly, and just
have this exchange. I was listening to all of you, and counting the four new
members, thinking my goodness, the learning curve is this way, you know,
straight up, on the budgetary process. It’s not possible to learn all the
departmental kind of individual things and still trying to review it. So know what
I mean, and sincerely, I really appreciate this kind of back and forth. I wish it was
more back and forth because we can’t meet privately, we can’t have that.
But in regards to this, I want to harp on a couple of things here. I know how
difficult your task is. I want to harp on—I refrained from saying this all of this
time. All of this time means all of this time since I’ve been in government,
because you don’t want to sound like a braggart or any kind of thing, but this is in
context of a commitment to you. All of your concerns are, believe it or not, I
think you do, are shared with the people I hired to be your managers. And that’s
all they are. Every single one of them was handpicked by me, and I do mean
handpicked, for their management skills and their skills obviously of their
particular job. I think I shared almost everything you said as far as intent of what
you want us to accomplish. Naturally like everything else, we’re going to have
different viewpoints in how to approach it. But this is what we did, and I’ll go
specifically with what Mr. Chung has stated in regards to an amendment of the
resolution.
I asked each and every one of you, and I asked the Finance Director and Deputy
to prepare something for me to present to you. But I felt it was too much at this
time. The commitment to you and the people of this island that we all represent,
we are in a financial situation, I think we all know, we didn’t create. It’s a result
of all kinds of circumstances. Back in the year 2000 when I first came on board,
the situation was bad in regards to revenues versus expenditures. In eight years,
the first tax raise we made was because of an ungodly time of the 911 incident.
Our market, the economy crashed, and we could not even carry on the rest of the
fiscal year. So we had to come before the Council to raise taxes to balance the
Page 45
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
budget and to explain to the public this was not to increase services. This was to
carry on for the rest of the fiscal year where our projected expenditures were not
going to come through because of the crash in the economy. And we came in,
asking for, I think, my memory recollects, a little over $3 million. Kind of a small
amount when you look at it, and it was not an easy time, but our job was to
explain what it was for.
Please look at the records of what this County government did between 2000 and
2008. The same commitment that I will make to you. We know all of your
concerns are very valid of our responsibility in regards to revenues and
expenditures. You will look at the eight years, the only time we raised taxes was
doing that to balance the budget. If you look at those eight years, and we’ll
provide all of that information for you, you know it cannot be doctored in any
way. If you look at that eight years, the direct tax rate, as calculated by the
Government Accounting Standards Board as we call GASB, was the lowest this
County has ever seen, I think, in over 20-30 years. In comparison to before, in
comparison to now, because of the true commitment of we realizing that taxes and
expenditures have to be kept at the minimum. And as you say, Ms. Lee Loy,
directed towards making this in regards to economy-based and public protection
priority. Those were kept.
I know everyone talks about balanced budget, but take a look at how we spent
your money in the last two years in office. You will note there’s approximately
$26-$27 million that was there to spend. We did not spend it. We created, as
some of you may remember, the Rainy Day fund to keep aside for bad days. We
created more monies into the Emergency fund for bad days. We paid in advance,
before required by law, before required by law that no other county did in this
State, much less they didn’t pay. We paid approximately $24 million instead of
spending it.
That is our commitment to you. We are in a bad state now, of circumstances we
did not control. We tried to present to you and we stand by it, because they were
all told, even in those three positions, it is presented to you with the total
confidence this is to help us become a better place economically, financially,
socially.
Let’s take Jules’ position, Deputy. My goodness, I think that’s going to be one of
our better positions in regards to making us better, to help transit system because
of the skills there. To use in every single department to make us better, because
of the skills that she possesses. I commit to you, Mr. Chung, that is a
responsibility of what you say. We will aim for the same goals as we did in the
2000-2008 before you, for every year to present you a budget with those goals,
with every year and every day of financing, of managing. That’s all we are. We
are your managers of your will, and we’re doing it that way. Every single one of
us that works for you. We heard you, we hear you. As I told the radio station this
Page 46
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
morning, the process is before your hands. All cabinet members were stated this:
Whatever you ask, you will present it like, and the confidence, that this is
presented to the Supreme Court. To be able to justify every single thing we are
doing. There is nothing in here that we feel is unnecessary to do our job.
I’ll pick on one particular position, because we don’t put it on paper. The
consideration of taking away one of my executive assistants. I sit down and I
think personally, it’s not an unfunded position, it’s a position that is given to us as
far as a funded position. I did not fill it in a half a year because I wanted to save
some money, because you know we wanted that money for private consultants,
because I really needed them. I’ll take one that we talked about, Andy Levin’s.
Yes, it’s a high amount. I didn’t determine that pay, but that’s okay even if I did.
There are always things in our State Legislature that you and I face that is
anti-county government. Look at what they tried to do in the property tax, by
introductions of ordinances. To use our property tax to pay for education and
other things. We constantly have to be reviewing every single thing to make sure
we make our timely input. I have no regrets. But I have gratitude in regards to
having the position. But I decided I will not fill executive assistant, to make sure
that whatever money I use for that is kind of balanced out.
Obviously in regards to discussion of pay cuts, you and the public, the public
determines what I’m worth. I really feel I earn my pay like everybody else, but
whatever is decided is decided. I don’t even want to comment on that. I don’t
work for pay. You will decide what I should be paid, and that’s what I’ll get paid.
If I don’t like it, I quit, right? All of us have that option. If you don’t like it, if
you don’t pay me enough, you quit. It’s as simple as that to me, life is. I promise
you this, Mr. Chung, what you say in your resolution we should do. What you
say in your resolution we will do. We’re willing to work with anyone and
everyone to review how we spend your money, the reasons for what we spend. I
promise you that.
On that lady, in closing, from the transit that she gave me a bad time, she did give
me a bad time. But not really. She was impatient with us and rightfully so. I told
her, the goal is eight or nine for transit system. I hope to come back next year at
this time and tell you see, we made it better. I hope to come back next year and
tell that lady, “Hey, we hit the eight or nine.” Those are the kind of people we
selected to do your job that you willed us to do, and we will do our job.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Are you done? Okay. What I want to
suggest is, because what Council Member Richards said, is start working on our
revenues. So if we would come back from lunch and start working on
Resolution 213-17, and decide how we go through each of the—if you guys want
to go through each of the communications voting it up or down, or making
amendments to it. How do you want to proceed? Council Member Richards.
Page 47
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: If we go through each communication, we’re going to be
probably hand strung by time. So—
CHR. POINDEXTER: I’m talking about just the revenue piece. So we have like
two on the agenda, and then these here that, three. Because then it will force us to
start working on one. Because if not, we’re going to spend all night here.
MR. RICHARDS: So if we just grab one, and then grab something—go ahead,
Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR KIM: I’m sorry for interrupting. I just wanted to say in regards to
expenditures, in the paper if you look at one of the things it said, “Oh the amount
of people we hired,” we hired when the money was there. Not to raise taxes as
you’ll see. We did not, we decreased the taxes. But it was said that we hired
almost 300 police and fire in that two-year period. That’s our responsibility, to
take the money that is given to us and spend it in the best way possible, including
as we did, savings. But I am proud of the 300 police and fire. But in the paper,
you look, wow, we hired 300 or 500 people. I ask of you to please review where
we hired and when we hired.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, Council Member
Richards, you still have the floor.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. So I’m thinking if we just take one of the
proposals so we have something to discuss from, and then go—you know, we
only have nine rates that we need to discuss and if we can hit a consensus, I don’t
know—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Whose proposal?
MR. RICHARDS: Just on each rate, if we just take one, put it on the floor and
then we hit consensus. Affordable Rental, I think that’s going to be a pretty one,
because no one’s proposing any changes, and just march that way. That may be
the simplest.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and then I think we can work with, I think Finance
and Real Property Tax, they have their computers ready to go.
MR. RICHARDS: Right.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So I think we’ve had ample discussion on looking at all
what we have proposed, and we can move in that direction. Before we go to
lunch, I’m going to give—are you done?
Page 48
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I think we start, and just go point by point going down,
and strike a—because it’s going to be a consensus, compromise what we all think
we can hit, and then move forward. So yeah, I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: And then see if it’s workable with Finance and Real
Property Tax. I like that idea, but that’s what everybody needs to decide. Council
Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I really appreciate, I don’t know if it was Finance or Clerk’s
Office, whoever did this chart. It has the Mayor’s proposed rates, and then I think
all the four Council Members who have proposed alternative rates are in this
simple table. Someplace, you found it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I have an extra if you need one.
MS. O’HARA: Okay, but we can stop and make copies. And there is, as
Mr. Richards points out, a difference in the proposed sums. We did, for whatever
reason, the proposed rates did—oh here it is. Mayor’s proposal is at the bottom,
okay. I’m all for what Councilman just suggested. We need to set the revenues
and then we need to look at the expense side. My concern with these four
alternatives, mine’s one of them and Councilman Richards, Councilman Kanuha,
and Council Woman Ruggles is, I understand that Ms. Ruggles proposal is based
on property tax exemption increases that we don’t even have a bill in front of us.
So it’s going to be very hard to approve them because we don’t have any
written—we have apparently a draft that was handed to us, but it’s not numbered
and it’s not submitted for consideration at this point in time. So I’m
understanding we have a hard time here with that fourth column, because it has—
it’s predicated on another bill that has yet to come forward. So that’s going to
make that a little difficult to maneuver through. So I’m just pointing that out
because I see that as being problematic. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: And we need to be cautious on that, because it’s a bill
that’s not before us yet, so we’re not supposed to be discussing—you know, that
would be a Sunshine violation. We could ask our Corp. Counsel on that, but I
would be very, very cautious on how we’d proceed. I know that it was passed
out, but be very careful on how it’s presented, because like you said, it has not
been processed, and we may be violating the Sunshine Law in that respect.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so before we break for lunch, Council Member
Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thanks. I just wanted an opportunity to respond. So just so
you’re aware, so I’m not going to talk about the content of the bill. I would refer
to it. The bill—we’ve worked on this for about a month. It was submitted to
LRB, and this is the third and final draft, which is what is before you, which a
Page 49
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
constituent requested and I sent to them, and they gave it to you all as a part of
their testimony. So you can see it, maybe we just can’t discuss it yet.
CHR. POINDEXTER: But it’s not numbered for us, so it’s not public yet.
MS. O’HARA: Am I correct in assuming that it’s not something that we can give
consideration to today? Am I right there?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah. We cannot. Clerk, right? We cannot give
consideration to that bill because it has not been properly processed and numbered
and given to the public as well. Yeah, according to the rules. But I think you can
briefly—I don’t know. Be careful. What I would do is I would definitely speak
with the Clerk when we go to lunch and see how you can present or what you can
present or refer to, instead of talking about the bill itself, because of the Sunshine.
Yeah, I actually would say talk with our Corp. Counsel.
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, I’ve spoken with the Clerk about it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think speak with our Corp. Counsel. That would be the
best, I think, before we go to lunch. So when you come back, you know how to
present it. Or what to present.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. So can we take—so we’re going to be ready to
work on this when we get back from lunch, I would say at 1:30—I mean 2:30, I’m
sorry. It’s unusual that we take a 1:30 lunch. But anyway, okay, so we’re going
to recess until—is everybody okay with coming back at 2:30 and just—the reason
I wanted 2:30 is because Council Member Chung will be back at about 2:30 and I
really need him to be a part—all nine to be part of that discussion. So if you bear
with us, we’ll be back at 2:30. So we are in recess.
Recess: At 1:15 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:45 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I’m calling this meeting back to order. Okay, when we
left, we said we were going to come back and start working on the property taxes.
Talking with Deanna, it would be best to start working on addressing Bill 35,
which is the minimum tax, and addressing Bill 36 as well, which may have an
impact on the real property tax. So Deanna, do you want to come up here? Then
I’m going to ask, I think Council Member Richards, do you want to start your
discussion? Okay, Council Member Richards.
Page 50
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair, Deputy. Concerning the proposals for the
increased minimum tax, could you just give us a summary overview of what
we’re talking about? Where it is now, and where it may be if we go to the
proposed, please?
MS. SAKO: Good afternoon, I think. So when we submitted the Mayor’s
proposed rates, we also submitted the bill to increase the minimum tax to $200
and the various levels. And based on that, our minimum tax increase was $3
million. So I kind of revised over lunch time the real property tax calculator we
had passed out to you to include a line for the minimum tax and a line for the age
exemptions. If we’re trying to shoot for how much total revenue we need, it
might be helpful to at least see if we have a consensus one way or another, if
we’re going with minimum tax, before you go class by class and try and set the
rates.
In addition, we took an average based on someone’s suggestion, and passed that
out as well, just as a starting point.
MR. RICHARDS: So am I understanding correctly, with the minimum tax of
$200, plus the exemptions, roughly speaking that is an increased total revenue of
about $3 million?
MS. SAKO: The min tax is $3 million, then minus $450,000 for the age
exemptions that were proposed.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so then we have a net of about $2.5 million, is that
correct?
MS. SAKO: Yes.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so then my understanding, Chair, what we need to do is
decide if this is the first avenue we want to walk down, if we accept this as a
proposal, then we can start looking at our revenue stream. We can always come
back and talk story about if we take that out, but we know the magic number there
is $2.5 million, that is plus or minus.
MS. SAKO: Yes, and I did work that into the worksheet too, so we can have that
up on the screen whenever you guys are ready.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so and then—Chair, how do you want to proceed?
Should we discuss that first and then talk about the tax rates?
Page 51
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah. Is there any other discussion on it before we start
talking about the tax rates? I mean the minimum tax. Is there any further
discussion before we just—?
MR. RICHARDS: I think in reference, and I’ll just start the conversation. Since
this has been a proposal coming forward, and I think we as a Council should
consider all the proposals coming forward, realizing we don’t have to—every
detail of every proposal. But this is kind of a big one, so I think if we start the
conversation by saying, okay, we’ll accept the flat tax, the minimum tax, with the
exemption, that tells us where we are, then we can move in. I mean, if that’s okay
with everybody. We’re not agreeing to anything right now. We’re just agreeing
to explore the possibilities.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Are we discussing the minimum tax bill now, or do we need to
read it in?
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, we’re—yeah, we’re not going to motion anything in,
because we want to be able to be flexible to go in between. So, okay, Council
Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Yes Council Woman, I think what we’re trying to do now is
what-if. What if we have this, what would be the effect? What if, what if. And
these are conversations we have to have here because we’re not allowed to have
them other where. So if we start that way, then we can start talking about the
different tax rates.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and we can’t see that up on the screen. I wonder if
we could—? Is there any way to put it on this one here? Oh well, cannot see that
one either. What if we put Stan on the smaller screen, and then we do—if you
can enlarge it a little bit? Is there any way we can—oh, I think Deanna, you’re
going to have to do that. Look at the Excel screen. Oh, that’s good. Then you’ve
just got to move it around? Oh boy, okay. I think that’s good right there. Can
everybody see that? Okay, Council Member Ruggles has her light on. Go ahead.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I oppose raising the minimum tax. When we’re
looking at what-if scenarios, the minimum tax currently is being used by 50,000
and 188 parcels on the island, out of 140,000. So 35 percent of our property
owners currently are qualifying for the minimum tax. The minimum tax is meant
for people, is for property values with really low values. Disabled veterans, and
nonprofits. I personally think that doubling it, a full 100 percent increase, on
disabled veterans, nonprofit, and very poor people, is inappropriate and
unnecessary. We’d be increasing it for 35 percent of the property owners on our
island, and my comprehensive tax plan makes this unnecessary. Thank you.
Page 52
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. O’HARA: I appreciate the comments on the minimum tax, but we need to
consider actual values, and we’re currently charging $50, $75, and $100 as
minimum tax rates for the various classes that apply. So a doubling of that is still
a small number. We’re talking $100, $150, and $200. Now I’m not trying to
minimize the impact on certain households, that it’s going to be difficult on
certain households, but it is still when you break it down to monthly amount, even
if you’re paying the $100 minimum tax rate now, which is under $10 a month, it’s
still going to be well under $20 a month.
Again, I’m not minimizing the impact on certain households of $20 a month, but I
think this is not unreasonable. Our tax rates are extremely low relative to any
other municipality. If you look at it relative to the average rates on say the
mainland, we’re at less than 80 percent. So I don’t know that I feel that it is
excessive to consider this. There may be other ways to give back, but I don’t
think that it should be done in the manner of not raising the minimum tax.
So I actually think I will be supporting this at this point in time, unless I hear
anything else today that makes me feel otherwise. But I think there are ways to
give back to the homeowners that perhaps we can look at. I’ve talked to the Chair
already about needing to do a task force or ad hoc committee to do a complete
overhaul of our real property tax system classes. It’s not satisfactory currently.
We’re missing some classes that other counties locally have such as short term
vacation rentals, B and B’s. There’s things that need to be revised, and drastically
revised in our tax code. It hasn’t been done in 30 years. It’s been talked about for
20 years. There was a task force formed in 2012 that brought us a report, and we
haven’t even followed through with those recommendations and I think that it’s
high time that we do, because it’s just getting worse as we go forward, because
many of the exemptions are stated in nominal dollars and for anyone that is
aware, the value of the dollar changes. There’s the time value of money, and
$40,000, which was the exemption that was set in 1987 for homeowners, is now
worth $80,000 in today’s dollars.
So we really need a complete revision to the tax code. So I don’t think we can
accomplish that this afternoon, and I know that Ms. Ruggles has some ideas, but
they aren’t before us for consideration today because the bill is not before us. So
I would encourage the creation of a task force to do that and work on it with a
measured and reasonable approach to performing. Because it’s real easy to miss
perverse incentives. We put them before us, we think it’s going to be good, but
we haven’t really considered all scenarios. So I really think it’s going to take time
for us to do that properly, and that’s what I would like to do. Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Council Member David.
Page 53
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. DAVID: Thank you. Considering the input thus far, I think it’s a reasonable
position to take, because we all recognize that our tax rates have to be overhauled.
It’s not going to happen like Ms. O’Hara said, but I visualize this minimum tax as
something that will impact some of our people more than others. Like individuals
as opposed to nonprofits. So if this minimum tax is an impact on nonprofits, I see
that nonprofits have the ability to apply for grants and that sort of thing. The
concern I have is yes, on the individuals that are going to be taxed this minimum
rate. But along those lines, I have to agree that I think, no reflection on
individuals, it seems like a lot when you just look at percentages. But when you
look at the amount and you disperse them out throughout the year on a monthly
basis, I think I can more or less accept that for now. Because later on I think
besides the minimum tax I think we have to look at everything in getting our
rates, developing proper or at least fair rates that take into account a lot of things
that happened over the last 30 years.
I also feel that once the task force is formed and these numbers might change.
We can always revert them back to what it was, because now we have something
to go by. Right now it’s everybody’s best guess. So based on that, because I
think we have an opportunity, if that’s all that comes out of this all day meeting,
that we all agree we have to do something, and it’s done, and we can have
measureables after that, then we can adjust it in the next budget cycle.
So give that, I would tend to support the minimum tax at this point. So mahalo, I
yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Anyone else for the first round before we
start going—? Okay, Council Member Eoff and then Council Member Chung.
MS. EOFF: Yes, I’d like to ask Deanna a question. What is the threshold a
property reaches when it qualifies only to pay the minimum?
MS. SAKO: So we have the tiered as well. So a homeowner’s parcel that has a
value of $25,000 or less pays $25 right now.
MS. EOFF: After the exemptions that they—
MS. SAKO: Right, after the exemptions. Then if it’s $50,000 or less, right now
they pay $50; $75,000 or less, they pay $75; and $100,000 or more, they pay the
$100 right now. Each of those tiers is doubling, so now they would go up to
$200.
MS. EOFF: Do you know how many—I mean Jen stated how many properties
are now paying minimum, but do you know how many are valued around
$100,000 that are paying minimum?
Page 54
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: We had roughly 30,000-some parcels on minimum, and the 50,000
is with this increase. The proposed increase.
MS. EOFF: So how long has the minimum been $100?
MS. SAKO: It went to $100 in Fiscal Year 2003, and then it went to that tiered
rate in Fiscal Year 2004.
MS. EOFF: Oh, and that was to be able to give some people a further break.
MS. SAKO: Further break, right.
MS. EOFF: Most of the—I know we were concerned about the disabled veterans
and we don’t want to, you know, displace anybody out of their households. Do
you have a way of knowing if those people are really vulnerable in this scenario?
MS. SAKO: I’m not sure if I can tell from what I have.
MS. EOFF: It seems to me that although it is 100 percent increase, that the dollar
amount, especially someone whose property is valued at $100,000, we’re
hopefully not going to displace that person from being able to afford to keep their
house. Now why I tend to support it is because I feel that all of these people who
live on these properties are utilizing our County services, our roads. They need
the same services that everybody else needs who are basically paying a lot more
than that. So in the effort to really be fair, I tend to support—and because it’s
been so long. It seems like the value of a dollar or $100 has changed over this
many years.
So and I think what Ms. David stated was important, because if we do this in
order to balance this budget, we can always revisit it, if we tend to find ways to
bring in additional income in the following year. So that would be my take on it
at this point. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. Deanna, you know, I’m looking at the language of
this thing again. What exactly is meant by “property with improvements?” I
mean, are we just talking about property along with any improvements, or is it
only improvement we’re talking about?
MS. SAKO: Well, it’s people have the homeowner exemption, so they have some
kind of home or structure that they live in, yes.
Page 55
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: Right. So why don’t we just say “property.” Because I hope you
understand where my confusion here. Is it the improvements that are assessed at
a certain amount, or is it the entire property?
MS. SAKO: It’s the entire property. But I believe to get the homeowner
exemption you have to have an improvement on your property.
MR. CHUNG: But it already says they have the homeowner exemption, so that
already assumed they have improvements. I don’t want to nitpick this thing, but I
just want to understand how your department is applying this. So it’s not just the
improvements we’re talking about, we’re talking about the property. It’s the
entire property, right? Including improvements. Alright.
MS. SAKO: It’s the entire property. Yes.
MR. CHUNG: So then, and maybe we have this information someplace, but if
we do I’m going to ask it again. Let’s start with number (2), “If property is
assessed with a market value of less than or equal to $500 . . . ” how many
properties do we have on the island that fall under that category, more or less?
MS. SAKO: Two thousand one hundred and sixty-three (2,163).
MR. CHUNG: Okay, then for the properties, up to $25,000? And this is going to
get us up to $50,000, right, the amount that Ms. Ruggles brought up?
MS. SAKO: Well we think so, yes. Okay, so then, I’m sorry, which category did
you ask about?
MR. CHUNG: Up to $25,000.
MS. SAKO: Three hundred and thirty-five (335).
MR. CHUNG: Then the next one, $25,000 to $50,000?
MS. SAKO: Five hundred seventy-eight (578); and then 1,526; and then the ones
that fall into that same category in the homeowner classification that would get
taxed at $200 now instead of $100, is 5,731. Then there are 39,692 parcels that
are not homeowner or veterans that also get minimum tax. Most of them are
agriculture parcels.
MR. CHUNG: Okay. With improvements on them, as far as you know?
MS. SAKO: The ag parcels? No, I cannot tell. Actually, a lot of those are
probably unimproved parcels.
Page 56
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: Unimproved. So we’re talking about homes generally, about
10,000 homes.
MS. SAKO: Eight thousand. The 2,163 are parcels less than $500.
MR. CHUNG: Oh, okay. I see. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be—
MS. SAKO: Those that are less than $500 are—well, also termed waste parcels,
and many of those are inundated with lava.
MR. CHUNG: Okay. Alright, I just wanted that for background. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Aaron just went through exactly what I was
going to ask. But Deanna, you just mentioned too that there was a number of
parcels that are inundated by lava that have just the basic minimal tax. How many
lots are those?
MS. SAKO: The ones that are less than $500 that we’re recommending go to
zero are 2,163 lots. I may have said at another reading, but just in case I didn’t,
it’s just the effort to bill and then actually not collect, because a lot of those
people don’t pay. We could foreclose on them, but we can’t even get the upset
price to make up those past due taxes. So It’s really kind of inefficient, and
wasteful, yes.
MS. LEE LOY: Mr. Chung, thank you for just kind of really driving home the
impacts. I’m inclined to support the minimum tax, because like Ms. Eoff said,
most of these people are receiving a benefit by throwing away their rubbish and
driving on our roads that far exceed this minimum. And being subsidized with so
many other services that the County already provides, far beyond this $200, which
I think it translates to $16 a month, it’s just common sense. You know, all of our
County services cost something, and I want to protect the most vulnerable, but the
information that Deanna just laid out for us really indicates that there’s a sliding
scale here, and they still in some level, shape or form, will receive some waiver or
some level of subsidy. That’s where I’m at. I appreciate everybody else’s
thoughts on this. It just makes sense. So thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to remind. Conversation is
great, what we’re trying to do is get an understanding. So this isn’t we’re not
supporting or going against anything right now. We’re getting a sense of what
this is going to do to our budget as a whole. So this is a what-if scenario. I would
ask we don’t get stuck in the weeds right now. Let’s get on, see what Finance can
Page 57
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
say about this. We know we have about a $2.5 million change in what revenues
will be, so I’m thinking if she can present to us what this will do as far as the
income stream overall, later on we can come back and visit the conversation as
whether or not the minimum tax should be adjusted. Is that okay, Chair?
MS. SAKO: I was just going to add one thing. Once you kind of set where you
think the rates are going to be, while you’re working on the expenditure side,
we’re going to have our staff run the actual min tax calculation to see if we come
out where we think we’re coming out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay with that then, Deputy, I would ask that—and you gave
us a quick talk story right before we broke for lunch—I had asked could we put
together an average for this. So you did put together a spreadsheet for us. Could
you just run through that and talk to us about that? Just briefly. Again, we’ve got
to figure out where we’re starting from.
MS. SAKO: So basically, there were the Mayor’s proposed budget as well as
four amendments to the rates. So I took actually just a straight average of those
rates, and that’s what’s in the last column to the right, and the revenue it would
generate, and the additional $815,000. But when you actually look at the
spreadsheet I did, I actually rounded up, like the Residential to $10.95.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, it somehow went off the screen, but I was trying to
tell Karen that was the number. The average number was what you plugged in,
yeah?
MS. SAKO: Yes. So I put in the average numbers. I did round up because we
live the five and zeroes. I rounded up or rounded down, whichever I thought was
closest. In the homeowner case, I rounded down because it generally seemed like
most of the proposals wanted to reduce homeowners. So just as a starting point,
that’s what’s screen. And I think on the screen, let me flip over that, we actually
come out, with the rounding, to $883,000 extra, then we would need to increase or
decrease the PONC (Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Fund).
But you guys can go ahead and work through it and we’ll update numbers as we
go.
MR. RICHARDS: Chair, should I continue?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes, please.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So my proposal is the lowest. So obviously I’m least
favorable of going for an upper end. But I realize that this is going to be a
compromise. We’re going to have to work out a situation. So I think probably
Page 58
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
the easiest way, if we go line by line and get a sensing from people what we could
or could not live with. Deanna, can we update this so we know, as I’m reading
now, this looks like we’ve got $820,000 more than the initial proposal by the
Mayor, is that correct? Okay. So Chair I guess I’ll bring this back to you. If we
go line by line, I think if we start with Affordable Rental Housing, that’s an easy
one since there’s no changes there. Do you want to do that?
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, do you want to continue with the discussion?
MR. RICHARDS: I can if you want me to.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Or do you, Eileen do you—I mean, he still has time on
his—
MR. RICHARDS: No, I just—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, you want to yield?
MR. RICHARDS: To me this is a talk story, and I just want to get the process
going. So Affordable Rental Housing is $6.15. That’s what it is, no one proposed
any changes on that. I assume we’re all in favor of just leaving it where it is.
Okay. So one down.
Then we could start, I guess the easiest way is to just start at the top. We have a
proposed rate that currently it’s at $10.05. The proposed was $10.70, then we
have a spectrum from $10.50 up to $11.70, which an average of $10.95. How are
people feeling? More or less? And I think, Chair, I think this is where we need to
have the true conversation.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. So if you want to just finish up your thoughts on
that, then I can call on another Council Member.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so I would prefer Residential to be lower than this. I
think we need to be mindful. In my mind and in our constituents’ that’s where I
recommended a throttling back on that. I can live with some increase, and I’m
willing to support that, again, looking at the range. But I would like a bit lower
that what we have there, even if we go to the Mayor’s proposed rate of $10.70. I
yield.
Page 59
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara, did you—no? Okay, anyone
else, or do I give it back to Tim if he wants to continue giving your opinion? Or
anybody else? Oh, Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: I was just asking if we went back to the $10.70 if the $815,000
might.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so she’ll plug it in for you and then you can see the
change automatically.
MS. SAKO: Then we’ll be short $1.3 million roughly.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff, you still have the floor, or if you
want me to go back to Council Member Richards?
MS. EOFF: Oh no. You can go back. That was just—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Again, I don’t think we’re trying to balance the budget on
each time we take a bite. I think what we’re trying to do is look at the—and this
is how I’m viewing it—look at the proposed rate and put it in context in your own
self, are we going to accept this rate, does it seem reasonable or not? Don’t look
at the, necessarily, the total numbers at the end right yet. We’ll come to that, but
we’ve got to look at the rate in and of themselves, I think. That’s how I’ve done
this in the past.
MS. EOFF: And I did have the same concerns as Mr. Richards when I was trying
to work with these numbers, because Residential is the hugest income class, so
any little change you make to it goes up or down quite a bit. It’s really hard to
work with that one. But in theory, I feel like if we raise it too much, we may be
forcing people who do have second homes that they rent out to residents who
want to live here, may force raising their rents, and I don’t want to see that
happen. So I understand the dilemma with that class.
MR. RICHARDS: Again, I think if we go through and look at the averages that
are proposed and just take a rapid, quick blush, do we like this, do we not like
this, and try and adjust a little bit. Because if not, if we got bogged down to argue
each point, we’re not going to get through this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, let’s go then, the line by line, and then we’ll see
what that number at the bottom turns out to be, and then we’ll see where we can
either increase or decrease or whatever, massage it.
Page 60
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. O’HARA: This is a great exercise, and I see where you’re going with it,
Tim, and I think we’re going to have to go through the whole column, all nine
classes, to see where we’re at. I just wanted to point out I dropped a
non-numbered communication on your desks after lunch, because I was
concerned about the Residential class. It’s not just people with second homes. It
is the basis of our rental community as well as Apartment class, which my district
has zero. But anyway, the impact is at the bottom of that page. If you look at the
average assessed value for a three bedroom or a home in Kailua-Kona where rents
are very, very tight. Very, very hard to find a rental, and what the impacts would
be under the Mayor’s plan, under the plan that I proposed, and under the plan that
Ms. Ruggles proposed in terms of the additional tax liability per month. Now that
lands on the landlord, but it gets passed on to the renter. So just to take a glance
at that, it’s what the current rates in the proposals would effect, $27 per month for
the Mayor’s plan, $35 a month for mine, and $68 per month for Ms. Ruggles’
plan. Just to give you some context, because that is a very big impact of the
Residential/Apartment classes. When you raise the rates, it carries over to the
renters, who on this island and in your district, are 40 percent of the households,
so it’s significant.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I just had a thought, amazingly. I just want
to be comparing apples with apples. My concern is in this average, it includes
Ms. Ruggles’ proposals, but she did not include the minimum tax. So I almost
feel to some degree we’re going to go through this exercise, but the average are
comparing apples with orangutans. I say that because one proposal that’s out
there doesn’t include the minimum tax. Like Mr. Richards is saying, at first
blush, yeah, some of it is acceptable to us. But other areas are really being driven
up, because we have one proposal that isn’t comparable with everybody else’s
proposal. Deanna, your thoughts.
MS. SAKO: I was going to say, it’s not only the min tax, but I think that was also
the proposal that generated a lot of excess revenue. So that’s one thing to keep in
mind. However, by—just however it worked out when we did take the averages
we were close to the target, but definitely that’s what’s up for discussion amongst
all of you is, you know, which classes should be impacted the most.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member you still have the floor.
MS. LEE LOY: I just want to keep that in everybody’s mind that, you know, we
may be getting a little far down a path when we’re not comparing similar
proposals. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Deanna, do you have the spreadsheet on your computer?
Because I’m just thinking, I wonder if you can run an average proposed rates in
Page 61
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
between the column for Richards and Ruggles, and you can still have that average
proposed rates. I know you’re going to have to change the calculation for that
average of proposed rates at the very end to not include the average proposed
rates that you’ll put in between.
MS. SAKO: So just to clarify, we want an average of the first three, right?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, from hearing the discussion, maybe we should look
at that average and still leave the overall average of proposed rates.
MR. RICHARDS: Can I comment?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, okay, Council Member Richards, while Deanna’s
working on it.
MR. RICHARDS: I think that makes all the sense in the world because then we
can look at Council Woman Ruggles’ perspective and we can temper these.
Because if we take the average of the four, see what it does to the overall real tax
generation and then look at it and then put those numbers in perspective using
Council Woman Ruggles’ numbers, that’s where the massaging can start. So that
gives us at least a starting place.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, copy and fill down.
MS. SAKO: For Residential, it comes out to $10.75; Affordable Rental, $6.15,
stays the same; Apartment, $11.54; Hotel and Resort, $11.54; Commercial,
$10.70; Industrial, $10.70; Ag, $9.74; Conservation, $11.50; and Homeowner,
$6.31.
CHR. POINDEXTER: And the bottom line from that?
MS. SAKO: I have to go plug it in. Just a second.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Drum roll, please. Oh, we’re short.
MS. SAKO: We’re short about $1.8 million. The total before min tax is
$295,772,389.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any suggestion on increasing another area?
Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Once again, this is a what-if scenario. We run through the
what-if. Once we agree that this is livable or not livable, then we go look at the
expense side. Because is the intent to continue on with the level of the expenses
on that side, or are we going to throttle back a little bit. Then we can come back
Page 62
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
and visit this. I think once we get to an area that is reasonable, then we can look
at the expense side. That’s how I’m thinking, the direction we’re headed.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Just to be consistent, we have now figured what, Residential at
$10.75? If we raise Industrial and Commercial to $10.75, where does that leave
us in terms of the total? Just curious.
MS SAKO: We’re $1.63 (million) short.
MS. O’HARA: Well, it’s nice to have some consistency in the rates. You’ve got
$11.55, $11.55, then $11.50 for Conservation. Maybe Conservation needs to be
raised up to $11.55.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can you try to plug that in?
MS. SAKO: We’re at $1.647 (million).
MS. O’HARA: Now raise the Homeowners to $6.35.
MS. SAKO: Now we’re $1.3 million short.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Again this is the what-if. We’re not agreeing to or disagreeing
to. We’re just what-if. So now we know, based upon these numbers that we can
look at, going forward. Now we haven’t dealt with Council Woman Ruggles’
perspective on this as of yet either. So that needs to be attended to. But then I
think from here if we look at the expense side and see where we are with that, and
if we decide that we need more funds, and then come back and look at this side.
But I think going through the exercise of figuring out what is reasonable rather
than trying to adjust our income to our expenses, we need to try and adjust our
expenses to our income.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. So do you have the spreadsheet for the expenses?
Because I know in the discussion a lot of us talked about not funding any new
positions. We had some big ticket items, I think, with the deputy, the homeless
specialist, and I forget what the other one was too. I mean, we had several. So if
we can get that spreadsheet up, then we can start to look at talking about reducing
it and see where that brings the expenses.
MS. SAKO: Nancy’s going to bring her worksheet up, but if you want to go
ahead and start talking, we can go ahead and stick it in.
Page 63
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, who wants to go first? Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Again, just for conversation purposes, I like
where this is headed. I like the idea of setting our revenue and now discussing
our expenditures. I had done the exercise already related to new requests. I
believe that number was at about $800,000. So we’re closing the gap. If there is
the idea of, you know, maybe we’re going to hold off on some new positions but
leave the ones for the departments, I think we are closing the gap. Then there’s
the other areas where we can start to whittle away. But I’ll let Deanna and Nancy
come up with that final number, but I did go through that exercise. So just so we
can keep the conversation going. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. On some positions, I mean, I don’t have to go into
the details, all the ones that I put on the list to be slashed, but just the basic ones,
the additional positions, I think for myself I wouldn’t be supporting any additional
positions, except for the ones that I think were—I think the Prosecutor, that they
were tied to the funding. They had it already or they were just changing the title
or something. So that’s just easy for me to say right now.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, a couple may have been filled.
MR. KANUHA: The new positions that they’re adding? How can they fill them
if they’re not even budgeted?
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think what they said was vacant. If I’m not mistaken
DPW said they had vacant positions. It wasn’t creating new positions, so if
you’re talking about—
MR. KANUHA: Oh no. Just basically to start it off, the new positions that were
added with this supplemental budget.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so those newly added positions. There was a total
of five, six?
MS. EOFF: Madam Chair?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Of the newly proposed to create positions, I think one was grant
funded and one was mandated. So I don’t know if that only leaves—how many
left? Of the proposed new positions, I believe one was grant funded and one was
mandated. Is that true?
Page 64
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: Can I—? Do you guys mind if I say something? Okay, so for
Aging, that was a grant. Two of those, the two Aging and Disability Services
Specialist positions were grant funded. Civil Defense is creating the Program
Manager for the Radio Program; however, the funding was in the budget both last
year and this year. It was just as a contract hire. We just want to continue it on as
a permanent position. Then Environmental Management, the first one for Solid
Waste is a grant funded position. So we need to create it, but it came with grant
funding. The Wastewater Clerk III is a new position. Housing, the Special
Program Coordinator for Homeless is a new position. IT, the Deputy Director is a
new position. The Finance, Real Property Tax Valuation Analyst is a new
position created for a specific purpose. Then Transit, the Program Manager,
that’s a federal requirement. Again, that was a position that we had the funding in
last year, we’re just actually creating a position. It was a contract hire previously.
Then for Public Works, the Arborist, the funding was put into last year’s budget
by the Council, and we’re just creating the position this year.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So is that just four of them?
MS. SAKO: Four new positions, yes.
MS. EOFF: So the four would be the Wastewater, the Homeless Coordinator, the
Deputy Director, and the RPT evaluator.
MS. SAKO: Yes.
MS. EOFF: I see the justification and the need for those; however, I think we
might be able to delete a couple of those. I kind of believe that the analyst in the
Real Property Tax Office would be some income generation. That’s what I’ve
understood, and I would like to believe that would help us in the long run. So that
might take us down to just two.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think three. It leaves it at three, Wastewater, Homeless
Coordinator, and Deputy Director, and IT Deputy Director. So that would be
three. Do you guys want to take it out of that budget, expenses and see what we
come up to? I mean, Council Member Kanuha had taken that out, Council
Member Lee Loy had that out, I think Council Member Richards had it out, I
don’t know, I think Council Member O’Hara may have had that out as well.
MS. O’HARA: Actually I didn’t. I removed the position but I didn’t remove the
funding. The funding remained in the department because they may need to use
contract hire for what they need to do.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so can we see what the saving would be from those
suggestions?
Page 65
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
(Note: At this time, Budget Administrator Nancy Kelly came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MS. KELLY: The savings is $174, 112.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, $174, 112.
MS. EOFF: That’s a big decision, which way to go.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, then if you listen to some of the discussion that was
early on, do you fund, like what Council Member Lee Loy was saying, put the
funds in some other area which is a priority. But that’s up to you guys. I’m just
tossing that out.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, which goes back to my narrative, right? As a Council we
have to begin to decide what to do with the positions. I’m of the mindset, you
know, we have to protect our largest revenue source, and that is the real property
tax.
I’m going to go back to, this was in 2012, the recommendations are very clear and
articulated. Ms. O’Hara touched upon it a little while ago, you know, that task
force. I believe it was Nancy Crawford who actually started the task force. But
after she left and Deanna took over, some of the things fell by the wayside just
because, you know, there was different goals and priorities at that time. I just
think it’s extremely critical that we maintain those positions, because they’re the
ones who are going to refine, retool, revise these class properties and make them
more effective and more efficient for us.
So again, sticking to the narrative of income generating positions, I can support
those. Then even like Ms. O’Hara’s talking about and some of the other Council
Members, the measurable. What position translates into moving this County
forward in a meaningful way.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Anyone else? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I’d like to ask the Clerk a question, because this is really all very
difficult for me to absorb. You know, we have a number of communications
before us, right? I know different suggestions are being brought up about, well,
what if we take away this, take away this, take away this? What’s going to be the
mechanism for us to do something like that? Because we’re working in the
context of communications that have been submitted, but they’re not broken up
into individual positions. They’re all in a group. How do we do that, if we
choose to go that route?
Page 66
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. HENRICKS: I believe the intent was to somehow come up with a consensus
and then create a document that expressed—
MR. CHUNG: A new one?
MR. HENRICKS: It would be a new document that would that consensus.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, so after the discussion, we’re going to come up with—staff
is going to go prepare a document, bring it up?
MR. HENRICKS: Assuming the discussion leads to something that is
developable.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, because we could have either chosen to work on
either anyone’s communication and select that one and move on, or create our
own. I think the body had decided to start creating your own after lunch. So
okay, next? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I see the beauty of what’s going on. This is like a working group.
It’s going to take all year. We’re going to go nowhere fast, you know, going like
this I tell you. First I think what we have to do is—and I know each of the
persons who introduced resolutions or amendments to the rate increase:
Mr. Kanuha, Ms. O’Hara, Mr. Richards and Ms. Ruggles, all gave their spiel
earlier. But I think after what has transpired over the last many hours, I think they
should now tell us again. Because there’s such a wide range of proposals, and for
me, I deal in terms of public policy. I don’t know what public policy is being
advanced by each of the individual changes.
For example, Ms. Ruggles, Residential, proposed $10.70; up to $11.70. You
know, and all of these things. Apartment from $11.55 to $12.50, these are huge
increases. But then there is a drop in the Homeowner, and I know she’s already
stated her opposition to the minimum tax increase. But for my universe, I have to
understand what we’re trying to achieve.
The Mayor came up with something across the board, and then we’re fooling
around with all of this stuff, but I don’t understand the reasons for it. In each
individual category. Why up here on one category? I mean are we trying to
advance a particular type of public policy? For example, Homeowner, “Because
you guys deserve the break so we’re going to knock it down. But Resort, you
guys are foreign companies so we’re going to jack it up because we don’t like you
guys and we’re going to make it real hard, because you know, the TAT, we’re not
getting our share, se we’re going to get it some other way.”
I don’t know. I’m just making these things up. But if somebody can articulate to
me the method to this, and I’m not trying to offend anyone, but method to the
Page 67
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
madness, then please, I have to be able to understand this. If not, we are just
going to be spinning our wheels.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think you brought up a good point. Because what we’re
not talking about too is what the Mayor offered as well. Because I think, I don’t
know if somebody had talked about how it was evenly across and then he didn’t
drop. So are we considering that as well when we’re looking at fooling around
with all these numbers, I hear you, because we’re going to fool around with the
revenue then we’re going to the expense, then we’re going back to the revenue,
and we can do that, yes, for several days. We might be recessing, coming back
tomorrow to continue this.
Council Member Richards, you had your light on first. Thanks.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Councilman Chung, I’d like to take a crack
at that. My intention with this is recognizing that we have a system and a
situation and a methodology that’s kind of broken. We’re trying to do something
in a very tight timeline that is difficult at best and near impossible if we look at it
and try and adjust each detail. Rather than getting stuck in the weeds, my
intention—and this listening to constituents, we all have our own constituents to
listen to, but listening to my constituents about concern of continually increasing
our County budget, is to try and develop a balanced budget that has some restraint
in it, recognizing that what we’re trying to do is just bridge the gap right now.
Get us through this fiscal year, or actually next fiscal year, this fiscal challenge,
and then spend time next year revamping the real property tax code, working on
the TAT, do all that.
So my intention is to do that and get us where we need to do while not cutting too
much. That’s what I’m trying to do.
MR. CHUNG: Well, maybe if I could just real quickly—if I’m looking at your
proposal, I’m just really quickly trying to grasp what you’re trying to advance.
There’s decreases in all of the categories except for Residential; a slight increase,
right? Oh no, decrease. Where am I? Where’s the increase?
MR. RICHARDS: My decrease was compared to the proposed Mayor’s increase.
I did it 20 cents across the board drop except for the Homeowner which I left
alone.
MR. CHUNG: I see, okay.
MR. RICHARDS: Again—
MR. CHUNG: So where’s the money—?
Page 68
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Where’s the money coming from? Which is the other
conversation, because this is when it comes to the fuel tax. Because I find
funding for Mass Transit in the fuel tax, and we haven’t even gotten to that
conversation yet.
MR. CHUNG: So yours is just dropping everything, right?
MR. RICHARDS: Dropping it, adjusting the expense side.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, so you don’t have to explain anything. I understand.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Are you okay?
MR. CHUNG: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Okay, I thought we’d have a ray of sunshine after lunch at least.
But I think what Mr. Chung is saying, I think we can spend many hours trying to
find a fair assessment, and for me, I think at this point in time it seems to me that
the Mayor’s budget, given the averages I’m looking at, taking into consideration
everybody’s proposals, you know, it’s not that far off from what the Mayor is
proposing. I personally think that we should just go with what we have before us,
and then between now and next year’s budget address all these things we’re
talking about. Because I don’t know how we’re going to balance this out this
afternoon.
I mean, you know, you guys can fine—yeah, if we can find a way to do it. I just
can’t see it right now because there’s too many variables and if I’m looking at the
averages even considering Jen Ruggles, Council Member Ruggles’ numbers, it’s
pretty darn close to what’s being proposed by the Mayor. So my position at this
point, I just don’t want—I have nothing to offer as far as any suggestion on how
we’re going to implement everybody else’s proposed amendments in this, and I
guess we’ve got to go through this whole exercise.
So right now I think I’m just as confused as Mr. Chung, too. But given the
numbers, I’m leaning towards looking at what the Mayor has proposed and his
department and the work that they’ve done. If we can figure something out
before midnight tonight that comes close to doing something different that’s fair
across the board, that they’ve taken months to do, and we’re going to do it in a
few hours then so be it. But I’m really leaning towards giving the deference to
the Mayor and the Administration. I don’t want to raise taxes at all. I’ve had
communications from my constituents, and basically it’s pretty much even. Some
people say, “Well yeah, if we’ve got to raise them, we’ve got to raise them.” And
other people are, “Don’t you dare raise my taxes.”
Page 69
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So where do we go? I think we have to find something that’s fair, and
everybody’s not going to be happy. But I look at this as if we adopt something, if
we can get on the same page as the Mayor, then I think with all this discussion
we’ve been having, we know how to revamp this so that next year maybe we can
do some meaningful adjustments, which is not going to happen, I’m sorry, today
or tonight. But the discussion is very useful. I’m really happy that we’re talking
about this because they’re all important proposals. All of you guys’. I mean, I
give you kudos for doing it. I gave up. I threw in the towel because I just
understood that this is so complicated that I just—but I appreciate all the
discussions that we’re having.
So that being said, I’m just going to wait until—you guys know my position on
this. I’m going to wait until we figure out what we’re going to do today, whatever
it is. That’s my position, and I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Ms. David, I really appreciate that. You have my apologies. I
feel like I have opened the can of worms here. I asked Finance for the
spreadsheets because I don’t do analysis off of hard copy, and I’m very
comfortable using spreadsheets. I’ve been doing it for 25-30 years. So this is
how I do my analysis.
I do respect all the work the Mayor and Finance did to come up with this budget.
All of the departments, all the cuts they made, and everything. So I wasn’t
attempting to do major alterations to the budget. But my calculations do have a
public policy twist to them, Mr. Chung, and that is to give a break to homeowners
by reducing the percentage increase to around three percent over the six and a half
that the Mayor used. I also feel that we need to support and promote agriculture,
and that’s why I dropped that rated as well. Then the struggle to balance and
come up with numbers that were acceptable is challenging because you have to
come up with the zeros and the fives, and I found, “Oh gee, I have a little extra.”
Even after I pay the PONC for that extra money, there’s enough to restore the
contingency funds to their full value. I thought, “Oh, that’ll work, that’s very
simple.”
It’s not a big change in the Mayor’s tax rates. It’s minor, and the impact is felt all
across the board. Hopefully less in the Homeowner class. I am a strong advocate
for doing a complete overhaul to our tax code. We can’t begin to accomplish it
today. But I didn’t try to balance expenditures by removing positions. I don’t
feel that—I’m not comfortable to do that. I’m not the operations manager for the
County. I don’t know enough even asking questions. I did question that one
additional position, the Deputy Director in IT, because I think there are other
ways to skin that cat. But I didn’t take the money away from them because I
Page 70
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
think they can find better ways to use that money to accomplish what they need to
do.
So I wasn’t trying to be draconian on the budget. Some of these other proposals,
in my opinion, are a bit draconian. I do understand that Ms. Ruggles has raised
the other rates to the maximum. We have a high and a low that we’re kind of
beholden to, and I don’t even know the basis of that in the code, but maybe
Deanna could speak to that at some point. But this did kind of go to the max with
these rates. I do understand that she has a follow-up piece of legislation that we
cannot consider today, which kind of takes those rates off the table for today
because without that additional piece of legislation, we can’t really give this full
consideration. I don’t know that we could in one meeting mull over the proposed
tax changes in forms of additional exemptions that she’s proposing. That’s an
elaborate process. I don’t want to condense it into a two-hour meeting. It needs
to be a several month process to really consider all of the ramifications. It’s really
easy to think you’re on the right track with public policy only to find out that
you’ve done more harm than good, and I don’t want to go there.
So I was trying to keep it within wraps, just give a little bit back to the
Homeowner class, do a little promotion for agriculture, and come up with just a
wee bit that allowed us to restore the contingency funds to full value. That is the
extent of my budget changes. So they aren’t that radical. I am a little concerned
about removing $1.6 million. I am concerned about removing $6 million. There
may be justifications for that, because we also have a whole other thing, as has
been mentioned, in the fuel tax increase that comes to play in all of this. But we
can’t make those corrections all at once.
So I’m trying to keep it really simple and I was afraid in opening this can of
worms, that some of the Council would be scared off because it’s numbers and
numbers are not comfortable for a lot of people. I happen to like them, but not
that many people do. So I understand that, and I didn’t want to make anybody
uncomfortable, but I think that’s probably the reaction that I’m hearing, and I
hope we can get beyond that and look at the value of doing some minor tweaks,
which is all I really did. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So remember, the option of choosing one that is before us
is also another option, right, to work on. Say if you want to choose Council
Member O’Hara’s one and let’s work on that and see if we can get through it.
Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thanks. I just wanted to respond to Council Member Chung’s
curiosity and provide some—a little more explanation on why the rates are so
high on mine. It’s because this provides room for us to be flexible with providing
some sort of exemption that would help protect low and middle class property
values and small businesses. The Residential class is at $11.7 because Residential
Page 71
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
is a lot of second homes and vacation homes, and I thought they could take the
increase more than people more than people living in a home, than in
Homeowners. If we have room for an exemption, it would protect a lot of those
low income rentals.
So the philosophy of creating exemptions when increasing rates allows for us to
provide that safety net that Council Member Lee Loy was referring to while
leaving homeowners alone, leaving ag alone. That was my idea behind these
rates.
The reason I didn’t want to touch ag, and I really appreciate Council Member
O’Hara’s effort to reduce ag, the reason I didn’t want to increase it at all is
because as a representative of Puna, Puna actually comprises of 54 percent of all
of the ag parcels on the island. Oh, excuse me, we have 36,500 ag parcels on the
island, and a lot of these parcels are not receiving the homeowner exemption
because they’re afraid. They just don’t apply for it. They don’t know about it or
whatever, but either way, they’re paying a much higher rate. I also want to
encourage ag. I don’t understand why we are charging—we have the highest ag
rate. We’re the only county that has a higher ag rate than a higher homeowner
rate, which doesn’t make sense to me when we’re trying to promote food
sustainability and support farmers.
So that is the justification for my proposal here. My plan accounts for—well first
let me assign the same context in that a recent Big Island Video News article said
that we’re getting seven people new to the island every day. We have a growing
population and moving forward it’s our responsibility to account for the growth
and necessary services that will be required. So the plan that I proposed accounts
for all those budget requirements and it doesn’t ask for departments to limit their
necessary positions, and protects the most vulnerable people on the island, or at
least has the option to moving forward.
We heard from a disabled veteran this morning, but it seems like I won’t be
changing anybody’s mind on the minimum tax. We don’t have to agree on the
exact exemption amounts at this time. It’s just an idea. It’s an idea that was
given to me by the former Planning Director. So we played with the numbers and
because it seemed so compelling, that is why I brought it forward. So thank you.
Thank you for your time.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung, you had yours?
MR. CHUNG: Comment. I really do appreciate Ms. O’Hara and Ms. Ruggles
explaining their position as well as Mr. Richards. I didn’t say there was no public
policy involved in any of their proposals, I just wanted them to articulate it for me
so that I could get a better grasp on what we’re trying to achieve.
Page 72
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
You know, I have to agree with our Finance Chair, Ms. David. I’ll tell you why.
We’ve talked about how difficult this process has been for us. We get a revised
or an amended budget, when was it? In April or something? Or March, late
th
March? What? May 5, okay, worse yet, right? Up until that time, even if we
knew the only way we were going to handle all of these anticipated increases was
th
to either cut services dramatically or to look at a tax increase, but until May 5,
the formal position from the Administration and this County was no tax increase.
In fact, not to put anybody down, but the Mayor actually campaigned, right, on
that platform, no tax increases. So we figured no tax increase, even if it went
against our better judgement.
th
Boom, May 5 comes, and like we’re only one month away from that date, we
cannot caucus, we’re constrained by Sunshine Law, everything has to be done
here. We had a deadline. I don’t know who gave my staff that deadline but I
think it was two Thursday’s ago where we had to turn in all of our amendments.
So Ms. O’Hara did. I did. Four days ago, we’ve got all these things now coming
up. How in the world are we supposed to deal with this thing? Cannot.
Impossible, right? I mean, I don’t know where all of these things are flying in
from, but we followed the rules, right Ms. O’Hara? That’s why I was resigned to
the fact, hey look, the best I can do really is just make some kind of declaration
that if they need the money now because of all of this stuff that’s going on, okay
we’ll give them that one shot. But be on notice that even if it’s a nonbinding
resolution, be on notice that you’d better find different ways of balancing this
budget or at least generating more revenues. And not only the Mayor, us too. We
all have to explore different ways.
But you know, when I look at this, when we’re talking about changes in the
revenues generated from real property taxes, a couple million dollars, I know it
sounds like a lot of money, but in the whole scheme of things, it’s not much. So
only really Ms. Ruggles one is the kind of eye-opening one. I have to give her
credit, because you know, because she’s trying to fight for her district really,
right? But of course I cannot support that kind of increase. We’re just trying to
keep it within what Mayor Kim proposed.
Certainly there are some public policy considerations to be had. I think it was
articulated by several of you. But at this point I think it’s best to just go ahead
with what the Mayor proposed and figure this thing out for next year already.
That’s what I think. But we could fool around with it a little bit, but if we’re
dealing with the numbers, that’s rough. We’re talking about the positions, that’s a
different story now. We can grab some of that money, wherever—I mean, if you,
Ms. O’Hara, if you want to take the IT Deputy Director, put it back into IT, hey
fine, whatever. If you guys want to get some of those positions sequestered, those
monies into an account with the Council where the Administration has to come
back to us for approval, that’s fine too.
Page 73
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
But I just cannot see us really doing anything that’s going to make any kind of
sense. It’s just a function of the system and the timing and this—I don’t want to
throw in the towel or anything like that, but it’s going to be rough. I mean, I
agree with you, Maile.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so how about—oh your time is up. I just wanted to
say that, “You’re time is up.” Okay, what if we go through—we start reading
stuff in and we vote it up or down already? I mean, because we can hash this out
the whole time. We’ve just got to—we read it in already, we can go through it
and motion everything in and vote it up or down.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, if I could just say one thing. I don’t think I’ll be voting for
anything that deals with an amendment to the real property tax proposal.
CHR. POINDEXTER: And that’s your choice. So if we go through this, you can
vote your way. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I’m really, again, sorry, because I saw this coming, and this is
why I was a bit irritated this weekend when I got on Facebook and saw what was
happening, is this kind of last minute rush to the finish line causes nothing but
havoc and chaos. Personally, I can say that my proposals are very measured and
have been vetted by the Finance, we went through this weeks ago. I actually, in
the whole process of working with Finance, found a little, yeah, a real small little
data entry error which they are now aware of, but we worked very, very closely
together. I’ve run it by the head of the Real Property Tax Office. So these are not
like eye-popping changes or anything and I really wish you would give it a little
full consideration. Because it’s a nice little piece in terms of being able to bring
us back to a positive place and it’s distributed amongst all the nine districts
equally in terms of the surplus that’s created there. There was a little manini extra
$2,000 which I did part in Mass Transit because there could not be a more needy
agency in the County at this point in time.
So that’s how that played out, and I really wish you would give consideration.
I’m saying this before we went to lunch and I’m going to say it again is, as much
work as I know that Jen has put into her tax exemption proposal, it’s not on the
table. Therefore the only thing that we can act on in terms of her rate changes are
the face of them. The rate changes plus the distribution of the excess
$11.6 million to the CIP budget for projects strictly in District 5. Now that on the
face of it doesn’t wear well with any of us, I don’t think, except for Ms. Ruggles
of course. I know that District 5 needs it, but when you’re putting operating
money into the CIP budget, you generally wait until you have some sizeable fund
balances to withdraw, where we’ve been so efficient and effective in our
managing of finances through the year that we have some surplus, and then we go
in and spend that surplus on needed CIP projects. But to actually create a tax rate
so that we create said surplus does not seem to me good policy; good policy at all.
Page 74
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
So I’m sorry because we don’t have the full picture there, I’m not going to be able
to give good consideration to that at this point in time. I really hope that we can
do an ad hoc or task force for changing the real property tax code. And I hope
Ms. Ruggles is at the table because she obviously has some really great ideas to
bring. But I don’t think that we’re expected to do that today and I don’t know that
we can do that today. I just want to ask you to consider voting on my proposal
because it’s not that far off from the Mayor’s. It just gives a little give back to the
Homeowners and the Agriculture class, and it’s a pretty simple thing. And it was
done on time, early, and properly vetted through all channels. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff, and then I’ll go to Council
Member Lee Loy. Council Member Lee Loy, you have your light on too? Oh
no? Okay.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to make a suggestion. Rather than having
to vote up or down on each of these communications, I think we have this
opportunity to show that we are trying to set some public policy. To me, the thing
that we all do agree on—I mean there’s lots of other things out there—but one
thing that we do all agree on I think is to reduce the Homeowners class as much
as we can. Now we aren’t able to do it very much, otherwise we can’t make up
the difference. But I would say that if maybe we don’t call it Eileen’s proposal or
Dru’s proposal or something like that, if we come up with a proposal from the
Council that achieves one thing that we can kind of say we did do, I’d feel good
about that. So I’m not sure how to accomplish that, but rather than have to make
motions for each of these communications and then vote them up or down, I feel
that there’s good components in all of them and we’ve all expressed the desire to
look at a task force that would maybe analyze how we can help our situation
before next year. But at this point in time, because we have to do something
today I believe, I would just like to see us do one thing at least, and that would be
to lower the Homeowners’ class. That’s where I’m at.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So if that’s the case, I think that’s what Eileen said that
hers did, so I don’t know if we want to put those numbers—plug those numbers—
Point of MR. KANUHA: Point of clarification.
Clarification:
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes.
MR. KANUHA: We’re not lowering it. We’re raising it, but it’s less than the
proposed.
MS. EOFF: I’m sorry, that’s correct. We would still be raising it.
Page 75
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. KANUHA: Actually, my amendment actually lowers the Homeowners’
classification.
MS. EOFF: Right, and I really like that and I want to support yours, Dru, because
I believe in that completely. I’m just not sure how we can accomplish it because I
couldn’t find enough money to cover for it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Deanna could you get back on and get the
spreadsheet up and can you plug in Council Member O’Hara’s numbers, because
when we look at that and everybody agrees that they want that to be a little
lower—although it’s still being raised, but it would be a little lower—and then we
go from there. Is everybody okay with that? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, just one if I may.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah.
MR. CHUNG: First of all, that’s not a bad idea. You know, I’ll reconsider my
earlier statement. But then let me ask this, and this might bring some ooh’s and
aah’s right, amongst all of you and people watching here. What is the public
policy being advanced by a low Homeowners rate? Anybody? I want ideas. I
don’t want one person to speak for everyone.
CHR. POINDEXTER: You want ideas? Okay.
MR. CHUNG: I want to know maybe first from the Finance Department.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Deanna do you have your mic on? She’s kind of
like doing two things at one time, but she multi-tasks. That’s what she’s good at.
(Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
MS. SAKO: Yeah, no problem. So in terms of reducing the Homeowner rate,
obviously it’s up for the Council to decide, but our Homeowner class is probably
the class that actually uses our services the most. So that’s always been difficult
for us because I mean we do want to please our residents. We want to take care
of them, but at the same time they are the ones making the calls for police
protection, fire protection, and using the parks. So that’s just my comment.
MR. CHUNG: So again, what is? Is there a public policy in favor of something
like this? Because that wasn’t really explaining to me why we should have a
lower Homeowners’ rate.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Lisa, do you want to come up?
Page 76
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: You don’t have to agree with it, I just want to hear something.
(Note: At this time, Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa
Miura came forward to address the members of the Council.)
MS. MIURA: Lisa Miura, Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator. I was
trying to stay out of talking. So the Homeowner, and this goes again for all the
counties, but the intent of the Homeowner classification and the programs is for
the County of Hawaiʻi to offer and provide and owner and exemption which
promotes local neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability. In addition,
it provides owners to have a long term commitment to either live or practice
nonprofit activities in their communities, as an incentive for them to stay. So if
you’re looking for a public reason why we provide Homeowner exemptions, I
mean, I think it is important to provide them to get local people to stay in our
community. If you’re looking for something other than that, I’m sure your
constituents will call you and provide you many reasons.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I’m not trying to get them angry with me or anything like
that, but I just wanted to know what the official—well at least I wanted some
thoughts on all of this, other than it being a political thing, right?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Can I get Jen? Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I think you bring up a really good question. My
reasoning behind not wanting to increase Homeowners is that homeowners are
people living in their homes. This is something that they need to survive. We’re
not taxing somebody’s asset. We’re taxing a basic necessity needed to survive,
and we provide the same philosophy on Affordable Housing. We don’t want to
touch Affordable Housing, because we don’t want to be messing with people’s
basic needs for survival. As far as rentals go, obviously we have the Affordable
Rental, there are some things that do need to be changed as far as how they can
qualify to receive that rate; and the Section 8, the State policies on that. And
within that, the other rentals we have is the Residential class. Residential, we can
always provide an exemption, that’s what I’ve been saying.
But that’s my philosophy behind why we should leave homeowners alone,
because this is what they need to survive and we shouldn’t be taxing people’s
basic needs.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: I terms of policy the average household’s primary investment is
their home. If they can afford one, that is the primary investment that most
households hold. Here in Hawaiʻi as we’re all well aware, the valuations of
Page 77
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
homes, relative to say the value of a similar home on the mainland, is exorbinately
high. It can be nearly twice as much if we go to Honolulu. We have lower
valuations here, but they still, you know, can be high.
The homeowners, we assume, are working here or are retired here in most cases,
and our wages are the equivalent of about 80 percent of the wages on the
mainland. Some classes not true, attorneys for instance probably make about the
same here. Maybe veterinarians. Nurses, I’m told. But I can tell you educators
make less here than they do for equivalent positions on the mainland. And in
most cases, in most services, they make less here than they would on the
mainland, yet our cost of living is one of the highest in the nation. So it behooves
us, if we want to keep a good, healthy working class, to give Residential rates that
are reasonable, that don’t over tax our population.
So I think that’s why we are doing things in reverse of what would be seen on the
mainland. Because absolutely, the homeowners are the ones that use the services
from the County more than any other group. Well not any other group, because
you’ve got the renters and they’re using them too. But because of that cost of
living and wage differential that we experience here in Hawaiʻi, this is like the
one break that we can give them. Anywhere else, you’re going to find that the
Homeowner rates are higher because it’s relative to the services that are provided,
compared to say Agricultural rates. We have it flipped here. We have a lot of
things flipped here, but that’s the system that we have, and it has a lot to do with
the economics of this State.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh you want to—information from Council Member
O’Hara? Oh, okay. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Well, anyone. Since I brought this thing up. I agree with you, but
the thing about it is this, and I’m not against the Homeowner class, okay? I don’t
mind, I just want to make sure we get stuff on the record as to why we’re trying to
do what we’re doing or anticipated to do. But the Homeowner class also has a lot
of exemptions. So if that’s the case, we could beef the exemptions or we could
even make, if we’re trying to advance the working class, make a working class
exemption or something. I don’t know, I still am not convinced. I’m going to
support this thing of course, right. I mean in one shape or another, but I still am
not convinced that the homeowners are supposed to have a substantially lower tax
rate than other classes.
MS. O’HARA: And if I could—
MR. CHUNG: I’m not going to fight it, of course. I just want to understand it,
and that’s all.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I have to move on to Council Member Richards.
Page 78
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again, I think we’re getting marred down
in the weeds. I agree we’re not going to solve this. You know it’s probably
15 minutes since we’ve made that statement Councilman Chung, and we’re
getting stuck in the weeds. I don’t see this as we’re trying to redo the tax code
because I don’t think we can. Well, I shouldn’t say that, we can. We’ll finish
sometime next month, but we can. The point is to get through this budget and set
the stage for having all those conversations to prep for the next budget.
So we’ve got to get through this budget, and I think a bunch of the amendments
we see coming before us, their intent was to get this conversation started so we
can actually have this conversation which we have, because we’re not allowed to
have it aside from sitting at this table. I think, I mean there’s a bunch of different
ways to do it. I’ve already articulated what my thought process is and why I think
we need to do things in that venue. I’m not closed to other ideas. We’re going to
have to move forward at some point to get this thing done. With that being said,
we all listen to our constituencies, and mine is very adamant about the growing
budget and the fact that we’re not paying attention to cutting expenses. If we’re
not mindful of that—you know, I’m not talking about re-election, I’m just talking
about our budget for our County as a whole—we have to be mindful about our
expenses. That’s where I’m coming from on that.
So I am supportive of a bunch of different possibilities, but to me one of the
things that bothers, and this would bother some of my constituents, we’re not
even talking about the fuel tax yet, because again, this is kind of sideways. For
any people on the fuel tax, we get an extra million dollars. So if we approve some
budget and then we have an increase in the fuel tax of—pick a number, five
cents—so we have an extra $5 million. Then once again, we have an increase in
our income stream which allows a budget. This bothers me.
So conversation is good, but that’s where I’m coming from on this. That’s why I
have cuts on there, because I’m expecting some sort of raise there. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So, but you know that the fuel tax doesn’t go into the
Operating Budget.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, now we can open up that conversation?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, no, but only Highway Funds.
MR. RICHARDS: And those funds can be used for Mass Transit.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, you can. Yeah, so I don’t know if you want to start
mixing it in this right now.
Page 79
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: This is part of the whole articulation from the start. We’re
kind of stuck in the thing. So we have to figure how to get through this year.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. Okay, so I’m going to go to Council Member
David, then Council Member Kanuha.
MS. DAVID: Okay, I think this is the last time I’m going to talk. But I think—
no, it is. Because I just have a couple of questions, and maybe Deanna or maybe
Lisa. Since we’re discussing homeowners and trying to give homeowners a real
benefit because of all the reasons people were saying, if you own two pieces of
property, two parcels, both of them have a house, can you claim homeowners?
As long as you’re residing in one of them, you get a homeowners’ exemption?
MS. SAKO: For the one you live in.
MS. DAVID: On one, yeah. On the one that you’re living in. So when we talk
about homeowners’ exemption, it doesn’t only include the people that we’re
talking about, but it includes every person that is entitled to claim that, right,
whether they own only one lot with a house on it and live in it, or whether they
own two properties and live in one, they get the homeowners’ exemptions for one.
MS. SAKO: Okay, so if someone owns one house on the east side let’s say, and
they get the homeowners’ exemption there, if they own a second home on the
west side of the island, they are not in the Homeowners’ class, then it’s
Residential.
MS. DAVID: They’re Residential, right?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we’re saying the same thing.
MS. DAVID: Exactly, and that was my thing. Homeowners doesn’t, when we’re
trying to protect that class, that class is comprised of not only single family
homeowners, but other situations that people are owning homes for whatever they
can afford. Two pieces of property with homes on it, they get one homeowners’
exemption. Okay, that’s what I wanted to—and if someone moves here from the
mainland, buys a house, is there like a residency requirement that they have to
wait before they can claim a homeowners’ exemption?
MS. SAKO: We do have now that we check against the State tax database to
make sure they are residents, or are filing the residential return. However, we do
let them file a one-time waiver the first year, because if you’ve just moved here,
sometimes you don’t—you haven’t had to actually file your tax return yet. So
they get that one-time, you know, initial waiver. They’re basically saying that
they are an intended resident and planning on staying here.
Page 80
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. DAVID: Okay, so whether you’re here for a long time, whether you decide
to move here, if you buy a $100,000 home somewhere, the same exemption
applies for somebody that can buy a $2 million home and they live in it.
MS. SAKO: Yes. However, you know the exemptions are capped. So the person
with the $2 million home, even in the Homeowners’ class is paying a lot more
than the $100,000.
MS. DAVID: That’s my—I just needed clarification because I know there’s a lot
of—there’s others that are included in this class of Homeowners. That’s what I
wanted to double-check. Okay, thank you. I yield, and I’m done.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy first. She had her light
on, and then Council Member O’Hara.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Clearly everybody’s getting tired. I’m not afraid to
work hard. I don’t mind if we’ve got to stay here all night. But to keep this
conversation forward, I like the tax proposals for whatever the rest of the group
decides. But I want to see some cuts through the expenditures that sets the table
for next year. I really am taking a liking to Mr. Chung’s suggestion of putting
some money in some sequestered account, you know, that basically shows that
we’re trying to control the budget, and however we choose to move forward with
new things, it’s done in a meaningful way.
That’s my thought. We have to figure it out. If this means setting the table for
next budget that we are not going to entertain any tax raises because we want to
see a revisiting of our real property tax codes and coming up with vacation rental
income properties—you know, there was another one I thought about, which is
recreational open space. I mean, I know golf courses are being taxed, I believe in
our Agricultural district.
MS. SAKO: Conservation.
MS. LEE LOY: Conservation. You know, these are the areas that we really need
to start putting people in more focused categories and then assessing them and
taxing them appropriately. Because we have agriculture with agriculture
homeowners, and then we have bonified agriculture. You know, there’s some
heavy lifting that has to happen. So again, wherever we go with whatever
proposed rates, I just want to see a little bit of expenditures, maybe as an exercise
for next budget, that we’re not afraid to be very mindful of what we’re asking the
taxpayers. That’s my position. So I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member O’Hara.
Page 81
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. O’HARA: A couple of things. I appreciate your questions, Maile, about the
homeowners’ exemption. Apartment dwellers who own their own apartment also
qualify for homeowners’ exemption. So just, because that needs to be
understood. That puts those apartments in the Homeowner class, not in the
Apartment class. Just, there’s so many points of confusion, I’m sure. I don’t
know it all either, but I’ve learned a few things that I didn’t know about our tax
code in doing all of this.
I want to keep it simple. I appreciate that we want to cut expenses, and I don’t
know if we can in this meeting create that rainy day fund for want of a better
term. If you want to cut some expenses and we then have a little bit of slush to
deal with down the road, that’s something we can consider. But I again defer to
the operational branch of our government since we are not that, and have to
respect all the work that they’ve done. We talk about cutting expenses, and I
know how much you cut expenses. We’ve been cutting and cutting and cutting
and cutting. I sat on the Cost of Government Commission in 2010, and the only
thing we could focus on was increasing revenues, because we had already cut, cut,
cut, cut, cut, because of the great recession. We remain in that kind of mode. So
I don’t think that it’s really wise of us on the Legislative Branch to think that we
can make these operational cuts without it causing harm that we’re not aware of.
So I just want to be very cautious there.
I understand setting the stage and I really don’t want us back to this table, and
I’ve said it multiple times now, increasing taxes next year. Don’t want to be here.
So this has to be it. For at least a few years we can’t go any higher. But I just
want to accomplish what we can today with a very lengthy budget process that
started back in probably what, October?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, September.
MS. O’HARA: September of last year, and is culminating here with all the many
unknown’s that we’ve had to deal with through the year and the unknowns that
we have facing us next year. Because things are changing in terms of money
coming down the ladder from the federal government and from state government.
So we have to be flexible and aware and not get too hung up on a particular dime
here or there. So let’s move forward. I don’t know if it’s to consider the
measures that are before us or how you want to move forward, but I think we’ve
really batted this one around quite a bit.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, we’re going to have to decide whether we’re going
to—right now what I’m hearing, either stick with the Mayor’s or go with what
Ms. O’Hara had which is the closest and gave a little relief on the homeowner.
Council Member Richards.
Page 82
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: We do have to move forward. I won’t quite agree with
Council Woman O’Hara about being here back at the table because next year
that’s exactly what we’ve got to do, be back at the table. That being said, if we
look at the averages that were given at the start of this talk a couple of hours ago
and we look at the total revenues generated by that, it’s $2.4 million less than the
target that we were given by Finance and the Mayor. Is that correct, Deanna?
MS. SAKO: So the actual averages across all the proposals generated $883,000
more. And then I think it was this one that was the average of the Mayor and the
first three. Then we tweaked it a little bit, but we’re short $1.3 million right now.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so $1.3. So I would be supportive of doing that, where
we exercise some fiscal responsibility and I think we can find some cuts that
Council Woman Lee Loy has expressed and I also support. We have to make a
stand and an attempt at fiscal responsibility, recognizing this isn’t the end-all. But
we’ve got to do that in my mind. The averages actually get us pretty close. Then
we can look at the expenses on the other side and see if we can tweak it in there.
Again, I don’t know, Chair, if we talk about the fuel tax, because that’s also going
to impact a lot of this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, but we cannot discuss it at this point.
MR. RICHARDS: That’s the problem with this process.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So I hear two things. I hear some saying let’s stick with
the Mayor’s. I hear some saying let’s go with—a couple saying we’ll go with
Council Member O’Hara’s. Then Council Member Richards, you’re suggesting
that average proposed rate. So I kind of want to know what is the majority feeling
and what do we work on, because the other option is for me to just start reading in
the Order of Resolutions, 213-17, and we vote up or down on the Communication
293.1 and 293.2, and then if somebody wants to bring in their amendments you
can.
But I think we’ve got to start moving somewhere. I know Council Member
Richards, you want to look at putting the averages. Council Member O’Hara,
you’re sticking with yours. I’ve heard a couple people agree with you. I’ve heard
a couple with the Mayor’s. How do we want to start moving forward on this?
Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I’ve looked at Ms. O’Hara’s proposal, and you know, it’s not a
bad one. But what I don’t like about it is, and it’s not a hatred or anything
towards it, but it’s just where I disagree as it relates to industrial and commercial
properties. You know, sure we have some big commercial properties owned by
foreign companies, but by and large, I would think most of the commercial
properties are locally owned. I mean, well a lot of them are locally owned. And
Page 83
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
they are the guys that provide the backbone for our industry. As much as
possible, I wouldn’t want to affect them, too. I don’t have a problem with
lowering the homeowner rate, I mean that seems like maybe a popular thing to do.
I think what we could do is go with Mr. Kanuha’s, and I know you probably
might not go for this given the public policy that you talked about with regard to
agricultural lands. But I would go with Mr. Kanuha’s rate of $9.95. Even bump
it up a little bit, and then it would force us to really look at our ag tax policy.
That’s my thoughts. I mean, I don’t know how this thing’s all going to work out,
but—
CHR. POINDEXTER: So I know we’re all on different wavelengths. Right now
we’re still. Now we’ve added one more layer into it.
MR. CHUNG: I just say I can’t support Ms. Ruggles’ one. So that’s, for me, out.
Mr. Richards’ has some good points, but it creates where are we going to find the
money, you know, to balance the budget? I don’t think that’s going to work, too.
So I think the only ones we have to work with really are Ms. O’Hara’s and
Mr. Kanuha’s, so I’m kind of trying to meld the—
CHR. POINDEXTER: See which one you want to start working on?
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, or the Mayor’s of course.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Or the Mayor’s. Okay, so we’re looking at three. Okay,
so the Mayor’s, Council Member O’Hara’s which I’ve heard a lot, and it seems
that the Mayor’s and Council Member O’Hara’s, I heard several; and then now
we’re hearing Council Member Kanuha. I know Council Member Kanuha would
want it besides Council Member Chung, and maybe, I don’t know if Council
Member Lee Loy or any—but let’s start looking and trying to kind of narrow it
down even a little bit more, because we’ve got to start moving. We’re just stuck
on this right now. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: So it looks like the average that we read off the last time we read off
the average, we would be needing to reduce expenditures by $1.3 million, is
pretty close to Mr. Kanuha’s proposal, although we’d have to find a way to reduce
$1.6 with Mr. Kanuha’s.
MS. O’HARA: No, that’s Richards’.
MS. EOFF: No, $1.6 million is Mr. Kanuha’s.
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, the averages.
MS. EOFF: Yeah, $1.3 was if we took the averages, and if we look at just
Mr. Kanuha’s proposed rates, he needs to find $1.6, right? Okay. So that would
Page 84
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
be—I mean that one does not raise the Homeowners’ class. It lowers it even from
where it is now. I don’t know what happens if you put it back to status quo,
$6.15, then what would you be looking for in the budget?
MS. SAKO: If we put it back to $6.15, we’ll be short $600,000.
MS. EOFF: Six hundred thousand? Oh, well maybe we can find that if we start
looking at the expenditure side now. Then his rates—well yeah, the only one
that’s really a little bit out of whack with the average would be the Residential
right? I mean higher.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Is it by 20 cents?
MS. EOFF: So I don’t know. I could work from there. I mean, I would like to
see if we could if we find $600,000.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So can you leave that up? That’s what Karen had just
suggested now.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, this is Council Member Kanuha’s proposal with Homeowners
left status quo as right now, the current rate.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so then we have—we need to look for—we need to
decrease $614,416.
MS. EOFF: I think I heard several of us agree that we could cut at least two of
the newly proposed positions, which only amounts to a hundred and something
thousand. So that would then leave about $500,000 we’ve got to find.
MS. SAKO: Well, the three, and I’m not sure which one you were going to leave
in, but the three I heard, or Nancy and I heard you say earlier added up to
$174,000.
CHR. POINDEXTER: $174,112, right?
MS. EOFF: So how much would we be looking for to cut from the budget now?
I didn’t want to cut the valuation expert, though.
MS. SAKO: Yes, the Valuation Analyst did not get taken out. This includes the
Wastewater Clerk, the IT Deputy Director, and the Homeless Coordinator.
MS. EOFF: Okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Council Member Eoff, can I go to others?
Page 85
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: Yeah, that’s just a proposal to jump from where we’ve come to jump
into the expenditures.
MS. SAKO: Just to clarify, the number up here, the $426,480 is what we need to
look for, taking into account the revenue increase and the related PONC and
PONC Maintenance.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So Council Member O’Hara, and then Council Member
Lee Loy—oh, okay. Let me go to Ms. O’Hara and then I’ll come to you.
MS. O’HARA: I’ve said it over and over, I’m really not into doing major cuts,
because I don’t think we’re educated enough to do that properly at this point. I
just did the spreadsheet that Deanna’s working with, which is Mr. Kanuha’s
suggested rates. If Mr. Kanuha would agree to raising his Residential rate to
$6.25, which is I think 10 cents less than—no 10 cents more than it currently is,
it’s at $6.15, we would come out with a budget that balances and has sufficient
money to award the PONC its 2¼ percent and still have $25,000 left over or
something.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so do you want to plug that number in? Council
Member Kanuha, are you okay? I mean, this is just, we’re just trying. We’re just
adjusting. Okay, so if we could plug that number in and see what the bottom line
is?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, there’s $54,000—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, $54,280 over. That’s good.
MS. O’HARA: It’s a little bit over. It’s enough to award the PONC its
necessary—
CHR. POINDEXTER: And guess what, this is something that the Council
created. This is our baby. So can we take a look at that again? Can you scroll it
down a little bit so everybody can look at the different amounts in each of the
classes. So it’s a mish-mash of several of our Council Members’ proposals. How
is that looking?
MS. O’HARA: It looks good, and if you would drop it to $6.2 instead of $6.25,
then we have a shortage of $280,000.
MS. SAKO: And then back when we were $450,000 short, that’s also close to the
amount of the age exemption as well.
MS. O’HARA: Okay, this is where I was going. Thank you, Deanna.
Page 86
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we should leave it at—
MS. O’HARA: Well I’m saying if you drop it to $6.20 and you have a shortage
of $280,000, and we vote down the age exemptions, we’re going to have a surplus
equivalent to the difference in our CRF, approximately. I’m just saying, because
we haven’t decided where we’re going on the age exemptions. So that’s an
impact, yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Lee Loy, then Council Member
Ruggles.
MS. LEE LOY: Actually, you know, I’m going to yield because my question had
something to do with—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, because what might—what’s going to have to
happen is we’re going to have to take a recess, because they’re going to have to
draw this up, okay, then come back in here for us to vote on.
MS. EOFF: Madam Chair or Deanna, do we need to decide on the age exemption
bill and the minimum tax bill first?
MS. SAKO: Yes, to decide—before we take a recess and draft everything and fix
it, that would be extremely helpful if there was—
MS. EOFF: If we knew how we voted on that.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, which way you’re going.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Ruggles, before we take—
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, I’m sorry I’m going to have to do this, but Deanna, could
I propose a new real property tax calculation?
MS. SAKO: Yes, you can. What’s the closest thing to what yours is going to be
working off of?
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, so if we could—what do you mean the closest?
CHR. POINDEXTER: You know what? You know what you do? Can you just
clone that? Can you just copy that whole file?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, that’s what I’ve been doing. I was just going to take the one
that required the least amount of changes, but that’s okay.
Page 87
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. Thank you. Let’s try Residential at $11.00;
Apartment at $12.00; Commercial at $11.00, and Industrial; Ag at $9.25;
Conservation, and Hotel and Resort at $12.00; and Homeowner at $6.3.
MS. SAKO: We end up with $1.3 million extra.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay so we have extra $1,309,000.
MS. RUGGLES: We don’t have to increase ag. Homeowner is lower than all of
them except mine. $6.15 is the current. It’s less than what the Mayor is
proposing. If we dropped it to $6.25 it might not—
MS. SAKO: If we leave Homeowners the same, we would have $300,000
additional.
MS. RUGGLES: Oh, $300,000 additional.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We’d be up—oh that’s—yeah, so how does everybody
feel about raising the other ones? Could I have input on that?
MS. RUGGLES: Could I finish?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay go ahead, sorry.
MS. RUGGLES: It really, the raising the ag to $9.95 really concerns me. It
would disproportionately affect my district. I have the poorest district in the
State, and we have over 50 percent of the ag parcels. We are not receiving—
we’re receiving 2.9 percent of the ag exemptions, yet 54 percent of our parcels are
ag. So we’re disproportionately paying a higher tax rate on the most
disadvantaged district in the State. So I just urge you to consider this when
thinking about increasing the ag rate.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and I just want to say something about the ag since
I have not been speaking. It’s not just Puna or your area that is—it’s the entire
island. We’re trying to—there’s a lot of farming that is needed around the entire
island. So I agree with you that reducing the ag rate is important, but not—I
would support it, but not only because of the argument that Puna is the most
disadvantaged. Because we look at the Hāmākua Coast, and we need to develop
more farming opportunities in order to survive and become sustainable.
So I agree with that, but on the argument that we need it around the entire County.
You know Kaʻū, and all of the different rural areas, Kohala, Waimea. You know,
so I agree with you, and I like that. I just wanted to say that. Council Member
Richards.
Page 88
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: I think we’re getting close. Sort of. That being said, we still
haven’t talked about any budget reductions on the expense side and that bothers
me a little bit because we’re still focusing on production, revenue side without
paying attention to cutting on the other side. I can support Councilman Kanuha’s
rates. They make sense, and we can tweak them a little bit. But if we all start
everybody tweaking everything, then we’re back to where we started from a
couple hours ago.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so what I would want to do, I suggest, I’m going to
take a 10-minute recess. We’re going to look at what Deanna had put up. So
individually if you guys can look at that while we’re in recess. When we come
back, let’s talk about which one we’re going to start supporting. Because we’ve
got to move forward. I think we’ve had enough of the sampling done, that we
need to decide which one. So I’m going to take a 10-minute recess.
Recess: At 4:50 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:08 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I’m calling this meeting back to order. Okay, so is
everybody here? Where is Council Member Kanuha? Okay, so we had—oh,
Stan is where? Oh hi Stan? Are you wanting to say something? No, okay. We
just thought—you just got up closer, yeah. You were in the back seat and then
you took the front seat now and you’re on board. Oh wait, we can’t hear you.
There you go.
(Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Stan Sitko came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. SITKO: So I can see what’s on the spreadsheets.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, nice. Okay, that’s good. Okay, Council Member
Kanuha should be joining us shortly. Is he here? I really would want to get all
nine of us at the table. Okay, here he is, making his grand entrance. Okay, is
Deanna in the house also? Deanna is printing out all of the scenarios that we
came up with. Okay, we’re going to wait for the scenarios. So let me just take a
brief one-minute recess and check on them.
Recess: At 5:08 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:09 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: They were trying to print, unfortunately not. So if we
want to look at it on the screen, she can pull up the different scenarios on the
Page 89
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
screen. Oh, what happened to Council Member Lee Loy? Oh, she’s there. Okay.
She’s coming, so we’ll wait for her to get up here.
Point of Order: MS. O’HARA: Chair, point of order. We still haven’t considered, I hope I have
the bill number, 36, and that really has an impact on some of these decisions.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. Okay. We’ll talk about that. Council Member
Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Chair, thank you very much for that. I just have a
question for the Clerk. Are we able to recess this meeting till Wednesday?
MR. HENRICKS: Yes.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes. Explanation, please?
MS. LEE LOY: So, you know, when you take a break and you can use the
bathroom and drink coffee, you can think. So I’m really beginning to like
Mr. Kanuha’s proposal, and how we whittled it down to having, I think it was
$600,000 short.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay so can we pull that up on the screen?
MS. SAKO: I think the $600,000 was with the $6.15.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, there we go.
MS. LEE LOY: So with that scenario, and the reason why I’m thinking out loud
that we may be able to recess this meeting till Wednesday, is because of the fuel
tax. I know we’re not talking about it right now, but if I could just get a little bit
of latitude. If we move forward with the fuel tax, that money is going to go into
the Highway Fund. But our current budget has $7.4 million from the General
Fund and $7.4 million from the Highway Fund. So if we were to reduce $600,000
from the General Fund in the Mass Transit budget and adopt a fuel tax increase—
with just one penny, according to Mr. Richards, we’re going to make $1 million,
and that can supplement the Mass Transit budget on what will be taken out of the
General Fund.
So that is me just getting a little creative, which is why I’m thinking there are
opportunities there, and this is something that Mr. Richards keeps talking about.
You know, we need to take context a whole bunch of moving pieces, revenue
generation, and begin to craft a budget that takes into consideration all of those
things. Just putting it out there. I’ve heard the Clerk say we can recess till
Page 90
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Wednesday, have a discussion about fuel tax, know where we’re going with that,
and then come back into our budget.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So can I ask our Clerk for his comments on that?
MR. HENRICKS: If the purpose for the recess is to adopt the budget when you
quote, unquote “know what you’re going to do with the fuel tax,” you won’t know
on Wednesday if you’re going to change it. Because we’ll have to do whole other
public hearing if we have different rates. So if you’re going to premise your
operating budget on a change in the fuel tax on that day, you might as well do it
today and just go with it with that premise that, that’s your angle, that’s your
approach, you’re going to change the fuel tax, because if you amend the fuel tax
resolution on Wednesday, we’ve got to do another public hearing. It can’t wait.
The operating budget cannot wait until that is made final and official.
MS. O’HARA: Chair, can I—?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Let me get this straight. I know we’re hearing the fuel tax on
Wednesday and the rates are those proposed by the Mayor. If the Council
proposes rates that are lower than the ones proposed by the Mayor, then we would
not be able to pass it that day, we would have to have another hearing? Is that
correct?
MR. HENRICKS: Lower or higher. Anything different.
MS. O’HARA: Okay, great. Thank you. That was my question.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Okay. Interesting how this whole thing came out. You know,
for myself and what I came up with, you know, was just a snippet amount of time
that I could have spent on this entire budget. I have two staff dealing with
everything that we’re going through. Finance Department works and entire year
to go through this budget. You know, I did what I could to cut, to feel a little bit
better about this, and it was some easy pickings I guess you can say. But you
know, I truly feel that this doesn’t go far enough.
If we look back into previous years, and previous Administrations, just look at
this past time with Mayor Kenoi. When he first came into office, the budget was
$403 million. He dropped it the next year to $387 something million. And the
year after that, another drop and another drop after that. You know, four years in
a row. I think it almost went down $40 million. I personally don’t think we’re
sacrificing enough. Kudos to everybody who’s working on it, but that’s—you
Page 91
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
know, even the position that I came out with isn’t enough. I just did that because
it was, you know, something that I could have worked on. Something that I can
show my constituents that, you know, we’re doing something to not increase the
amount of money that they’re going to have to pay for this budget.
So to me, it’s a little irresponsible. But saying that, you know, we have what we
have in front of us, and you know, how I vote after this, you know, it’s going to
be how I feel. But I just have to say that because sure, this might be my proposal,
but don’t hold that to me, this isn’t my proposal, this is the Council’s proposal.
I mean, the economy’s great. Valuations are up. Money is coming in. What
happens when the economy goes down? I mean, are we going to do this all over
again? I don’t know, it’s just not—it’s not cool. So thank you for letting me vent
a little bit, but I’m not completely sold on what we have in front of me. Thank
you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I wish we didn’t have to go for that public hearing
again, then it would have worked.
MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, and I want to be clear when I say you might as well just
do it today. I’m not saying that’s a great idea. Because a real public hearing
generally starts with the premise that decisions have not been made that are
tethered to the proposal that is at the public hearing. So just to be clear.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes, I agree. Thank you. It was just a little bit of
temporary happiness for a little while. Okay, Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Just to respond to Councilman Kanuha. You’re right, Dru,
this will be the Council’s decision, how we go forward, and I hear what you’re
saying. I’ve repeatedly said it, I’ll say it at least one more time. I see this as a
bridge. We’ve got to get through this budget. We have to approve a budget, but I
agree we have to cut, and 2007-2008, I’ve personally been through some real
rough ones in business. So we do need to cut. I’ve gone back and I pulled the
budgets since 2000 and looked at them, and I’m sure those were pretty rough
times, going through the 2007, 2008, 2009. So I can appreciate that.
I’m not thrilled with what we’re being given, I’m trying to decide what I can live
with, and strike that compromise, which is essentially what we’re trying to do.
We’re trying to have a group of nine people come to a compromise that’s
workable for this year. Then we start working on this thing in July for the next
year.
So I hear you. I do like the numbers that—and yes, it’ll be the Council’s
proposal, but it’s the Kanuha of the Council’s proposal.
Page 92
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: With some changes.
MR. RICHARDS: With a few modifications. So I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: I was wondering if the Finance Director could explain this handout.
(Note: At this time, Finance Director Collins Tomei came forward to
address the members of the Committee.)
MR. TOMEI: Thank you for letting me speak. These were just some historical
aspects to the past changes in taxes. So one of the things that it basically points to
is that although the taxes did go up during those periods of times, there were also
creative ways to mitigate or to help, like you know, for minimum taxes. You
know in 2002-2003, it increased to $100 from $25. So that was a big step, but
they took that, just basically to make it—we faced the same thing, to make it fair.
Then when you looked at the various changes that went along the way, you’ll
notice that they came creative. In 2005 to 2006, an additional 20 percent of the
assessed value of the property not to exceed $80,000, and that was basically to
increase the home exemption for the homeowner.
Then, you know, when you go to 2006 and 2007, although the rates were steady,
they could have just left it. That Administration, which was the Kim
Administration. They basically pulled back on the various rates for all the various
classes. So eight out of nine classes. Only the Homeowners’ class stayed the
same. So the rest of them went down.
This is kind of like just to give you an idea that it doesn’t only go one way. I
mean, depending on revenue resources and, you know revenue sources, it’s
possible to curb back the class rate.
So that’s the legal sheet, basically. Then if you look at the letter-sized sheet, you
know, all those numbers basically indicate the concept of a direct tax. That’s
basically the tax rates that are a function of the bill tax revenues to the real
property certified values. Deanna, if I’m saying that correctly, let me know. So
it’s just a ratio, but when you look at it, in 2009, the direct tax rate went down as
low as $7.68, and if you look at the legal sheet as to what happened then, 2006-
2007, that’s when the rates for the classes went down. So it has a correlation. It’s
just showing you that at a certain point, you can be billing, and your certified
values are at a certain level, but as soon as the billing portion goes down, then this
rate goes down, the direct tax rate goes down.
This is just for a historical perspective, and just to give you, I guess, some hope
that it doesn’t always just go up.
Page 93
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Maybe other people have questions. I’ll yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So right now we’re looking at the Kanuha proposed with
some amendments to it or a few tweaks. Then is it correct that we need to look
for $280,068? Is that correct on that?
MS. SAKO: That’s earlier, when we had the Homeowners at $6.20. Then
someone asked about the $600,000 shortfall and I put it back on the screen right
now, at $6.15, and that’s when it was keeping the Homeowners at the current rate
of $6.15. But on the one on the print out, at that point in time, we had upped it to
$6.20.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, because I was looking at that and thought, okay, so
with the cut in the position Wastewater, Homeless Coordinator, Deputy Director
for IT, it would take $174,112 off of the $280,000, we came to $105,000, then if
everybody gave $12,000 from their contingency fund, we would clear it with a
little bit of extra. But that’s at the $6.20, up at the Homeowners. Versus the
proposed rates at $6.55, right? So we’d still take it down from the proposed rates
if it’s at $6.20, and I think we could fix it by, if we take out the positions, which is
what I think Council Member Kanuha you were talking about and Council
Member Lee Loy. And then contingency funds. So think about that. That’s
something to think about. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: We really need to dispose of the age exemption bill, because we
need to know where we’re going on that. It makes a big difference here, guys. It
appears that the minimum tax, at least from discussion, may be headed to passing.
But we haven’t had any discussion on the other bill at this point, and we really
need to dispose of these two bills in order to do the balancing act that you’re
attempting to do.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so let’s talk about Bill 35 and 36 then. Oh, Bill 36,
which is the age exemption. Okay, who wants to go first? Oh, Council Member
Ruggles, you had your light on?
MS. RUGGLES: We’re going to go back to this, yeah, after we—?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I mean we can be flexible and move around, but
now can we move into the age exemption?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, then we’ll move back to what’s before us?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Eoff. Oh, no? Okay, Council
Member O’Hara, did you want to start off the discussion on the age exemption?
Page 94
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. O’HARA: Okay. We have age exemptions in the code already. We have an
age exemption for 60, we have an age exemption for 70. Yes, people are living
longer, and the retirement funds have to extend for a further period of time, but
the age exemptions that the Mayor is proposing are only $10,000 additional
valuation exemption, and another $10,000 at age 80. Truly I believe that if we did
an overhaul of the tax code in this upcoming year and made some changes in the
exemptions that are currently available for the Homeowner class, I think we could
do a much better job that way than adopting these new age exemptions at this
point in time.
It’s not a lot of additional reduction in your taxes. You’re only dropping your
valuation by $10,000 at age 75 and an additional $10,000 by age 80. Given that
you’ve already gotten the other age exemptions and you have the 20 percent
valuation of home up to $80,000, for the average homeowner here that additional
exemption’s going to be something like $6.00. I mean, it’s not a lot of money, but
collected over a class—we have a lot of elderly residents here, so collected over
all of them, it adds up to $450,000. But what I’ve heard from the public so far, I
haven’t heard great support for this. So that’s where I’m at with it right now.
MS. SAKO: Could I just clarify real quickly? It’s actually 10 times 6, or $60.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, $60 a year? Okay. Any other discussion on the
age exemption and how people feel about it? Because we would have to motion it
in to either vote it up or down. So do we want to—Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Well, I’m just trying to get back to the premise of the age
exemptions and why this was being proposed. I’m assuming it was because of
the—
MS. SAKO: It had to do with going along with the increase in the homeowners’
rate.
MR. KANUHA: Yeah, but if you keep it the same then there’s no reason to have
the addition age exemption, right? Correct?
MS. SAKO: Correct.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Can you repeat that one more time?
MS. SAKO: Initially when the homeowners’ rates were going from $6.15 to
$6.55, it was a way to help the seniors that were on a fixed income. If this
particular proposal that happens to be on the screen where homeowners’ rates is
the same, I’m not saying it still wouldn’t be a nice thing to do, those people are
Page 95
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
still on fixed income, but you know, part of was because we were increasing the
homeowners’ rate, we wanted to insure those on fixed income, you know, would
still be okay.
MS. LEE LOY: So if we don’t raise it, they don’t need it?
MS. SAKO: I mean, I’m sure some will argue they still need it, but hopefully
they’re also falling into those tiered categories that they might get help that way.
And so it’s just, you know, initially it was they are on fixed income, and it still a
good thing to do, but part of that was because we’re increasing the rates as well.
MS. LEE LOY: Is there a qualifier for the age exemption with income, or is it
just age?
MS. SAKO: It’s just age.
MS. LEE LOY: You know, I’m conflicted by this one, just like Ms. Ruggles and
Ms. O’Hara has a number of people in ag district, I have seniors. I have seniors.
And we all have seniors, and you know, like I said in my narrative I’m not going
to do this to them. They need as much help as we can give them. So I’m really
conflicted on this one and my kneejerk reaction is, you know, let’s give it to them
and if we go through the massive overhaul we can actually figure out a better way
to help them out, you know, besides fixed income and medication and
transportation or whatever have you, this is one group that I’m going to have a
hard time raising taxes on. So that’s where I stand on that one, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Deanna, I just have a question. So the amount for these
exemptions, the additionals, the 75 and 80 year old, was that included in your
projections? I’m just wondering how much will this offset that?
MS. SAKO: Yes, it is the $450,000 we’re subtracting here on the screen.
MS. DAVID: Oh, you guys are already doing it, okay.
MS. SAKO: So we’re taking it into account on all the scenarios right now.
MS. DAVID: But if we didn’t do it, then there would be $450,000 extra. Okay.
MS. SAKO: There would be $450,000 extra. And you know, the Mayor has
been very supportive of protecting those most at risk.
Page 96
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. DAVID: So I tend to agree, with Ms. Lee Loy about protecting our kupuna,
and I don’t think $400 and some-odd thousand for this is basically not much for
the benefits I think it will add. So okay, thank you. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: My question was answered.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. So with that thinking, we might have to go back
up to the $6.20 rate in the Homeowners in order to make up enough difference
that we’re getting close to—
MS. SAKO: Right, if we leave it at the $6.15, we’re $600,000 short. There’s
some positions, I mean, there’s cuts or other revenues. I mean, you can do it
either way.
MS. EOFF: And if we put it to $6.20 and gave the age exemption, we’d still be
short $280,000?
MS. SAKO: Yes.
MS. EOFF: So we need to consider where—well, I guess first we need to decide
what we want to do with the age exemptions and then decide where we want to
look into the budget to cut.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so would it be wise to read in our Bill 36? I mean,
not read it in, motion it in, and discuss it and vote on it and then we’ll see where
we go from there on what we need to do at the real property tax rate? Council
Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I just wanted one clarification. We’re not taking anything away
from anybody, right? It’s just adding something.
MS. SAKO: Yes, we’re adding the 75 and 80 year old. The 60 and 70 stay the
same.
MR. CHUNG: Right, so we don’t do anything, we’re not—it’s just staying the
same. Okay, alright.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so maybe we should motion in Bill 36 so we can—
you didn’t understand? Council Member Chung said we’re not taking anything
away from them if we would vote this down. But if we would vote this up, and
approve it, we would give them an additional. That’s all he was saying.
Page 97
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Motion to Approve: Ms. O’Hara moved to pass Bill 36 on second and final
reading. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Discussion? Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Okay, what we have on the screen before us right now relating to
this bill, in fact a little pointer is on the $450,000 negative, if you can see that
Maile, is the exact same rate, $6.15 that homeowners are currently paying. So if
we drop—because the Mayor has proposed $6.55, had proposed raising the
homeowner rate to $6.55, therefore the giveback with the age exemptions. But
we are not, if we accept this, raising the homeowners’ rate in any way. It’s going
to remain at $6.15, so they have no impact on them at all. So that was what
Deanna was just explaining. Those age exemptions were proposed by the Mayor
to offset the addition to homeowners’ exemption. And Dru pointed out that if it
remains the same as it’s always been, they’re not impacted. Except of course
their valuations may change, but whatever, you know, they’re not impacted.
So that is the reason why if you drop it to $6.15, it doesn’t make sense to have
these additional age exemptions. It does, however, invite the whole discussion
about how to arrange our tax code so that we do take care of kupuna. Because
this is important, it is very important, and we do need that property tax overhaul.
So I just wanted to make sure that was understood. I know it’s getting late in the
day and we’re all braindead, but it’s very important we understand this stuff. And
thank you, Dru, for making it very simple.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So on Bill 36 right now. Anyone else? Council Member
Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Maybe I’m braindead too. Didn’t you say you were against this
proposal earlier?
MS. O’HARA: Yes.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, but you made the motion to approve it.
MS. O’HARA: Well it has to be moved to bring on the floor so we can vote on it.
MR. CHUNG: Okay.
MS. O’HARA: Sorry, that’s the procedure.
MR. CHUNG: I just wanted to make sure that was the only reason.
MS. O’HARA: That’s a procedural thing.
Page 98
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: Yeah but you didn’t have to do it, somebody else could. It was
very confusing for me.
MS. O’HARA: This is true. I just want to move things along, Mr. Chung. It’s
getting late. I’m sorry.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion on Bill 36? Council Member Lee
Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. You know, I still remain conflicted, because
part of it is we’re assuming that when we overhaul the real property tax structure,
we’re going to give deference to these age exemptions, and if they’re not in place,
we can’t do it. I’m just trying to look around the corner a little bit. I know we’re
looking at this budget, but we also have to look around the corner a little bit.
That’s where I’m at and I look forward to hearing what other people have to say.
I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: So the tradeoff here is that if we do not support this age exemption
being proposed, then we are kind of promising that we also won’t increase the
Homeowners class at all, is that correct? So that we’re not impacting those same
people.
MS. O’HARA: We have in front of us I guess kind of a consensus right now on
the screen, and so that’s what the basis of this discussion is around at this point.
MS. SAKO: Can I just make one comment that may or may not impact your
decisions. But you know, when they had the working group and you know,
Finance was committed to creating another one and working and developing a
committee, it took a couple of years for some of those things to be implemented.
It just takes time. So I don’t want this to be part of something that may take a
couple years. Not that we aren’t committed to working on it, but even the
Residential and looking at the tax returns and sending out the letters to 63,000
homeowners ow whatever it was. You know, it did take time. So you know, not
everything’s going to happen overnight, so just to keep that in mind too.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just want to understand. This, what’s before us,
this isn’t the only option, right? I mean we have all of these that we just worked
out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah.
Page 99
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: Okay. I just wanted to point out that I just did the calculation
with the little tweak of numbers that we did before we went on break, and if we
were to pass this, with that, there would be a $306,000 excess that would help
contribute to balance it. I just wanted to say that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, on Bill 36. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I’m going to say I’m conflicted on this one, too, like Council
Woman Lee Loy. I get the understanding of holding where we are and trying to
balance the budget, but the concern is for that retiree fixed income, and trying to
strike that balance is why we’re here and what we’re trying to get done. I don’t
think there’s really a good answer on this one right now. That’s the tough one. I
do feel confident that this is a one year answer. Meaning I feel very confident
we’re going to be going after the whole tax code, but I am conflicted too, and I’m
still on the fence.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion on Bill 36? If we don’t, we’re
going to end up going for the vote. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Okay, I’m just trying to get clear on the proposal that’s in front of
us. It leaves us a shortage of $614,000 and some that we have to cut from
expenses. If we vote “no” on Bill 36 that’s before us right now, that reduces to
$154,000.
MS. SAKO: If I take out the age exemption, we’re down to $164,000.
MS. O’HARA: Yeah, so you know, those are cuts that we would still have to
make, and there are some expenses that we can cut, so it comes pretty darn close.
And that’s keeping the Homeowner class at the exact same rate that it is currently.
It still invites a task force between here and next year to work this out, because
I’m not happy with our tax code, never have been, and I think it really needs an
overhaul, but it’s not, in my opinion, an irresponsible action to take.
I know it’s going to make Mr. Kanuha very happy to keep the homeowner rate
low, and it’s not a bad compromise. The rates that we see before us are not a bad
compromise. I’m really pleased that we’ve been able to work that through to this
point, but if we do leave in the age exemption in addition to keeping the
homeowner rate at the same as it is now, then we have some serious cuts that we
have to start considering. So we’d have a lot of work to do and it’s already
quarter of six. So not that I’m saying that we shouldn’t do the work, I’m here
until it’s over, but just letting you know that’s what I’m seeing right now.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay, Council
Member Richards.
Page 100
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, just to be—I’m joining the ranks of being a little
braindead at this point, so Deanna could you clarify the numbers again for us,
please?
MS. SAKO: So if you guys vote down the age exemptions, we’re $164,000 short.
If you approve the age exemptions, we’re $614,000 short.
MR. RICHARDS: Alright, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Could we just clarify that math with the other proposed plan?
MS. SAKO: The—which one?
MS. RUGGLES: The one that I proposed.
MS. SAKO: This one?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah.
MS. SAKO: So if we take it out of that one, then we’re $756,000 over.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: That was Jen’s proposal, and they were $756,087 over?
MS. SAKO: Yes, that’s correct.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so yeah, that’s an increase.
MS. SAKO: I think that’s the second page of what got passed out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so on Bill 36. Is there any more discussion on
Bill 36? Okay, seeing or hearing none, I’m going to ask, Mr. Clerk, if you could
take a roll call please.
Page 101
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Vote on Bill 36: The motion to pass Bill 36 on second and final reading
(Failed) failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Lee Loy, Richards,
and Ruggles – 3.
Noes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, O’Hara, and Chair Poindexter – 6.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Bill 36 fails. So now moving on. Do you guys
want to just get rid of the minimum tax? So can I ask for a—Council Member
David.
Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 35 on second and final
reading. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David, Bill 35.
MS. DAVID: Thank you. I think we discussed quite a bit, and I think the
tendency was—I can’t remember what. I think we agreed to this, right
Mr. Chung? Okay, I think this was something that I said I support. So given
that, I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Any other discussion on Bill 35? Council
Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Once again, Deanna can you give us the numbers. I’ve
looked at a few today.
MS. SAKO: Okay, so with the Mayor’s proposed rates, it brings in
approximately $3 million. When we start to tweak Homeowners and Ag, those
are the two classes that throws it off the most. If we just look at this Kanuha
proposal as amended, just so we know which one we’re on, I believe our min
taxes will still work. And that would bring in the $3 million and I sort of have the
cursor there. So if you vote it down, then we would need to find $3.1 million, just
looking at this proposal as an example. Or tweak the rates to bring it up.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Then you had already factored in the minimum rate change into this?
MS. SAKO: Yes, we had it in all the proposals, including the Mayor’s.
Page 102
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, roll
call please.
Vote on Bill 35: The motion to pass Bill 35 on second and final reading was
(Adopted) carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, and
Chair Poindexter – 8.
Noes: Council Member Ruggles – 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So you want us to suspend the rules, right, for the
five-day hold?
MS. SAKO: Yes, we would appreciate that, because we have to calculate bills
soon. Yes. Thank you for reminding me.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so can I have—?
Vote on Motion to Suspend Mr. Richards moved to suspend Council Rule 15 to waive
Council Rules: the 5-day hold for reconsideration of Bill 35. Seconded by
(Approved) Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Motion passes. Now we’re back. Again, we haven’t
motioned the resolution in yet, so we’re still talking about the scenarios that we
have before us. Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. The scenario that we have before us, I see it
balances the budget. Of course the issue for me is the ag rate. I just wanted to
elaborate a little bit more. I’m sorry I’m going to have to throw numbers at you,
but it’s factual and I think we should be making our decisions based on facts.
I just want to start off by saying that Puna pays the second most. We contribute
the second most when it comes to ag taxes, ag property taxes. We’re second
behind District 6. Fifty-four percent of all ag parcels on the island, more than half
Page 103
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
of ag-zoned land that would be subject to this tax, is in Puna. It would increase
our average payment from $432 to $501 per resident for 36,000 Puna property
owners.
I take exception to this. Puna, as we already established, is the most economically
disadvantaged district in the State. A few weeks ago, a resolution I brought up
outlined how Hawaiʻi County has failed to plan for actual land uses for our island,
and this inappropriate planning has caused the federal agency to rule that the
County was giving Puna disparate treatment. I’m concerned that this only
contributes to more of that. Eventually, hopefully when we get to a point to
where we are revamping our tax system and our zoning on our island, what
happens when we actually zone Puna what it’s supposed to be, which is
residential? We’re going to be back where we started. Where are we going to get
the money from?
I know Mr. Kanuha referred to it as “easy pickings,” which I take offense to,
because Puna is not to be referred to as easy pickings.
Point of MR. KANUHA: Move to clarify.
Clarification:
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Kanuha, just for clarification.
MR. KANUHA: For clarification purposes, the “easy pickings” wasn’t about the
tax rate that I was setting, it was about the contingency funds, the positions that I
was taking out. That was the easy pickings I was talking about.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you for clarifying. This proposal doesn’t even balance
the budget, and that all aside, we need to be encouraging farming island-wide.
We shouldn’t be punishing people for living on ag land. It shouldn’t be a burden
to live on ag land. I think we have a lot of other option on the table here, and I
think we should take a serious look at them. And yeah, it shouldn’t be a burden to
live on ag land. This is disproportionately affecting the most disadvantaged
population in the State. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Oh, sorry.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: First I have a question for Ms. Ruggles and then I’d like to ask
Deanna a question. So the difference between—you would rather see the ag rate
not change at all, correct? To leave it at $9.25, and the Mayor’s proposal was
Page 104
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
going to raise it to $9.85. I think what we were looking at a minute ago it’s $9.95,
right? So my question is—well first of all, if that’s correct. Then Deanna, what
does that difference amount to per thousand taxable appraisal value?
MS. SAKO: Well compared to the current rate, that would be .70 cents more or
$7.00 per thousand.
MS. EOFF: Seven dollars per thousand.
MS. SAKO: I think I have my decimals in the right place, yes. And just as a
reminder, for those actually doing ag, the benefit is in the ag values and the value
of the land, which is greatly reduced for those in either the non-dedicated program
or the dedicated program. I know it’s come up before about the unpermitted
structures. We do not deny someone a homeowners’ exemption because their
home is not permitted. I just wanted to clarify that. And we do tax them on their
non-permitted structures, yet.
MS. EOFF: I’m just trying to understand Jen’s concern, and her statements were
pretty—well not harsh, but you know, passionate. I don’t know if it’s correct
because the property and the people that she’s worried about that live on those
properties, is it really going to mean a huge difference in their yearly tax bill?
MS. SAKO: So yeah, I think it comes out to $7.00 per thousand. So if someone
had a $10,000 parcel, they would pay $70 more per year, with the $9.95 that’s on
the screen.
MS. EOFF: I’m just trying to understand here to make it any better. Or where we
would have to increase something else.
MS. RUGGLES: There’s another proposal out there.
MS. EOFF: Yeah, but I’m not too supportive of a lot of the other numbers in
your proposal because I think it unfairly burdens—it’s not really—I guess going
back to the philosophy of 6.5 percent across the board being kind of a fair
approach, but yet we’re trying to help certain classes at this point, but to
overburden certain other classes also, doesn’t seem fair. And it does, it will
further increase the proportion that comes from the west side of the island on
some of your numbers. So I’m just having to be considerate of that as well. So
I’m just trying to find the most fair thing here, but I don’t want to—
MS. RUGGLES: Well, I think you—I was referring to the one that was up there
that we had all sort of—I’m not talking about my amendment.
MS. EOFF: But isn’t it reflected in the handout?
Page 105
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: Yes, and those are two separate ones.
MS. EOFF: Okay, I know that.
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, the proposal that I just introduced, this one puts
Commercial and Industrial at the same rate, at $11.00, and then Apartment and
Hotel and Resort at $12.00, and Residential at $11.00 flat. And it keeps
Homeowner at $6.15 and leaves Agricultural at $9.25.
MS. SAKO: So just to summarize. This was the proposal that we had up where
we were $164,000 short. So just to compare it to this proposal, Residential is .10
cents higher; Affordable Rental stays the same; Apartment, Hotel and Resort are
$50 cents higher each; Commercial and Industrial are .30 cents higher each; Ag is
.70 cents lower; and Conservation is .45 cents higher; and Homeowners is the
same at $6.15. However, in this proposal with the Ag going down, I think any
increase that’s currently showing on the screen would be wiped out be a reduction
in minimum tax.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Hang on. Council Member Eoff had the floor, that’s why
and you had kind of answered. But are you—?
MS. EOFF: I guess just to finish that, then the being wiped out with the minimum
then actually balances it?
MS. SAKO: Well, I mean, right. I think—Lisa and Stan are going to go check
my math, but we’re checking on the minimum tax. But right, we would be at
roughly zero.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member O’Hara.
MS. O’HARA: Thank you. I appreciate the request to keep Ag low. I think
that’s a really good thing, so I’ve got the same model that Deanna’s working on in
front of me right now. So I’m plugging in numbers, keeping the $9.25 for Ag and
the $6.15 for Homeowners. In order to come up with a somewhat balanced
budget, and we’re still going to have to check on how the minimum tax affects
this, I have Residential now at $11.1; Apartment at—if you want to try another
scenario so we can see it on the screen—okay, Residential at $11.1; Apartment at
$11.75; Hotel and Resort at $11.75; Commercial $11.10; Industrial $11.10;
Agriculture stays at $9.25; Conservation at $11.55; and Hotel and Resort—well,
we already did that. So is that everything? Did I give you everything? Yeah,
$6.15 for the Homeowners.
MS. SAKO: I think so, yeah.
Page 106
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. O’HARA: I come out to $297.396.
MS. SAKO: No, I might have one wrong. Okay, so Residential was $11.10?
MS. OʼHARA: Yes.
MS. SAKO: Affordable Rental, $6.15; Apartment, $11.75; Hotel and Resort,
$11.75; Commercial and Industrial, $11.10; Ag, $9.25; Conservation, $11.55?
MS. OʼHARA: $11.55.
MS. SAKO: Okay, and then Homeowners, $6.15?
MS. OʼHARA: $6.15, keeping it the same.
MS. SAKO: Okay, then I come out to $278,000.
MS. OʼHARA: $278? Is that what I’m seeing there?
MS. SAKO: Yes. So I’m not sure I got them in—
MS. OʼHARA: It looks like $297 from here. Which screen am I watching? Oh,
I’m looking over here.
MS. SAKO: Oh sorry. $297 in revenue. Yes, I’m sorry. $278,000 additional.
MS. OʼHARA: Additional because we removed the negative $450,000. Yeah, or
we can try dropping a class to $11.05 or something. I don’t know. Because when
you start dropping Residential class, it makes big changes. It’s hard to get it on
the nose.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, so Residential is our largest class, so then we’d be short $171.
MS. OʼHARA: Yeah, so anywhere that you drop it by a nickel, you start coming
up short. That’s the way it works out. I don’t know what the impact on the
$3 million from the minimum tax rate. Because this could drastically affect that
$3 million. So maybe it’s good to have a little surplus banked in there, because
that’s going to drag it down. I’m trying to keep my head on this as much as I can.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you.
MS. OʼHARA: But that’s just another option. I mean, I know that Ms. Ruggles, I
agree that Ag should not be overly taxed. I think our rate is exceptionally high,
and if we were to do this, we would be keeping Homeowner and Ag static, and
Page 107
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
that would please a lot of people in the Puna District most certainly, and
throughout the island probably. But there is going to be some negative
ramifications from raising the rates in other classes. Sorry, it really does affect
other people in a negative manner.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy, and then I’ll go to
Council Member Richards.
MS. LEE LOY: I just wanted to clarify, with this scenario, Deanna, how are we
going up and down again? I wanted to hear that.
MS. SAKO: I know. We’re clarifying and I might have had it backwards. So if
our Ag is lower, the rate is lower, I think more of them will fall into minimum tax,
so I think we’re going to be okay. So let’s say their value is $100,000, and we tax
them at $9.25 instead of $9.95. Then their bill will be—well whatever it gives us,
$92.50. More of them will generate min tax.
Point of Information: MS. RUGGLES: I have a point of information if that’s appropriate?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, your point of information?
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. We’ve actually run the numbers, comparing what
the ag rates would be if the minimum tax were double or if they stay the same. So
I don’t know if this might be helpful. We just autosum it. It looks like it would
bring in $54,837,000. Is that matching your numbers?
MS. SAKO: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy, you still have the floor.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah thank you. I’m just waiting for Deanna.
MS. SAKO: Go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Earlier you gave, we went up or down—
MS. SAKO: I know, when we do this, it takes like three hours to run the actual
calculations, so we’re trying to logic it out, and I think I had logicked it
backwards. I’m sorry.
MS. LEE LOY: Backwards, okay.
MS. SAKO: But I think we are going to be okay with the min tax with this
scenario, and in the previous scenario that we’ve been talking about. Oh, Stan’s
calculating as well, I think.
Page 108
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. LEE LOY: Can you share those numbers again on the previous scenario? I
was writing but couldn’t write fast enough. Sorry.
MS. SAKO: So on the Kanuha one, the Ruggles one, or the new O’Hara one?
Okay. So in this case with the $9.95 in for Ag, I think a few less will hit min tax,
but more Homeowners will hit min tax. So we think our $3 million’s okay. So
we are short $164,000. When I put that in to the expenditure worksheet we had
been working with, we are $13,395 extra at the moment. Just to help put it in
perspective.
MS. LEE LOY: Then if you could share again on the different classes how we
were going up and down?
MS. SAKO: Oh yes. Okay. So compared to which one? Third one, the new
O’Hara one? Okay. Sorry, I have my own nicknames. Okay, so from—what we
were working on is the amended Kanuha. These particular rates, Residential is
going up .20 cents; Affordable Rental staying the same; Apartment is going up
.25 cents; Hotel and Resort’s going up .25 cents; Commercial and Industrial are
going up .40 cents each. Yes. Oh yes, I’m sorry.
For the Kanuha, it was at $10.90, versus on this particular one, the Residential is
at $11.10. Affordable Rental stays the same at $6.15; Apartment and Hotel and
Resort are going from $11.50 to $11.75. Commercial and Industrial are going
from $10.70 to $11.10. Agriculture is going from $9.95 to the current rate of
$9.25; and Conservation is staying the same at $11.55, same as the Kanuha
proposal as amended. Then the Homeowners are staying the same at the current
rated of $6.15. The one on the screen is the one Eileen just gave.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay wait. Hang on one second. You know why,
because I know that when they’re taking the minutes and stuff, you’ve got to
identify yourselves, so if you want to put on your mic, I can call your name so
that they know when they’re typing, who’s speaking. Because everybody’s just
kind of speaking at one time. Okay, so Council Member Lee Loy, you still have
the floor.
MS. LEE LOY: Okay Deanna, one more time.
MS. SAKO: Okay, so just so we’re all clear, we’re comparing the Kanuha one as
amended to the O’Hara latest version as amended, amended from another rate.
But so Residential on the first one was $10.90 cents; going now to $11.10.
Affordable Rentals, $6.15, staying the same at $6.15. Apartment, $11.50, going
to $11.75.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
Page 109
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: That’s the same thing you just said a couple of minutes ago, right?
MS. SAKO: Right. I’m repeating.
MR. CHUNG: So what happened to the other one? The first one?
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think because Council Member Lee Loy is asking her
the comparison between this one and—yeah.
MR. CHUNG: And the so-called Kanuha one?
MS. SAKO: Well, the Kanuha one as amended—
CHR. POINDEXTER: The revised Kanuha one.
MR. CHUNG: You mean, so—
MS. SAKO: We haven’t changed that one. This still the revised Kanuha one that
we were on awhile one.
MR. CHUNG: Which is the O’Hara one now?
MS. SAKO: No, no, no. So now, this latest one, because Council Member
Ruggles gave hers, I think Council Member O’Hara is trying to work on
consensus, gave yet a new proposal.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So it’s another proposal.
MS. SAKO: I am just repeating the rates for Council Member Lee Loy, so that
we see how they compare.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so just for clarification. So Deanna, this three or
four that you gave us, right? That is the fifth one we’re working on?
MS. SAKO: Yes.
CHR. POINDEXTER: That is the fifth one that we’re working on, and that’s the
one you have up on the screen. Is that the one you have up on the screen? That
was the fifth one.
MS. SAKO: Yes, this is the fifth one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
Page 110
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: Refer to this as the O’Hara modified. I would have to stop
and think for a few minutes. Too many numbers. Chair?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Council Member Lee Loy still has the floor.
MS. LEE LOY: I’m going to yield and let everybody—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I just wanted Deanna to finish so I can still—I’m still trying to
think. We’re going to have to slow down a little here.
MS. SAKO: Okay, so I was on Apartment, and on the Kanuha as amended, it was
$11.50. On this modified version, we have $11.75. Same thing for Hotel and
Resort. It was $11.50, now it would be $11.75. Then for Commercial, it was
$10.70. Now it would be $11.10. Same thing for Industrial, from $10.70 to
$11.10. Agriculture would drop from $9.95 to $9.25. Conservation would stay
the same as this proposal of $11.55; and Homeowners the same at $6.15.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Council Member Richards, you still have the
floor. Are you giving it up?
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I’ll give it up for now. I’ve got to do the calculations.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Right, so this one is an attempt to put some of what Ms. Ruggles was
advocating for regarding the agriculture class into a new proposal, right? It
doesn’t incorporate all of Ms. Ruggles’ other numbers, but it kind of looks like
it’s an in between. I guess we’re going wait and find out, or do we know what
happens with the minimum tax figured in?
MS. SAKO: Yes, min tax is okay with the $3 million.
MS. EOFF: And we wouldn’t have to find any more—?
MS. SAKO: We would actually have $278,000 additional.
MS. EOFF: Oh. I guess I’d like to hear from the other Council Members and see
how this sits with—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we’re looking at—on the screen we have the
number five version that is not in our handouts. Can I hear some comments on
that version number five? Anyone? Council Member Ruggles?
Page 111
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: I just want to say thank you to Council Member O’Hara for
coming up with this good compromise. I think it’s a good compromise, and I like
it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. I like compromising, but I want to
compromise some more, because you know, commercial and industrial, they’re
carrying it a little bit more. I still think we can get a little better.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Do you want to tweak some of those numbers and pop
something in to see how it changes the bottom line? Deanna can pop that in if
you want to just try it, and she can put it back.
MS. SAKO: I created a new tab if you want to go for a new one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, maybe create a number six version called the Lee
Loy version.
MS. LEE LOY: Again, it’s going to be nickels, but I want to try. I really want to
try. I think there’s no harm in trying. I see everybody is kind of going up like .25
cents between Kanuha’s and our modified O’Hara one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: It’s a Council modified.
MS. LEE LOY: Council modified.
MS. SAKO: Sorry, so which rates did you want to change?
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Deanna. Commercial/Industrial.
MS. SAKO: From $11.10 to—?
MS. LEE LOY: To $11.00.
MS. SAKO: Okay, that gives us $15,000. With the only change being from
$11.10 back to $11.00, we have a small additional income of $15,797.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy, do you—? You want to yield?
MS. LEE LOY: I’ll yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Eoff.
Page 112
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: What happens if you put those at $11.05? I mean no, five cents less.
Yeah, $10.95.
MS. SAKO: Then we’re short $115,000. But we do have the positions you had
mentioned unfunding.
MS. EOFF: Okay, what was that again?
CHR. POINDEXTER: The positions totaled $174,112. Does that sound like a
compromise for people who wanted to cut?
MS. EOFF: So if we change those two rates to $10.95, Commercial and
Industrial, we would have to cut—what would we have to cut out of the budget?
CHR. POINDEXTER: $115,505, is that correct?
MS. SAKO: Not quite that much, because it gets net against the PONC changes.
But yes.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can you scroll down a little bit more?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, $112,000.
MS. EOFF: I’ve heard consensus about wanting to cut some positions, but I’m
not really sure if we’re ready to talk about that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, we need to talk about it, so—
MS. EOFF: First of all, I guess does this make sense, to look at this
Commercial/Industrial? Is that enough, Ms. Lee Loy?
MS. LEE LOY: We’re getting better. I think yes we are getting better. There’s
still some conversation about some of the new positions that totaled up to what
our Chair spoke about. I think we are getting close. I’d like to request maybe a
recess so that we can actually get another—
MS. EOFF: Make sure we’re right.
MS. LEE LOY: Make sure we’re right and another look at where we’re headed.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we’re going to take a 10-minute recess.
Recess: At 6:20 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 6:46 p.m.
Page 113
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Are we ready to go? Okay, are we kind of ready? Okay,
I’d like to call this meeting back to order. Did we get the new printed ones out?
Okay, so who wants to start up the discussion on this, the newly compromised
version; the Council compromised version, which is the last sheet, the last page.
It says Lee Loy because she took the lead on this.
MS. OʼHARA: Okay, I’d be happy to start. This gives us less in total tax
revenues then the Mayor’s proposal, but because we have voted down Bill 36 the
bottom line is we’re short $115,505 from balancing the budget, or a close as we
can come at this point in time. There’s a little decrease from PONC as well from
the maintenance increase. So does that $115 include them or do I need to add that
in?
MS. SAKO: The PONC is not included. So we’re short $115, but we would save
$2,310 in PONC and $289 in PONC Maintenance.
MS. OʼHARA: Okay, so that’s a savings. So we’re basically—
MS. SAKO: We’re about $113,000 extra.
MS. OʼHARA: About $113; $112,500 or something like that, in that
neighborhood. We considered during the break where we could cut expenses to
balance the budget, and there were two positions that we were looking at. One is
a newly created position which is the Deputy Director’s position for IT. As much
as I hate taking the money away from them entirely, I hope that we can as we
experience fund balances during the year from the good financial management
that we get from our Finance Department, that we can be able to potentially
restore some money to the IT Department.
We have another position that we were looking at that’s a Clerk III position in
Corp. Counsel that’s vacant and funded. It’s about $40,000. Didn’t know you
had that? Oh well, you may be losing it, for the year anyway. Is that the one you
want? No?
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think, Council Member O’Hara, I think for clarification
the two that we were talking about were the Homeless Coordinator and the IT,
Deputy Director for IT.
MS. OʼHARA: Okay, these have been two different discussions. I was having a
different discussion with Karen. I’m sorry.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
Page 114
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. OʼHARA: And the reason for that is homelessness is such a big problem on
this island. And it’s going to become even worse as we experience from the
national level. I think that’s so critical to keep somebody on that job that—if we
have a clerical position that we can eliminate that’s on the books, funded, and
vacant, I would rather go that route. But that’s just my two cents. So that’s—I’ll
yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? And then just—I’m
pretty sure the State funded the homeless position and gave it all to Hawaiʻi
Tourism. So our County if we should decide to cut that position should be
tapping into the Hawaiʻi Tourism and how are they going to help this island.
Because they were given the money to address homelessness. Council Member
David.
MS. DAVID: Okay, so when we’re going off of the one we’re working that says
Lee Loy on it, we are about $113,000 short? Is that what we are just about?
Okay. And then if we try to make that up with the IT, then we have a balance of
what, about $19,000? In order to balance that? It looks—I don’t have the exact
number, but it’s—
MS. SAKO: Okay, so we’re $115,000 short. If we take out the IT Deputy, you
are $18,906 short. Oh, for the IT Deputy? Is $94,000, yes.
MS. DAVID: Okay, so we are looking for $18,906, yes. Alright, I just needed
that number. Not sure where we’re going to get it, but we can certainly find it.
It’s getting down there. I’ll yield right now. I’m looking out in the crowd who’s
eagerly wanting to give it up.
MS. OʼHARA: Everybody’s so tired. Oh my goodness.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: I did have another position on the chopping block and another
action. What number it is at this point in the night I’m not sure I can remember.
But it was a position with Corporation Counsel, and it is for $40,000 and it is
vacant and funded. If that was eliminated, that would give a little excess of
about—?
MS. SAKO: $21,094.
MS. OʼHARA: Thanks you, Deanna, $21,000, which I would want to return to
the IT Department for additional funding for equipment and servers and that sort
of thing. So that’s what I would recommend doing.
Page 115
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? And another option would
be having them hold off on that position until a later part of the year. I don’t
know, I see our Corp. Counsel coming forward, and wants to say something to
defend his position.
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. KAMELAMELA: I’m not going to say that it’s illegal, it’s just that there’s
two positions. The positions that Council Member O’Hara’s talking about is a
position where there’s an incumbent. It’s an incumbent position because we had a
person who was picked as a private secretary. So for those kinds of positions, we
don’t know if she’s going to last wherever she goes to. So she has what’s called
return rights. So recognizing that she has return rights, we looked earlier in the
year because we also needed a legal tech clerk. So what we had done is we had a
supervisory position that was open, and we had talked about it, and we actually
had decided that we needed a legal tech. So we went through the process of
getting approval to lower the classification. So that’s the position that Council
Member Kanuha was looking at. So by lowering the position, it took us about
two months to get the approval for that.
So we had—there was a need for a legal tech because it’s such a specialty area,
that we needed another body to handle the work, because we’re going to be fully
staffed. The Corp. Counsel Office wasn’t fully staffed with attorneys since July.
In July two of the attorneys left, but now we’re going to be fully staffed. So to
take up the work of the additional attorney, that’s why we went to do a
reclassification from a supervisor to a Legal Tech I. We had actually gone
through the recruiting process. We had actually gone out and advertised back in
April. We actually started interviews for the position, and we have an interview,
st
and then we wanted to have that Legal Tech start by July 1.
MS. SAKO: Can we have a 30 second recess, please?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Sure. 30 seconds? What about one minute?
MS. SAKO: One minute’s good.
CHR. POINDEXTER: One minute recess.
Recess: At 6:55 p.m., the Chair called for a short recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 6:59 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, we’re back in session. So who had the floor?
Page 116
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: We worked out a compromise that this position has return rights,
and we’re unsure of the person’s status, but we believe we would be willing to
give up half a year, which would put us $1,000 over.
CHR. POINDEXTER: What was that amount again?
MS. SAKO: The half year is roughly $20,000. So that would be $1,094 excess or
away from balancing.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, that’s pretty close. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. So first of all, I feel that we should refer to the
current proposal as the Council’s compromise scenario or proposal.
MS. SAKO: Yes, we have Council adjustments spreadsheet at the top.
MS. EOFF: Because everybody has had a lot of input, and I think we’ve done
something that—well, in all the years I’ve watched Council, I haven’t really seen
it go this way before. It’s been a good exercise and I feel that, you know, we’re
close to having a balanced budget and something that hopefully the
Administration can support as well.
I do have a couple of little points that I’m worried about. One was the rise in the
Residential rate. I know I spoke about that earlier. Hopefully we can understand
that better and live with it, but it does seem a little bit steep. Somebody point out
to me in my office a few—well like a couple of weeks ago that in other islands
there’s a bigger spread between like the Hotel rates and the Residential, and ours
is not so much. But I see that’s somewhere that could be changed as we revamp a
tax structure. Because we’ve been talking today about different categories which
might separate out some short term vacation rentals and otherwise be able to bring
in more revenue that we haven’t had a chance to really calculate yet.
But I feel that’s where—and I’ve made some commitment to that. I have been
looking at the Kauaʻi ordinance regarding short term vacation rentals and working
with Planning and some other people on that. So I’m sure that’s a discussion that
we’re going to go forward with, and should help. Maybe at some point we can
lower the residential that doesn’t include those more commercial uses. That’s one
thing.
The other one is, I guess right now we’re just coming down to the wire on exactly
how we want to—well, let me backtrack a little bit. I think although we can’t do
everything we want and we’re not able to make all the cuts we probably wish we
could of at this point in time, I understand that serious cuts have been made by the
Administration. The prior Administration took out a lot of the vacant unfunded
positions, and we’re looking at something that at the beginning of this day we
Page 117
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
talked about that we have no control over. So I think that—have we done
enough? You know, I guess that’s up to us to keep trying harder. But I think
we’ve done a good thing in that we’ve not only reduced the growth of government
by agreeing to take out some new positions at this point in time, and we’ve also
reduced the Homeowners class, the rate, which I still believe was the most
important message we can send to our constituents, that we do care for the policy
that Lisa read to us earlier about trying to maintain healthy neighborhoods and a
thriving local community.
So right now that’s about all I have to say. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards is first, then I’ll go to Council
Member Chung.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so this started a few hours ago, and I think we’re now
to the stage where we’re actually talking about the cuts. So I put forth a bunch of
them, but I can cherry pick through these things. There’s two things I want to talk
about. One is for Mass Transit. We had doubled the allocated funds for buying a
new bus. So one from—again, rough numbers—$500,000 to $1 million. I’d like
to take out one of those busses to save us $450,000 or $500,000. I’m very happy
to redirect half of that to maintenance and repair, because we heard in one of the
previous conversations that we have 50 busses, half of them are not on the road
right now. So rather than buy a new bus, I think we need to evaluate what we
have actually on the ground here. So rather than buying a new bus and then kind
of go on, I’d rather hold those funds. Get them the new bus like they’ve done
every year before, but save half of that money and then use the other half as,
again, a reduction in our overall budget.
The other thing is the contingency funds that we have. I had a proposal to reduce
that to $125,000, which would allocate $50,000 to all members. I’m open to talk
story on both of these. But I do want to put them out as a talk story.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. You know, I don’t want to put a damper on all of
this, but I also wanted to plug in some number if I man. So Deanna? I’m going
to try to see how this works, and I will tell you why. I’ve got to tell you why I’m
kind of hesitant with what’s being proposed. See, I really liked the Kanuha one
before because I didn’t want to see Commercial and Industrial get touched from
Mayor’s proposal. These are the drivers. These are the guys who provide the
workforce for all of us. You know, it’s very tough running a business, and I just
have a hard time making it even tougher for these guys.
But let’s try Residential, $11.10. I’m going to go with Sue’s number. Affordable,
of course I’m not going to touch that. Apartment, okay, let’s go with Sue’s
Page 118
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
number, $11.75. I hate to do this to the hotel and resort people, but let’s go
$11.75 too. And we go $10.70, $10.70, Commercial/Industrial. Agriculture now,
I know you guys came down to $9.25, but I’m going to bump it back up to what
Eileen had originally proposed, $9.50. Conservation, $11.55. Okay, I don’t want
to be the bad guy, but how about bumping the Homeowners up to $6.25. A .10
cent increase, better than .40 cent increase as proposed by the Administration.
What does that come out to?
MS. SAKO: $1.29 million extra.
MR. CHUNG: Extra? What if we reduce Homeowner by .05 cents?
MS. SAKO: $955,000.
MR. CHUNG: Extra?
MS. SAKO: $955,000, yeah.
MR. CHUNG: So we don’t have to—now what?
MS. SAKO: So even with leaving Homeowners at $6.15, we would have
$621,000 extra.
MR. CHUNG: Well then lets drop—yeah, but you know Hotel and Resort, those
guys, I mean—I don’t have too many of those guys in my district. But you know,
I would say—I just have a hard time using these guys as the whipping boys, you
know. Because it’s so easy. They’re not people, and they’re companies, but—
MS. SAKO: Hotel and Resort can go to $11.55. Apartment leaves it negative
again.
MR. CHUNG: No, no, no. I think Apartment should stay at $11.75.
MS. SAKO: Okay, that’s fine.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I believe they should. But the hotels, maybe drop them.
And you know, even Homeowner, maybe .05 cents more.
MS. SAKO: Okay, so if I take Hotel and Resort to $11.55, we’re at $128,000
extra. If we take Homeowners down to $6.10, I think it will put us negative.
MR. CHUNG: No, I didn’t say—I said move it up.
MS. SAKO: Oh, move it up. I’m sorry. So $6.20 again?
Page 119
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think Council Member Chung wanted to take the
Apartment down to—
MR. CHUNG: No, no. Not Apartment. Hotel and Resort.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, okay. Only Hotel and Resort. Okay.
MS. SAKO: So they’re at $11.55 now. So you want to go down to—
MR. CHUNG: No, leave it what the Mayor proposed.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, no. Leave it.
MR. CHUNG: So basically, Hotel and Resort; Commercial; Industrial;
Residential going to get kicked up. Homeowner .05 cents up. Then we can see
what we can do with the Agriculture.
MS. SAKO: Take it down to $9.45. Still have a little bit extra.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So $183,914, is that what I see?
MR. CHUNG: You know, and it’s less than what Eileen had proposed initially.
It’s far less than what the Mayor’s proposing. It’s not as drastic as what Jen had
proposed, but kind of, everybody’s got to give and take on this thing.
MS. OʼHARA: What have we got? I’m sorry, my eyes are starting to give out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Are you done? Are you yielding? You still have the
floor.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I’ll yield. I just wanted to see those numbers.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so right now with Council Member Chung’s
adjustments, we’re at an increase of $183,914. That means no positions—I mean,
you still have all your positions intact. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: I’m just having a hard time seeing the numbers from here. My
eyes are getting tired. I’m sorry.
MS. SAKO: So we have an excess of $183,914. The rates are $11.10 for
Residential; $6.15 for Affordable Rental; $11.70 for Apartment; $11.55 for Hotel
and Resort; $10.70 for both Commercial and Industrial; $9.45 for Agriculture;
$11.55 for Conservation; and $6.20 for Homeowners.
MR. RICHARDS: What was the Conservation again?
Page 120
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: $11.55.
MS. OʼHARA: And that leaves us about $150,000 in the hole?
MS. SAKO: No, $183,000 excess.
MS. OʼHARA: Excess? Oh, okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Council Member Richards, do you still have the
floor?
MR. RICHARDS: I’m waiting—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so hearing what Councilman Chung has said about we
have to pay attention to our economic generators, and I think that’s very fair. It
comes back to the cut I would like to make concerning the bus, which is
$450,000. If we do that and go back to the Council modified which was once
referred to as the Lee Loy modified, and plug that in—well it’s many different
names. Then adjusted it to what Councilman Chung was saying concerning—and
help me out, Aaron. You wanted to adjust—too many spreadsheets—the
Industrial and Commercial?
MR. CHUNG: Well, keeping it the same from what the Mayor had proposed,
which is still an increase—
MR. RICHARDS: I’m going—listening to just keeping what the Mayor proposed
for Commercial and Industrial. So Deanna, if we adjusted that in the last iteration
that we had, what does that do to our need?
MS. SAKO: So for Commercial and Industrial, taking it to $10.70, is that
correct? If we reduce those to $10.70, then we would be short $772,000.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, we’re got to take one at a time, because I know
Council Member—
MS. SAKO: Right. So this is going back to the Council compromise, what was
formerly called Lee Loy, right, and reducing those to $10.70, then we would be
$772,000 short.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay.
Page 121
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Are you yielding at this time?
MR. RICHARDS: Yes, but I still want to talk about the cuts with the bus, keep
that on the table.
MS. OʼHARA: I’m just trying to keep abreast of where we are. What do have
the Ag rate now, at $9.25?
MS. SAKO: This is going back to the Council compromise version.
MS. OʼHARA: Oh.
MS. SAKO: And just changing Commercial and Industrial to $10.70.
MS. OʼHARA: From—the compromise was 10—?
MS. SAKO: Ninety-five.
MS. OʼHARA: $10.95, and we have what now, a shortage or deficit—?
MS. SAKO: Shortage of $772.
MS. OʼHARA: I like where we were before. I don’t see the advantage here, and
I also want to be very careful about changing the Homeowners rate. We just
made a decision on Bill 36 that was predicated on the fact that we’re intent on
keeping the Homeowner rate the same. So I would be very cautious about
changing that at this point since we’ve already made a decision on that bill. I very
much liked having the Ag rate down at $9.25. It seems very reasonable. It means
no increase for Ag. I don’t really see the advantages of these changes. So I’d like
going back to the other, the Council agreed to whatever.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council compromise.
MS. OʼHARA: Compromise. Council Compromise, okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Which one is the—can we switch back?
MS. SAKO: This is—yeah, this is back to how it was as it was passed out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: But this one is $115,000 short. Which one did we have—
MS. OʼHARA: That’s the one.
Page 122
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: That’s the one, but then you guys had cut out the IT Deputy
Director, and half of the Corp. Counsel.
MS. OʼHARA: I favor that, and I think we’ve done a lot of work on this, and I
think we’re all getting very tired. We could do something very sloppy at this
point, so just caution us.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We have all this before us, all the different scenarios.
Can we talk about which one the majority would like, because they still have to
go work on it, we have to recess, and come back and we have to read it in.
There’s still two other communications. We have Council Member Eoff’s
communication, then you have my communication for the Prosecutor’s Office and
that position which I think I’m going to take out of contingency, but I have that
prepared. Then Council Member O’Hara wants to have another measure heard.
So can we talk about which scenario we would like? Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just had a quick question. Deanna, for
Conservation lands, from what I understand a lot of that is golf courses.
MS. SAKO: That’s correct.
MS. RUGGLES: What if we were to raise Conservation to $11.7?
MS. SAKO: We would be $66,000 short.
MS. RUGGLES: What about $11.75?
MS. SAKO: We would be just about $50,000 short.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay. I’d like to know what the rest of your thoughts are on
that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: Not all Conservation is golf courses.
MR. RICHARDS: Right.
MS. OʼHARA: I don’t play golf, so it’s hard for me to really celebrate the use of
land in that manner, but it is a game that is widely enjoyed by a lot of people and
a big part of our attraction as a tourist destination. So we want our golf courses to
be well maintained, and whenever you start charging extra in taxes it cuts into any
business’s cost of operations. Golf courses are an expensive thing to keep up.
Page 123
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
I’m not going to advocate heavily for the golf courses because there’s a lot of
other land in Conservation besides golf course. I think it behooves us to keep it
there. It’s kind of like our Open Space Fund and the reason the people were so
particular about pushing that as a citizen’s initiative, is because we want to retain
the rural nature of this island, and having Conservation land helps us in that
manner. So I like keeping the rate as low as we could. $11.55 seems more than
reasonable. So I don’t know that we need to raise it any further.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So are you suggesting that Deanna try to put it back to
$11.55 and see where we’re at on that?
MS. RUGGLES: I have a follow-up question.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, since she has a follow-up question, can I go to her,
Council Member Richards? Okay, Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Are there exemptions that lands zoned as Conservation and that
are engaged in Conservation activity can use?
MS. SAKO: Not that we’re aware of currently.
MS. RUGGLES: And another question is have we ever had Conservation and
Hotel and Resort at separate rates?
MS. SAKO: I cannot tell you the complete history, but I have part of it. They
have been different back in Fiscal Year 2009-2010. Otherwise, they have
generally been the same. Always been the same.
MS. RUGGLES: Okay, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Concerning Conservation. I know I’ve been
away from it a little while, but there are some ranch lands that have looked at
going into Conservation. I think previously there were some in. So raising that
thinking it’s a golf course, it’s actually agriculture. So I’m very sensitive to it,
and without and exact study on that I wouldn’t support that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I’m just going to speak directly to the
Commercial/Industrial rates. Mr. Chung made a good point about, you know, this
is where our work force is at. Taking the long view on this one, the minimum
wage for a lot of these places are incrementally going to go up. I have some
concern about that, because they’re going to try and make the minimum wage for
Page 124
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
the people who are working in these categories, Commercial/Industrial, you
know, even Hotel/Resort. So I just want us to have that optics on that, because if
an owner has to choose between paying or taking somebody to part time, we’re
going to start hurting our workforce, which starts this circular cycle of, you know,
they don’t have jobs and now, you know, they’re leaning on services more.
So that’s the long view optics I want to get back in everybody’s head and really
consider keeping that Industrial and Commercial rates lower, or where it was
being proposed. Just—and this is where it gets hard, right? Because we do this,
and we have to take a micro look. But then we have to back up and take a global
look of what’s going on, not only here at home, but at the State, all the constraints
there, and then—you know, so that’s what I’d like to see. I’d actually like to see
us get back to that rate with the Commercial/Industrial being as low as possible to
help our workforce.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: So now we’re talking about a difference of between a rate of $10.70
as compared to $10.95. So that .25 cents per thousand taxable value, can you give
us an idea of what a typical business could see as their increase? I know you’ve
done some averages before.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, we’ve done some averages, and I’m just trying to think what
like a typical business would be. But at .25 cents, it would be $2.50 per thousand.
So if we had a million dollar business that would be $2,500? Just a second. $250
on a million dollar.
MS. EOFF: On a million dollar assessed property?
MS. SAKO: Yes.
MS. EOFF: So I don’t know whether that would really be a crucial breaking
point for a business. And it helps us to do the other things we wanted to do. I
mean it helps me to put it into perspective, what it means in dollars and cents. I
don’t know what kinds of businesses those even represent.
Point of Information: MR. CHUNG: Point of Information. That’s the difference between—
MS. SAKO: Between $10.70 and $10.95.
MS. EOFF: It would be $250 a year on a business property that was appraised at
$1 million. So I don’t know if a lot of them are appraised that high, or if that’s on
the high end, but thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles.
Page 125
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. RUGGLES: I’m sorry.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Anyone else? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I’m good with whatever—I mean, I’m not good with whatever is
proposed, because if we move the Commercial and Industrial—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can you just move the mic?
MR. CHUNG: I’m sorry, yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you.
MR. CHUNG: If we move it up from that $10.70, then I’m not going to be
supporting that amendment. I’ll support the overall concept at the very end, but I
just cannot support that. I’m just letting everyone know.
I think you shouldn’t, you know, Ms. Eoff, shouldn’t just look at the difference
between the $10.70 and the $10.95, you’ve got to look at what the difference is
from the $10.05 that they’re currently at, to the $10.95. It’s a huge jump. Again,
this is our economic engine that we’re dealing with. If we feel, or take a cavalier
attitude that, well, it’s not too much in as much as they have a million dollar
property and you know, maybe implied within that is that they can pass the cost
along, well then everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But I just know, and I don’t have any such businesses. I mean, I don’t have a
commercial property or an industrial property, but I do know this. It’s getting
tougher and tougher for people to operate businesses. Everything is stacked
against them. Government in particular. For us now to just say, okay, the Mayor
already proposed this increase and we’re going to put some more on them,
because they’re really faceless—
MS. EOFF: No, I’m—
MR. CHUNG: I know, I’m not—I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but—
MS. EOFF: No, but I’m looking at that, too, and I—
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, it’s kind of rough.
MS. EOFF: I know that wherever we do this change, we’re increasing
somebody’s burden. So I’m just trying to—I wasn’t saying it in a way that we
should just go ahead and do it. I would love to look at some other proposals at
this point too, if we can keep it—
Page 126
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I just don’t look at the Homeowner class and the
Agricultural properties as being sacred cows. I’m willing to take the blame and
say well, it was going to be all even, but Aaron Chung said to move them up
.10 cents as opposed to .40 cents which was proposed. But if the will of this
Council is to just keep it there and keep Agricultural properties at $9.25, so be it.
But I can’t support that as long as it’s on the backs of these commercial and
industrial properties. Just letting you guys know.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Yeah, just briefly on that statement. I completely agree with
Aaron. You know, commercial and industrial shouldn’t bear the cost of revenue
generation at this time. I think it’s—we don’t want to inhibit growth. I think by
putting it up that much, it’s an inhibitor. So just based off of that one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Ruggles, then I’ll go to Council
Member Richards.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to remind everyone that there are
other options on the table. I completely agree with the points that everyone’s
bringing up as far as not impacting businesses as being our economic drivers, and
that’s why I would just like for us to keep in the back of our minds that we do
have options to provide exemptions for a lot of the businesses. And there are a lot
of businesses out there that can afford to pay a higher rate than others, things like
Safeway and Target, as opposed to Suisan or basically, also the local restaurants
that we go to. So I just wanted to put that in perspective. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Echoing back what Councilman Chung
concerning some of the hotel/resorts and not putting a burden on them, yes, also
on our commercial and industrial side. Because again, supporting our economic
drivers, which employ our people. So I am also not for raising too much burden
on them.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy and then Council
Member O’Hara and then Council Member Chung. Okay, go ahead.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, again. I just wanted to share something Ms. Ruggles just
touched upon, you know, places like Walmart or Target. Here in East Hawaiʻi,
most of our commercial properties is on Hawaiian Homes, State of Hawaiʻi. So
again, they’re barely making it with those industrial leases, and they’re looking at
minimum wage hikes. So again, I’m just taking the long view optics on this one
and trying to make sure that we’re protecting the employers of the working class
Page 127
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
and making sure we can keep people employed. That’s why I just don’t want to
do it on the backs of that class, or that category in our real property tax schedule.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: Well, you know, we can play with this until the cows come
home. But we do have to eventually decided. While there are other ways to skin
the cat—sorry to bring all these animals into play—but we don’t have those
exemptions on the table now and we have to pass a budget that affects us for the
next year. So what I’m saying is we need to pass a balanced budget. If we make
changes in the tax code, that will take effect in the following year. It won’t take
effect in the mid-year. So I just want that understood, that those actions aren’t
actually on the table today, they can be in the future. So I just want to be kind of
clear about that.
We really need to hone in and decide on rates. I’m doing scenarios as we talk,
and I can find other ways to come other ways to come very close and lower the
Commercial/Industrial, but we have to raise Ag. I’m trying not to raise it above
$9.5. But you know, there are other ways. Although you’re talking about
bringing up Commercial and Industrial, think of the impact of a dollar per
thousand dollars in value increase in Residential, because that’s basically what we
just put in. That’s going to affect a lot of people. People here in this room, who
don’t qualify for the Homeowners class for whatever reason. That’s a big impact
on people, and it’s going to be a big impact on renters as well.
So it’s not any one class that needs, you know, protection over the other. You
know, when you’re talking Commercial/Industrial, Residential, Apartments,
Agriculture, all of these classes together form our economy. So I can understand
why the Mayor went after the across the board six and a half percent. It’s easy.
It’s easy to do it that way. You don’t have to justify over one class or another
class or whatever. If we start running that argument to the point where we can’t
come to agreement on a consensus, Council derived tax rates, then we’ve got to
fall back on that, and we legally have no choice, because that’s what takes effect
if we can’t come to a decision here.
So I know we can possibly take a recess until Wednesday or whatever, but I just
think that, as Jon pointed out, complicates the matter. I really would like to see us
come to a decision tonight. Anything we do in the way of raising property taxes
is going to hurt someone, at the expense of sparing somebody else. It’s just the
way it’s going to come down. So we just need to be very judicious in how we do
this. So I just—I feel like we’re at the point where we’re just spinning our wheel
and turning in circles, and I’d like to see us kind of get back to focusing on a
solution here and moving on. Because we do have other measures to take up
before this meeting is over.
Page 128
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. Actually, I disagree with Ms. O’Hara. I don’t
think we’re really spinning wheels, because really what this does is it’s just us
demonstrating that we have differing philosophies about what’s valuable to us or
what we think is valuable, and it’s kind of interesting actually. I mean for my
proposal or whatever I told Deanna to plug in there, obviously it’s on the backs of
the Residential properties. But bear in mind, I know you said that you didn’t want
it to go over $9.50 for the Ag, the numbers we punched in were $9.45 actually.
Five cents less. The Residential people are going to be angry, but I think this is
really a healthy exercise, frankly.
MS. OʼHARA: It’s healthy, but we could be here all night doing this healthy
exercise. I don’t know how healthy that is. Sorry.
MR. CHUNG: But at the same time, we don’t want to just rush things through
without really, really thinking about what all the options are out there, right?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Because we need to start selecting
one of the scenarios.
MS. RUGGLES: I just wanted to go back to one of the scenarios that we had
brought up. I had adjusted some numbers from Mr. Kanuha’s, and then
Ms. O’Hara took some numbers from there, and then Ms. Lee Loy adjusted it
from there. I think we came up with a good option from Council Member Lee
Loy’s. So I’m just wondering if we could go back to that and see how everyone
feels about sitting with that one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: That is the one that we printed out the last page that had
the $115,505 decrease?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, do you have that one up? Oh right there. Okay, so
that is the latest one that we did on the Council Compromise. We’re looking at
that now. Any suggestion, questions, or do we want to go with this one?
MS. RUGGLES: I would support this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Lee Loy, would you support
this?
MS. LEE LOY: I was until I took a good hard look at the numbers and realized
how much Commercial and Industrial was going up, and you know, Aaron put the
right lens on it. It’s not somewhere between .25 cents, it’s somewhere between
Page 129
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
.80 or .90 cents. I don’t see any other category going up like that. I mean other
than Residential. I don’t mind taking Commercial and Industrial back down, and
I really am not afraid if we have to go look for monies and cut some areas of our
expenditures. I am fine with that. I just want to hold the numbers on our real
property tax rates so that people can go about their lives paying their real property
tax or running their businesses, and figure out ways to cut some expenditures.
And you know, Mr. Richards found I think it was $450,000 that closes the gap on
this $115 amount. If we reduce the Commercial/Industrial, I think we can close
the gap. I’m ready to do the hard work. I know it’s late, but I am ready to do the
hard work. This is where the rubber meets the road. I feel like a cheerleader, like
come on guys, e ku mau. Like, we’ve got to get there. But we cannot be afraid to
cut expenditures either. That’s all I’m saying. You know, there’s two parts to
this equation, you know, the revenue and the expenditure. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff, and then Council Member
Richards.
MS. EOFF: So if we do bring the Commercial and Industrial back down to—I
thought it was $10.70, we’re looking for $772,000? We had discussed a couple
positions that helped with about $174,000 I think it was, or $164,000. I’d like to
see what my fellow Council Members would like to propose to find the other
$600,000. I’m just saying that if we go along with this, if we can agree to this
scenario, we need to look for about another $600,000 to reduce in the budget.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right, and if you look at it—can you put that back up, that
scenario? Because I know that Council Member Chung had suggested
Homeowners be at $6.20 when the Mayor is suggesting $6.55. So still, that’s a
nice chunk off of that. What does that bring that down to.
MS. EOFF: I would prefer—I’m sorry, I don’t know if I still have the floor,
but—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, go ahead.
MS. EOFF: I agreed to not support the age exemption thinking that we were
going to put the Homeowners back at $6.15. So I’d rather that we look at some
cuts in the budget right now if anybody has any suggestions for finding $600,000,
and consider that before we make any other changes to this chart. Because I think
we were all pretty much on board with all those numbers except for the
Industrial/Commercial, which has become problematic.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We’re now at looking for $772,000.
MS. EOFF: Well we discussed the $164,000 in a position or two that we would
be willing to not fund at this time, so I think we need to find about $600,000. I
Page 130
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
know Mr. Richards brought up a bus, but I’m just wondering if that’s—did you
have any other?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, can I—? Council Member David—you sure?
Okay, she answered. So do you want to yield and give the floor to Council
Member Richards?
MS. EOFF: Yeah, I would just like to see where people thought about some other
cuts that could be either things that we could put off for awhile or fund in a
different way, or just live without.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. The answer is—this comes back to
the bus. The original budget was for about a half million, and it’s my
understanding this is a matching fund deal from the feds that we get a bus. If we
get two, the value of two or $1 million, we get two buses. I get that, and I do
understand that. That being said, if we go back on the original budget from the
first version whichever month that was, it had one bus. If we go back and look
historically, that’s always been the case.
So I think by still giving one bus, as Council Woman Lee Loy said, we’re going
to have to make a cut here if we’re going to support holding the budget lines
where we want them and the tax rates where we want them. So not taking it all
the way, but just putting it back to where it was is my sensing. I also had
mentioned contingency funds. I’m hoping for discussion on that one as well.
What I had proposed was $225,000 out of contingency and $450,000, so that gets
us there, but I also understand the pushback from my fellow Council Members.
But I think if we at least look the bus, that leaves one new bus coming in, and we
may need to—well, we can’t talk about that yet. But that would leave it where it
was previously, and I think we need to explore fixing the broken buses rather than
just buy new ones. It may not make economic sense to fix some of these things,
but I’d rather put efforts towards that way and get rid of what we don’t need, or
you know buy it like most people buy a car. We can finance this think if we need
to do that, and I’m sure there’s a metric that we can get that thing done. So you
asked about a different way of funding it, let’s finance purchasing a bus. It’s a
cash flow thing I think. So I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can we look at the scenario again?
MS. SAKO: So if we take out $450,000, and you guys can check if I heard that
right, for the bus and take out $225,000 from Council contingency, that would put
us ahead $34,000. And financing a bus is definitely possible. That’s how we’ve
been leasing a lot of our larger equipment. And again, this is lease to own, not
Page 131
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
leasing a bus. It is a financing mechanism, and usually it’s about one-fifth of the
total cost.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Eoff, and then Council Member
Ruggles.
MS. EOFF: One question. I know earlier we talked about if we don’t approve of
the proposed fuel tax rate and we say propose a lower rate, so we may have to go
to another public hearing, but is that where we could find financing too, for
another bus?
MS. SAKO: Yes, we could.
MR. RICHARDS: Just a follow-up?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles, I’m going to allow Council
Member Richards a follow-up. Okay, Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Deanna, just a quick question. We’ve had so many different
scenarios. Given the Council Compromise version that nets down to
$297,002,139, add back the $450,000, are those numbers accurate?
MS. SAKO: Okay, the Council Compromise, I reduced the Commercial and
Industrial to the $10.70, and that’s how we ended up $772,000, and then I did
transfer those numbers over here to our worksheet, and so—
MR. RICHARDS: I can’t see that far.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, I’m sorry, but I did, and so by reducing Transit Equipment
$450,000 and reducing Council Contingency by $225,000, we’re a little ahead, by
$34,000; along with the IT Deputy that was discussed earlier and half of the
Corporation Counsel position.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay. That gives me some more to play with here. So okay, I
yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Ruggles, and then Council
Member Chung.
MS. RUGGLES: I just want to just—I feel like cutting a bus, I wish we could
find another way to do it. I know there were some other options on the table.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles, just for clarification, I don’t
know if you heard that Council Member Richards talked about, when we talk
about the fuel tax, we could probably fund it through that as well. You know,
Page 132
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
maybe we don’t have it in this budget, but we take it from the Fuel Tax, Highway
Fund.
MS. RUGGLES: But that’s based on the assumption that we do increase fuel
taxes? I’m willing to—there were some other options on the table. I’m willing to
sacrifice more contingency funds. I think that we could also look at options
where subsidizing golf course for $500,000. Maybe we could take some from
there. It’s just an idea.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Reminder, we’ve got to get close. Because
we’ve got to take a recess, and they still have to go back and put this all together.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you. You know, I’ve said it before and I’m going to say it
again. I really like this discussion, because it allows me to see what everyone
here holds dear. It’s good going forward that we’re able to do that. But anyway,
having said that, Deanna, on a $500,000 home, what would—because I could
calculate this myself, but I’m just too tired already. A .05 cent increase represent.
MS. SAKO: Assuming you mean the net assessed value after exemptions.
MR. CHUNG: No, just $500,000.
MS. SAKO: Well, I mean, $500 is what’s left at .05 cents.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, net assessed, because $500, that’s a lot of money. Okay, so
you take away the $100,000, now $400,000.
MS. SAKO: So .05 cents would be $25.
MR. CHUNG: I know this reverting the Homeowners class back to its original
amount was predicated on us going through with the age exemptions. I’m not
trying to be mean to guys 75 and older, but—not $25, $20, yeah, for $400,000?
MS. SAKO: Oh, $400,000, yeah. Sorry, I was still at $500,000. So $400,000
would be $20.
MR. CHUNG: So $20 for a $75 year-old guy who has a $500,000 home, you
know, those age exemptions weren’t intended for that. It was for the plantation
people. I’m not saying that $20 is chump change, but I just wanted to point that
out. But I still think we should cut the budget as much as possible without having
to raise the rates. But I think if we had to, .05 cents more is much better more
than .40 cents more. When you look at things in comparison to what were
proposed, I think it would be deemed palatable to most of the public, even the 75
and older crowd. Thanks.
Page 133
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Oh, I’m sorry.
MS. OʼHARA: I understand the need to protect Commercial and Industrial
classes. These are not our big tax classes. As you can see from the total taxes
they are not big contributing classes. What is the biggest contributing class is
Residential. We, in this latest scenario that I think is on the board, have raised the
rate over $1. That’s a big impact, and I don’t think that’s reasonable when we
drop the increase on the Commercial and Industrial to only .65 cents over what’s
existing and then Residential class by $1.05. I don’t see that as fair.
So I actually like the previous scenario. I thought we came pretty darn close,
where we had the $115,000 shortage that we had to come up with. But the more
we start tweaking this one, I realize you guys are happy to cut expenses, but
personally, I think we’ve cut. I really don’t know other than cutting positions
where we’re going to start cutting. Some of the positions we’ve already found are
already filled, or they’re very essential to the County moving forward on
particular projects. So I’m not going to be supporting major cuts in expenses.
I do understand what Mr. Richards is saying about the complication of we put the
fuel tax after this, and perhaps it should have been put before, because it does
complicate things in terms of how we take things from this budget or add things
to this budget. So that’s kind of what is complicating things at this point in time.
But right now, I am not for advancing a lot of cuts, because I don’t really see
where the cuts are.
As Mr. Chung said earlier, he went to the three main areas of the budget where
there’s usually some slack, and it’s really not there anymore. We have been
cutting and cutting. I know if you want to look at numbers and talk about the
proportion of the growth of the budget, yes, it has grown. But so have other
things in our economy. That’s why, it happens over time. Budgets are going to
grow. So I’m not for it. I’m not for sitting here and slicing and dicing. I think
it’s ill-advised at this point in the day to start in doing that. But if that’s why you
guys want to sit here and do, I’ll stay here, but I probably will not be supporting.
Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, throwing it out there. Mr. Chung, well he was
talking about the Homeowners, changing it to $6.20. I don’t know if you did it on
the screen to see what the number would be? It would take it down to $437,670.
That’s if that would go up .05 cents. So from the Mayor’s proposal of $6.55 to
$6.20, I don’t know if that would help, or—no? Okay, put it back to the $6.15
and let’s—we’ve got to choose a scenario. At one point, let’s select the top two
scenarios and let’s kind of take a poll on which scenario we’re going to move
Page 134
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
ahead with, because we’re not going to all agree on one scenario. It doesn’t look
like we will. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Deanna, can you just tell me what my scenario was again? I can’t
recall what it was already. I think it was $11—
MS. SAKO: $11.10 for Residential; $6.15 for Affordable Rental; $11.70 for
Apartment; $11.55 for Hotel and Resort; $10.70 for Commercial; $10.70 for
Industrial; $9.45 for Agriculture; $11.55 for Conservation; and $6.20 for
Homeowners.
MR. CHUNG: And what did that come out again?
MS. SAKO: Positive or excess of $183,000.
MR. CHUNG: What was Apartment again, I’m sorry?
MS. SAKO: Apartment was $11.70.
MR. CHUNG: .70 cents? And Resort was—?
MS. SAKO: $11.55.
MR. CHUNG: Oh, $11.55. Okay, okay. What if you drop Ag down to $9.40?
MS. SAKO: We would be short $94,000.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh we could deal with that. That’s the IT position. Oh, if
you put the Homeowners at $6.15. Is that okay, Council Member Chung?
MR. CHUNG: Oh, so it’s going back down to $6.15?
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, they want to see what it looks like. Because I think
you can get more people on the bandwagon to help support this slug, if we come
down to $6.15. So we’re looking at $429.159.
MS. SAKO: Do you want to see Ag back at $9.45. That’s where it was. We’re
$150,000 short.
CHR. POINDEXTER: How does this one look? What do people think about this
scenario. Council Member Chung, you still have the floor. Okay, Council
Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Getting back to the cuts again. I appreciate what Councilman
Chung’s trying to get done here. I still support cutting the bus. And concerning
Page 135
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Council Woman Ruggles’ concern, we’re not eliminating the bus, we’re just
changing how we’re going to finance it. We can finance it, so we can still get the
same number of buses, we’ll just pay a little bit of interest. But again, it comes
down to the cash flow management, which is, that’s what we do in business. You
manage your cash flow. So that way we can save $450,000 out of the budget, and
then our liability Deanna, what would that be over a year for a payment?
MS. SAKO: I mean it would be roughly $100,000 per year, but we start paying
when we receive the bus, and a lot of those big ticket items, it takes several
months to a year to actually build and deliver it to us, so there would be little
impact on this coming fiscal year’s budget.
MR. RICHARDS: So I still support, and you know, getting back we could still, if
we dropped Ag back to $9.25, or even $9.35, could we do it?
CHR. POINDEXTER: You want $9.25?
MS. SAKO: $9.25 would put us $1.2 million short. $9.35 would put us $700,000
short.
MR. RICHARDS: So $700,000, and we haven’t taken the bus out of it yet, is that
correct?
MS. SAKO: Yeah, this is just total revenue compared to what’s in the proposed
budget without any proposed changes.
MR. RICHARDS: Any changes, also concerning the position element issues,
right?
MS. SAKO: Correct.
MR. RICHARDS: So, I think we’re close. I think we’re real close.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So this one is—this is our latest Council—
MS. EOFF: It’s a district compilation.
CHR. POINDEXTER: This is the last one we did, the compromise?
MS. OʼHARA: Can I just point out something about this one?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: We’ve placed the tax for Residential at .40 cents greater than the
Mayor’s proposal. Just pointing it out.
Page 136
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, the Residential, the Mayor’s one was proposed at
$10.70, and ours is at $11.10.
MS. OʼHARA: The Residential class is the biggest tax class, and it is balanced
on the shoulders of the Residential class is this budget. It is one-third of the
whole class in terms of revenue. I’m just pointing this out because I want you to
understand the ramifications of that on rentals.
MR. CHUNG: Well, can I respond to that?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Sure. Council Member Chung,
MR. CHUNG: I did acknowledge that this arrangement does fall on the backs of
the Residential class, but I was just working off of this latest, the latest
compromise that you guys had, which had the Residential class at $11.10. So
when I saw that I figured okay, let’s work something things downwards. But if
you guys want to change it, well now, that’s a different story altogether. I just
took that $11.10 from what you guys proposed, or what you guys came up with. I
didn’t make it up.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right, it was—you sure you never.
MR. CHUNG: I never.
CHR. POINDEXTER: They’re getting kind of tricky, yeah, these—
MR. KANUHA: Was Dru.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: You know, I’m going to keep going back to, I think they’re—
I’m not afraid if we end up at a deficit. There’s ways, there’s creating ways,
leasing options, there’s creative ways with what we have to close the gap. I just
want us to explore them all. I know we can’t do them all tonight. But you know,
big vehicle purchases, you know, we’ve got that in Fire, we’ve got that in Mass
Transit, we’ve got that with Public Works in some of the those big equipments
there. So you know, there’s creative options we can look at down the road, so
let’s not be afraid of the amount in the parenthesis. Please consider that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: No, I’m finished.
Page 137
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we’re kind of like at a standstill, so can you look
at which top two scenarios would we want to select to try and work on and take a
recess so that they can get us the paperwork so we can motion it in, and—okay,
Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: The one we’ve just been talking about, the Council
Compromise. I think we’ve probably—that’s the one I’m going to support
because I think that’s as close as we’ve come to anything so far.
MS. SAKO: Just to make sure I have the right one, the first Council
Compromise, or this latest Council Compromise.
MR. RICHARDS: This is actually going to be kind of fun, because I’m going to
read the numbers back to you.
MS. SAKO: Okay, that sounds good.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay so, and since it’s out of order compared to what you
have, Affordable Rental, $6.15—actually we’re checking with everybody—
Residential, $11.10; Apartment, $11.75; Commercial, $10.70; Industrial, $10.70;
Agriculture, $9.35; Conservation, $11.55; Hotel, $11.75; and Homeowners,
$6.15.
MS. SAKO: Okay.
MR. RICHARDS: That’s what my notes say.
MS. SAKO: I think the only one we disagree on is Hotel and Resort. We had
$11.55 up.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, we talked about this scenario, then doing the thing
that you said about the bus, taking that out of there and then cutting some other
positions; and you have that attachment to what they were cutting?
MS. SAKO: Yes, I do.
CHR. POINDEXTER: According to this one here, so that we could balance the
budget?
MS. SAKO: I think I just have to stick in the revised revenue numbers, but it was
close to the other one we had.
MS. OʼHARA: And can we go over the number on the other one, one time? The
one that had the $115,000?
Page 138
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and would we say that would be the top two that
we would like to select, and then can we—do we take a short recess so we can run
it off and then have—and then look at both of them? So we put away all the rest
and we deal with those two. Okay, so this is—
MS. SAKO: So this is the one that we were $115,000 short. So that’s Residential
at $11.10; Affordable Rental at $6.15; Apartment at $11.75; Hotel and Resort at
$11.75; Commercial at $10.95; Industrial at $10.95; Agriculture at $9.25;
Conservation at $11.55; and Homeowners at $6.15.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, because that was the one that we last worked on
too. So can we take a 10-minute recess and we run this off, do away with all this
other stuff you have. Because once you start looking at it, you’re going to want to
go, “Oh, but look.”
MS. EOFF: Okay, can you just call them A and B or something?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so I’m ripping this one up.
MS. SAKO: But okay, so we have that Council Compromise, and then we have
the revised Council Compromise that Council Member Chung initiated, which
will be B. Those are the two you want run off?
MR. KANUHA: Real quick.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: You know, Deanna, with these proposed rates that we’re going
to be talking about, I mean some more, the two top or whatever it is, you know, I
really need to know how it’s going to affect my district. Right now, I have no
idea. If somebody can tell me, the two proposals, how it’s going to affect each—
CHR. POINDEXTER: How it’s going to affect each district. Okay. So Council
Member O’Hara, after we come back from our 10 minute, I’ll have Council
Member O’Hara—give her the floor so she can do that, because she has the charts
for each district, correct? Yes.
MR. KANUHA: Yeah, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Ten minute recess.
Recess: At 8:08 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m.
Page 139
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, we’re going to be calling this meeting—okay,
calling this meeting back to order. Before us we have A and B. So I don’t know
if we all had a chance to look at this and digest it, and maybe we’ll start at the
very end. Council Member Chung, maybe we’ll come down this way and we’ll
start, if you can tell us which would be your preference.
MR. CHUNG: What are we having?
CHR. POINDEXTER: We have A and B.
MR. CHUNG: Oh.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So I think B is the one that you said you would have
supported, but can you—you’re going to go with B. Okay, Council Member
Chung. Okay, Council Member Ruggles, have you looked at both?
MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, I would go with A. Are we giving explanations, or
just—?
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think for now let’s look at who’s going with what.
Council Member Kanuha, what are you leaning towards? C?
MR. KANUHA: Neither.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Don’t say C. B is up there. But we have A and B in front
of us. So Council Member Kanuha, where were you leaning? Out the door.
Okay, so you’re going to pass?
MR. KANUHA: Like I said, neither.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay. Well we know where he’s going. Okay, so if
he say’s neither, he’s going with Mayor Harry Kim’s?
MR. KANUHA: No, I had a proposal.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay. Okay, so Council Member David, where are
you leaning? Yeah, for discussion purposes, I looked at both of them. I think B is
the one that I would be interested in.
MS. EOFF: Okay, Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: I’m willing to look at cutting into the budget so that we can lower
most of these rates to a reasonable amount. So I’ll go with B.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Richards.
Page 140
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: B.
MR. CHUNG: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: I’m going to do the same as Mr. Kanuha.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: B.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, and I would support B as well. So if we look at
who’s supporting, the most support, of course it’s B. We have six supporting B.
What was that? Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Just based off of the two proposals in front of me, I mean, I
think the better working model would be B.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. So with that said, we’re looking at B. I mean,
that’s what we’re looking at because everybody is working towards this. Now, do
we say that this is what we want, to take a break and Finance and Donna goes
back in to do the necessary paperwork and documentation to get this before the
Council? Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: I just have a question before we do that. Do we need to address the
707 before we take that into—?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, Deanna, you had that other spreadsheet that showed
how we were going to deal with the $707,884, what we’re going to decrease. Is
there any way to get that a little larger?
MS. SAKO: So based on the things we have discussed, we are $97,000 ahead if
we reduce contingency and we reduce on bus and the IT Deputy and half of that
Corporation Counsel position.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member David, you still have the floor.
MS. DAVID: Yes, could you give us the amounts, I’m sorry, for the contingency,
what’s for that and the bus?
MS. SAKO: Reducing it by $225,000. Reducing the bus by $450,000. Then
Corporation Counsel’s clerk was $20,000, and the IT Deputy was $94,000.
MS. DAVID: Right, and that leaves us with—is that—?
Page 141
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. SAKO: That leaves us with 97,044 over, or extra to spend.
MS. DAVID: Okay great. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, that’s the Prosecutor’s, part of the Prosecutor’s
position. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. I think I know why Ms. O’Hara’s having a problem
supporting either one, I think it’s the Residential amount. But I was wondering
what do you propose or have you anything else to consider at this point.
MS. OʼHARA: I proposed initially, and that was what I was referencing, my
initial proposal. It was not that extreme for the Residential.
MS. EOFF: I threw it away.
MS. OʼHARA: The number was at $10.90 instead of $11.10. But the numbers
are different in my proposal than any of these other proposals, so you’d have to go
back and look at it. Oh, what number is it? It was—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I thought there was one that we were making
adjustment on that had your—oh.
MS. OʼHARA: No, I’m not talking about—I’m talking about my initial proposal
that I spent much time on and submitted on time two weeks ago. That proposal.
MS. EOFF: But in that proposal—a lot of this is close. A lot of it is very close to
your proposal.
MS. OʼHARA: A lot of it is, but close doesn’t count with these kinds of things.
I’m sorry, you move it you’re going—you’re talking about millions of dollars.
MS. EOFF: But what about this issue with the Homeowners rate that we did
discussed earlier about leaving it alone and not giving the age exemptions for that.
MS. OʼHARA: Yeah, I know. And we’ve since made decisions based on kind of
a consensus moving forward. What I don’t—I think we’ve reduced the
Commercial and Industrial in these proposals, and the one that the Council seems
to be favoring, which is B, to a point where it’s forced us to raise the Residential.
I’m not really sure how we ended up here, but if—yeah, $10.70, which was the
Mayor’s proposal for Industrial and Commercial. Once we did that, there was no
hope of bringing the Residential down. I just think that’s a real kick in the butt
for the Residential class, because that’s over $1; $1.05 increase per thousand
dollar of value. That’s pretty significant.
Page 142
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. EOFF: Have you done the calculation if there was some kind of a coming
closer, taking some from the—
MS. OʼHARA: I’ve done thousands of calculations at this point.
MS. EOFF: At this point, because we’re kind of at a—
MS. OʼHARA: I’m just telling you I don’t really support the direction of B. I
don’t really support sitting here and digging through $707,884 that we need to
cut. I know that you found ways to do it, but I’m not a big fan of cutting the bus.
I know that’s a big chunk that takes care of things, but I’m not big fan of it.
MS. EOFF: I think that was with the assumption that we would be able to fund it
in a different way.
MS. OʼHARA: With that assumption, yeah.
MS. EOFF: So I’m okay with cutting the bus, because I know we will fund the
other bus. I’m still bothered by the disparity with the Residential rate, and I don’t
know if there’s a number that we can come to that we would feel more fair about
that and maybe be able to still meet the concern about Industrial and Commercial
as well. Is there one to raise a little bit and one to decrease a little bit, at this
point, just working with those classes?
MS. OʼHARA: As I explained, the Residential is one-third of the total tax pie, so
changing it just a nickel has significant impacts.
MS. EOFF: That can’t be made up for with—
MS. OʼHARA: That cannot be made up by adjusting the other classes.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, when we left for the break, we did ask Council
Member O’Hara to look at the districts and the impacts on each district, because
you have the charts. Can you go and talk about that? I mean, can you look at
your charts and—
MS. OʼHARA: Well, I just looked at Districts and 8 and 7, and in District 8, the
difference is a half of—for B, which you seem to be favoring, was about a tenth
of a percent difference. So it wasn’t that great an increase. For Ms. Eoff’s
district, it was a half a percent. For Mr. Kanuha’s district, it was a tenth of a
percent increase. These are two districts that already pay a sizeable portion of the
tax. In Ms. Eoff’s it’s 33-34 percent; and in his it’s 20 percent. So they pay a
hefty part of the tax pot.
Page 143
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, did that answer your question before we left on the
break, Mr. Kanuha, about wanting to know who it affected your district?
MR. KANUHA: I’m just trying to, in the space of like, you know, this
conversation, see how much burden is going to be put on each class in respect to
how much my district has to pay, is paying. That’s what I’m trying to figure out
in real time. It’s pretty difficult to comprehend. So that’s all.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I was just going to clarify again that we’re not cutting the
buses, we’re just changing how we’re financing them. That’s the important thing
here.
MS. OʼHARA: Okay. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yes, sticking with that thought, we could finance two buses
differently, and move the numbers some more. But I know everybody’s getting
tired. Let’s not be afraid to be creative with the funding. But that’s where I’m at.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Yes, could I please ask Council Member O’Hara a question?
MS. OʼHARA: You want to know the impact?
MS. DAVID: Yeah. I mean, when you said, when you mentioned that you had
brought a proposal, that you didn’t quite agree with B, but is that proposal you’re
talking about the one we have on our initial spreadsheet that has—
MS. OʼHARA: Yes.
MS. DAVID: Okay, so on that spreadsheet, you’re proposal for Residential was
$10.90. You and Mr. Kanuha was the same, right?
MS. OʼHARA: Yes.
MS. DAVID: Okay, so I was just kind of confused with, when you referred to the
dollar increase. You’re talking about—?
MS. OʼHARA: We’ve raised it to $11.10.
MS. DAVID: Right. But your proposal on our first spreadsheet says $10.90.
Page 144
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. OʼHARA: Right.
MS. DAVID: So there’s a .20 cent difference between what you proposed
initially and what we’re looking at on B, right? $10.90 and $11.10.
MS. OʼHARA: Yes, but the current rate is $10.05.
MS. DAVID: Right, right. I know that, but so you’re actually referencing the
difference in price from the current rate to what we’re talking about now.
MS. OʼHARA: Yes.
MS. DAVID: Okay, and just wanted to make the clarification that we’re talking
about .20 cents on what we’re looking at across the board. The difference.
MS. OʼHARA: The difference between those two proposals is .20 cents across
the board, yes.
MS. DAVID: Yes. Okay, alright.
MS. OʼHARA: I just wanted to—when I was doing the work, I was trying to
keep it to below a $1 increase for all classes, so they were comparative across
classes. I think that’s kind of important, too.
MS. DAVID: Yeah, I understand what you were trying to do, and I was just
wanting some clarification.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Because we
look like—it looks like we’re with B. Any discussion? I see Council Member
Chung. No? Okay. Okay, so are we okay with having Donna and the Finance
people go and run the numbers and get the paperwork back to us, because it seems
like it’s going to be B that we’re going to be looking at. How long, Deanna, do
we have to recess for?
MS. SAKO: The resolution is actually Donna’s piece. But we could keep
balancing the budget and the other spreadsheet while she works on that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: They have to both be redone in writing. So what kind of
timeframe are we looking at. Thirty minutes, an hour? At least 30. So we’re
going to be taking a—
MS. SAKO: So before, since they both have to be done in writing, we’re $97,000
over right now. I think there was Ms. Eoff’s amendment that was on behalf of
Page 145
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
finance. Sorry, you don’t mind us adding that one in. Was there anything else
before we go put this in writing.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Well, there was the Prosecutor’s one, but I don’t know
how people would feel about that. That was the thirty—that didn’t change the
budget. So there were only two things on the communications that didn’t change
up or down. That was Council Member Eoff’s, and then my communication
which is for the Kona Prosecutor’s. Eileen had, too, but yours changed the
amounts, yeah? It’s not going to—oh, okay. Let me look at number two. Oh,
increases the contingency—yeah, we had agreed to take it away, yeah, on B.
MS. OʼHARA: And I’m putting it back.
CHR. POINDEXTER: And where are you getting it from?
MS. OʼHARA: Fund Balance.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Fund Balance, okay. So those we still can read in,
because it’s separate communications right? We don’t have to deal with that right
now, right? Because we would deal with—
MR. HENRICKS: I think what Ms. Sako is trying to accomplish is that because
the total numbers are changing, is having any what appear to be approved
amendments reflect those new figures, whereas I don’t know if we use those new
figures, if the existing amendments will work, even though they’re neutral in that
they don’t increase or decrease.
MS. SAKO: I just thought we wanted to do both of them while we took the
recess, so we need to know what needs to be typed up.
MR. HENRICKS: Including those that were considered—
MS. SAKO: Well, if there’s like an independent amendment, you’re right, then
we don’t have to include it in this one.
MR. HENRICKS: It does not. So those that—
CHR. POINDEXTER: We can read in later.
MR. HENRICKS: Well, or we could deal with them while the paperwork’s being
worked on because they have no ramification on what you’re considering later.
So we can be taking care of some business while they’re taking care of some
business.
Page 146
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I like that idea. But what are we amending,
because we didn’t read in—okay, so Clerk, we have a balance of $97,000. Are
we just going to—can we just leave it at that or should we take care of some other
things first and then let them go back and do the paperwork? Because there’s
$97,000.
MR. HENRICKS: I think that’s a question for our Deputy Finance Director, to
see if making those amendments won’t mess up this process.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We took out and we have now a balance of $97,044.
MS. SAKO: So if we funded the deputy, we’d be at $3,000.
MS. OʼHARA: The balance of $707,000, we took out the $94,000 for the
Deputy. But you’re not $97,000 over, so if you put that back in, you’ll be $3,000
over, that’s what Deanna is saying. So, I have another amendment about the
Deputy Director position, which we could consider. I don’t know. I mean, it’s up
to you guys.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Because there is a communication on the Deputy Director
one that shifts some of the funding, and then also with my communication, I take
a part of that funding and then the rest of it into equipment and stuff.
MS. OʼHARA: No.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I have a communication that will do that.
MS. OʼHARA: Deputy Director for—?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Will touch the Deputy position.
MS. OʼHARA: Because I have one that will take the entire amount out.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I have it taking a portion, $37,000 out and then the rest
into the equipment.
MS. OʼHARA: Okay, I took all of it out and put it all into equipment.
MS. SAKO: 91.42.
MS. OʼHARA: So that would be worth considering both of those, I mean, in the
interim. Because—if you want to take it out. I don’t know what you guys want
to do.
Page 147
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: So what do we want to—how do we want to deal with
this, because then we would have to read in that—we cannot motion that in,
because we didn’t motion the main—
MR. HENRICKS: Right, that would be the first step, is having a motion for the
budget itself. You’re going to need that eventually anyway, before you do
anything. But I guess the question is do you guys want to formalize your real
property tax resolution and its rate before you start making changes to the budget.
Because you can only have one motion on the floor.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I think maybe we do that first.
MR. HENRICKS: But then we can’t take care of business while we’re taking
care of business, but that’s okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right, and that’s what we had originally talked about is
that they would have to run back, come back with the rates, and that, and then we
have to motion that in, and read that in, then we’d have to do the communications
and then the operating budget. Right? Because I don’t see any other way. Is
there any other suggestions how we could move this along simultaneously? No?
MR. HENRICKS: I don’t see, I guess, the point at this time of day in trying to
save a half an hour.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so how does everybody feel about that? That we’re
going to deal with the tax rates first, then we’re going to come back and deal with
the operating budget. Okay, so we’ll take a 30-minute recess.
Recess: At 8:51 p.m. the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:52 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I’m calling this meeting back to order. At this
time, I’d like to ask—okay, it was read in already, Resolution 213-17. So Council
Member David, can I have a motion.
Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to adopt Res. 213-17. Seconded
by Mr. Richards.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
Motion to Amend: Ms. David moved to amend Res. 213-17 with the contents of
Comm. 293.7. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
Page 148
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. DAVID: Thank you. I think everyone will agree this
Communication 293.7 reflects what we actually agreed to on option B, and other
than that, I yield at this time.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I’ll be supporting this, but you know, I have to admit, I’m kind of
ill because of what we’re doing to the Residential property class. But you know,
it is—I know some of us wanted to protect Agriculture and also Homeowner.
You know, I was willing to beef those two things up a bit. So it looks like the
Residential class is the one that’s going to have to take the hit. But I’m still
going to support it. I think it’s the result of a lot of work on the part of the
Council.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. First of all, I do want to thank my colleagues
for all the hard work for the last, what, 10 hours now? It was an exercise in
many ways. I too have some reservations about how this all lays out, but we
worked very hard on this, and I’m going to be supporting this. I just want to
leave this on the table for next time: the Council sets the budget. If we have to
start sooner to take a good hard look at how we can reduce the budget, we need
to do that sooner. I think there was a big learning curve on how we adjust the
different classifications and what kind of impacts that may have. We have
amazing spreadsheets now, so going forward I’m looking at this as this one time,
but I want us to work hard for next year and see how we can trim the budget,
because the Council sets the budget. Thank you, I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: Thank you, Chair. Yes, it’s been a long day, and everyone has
worked very hard. I do have objections to this final model that we came up with
in that it really does lay the onus on the Residential and the Apartment classes,
which is the housing for our rental households, which is more than a third of the
households on the island, and I think that’s going to be not well received. I know
there was no way to get around doing an increase, but I don’t think it was
appropriate to put that much of an increase in the Residential class.
I would say that what I’m hearing in way of discussion today, a lot of private
sector thinking applying to public sector economics. The two are a little bit
different, they really are. I mean, it’s good enough to go, but it’s not something I
feel I can support. So I appreciate all the hard work that was done today and the
discussions we had. It was all very good, but we need to recognize that we’re
Page 149
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
creating some harsh realities for some of our public, and I’m not real happy with
that. So I will not be supporting. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again, I would like to thank the fellow
Council Members for all the efforts put into this, and I think one of the definitions
of a compromise is everybody is reasonably unhappy with the end. I can say I’m
not totally thrilled, but it is a compromise and we can move forward with this
year’s budget so then we can get the next years, and it’s setting the stage. So I
will be supporting this. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel that way too. I was very
enthusiastic of the approach we took, and I think being able to work with Deanna
and our staff and all of us to hear what people were really hoping to achieve and
then coming close. And I think we came close. We incorporated some of the
more passionate concerns that Council Members had, like keeping the Ag rate
really low, not raising the Homeowners at all, and making sure the Commercial
and the Industrial didn’t go so high that we hurt what was termed the economic
drivers in the industrial and businesses.
So with all of those I felt really good about it. I am also, as Ms. O’Hara and
Mr.—well all of us have recognized, we’ve put a larger increase into the
Residential class and apartments. Those are people who do maybe rent out their
places, and those are people who may have inherited a second home and don’t
live in it but they pay taxes on it, and I’m concerned about that.
So I don’t want to make false promises, but I feel like we need to re-look at that
class, and if we can’t fix it this year, then we really need to take out the
commercial out of there, the short-term vacation rentals and see if we can create a
class that generates income, and then we can help the regular Residential to stay a
little more in sync with what we all believe would be more fair.
I know that might not be a professional way to look at a budget, but I don’t know
what else to say. I want to support what we’ve done, because we all worked
together on it for 10 hours, and we had pretty much of a, I think, positive
reception from those people who we’re affecting, who we will affecting their
budgets. So I’d like to see that we did achieve, at least mostly, a consensus here,
in that we’re going forward in proposing these rates. So I yield now. And thank
you to everybody who stayed so long.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Kanuha.
Page 150
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I also appreciate the hard work that everybody has
done today on this. It’s difficult, you know. Instead of spending 10 hours on this,
I wish we could have spent weeks on this. So it’s something to look towards next
year, and maybe kind of taking a look at how other counties do it. You know,
Maui County has a pretty effective way of managing their budget, and really
going line by line. We don’t have to do that, but just getting more of a sense of
what is going on, I think, is better for us in moving forward.
Yeah, I’m not too happy about several of these proposed rate increases. And I
understand, you know, we’re doing the best we can with what’s given to us right
now. Residential, sure, I wanted to raise it a little bit. I thought that was
appropriate. The amount that it’s being raised will have more of an impact than I
would like. Also the increase in the apartment, and even the Hotel, you know—
I’ll go off of the Hotel. These are our income generators. These are huge
generators for our economy. I think Kona depends more upon tourism than the
percentage-wise. I think a lot of places around the State, even like Waikiki, we
really depend a lot upon it. So it will be a burden for them. I wish I could have
heard from them today about what they feel about the increases. Even, you know,
Commercial, it’s not—I understand, I really understand where we’re headed, and
you know, I wish we could have done more to really not increase so much. But
that’s all I have to say. But thank you guys for staying here. Thank you
everybody for working so hard. I really appreciate it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I agree with what my colleagues have said
about this. I think I’d like to thank the Mayor and his staff and all his department
heads, especially Finance. You know, in hindsight, I think the exercise we’ve
gone through all day today in trying to find a fair way of addressing the increases,
like Mr. Richards has said, I don’t believe anyone will be happy with what the
outcome is, but you know, I think we tried our best and I think this Council has
shown that their efforts were really to come to a fair assessment of what we
should do as far as property taxes. I thank you for the exercise. I think I really
look forward to having the opportunity in the next year to really take a hard look
on our real property tax, the way we do things. Look forward to maybe reducing
it, if we find some way of increasing revenues without property taxes. Or a
creative way of doing it. So thank you, Deanna. Thank you Council Members.
I’ll be supporting this. Mahalo.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. This is a lot different than what a lot of us were—I
think all of us had proposed, but it was a good exercise and I think we learned a
lot, not only just about the process, but a lot about taxes and a lot about each other
as well, moving forward.
Page 151
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
I’m personally relieved and pleased that we don’t have to increase the
Homeowner rates and the Ag rate is a lot less than what was on the table. So that
is why I will be supporting this and moving forward, I think we do need to look at
other options as far as revamping our tax system and finding ways to support
businesses. Because I know they are the economic drivers. I know that we can,
we can support businesses and protect homeowners and bring in the revenue that
we need. So yeah, that’s all. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Okay, I’d just like to also say
thank you to my colleagues for all the hard work and the compromises to come up
with what we have before us. Look how many hours it took but we did it. You
know, it’s something that it was not easy to do, but we had to do it. I agree with
other Council Members who have said that we need to learn from this and try to
work it better at our next budget and be ahead of the game so that we don’t have
to be trying to figure this out. Like Council Member Kanuha said, we should be
working on this, you know, for weeks, not hours. So thank you, Council
Members and thank you, Mayor, and your Administration for hanging in there
with us as well and working together as a team. This the beginning, so much for
your patience as well.
Okay, I guess we can—should we do just a roll call, please, Mr. Clerk.
Vote on Amendment: The motion to amend Res. 213-17 with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 293.7 was carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Lee Loy, Richards, Ruggles, and
Chair Poindexter – 7.
Noes: Council Members Kanuha and O’Hara – 2.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Motion to Suspend Mr. Richards moved to suspend Council Rule 24(e) to
Council Rules: waive the hold-over for substantive amendment of
(Approved) Res. 212-17. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 152
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Rule 24 is suspended. Is there any discussion on
the main?
MR. CHUNG: Yes, it’s been such a long day, I can’t even recall what happened
to my proposed amendment.
CHR. POINDEXTER: It’s still active.
MR. CHUNG: I don’t know what the will of this body is, if you guys want to
pass it or not. I’d like to see it put in there, but I would warn all of you though,
we could be setting ourselves up for some criticism if we don’t follow through.
The reason for that is we’re looking at more pay raises.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Do you want to motion in your communication then? In
order for us to discuss his, we have to motion his in, right?
MR. HENRICKS: Well we’re on the main motion as amended.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Can he put another amendment in?
MR. HENRICKS: Yes, certainly. If you’re asking him to make the motion
before he discusses it, that’s fine. But he could also just kind of—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Well, normally we read it in, in order to discuss, to
amend that with Communication—his Communication 293.1.
MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, it doesn’t need to be read in though. It’s okay.
MR. CHUNG: But I’d like to make a motion.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, but I’m saying motion it in. It’s read in.
MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, yeah, that’s fine.
CHR. POINDEXTER: But if you motion it in, we can vote it up or down. So
you want to motion it in?
MR. CHUNG: Yeah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, go ahead.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Chung moved to amend Res. 213-17, as amended, with
the contents of Comm. 293.1. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
Page 153
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: You know, I think we talked about it a lot, and as long as
everybody knows the perils of this amendment, I’m okay. I’m going to be voting
in support of it of course, but it’s going to take a lot of work on the part of not
only the Administration, but this body as well, to follow—it’s going to be very
tough this coming next budget cycle.
But what this really does, as I stated earlier is, it’s not just to try to pare the
budget, it’s also just to find more revenue sources, other than real property tax
based sources. Although I will say thing, something that I’ve been watching very
closely and it may have been resolved already but I didn’t see it happen, the
luxury tax issue. City and County’s dealing with it. It’s at the Supreme Court
right now. If that thing passes. I mean, if it’s deemed valid, I think we should
seriously look at that. So that is a real property tax based revenue solution, but I
think it would behoove us to take a look at that. But I’m actually looking at the
GET, as you all know. I don’t want to belabor the point, but that’s really what
this is all about.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chung. For me, this really
sets the stage for us going forward. Like Mr. Chung said, it’s going to take some
real hard work, and I said it earlier, the Council sets the budget, I don’t mind
doing the hard work. I’m committed to doing the hard work and looking at one,
protecting our largest source of revenue, which is our real property tax; and
explore other revenue sources.
I almost want to leave on the table for real property tax that despite what’s going
on with the luxury tax, create that category and just hold it. If it goes through, it’s
there, the vehicle’s there, and we can figure it out. I think when we start
budgeting, we have to start thinking like that and expanding the categories in the
real property tax classification. We heard a lot about vacation rentals or other
income properties. We heard a lot about taxing golf courses. We need to really
refine that system, make it work for us.
The other part of all of this is the Administration really needs to look at other
ways of generating revenue, which are ministerial changes within their
departments. I think just as much as we as a Council work hard to set the budget
and hold the line, the Administration has to do their part too. That’s why I will be
supporting Mr. Chung’s resolution. I want to set goal for us, and do the heavy
lifting and work hard. So thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
Page 154
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. RICHARDS: This falls in line with an amendment that I was going to
propose as well, and so I will be supporting it. I agree with Council Woman Lee
Loy. This has been a long day. But I think it also sends a message that we’re
very serious about looking at the tax structure as a whole. This forces our hands
to be held accountable to that. So I will be supporting it going forward as well.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: Thank you. I appreciate what Mr. Chung’s trying to do here in
holding the feet to the fire. I just don’t feel that this is a promise that we will be
successful in making. To ask the County to revert taxes back to what they just
were, which we just changed, it nice goal, but I don’t know that it’s a realistic
one, and I don’t support what I would label kind of fantasy legislation. What this
will cause us to do a year from now is, in order to make good on this promise,
we’re going to have to pass GE tax. I mean that’s what this is setting stage for. I
hope you all realize that now when you vote for this. So I will not be supporting
it. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I also appreciate what Mr. Chung’s trying to do,
and I’m kind of in line with—actually I am in line with Ms. O’Hara’s reasoning.
This came up before, and as I was explaining about nine hours ago, that Margaret
Wille proposed the exact same thing several budgets ago when we were raising
property taxes. It was a feel good thing, next year we’re going to intend to lower
it down to what was the original tax rate, and I just didn’t support it, because I
knew that we weren’t going to follow through with our promise of what we were
going to do. So I’m going to stick with my original reasoning behind that and not
support. Even though I appreciate it. I understand what we’re trying to do here,
and I think we’ve all got to work towards better fiscal management of our budget.
But that’s why I won’t support it. But again, I do appreciate it coming forth, so
that we can discuss this thing.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. Earlier this morning, Ms. O’Hara I think suggested some
other way of saying this, but without completely promising to revert back to last
year’s rates. So I was wondering if she could say that again.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Can you say what you said this morning about
what you would support?
MS. OʼHARA: I would support if the wording were changed to say instead of
revert to those rates, not exceed the rate set for Fiscal Year 2018-18. Meaning
they have to be at or lower than existing rates. Any other way, it would force a
Page 155
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
passage of another tax, and GE tax in my opinion is the most aggressive of the
three taxes we’re dealing with. We’ve got fuel tax, we’ve got GE tax, and we’ve
got real property tax. I would hate to go there after passing the property tax this
year and the possibility of passing a fuel tax, and to end up next year trying to
make good on a promise by increasing the GE tax just does not sit well with me.
MS. EOFF: I appreciate that. I would like to have something in this resolution
that did put our feet to the fire as well as the Administration in looking at other
ways of generating revenue as soon as possible in the upcoming year, but I don’t
know if Mr. Chung would be willing to look at a slight change in the statement so
that we could accomplish that.
MR. CHUNG: I’m not married to this idea, okay? It all comes down to your
comfort levels. We have two members of the Council who didn’t even vote for
the other amendment. I don’t know what I can read into that “no” vote quite
frankly, because there’s all kinds of ways of looking at that. So it was a “no” vote
on the rate increase, and of course I understand there were some nuances relating
to the rate increase which caused them not to vote for it, but the fact is, it was the
rate increase. So now, the two of them—I’m not trying to put you guys on the
spot but—want to at least keep it at that level, but not higher? I mean, you guys
may as well have just voted for that increase, right? I mean, that’s how I look at
it.
But I’m not trying to criticize, I’m just saying whatever you guys feel comfortable
with, I’m okay. This is not something I want. I certainly do not want to put any
of you guys in a position where, you know, we’re going to be open to criticism
later on. But I think we can do it. I agree with Ms. O’Hara, it probably does open
up the door to a GET increase, and we still have that hanging out there. It’s
Fresh’s—I don’t know if it’s a resolution, or ordinance, but it’s still out there, it’s
been deferred. I don’t think it was killed.
But at some point, I think property owners are going to revolt too, because the
burden—I know that’s the structure that was set many years ago. That’s how
we’re going to generate revenues. But I do not think that many years ago,
whether it be 50 years ago when they did set that structure up, they anticipated
what would happen in the future. So now we’re in a situation where the real
property owners are bearing the brunt of a burgeoning County budget, and I just
don’t think that’s right. But that’s my personal feeling, but whatever you guys
want to do, you guys want to tweak it, that’s fine. It all comes down to comfort
level. Do whatever you folks want to do with it, and I’ll support it.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on one of the things that
Council Member O’Hara brought up, was we’re looking at three options on
Page 156
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
taxation, there’s the GE which is the most regressive; there’s fuel tax revenue,
which is also regressive; and property taxes, are also known for being regressive.
But property taxes are at least—we can work with property taxes to provide
mechanisms that will provide protections for our most vulnerable populations on
the island, and try to create an equitable system.
So to say that we’re not going to change property taxes or we’re going to revert
back to reducing them limits our options, I feel, in the future, because if we’re
committing to not touching property taxes, that means we are already on a really
tight budget. That means that we’ll have to look at these other more regressive
ways of taxation that we have less control over. So with that, I’m not sure if I’m
comfortable supporting this. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: I just wanted to follow-up and clarify what Council Woman
Ruggles said. What we are saying in putting the tax rate back to what it is
currently standing, it’s forcing us to go back and look at that. We’re not saying
we’re not going to touch it, we’re saying we’re going to have to touch it, and I
that’s I think the difference there. Which comes back to the first premise that we
started, I don’t know, how many hours ago now, that we need a revamp of our
whole real property tax structure, and that’s what this whole conversation is
about, getting us from now to next year, and in the meantime, we go to work on
the tax structure. So I just wanted to clarify that.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, you know, unless we had unanimity on this matter—well,
since we don’t have unanimity, I’m just going to withdraw this motion. I mean
no sense put some people on the hook, others not on the hook. You know, we’ll
just try our best.
Withdraw Motion: At this time, Mr. Chung announced the withdrawal of the
motion to amend Res. 212-17 with the contents of
Comm. 293.1.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, as the second to Mr. Chung’s motion, you know, I’ll
follow his lead, but just for Ms. Ruggles, I understand where you’re going, but we
really need to look at our expenditures. So I’m just looking for a mechanism to
stop letting the belt get bigger and bigger. I just want to figure out a way to hold
it. You know, it’s like—I’m a girl, you know, got the size six jeans. Only going
to buy the size eight for now, because I’m going to get back to the size six, and
we don’t. It’s just like taxes. If we don’t figure out a way to say no, we’re always
Page 157
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
going to stay in the size six jeans. We’re just going to keep buying bigger jeans,
we’re just going to keep growing government. We’re just going to keep the
model of setting our expenditures and building the revenue around that. I want to
turn the battleship in a different direction where we’re setting the revenue and
keeping the expenditures there.
So I’m going to respect what Mr. Chung is doing, but we’ve got to figure out
something better. It doesn’t mean going after the GE or some of the other stuff.
Just holding the line. So just think about that going forward. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: As I said before, I had a similar amendment that I was going
to put forth, but in the spirit of respecting, I’m not going to put that forward. So
I’m good to go with the withdrawal.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. So we’re back to the main motion,
Resolution 213-17 as amended with Communication 293.7. Any more
discussion? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Sorry. This is usually when I do most of my work, see, right
around this time. I was sleepy about two hours ago but now I’m alive again. No,
but really, I think we all have reservations about this. But what would happen if
we all voted against it. That would be disastrous. I’ll tell you right now and Ms.
David said it earlier. I didn’t think the Mayor’s proposal was all that bad, you
know in terms of just going across the board. But the reason why this had to
come up, let’s be very, very clear about this, some of you guys, and not me
because I was willing to go up on the Homeowners class, some of you guys
wanted to protect it, fine. You guys wanted to protect Ag, fine. It was a
compromise, we did our best, but I would hope that everybody’s going to vote for
this thing, because you know, a lot—well, you know, I think it’s unfair that some
guys have to put their necks on the line and others not. I’ve seen this before,
that’s why. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I don’t see any other lights on, but—oh, Council
Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: I’m going to continue with what I always thought from the
beginning in not agreeing with certain things. To me, I felt like this was—what
was the word? I completely lost the word I was using. You know, by growing
government this much, to me was just not right, in my mind. I understand the
reasons given, I understand the points made. You know, I tried to come up with
some solutions, but it definitely wasn’t enough, where I felt that we should be
doing more to cut back.
Page 158
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
You know, I’m just worried about, like now I’m coming back into who I
represent. The district that I represent. I know we’ve got to speak on behalf of
the entire island, and I understand that, but I’m just wondering how much of a
burden this is going to put on the people that I represent. So that was my
concerns in the beginning. It’s still my concerns now. And I mean sure, it’s nice
to all be in line with moving forward with this, but I just, I’m having a real
difficult time supporting it. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your position, Mr. Kanuha. But I
also acknowledge that it’s a very difficult decision for each one of us. Because in
essence what we’ve done impacts everybody in our own districts. I really feel
what you’re saying, but I think what we have tried to do as a group here was to
come, not one up the Mayor, but trying to look at everybody’s districts and see
what was important. I don’t see us that far off from what the Mayor’s proposal
was, and I would love to also say no. I don’t want to raise taxes, but I just realize
that, you know, if we don’t support what we worked 10 hours to do, we’re going
to be left with the Mayor’s budget.
Not that there’s anything against your budget, but I think we really tried very hard
to come to a decision which this body felt was fair, in almost the same way that
you tried to do it. In the beginning I did, Mayor, I did say I kind of favored your
idea. Across the board, that seemed fair. But in deference to what my colleagues
are saying, certain things didn’t apply, or you know, there were important issues
that I thought we kind of addressed it pretty well.
So I will support this, and I know it’s going to hurt some of the people on this
whole island, regardless. The fact that we saved—we never touched the
Homeowners class. I like that idea, protect some of our ag, and I’m not sure how
to deal with the rest, but I really believe that we’ve done whatever we could, and
I’m going to have to support this, because I just believe in what we tried to do,
sincerely, was to help deal with the inevitable that we have to increase taxes. We
can work on the rest in this next year, in trying to figure out how we can maybe
later on. So anyway, I yield, and I will be supporting this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not going to repeat what Ms. David
said, but I completely agree with her summary. I just want to reflect back to—I
mean, Mr. Kanuha did propose an amendment, but even if we would have just
gone with that, he only found about $1.6 million to decrease out of a budget that’s
already pretty lean. So it wouldn’t have really prevented us from raising taxes
anyway. So I’m not sure whether Mr. Kanuha is just—you know, I wanted to
support what he was doing, and in most ways we have with—it’s close to what his
Page 159
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
numbers and percentages were as well, and then we went ahead and—I for one
went along with the idea of not going up so high with the Industrial and
Commercial because of something he said actually.
So I would like to get his support only because like Ms. David said, we don’t have
too much choices. We weren’t able to find $6 million to cut out in order to not
raise property taxes. We already knew the formula with the mandated increases,
and the revenues that we are generating from some higher property values just
didn’t meet the bottom line. So we have to raise taxes. How we do that, I mean it
was a puzzle. There’s all kinds of different ways of doing it. I’m not completely
happy, like I said earlier, with the rates in all the classes, but I thought that, you
know, we did work hard to address certain policies that we all wanted to
champion or support.
That’s why I’m just confused on Mr. Kanuha’s position, because it’s easy to say I
don’t like it because we’re raising taxes, and yeah, we all don’t. But I just
wondered because I looked closely at his amendment and wanted to give full
support to it and yet, it wouldn’t have really prevented us from doing most of his
percentage raises across the board either. So I guess we’ll hear from the rest of
our colleagues. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Once again, I think Councilman Kanuha’s
concern about growing government is an echo of what Council Woman Lee Loy
has said. To limit our expenses, I had put forth the amendment to eliminate the
purchase of one bus and finance it. Though I listened to the Deputy very carefully
about not wanting to establish the way to go, that way, in the spirit of trying to
attain that goal of cutting the budget for this year—not going forward, but for this
year—I would be happy and support actually cutting for two buses, so that would
add another $450,000, and finance the purchase through that side if that’s the will
of the group. Again, trying to attain the goal of what Councilman Kanuha is
doing, which is being respectful of the expenses of our constituents. Again, we’re
not cutting the bus, we’re cutting how we’re paying for the bus, which would,
again, cash flow management. So I would sure entertain that, if that’s the will of
the group. I yield.
MS. SAKO: Can I just comment briefly on that? I believe the other bus in the
budget is the one that’s the grant match, and I’m not sure the financing will work,
because it’s the matching for the grant. That’s something we would have to check
on.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Thank you for that information. Council
Member O’Hara, and then I’ll go to Council Member Chung.
Page 160
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MS. OʼHARA: Thank you, Chair. Not much to say. I know that we’ve all
worked really hard, and I really appreciate that because I know there was a
reluctance to kind of roll up our sleeves and dig in. The reason I wanted to—the
Mayor’s budget wasn’t that bad, and I never felt it was. But I tried to give some
relief to a couple classes that I felt were important to the overall island’s
economy, not just to my district, and that was Agriculture and the Homeowners
class. But I also tried really hard not to increase any particular class excessively,
and what we ended up doing I felt really harmed the Residential class which
carries of our property tax. It affects all kinds of people in all kinds of ways, and
it’s going to be an increase of probably $500 a year for many—you know, just an
average.
In that, I feel bad that we couldn’t do it better. I didn’t really buy the argument of
reducing Commercial and Industrial to the extent that we put it on the shoulders
of the Residential class, because while that appears to be the drivers, they’re
better able to absorb that increase than the homeowner will be. Yes, we can come
forward and hopefully we will have a task force and come up with a better real
property tax system, class, exemptions, and define the exemptions so that they
don’t get commonly abused. But that’s down the road, and we were dealing with
this one thing today, and we were very limited in what we could and could not do.
I’m not so unhappy with the results that I’m walking out the door. I mean it is
what it is, and I can accept that. But it is very hard for me to support, and I know
that you would like me to, and I would like to, too, but I really kept reminding
everybody about the increase in Residential. The reason that I kept reminding
everybody that they had voted against Bill 36, the age exemptions, was because it
was understood when they did that vote that we dropping the Residential rate to
the lowest amount. I didn’t, in my initial estimates, I didn’t drop it to the lowest
rate. I was moderate in my decreases, I was moderate in my increases. So what
we ended up doing was more extreme decreases and that forced us to do more
extreme increases. Just a lesson learned. It’s a tricky business.
So I feel bad about that, I think it was a good exercise, but just pulling numbers
out of the had to see what matches is not the way to do the setting of real property
tax that affects every person on this island. I think it needs a more measured and
well thought out approach, and that’s my feeling about it. So sorry. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. First of all, I just want to make a correction. I
don’t think anyone here, you know, who was in support of the amendment was in
favor of reducing the tax rates for either the Commercial or the Industrial. Okay,
right. Alright, because I didn’t hear anybody say to reduce it even from what was
proposed by the Mayor. I just said keep it the same as proposed by the Mayor.
And you know, bear in mind that the Commercial and the Industrial, if you put
Page 161
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
them together, they only comprise less than five percent of our net taxable lands.
The big ones are the Residential. That’s why that causes me some angst, I’ve got
to admit. But it was the tradeoff.
I liked Dru’s proposal actually. Agriculture, $9.95 or whatever it was. And you
know, I’ve got to say, Homeowner, you guys all heard me say it, I was in favor of
not keeping it at the same amount, moving it up a little bit. But we had moved up
Homeowner and Agriculture somewhat, I think Residential could have come
down substantially, although that is the big one, right, Residential. That
comprised the most net taxable lands that we have in the County. But we had
those two sacred cows. What could we do?
Quite frankly, no offense because I really don’t want to get into a fight with my
colleagues, this really is an educational exercise, but Dru wanted to get
Homeowners down to $6.00. He wanted to reduce it .15 cents, bless his heart.
And you know Eileen, you were a staunch supporter of protecting the ag lands,
but even for you, you came down from $9.5 lower. If we had stuck with $9.5, it
would have been not too bad as proposed by you. But you wanted to get it lower.
So something’s got to give, right? So that’s the problem.
But now, Joe, please come.
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joe Kamelamela came forward
to address the members of the Council.)
I know what the answer is, but I’m going to ask you anyway. Two things. If we
vote this down today—because you know, I’ve got Korean in me, right?
Sometimes we have this kind of like, “Okay, you guys don’t want to support it,
we’re going to just—” But what if we vote this down, this resolution?
MR. KAMELAMELA: You mean in its entirety?
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, then all hell is going to break loose, right?
MR. KAMELAMELA: Right.
MR. CHUNG: Because that means we revert back to the old rates, right?
MR. KAMELAMELA: Right.
MR. CHUNG: Then we’re screwed.
MR. KAMELAMELA: Right.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, or we’ve got to work longer tonight.
Page 162
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. KAMELAMELA: Correct.
MR. CHUNG: Or today, whatever it is, right?
MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah.
Point of Order: MS. OʼHARA: Point of order. We asked this question before, and we were
told—
MR. CHUNG: Oh really? Maybe I didn’t hear that. I really do apologize.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, I think the question was asked in another meeting that
if we had voted it down, that we would be—the Mayor’s budget as presented—
MR. CHUNG: Oh that was different. Different issue.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, but that is what we talked about.
MR. CHUNG: That had to do with the operating budget.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, that is the—right. Okay, thank you.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, so it reverts back to the old one, right?
MR. KAMELAMELA: Right.
MR. CHUNG: Which would create havoc with our operating budget. Second,
what if Mayor Kim—oh wait, this is a resolution, right? So he can’t veto the
resolution?
MR. KAMELAMELA: No, but this resolution is legislative like, so it has the
force and effect of law.
MR. CHUNG: Right, but not subject to a Mayor’s veto. Once we vote on it,
that’s it, right?
MR. KAMELAMELA: That’s it.
MR. CHUNG: Alright. Thank you, Joe.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so was that a “no” vote meaning if you vote “no”
you’re wanting to vote for the taxes that was originally set. Okay, so no other
lights on. I just want to say that, you know, I appreciate all the, again, the hard
work. Because we had multiple legislation before us. Not one could be the one
Page 163
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
that we all supported. So we all decided to make it the best that we could and
compromise with what we had before us and created—the Council created one of
compromise, and that’s—and we worked, is it almost 14 hours right now, right?
That’s how hard this Council worked as a team. So I feel good that we made
those compromises and we were able to work with each other, and like I said,
nobody wants to raise taxes. Absolutely not. Nobody, none of us. The Mayor,
nobody wants to raise taxes. It’s something that we have to do in order to balance
the budget.
So I respect all my colleagues, and their willingness to compromise, and that is
why I’m voting “yes” on this, because I respect the colleagues who want to
compromise and did our best to come up with what we have before us. So Mr.
Clerk, roll call please.
Vote on Res. 213-17: The motion to adopt Res. 213-17, as amended to Draft 2,
(Draft 2) was carried by the following roll call vote:
(Adopted)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Lee Loy, Richards, Ruggles, and
Chair Poindexter – 7.
Noes: Council Members Kanuha and O’Hara – 2.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Okay, so now I need a motion to suspend, is
it Rule 15 for the five-day holdover?
Vote on Motion to Ms. O’Hara moved to suspend Council Rule 15, to waive
to Suspend Rules: the five-day holdover for reconsideration of Res. 213-17,
Draft 2. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, now we are at the Order of the Day. For second
and final reading, we did read in Bill 11, Draft 2. So I need a motion for Bill 11,
Draft 2. Council Member David.
Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 11, Draft 2, on second and
final reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
Page 164
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Okay, where are we? Did we discuss all the communications on
this? No, we didn’t, right? Did we read it—I’m confused as to where we are.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, we’re at—before we do the communications, we
were doing this Bill 11, Draft 2, and then you motioned it in, second, we’re going
to discuss this, and then we can call for any communications, any amendments to
Bill 11, Draft 2. So we’re on discussion now, on Bill 11, Draft 2. So any
discussion? We can move into communications for our amendments. Mr. Clerk,
we’re right now just asking for the discussion on Bill 11, Draft 2, and like,
Ms. Eileen O’Hara has Communication 91.20 or whatever communication she
wants to make an amendment, she can do it at this time.
MS. DAVID: Right. I don’t have any amendments. So I yield.
MR. RICHARDS: Can I ask for clarification?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Richards?
MR. RICHARDS: Are we going to be functioning through this like we did
previously where we’re going to put out amendments all at once, or are going to
do them one-by-one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: We read it all in and we were discussing, but I guess we
didn’t discuss—I mean, I don’t know, you guys had the opportunity to discuss
everything, because we read everything in. That was at like almost 9:00 in the
morning.
MR. RICHARDS: Right, so it’s been a little while since we heard it. So we have
this communication, Memorandum Number 13, it’s listed as Communication
91.46, which basically reflects the things that we did that we need to do to make
the budget balance.
CHR. POINDEXTER: What are you talking about?
MR. RICHARDS: This one.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, the one here.
MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, the one we just got. The one that’s stamped 10:11 p.m.
Page 165
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay yeah, 91.46. Oh, this is the proposed amendments
to the operating budget. Oh, Mr. Clerk. So we should read in this communication
and amend it, Bill 11, Draft 2, with this communication, correct.
MR. HENRICKS: That’s an option.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay. So Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Well, I’ll make the motion, because I think some of these—this is
what we discussed earlier and this is what LRB made. Okay, alright.
Motion to Amend: Ms. David moved to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, with the
contents of Comm. 91.46. Seconded by Mr. Richards.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member David.
MS. DAVID: Okay, so this—and I’m going to confirm this with Deanna.
Deanna, this is all the things that we discussed in order the come to a balanced
budget, right?
MS. SAKO: Yes, this includes the real property tax reduction, the reduction in
PONC and PONC Maintenance, and then unfunding half the position for
Corporation Counsel, reducing one bus and financing it to get it later, and then
reducing contingency fund. Then in addition, increasing fund balance to get the
Kona Prosecuting Attorney Office that position that they need.
MS. DAVID: Okay. So I believe we spent a lot of time discussing these
amendments. So at this point, I’ll yield to my colleagues.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, on the amendment, Communication 91.46, Council
Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Council Woman David has already expressed what this is.
It’s exactly what we’ve been talking about for the last eight hours, and so I’m
going to support this.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Question. So this will put that position in the Prosecuting Attorney’s
Office?
CHR. POINDEXTER: This one, yes. It says increases the Kona Prosecuting
Attorney Salary and Wages. But Clerk, I have a question. If that is in here
already, proposed amendment would amend, we don’t have to read in the other
amendments in here, or we do? Because this is listed in here, but—can I just take
Page 166
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
a five-minute recess real quick and people can go to the restroom as well. I just
need to clear this question up with you, because we have other communications.
MS. EOFF: Okay, I think—okay.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yeah, five-minute recess.
Recess: At 10:55 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:03 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I’d like to call this meeting back to order. We are
currently on Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended with Communication 91.46. We were
still in discussion before we go to making further amendments. Any other
discussion on Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended? No? Okay, so we’ll vote on Bill 11,
Draft 2—oh no, we did vote on that as amended, right, already?
MR. HENRICKS: No, the motion on the floor is to amend the operating budget
with 91.46.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so no further discussion. Can we—
MR. RICHARDS: Clarification.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay.
MR. RICHARDS: There are some other amendments, and procedurally, so—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right, but we’re going to—we can amend it further after.
We still keep amending, right? We still keep amending.
MS. SAKO: I think the motion on the floor is just .46, and then the other
communications can be read in, yes.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Right. We have other communications.
MR. RICHARDS: Oh, okay. We are tired.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all
those in favor say “aye.”
MEMBERS AT DAIS: “Aye.”
MR. HENRICKS: Give me a vote count on that please, Madam Chair?
Page 167
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Oh, okay. We have—oh, eight. Is Karen not here? Okay,
we have eight ayes and one excused.
MR. HENRICKS: Did you ask—? I will note that Mr. Kanuha was literally
between the door jam. Maybe we could just try again.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, we’re going to try again because now we have all
nine. So right now we are on Bill 11, Draft 2, and we are with
Communication 91.46. So I ask for any discussion. Council Member Richards,
you have your light on but that was—no? Okay. Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: I’d just like to say thank you for staff and for Finance for proposing
this, and for helping us through this entire process so we understand what has
transpired, and I’ll be supporting Communication 91.46.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So all those in favor, say “aye.”
Vote on Comm. 91.46: The motion to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, with the contents of
(Approved) Comm. 91.46 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member O’Hara did you want to do an
amendment?
Motion to Amend: Ms. O’Hara moved to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended,
with the contents of Comm. 91.21. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: I have received express permission from the Finance Department
to make this request, and it’s the only one. But I think since we gave up this
amount in another action, I’m refunding it to our account. This is coming out of
the Fund Balance, and it’s not an unreasonable action. I know that some people
feel that the contingency program perhaps is not used as efficiently as it could be.
I have to disagree having worked very hard this year in the six months I’ve been
in office to insure that the funds that I was able to pass over were used very
effectively and efficiently in my community.
Page 168
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
I think there might be some need for changes to the rules of the program, and
that’s something I’d like to revisit once we’re done with this onerous process.
But I definitely support that, and I know my community is very anxious to have
that continued. We do have the option of the grant-in-aid program, but that is a
very difficult application process for very small nonprofits, and not everybody is
able to pursue that program. So this is just the type of money that is needed in the
community to insure that projects move along and I really hope you will support
this. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing
none, all those in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Comm. 91.21: The motion to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended, with the
(Approved) contents of Comm. 91.21 was carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and
Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: Council Members Kanuha and Lee Loy – 2.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now we are—okay, Council Member Eoff.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Eoff moved to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended,
with the contents of Comm. 91.37. Seconded by David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. As I stated earlier, this was a request by Finance.
It’s a housekeeping measure to put this line item in so that we will be able to get
the reimbursement from the State.
MS. SAKO: Yeah, our budget has to match what they’re willing to give us, so we
appreciate your consideration.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Thank you for allowing me to do that, and it
doesn’t change anything in the bottom line.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all
those in favor say “aye.”
Page 169
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
Vote on Amendment: The motion to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended, with the
(Approved) contents of Comm. 91.37 was carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles,
and Chair Poindexter – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now we are back to Bill Number 11, Draft 2, as
amended. Oh, do you have one more? Okay, Council Member O’Hara. Didn’t
we—?
MS. OʼHARA: No, we didn’t. I thought the same thing. Sorry, I know we’re all
getting very confused here.
Motion to Amend: Ms. O’Hara moved to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended,
with the contents of Comm. 91.38. Seconded by
Ms. David.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: It came into discussion in several places today about this
particular new position being added to the budget, and we had discussion on it,
and I am not convinced that the position is justified. I do however feel that IT
could make use of the monies that are being taken from this position to be used
either in equipment or contract hire, whatever that’s needed to advance the
projects that they’re doing. IT is very important to our County and improving our
effectiveness and efficiencies. So that’s what this communication tries to
accomplish. Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Council Woman O’Hara.
Finance Deputy, where does this $94,000 stack up on all this other rearranging?
MS. SAKO: We have not touched that yet. That’s still in the budget, and I
believe the Mayor would still like the Deputy to remain there, but the $94,000 is
currently still in the budget.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so alright. Then my understanding, this is just in that
you want to drop the position but keep the funds there, is that right? In that
department? Okay, thank you. I yield.
Page 170
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. I will support this, because I don’t want a
body, but I think they need the money. This is the next best way to do it, so I will
be supporting it. If I understand correctly, the monies for the position stays in the
department for contract—for equipment services? Okay, thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: So this wasn’t—
MS. SAKO: To make it balance earlier, we had like the $97,000 over, and it just
kind of got netted out, so it is still available.
MR. KANUHA: Oh, okay. That’s one position I wanted to cut. Sorry, not trying
to joke about it, but thank you for just clearing up what was going on.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, Council Member Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: It’s been a long night, and now that we’re kind of getting to
the end of this thing, before you call for a vote, is it okay if we just sit and think
about it for a minute or so? On this amendment, yeah. Because before you call
for a vote on that, I want to cogitate for a moment.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Do want to ask a question?
MR. RICHARDS: No recess, just want to think for a minute.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, do you want to ask the Mayor, or—?
MR. RICHARDS: Actually, that might actually—you know, first of all Mayor,
thanks for staying here and riding this pony till the end. Yeah, what’s your
perspective on this position, please.
(Note: At this time, Mayor Harry Kim came forward to address the
members of the Council.)
MAYOR KIM: First of all, before on this particular perspective, really doing a
break in between sidebars, appreciation of what you guys are going through. We
know, I think in part. We went through this for months, and I was thinking of
th
the—we talk about fairness at the time, when you get inaugurated December 5
like we were, and you find out you’ve got less than two months to do all of this,
preliminary budget, State as well as County. I’m just saying that to tell you guys I
Page 171
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
totally sympathize with what you went through in part. Although my learning
curve is not as steep as yours.
In regards to this position, I know it’s one of the most difficult things to ask of
you to trust us, for some of you that don’t even know who I am, but also asking
the public. When these position requests were made by various departments, only
three remained. They were given a principle of what these had to show, and they
were told when you present it to the Council in total confidence on why we’re
asking for this particular position, I put perhaps very, very high up there on what
it can do in regards to making us better. In regards to system, including revenues.
I think this falls exactly what you said we must do. I would not present anything
of a personnel increase at this very difficult time for you and not have the fullest
confidence that time will show that this was a good investment to do what you
want us to do.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Richards, you still have the
floor.
MR. RICHARDS: I hear the need and concern, but again, coming back to the
fiscal side of me, fiscal side makes me want to reduce the amount from $94,000
down to say $50,000 or $60,000. To do that, would that be a floor amendment,
Mr. Clerk?
MR. HENRICKS: That would probably be a recess amendment, most likely.
MR. RICHARDS: Okay. I yield.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Ruggles.
MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. We’ve spoken with Ms. Ung about this, and I
personally believe that if she would have thought that the money would have been
better spent on equipment, that’s what she would have asked for. I know that she
brings a fresh perspective to IT, which I really appreciate. I personally, I will not
be supporting this resolution. I think we should support the Deputy position for
IT, because I think that’s what she needs to do her job and fulfill the goals of IT,
because IT is so important, and we are so behind right now. So yeah, thank you.
MAYOR KIM: May I say more thing, please?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Sure, go ahead, Mayor.
MAYOR KIM: I understand perfectly what has been said here, but one of the
biggest cries for help of a better system is the transit system. This expertise will
help us set up a system in regards to I think will give you the confidence that
check on us back in a year, and we’ll make you a system that hopefully we’ll all
Page 172
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
be proud of. This system needs to be fixed. This personnel will work with
multiple departments, and with the skills necessary to do this for us.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I’m going to be supporting this. You know, actually I made a
comment earlier that we could have taken that money, put it in Council account
and have the Administration come back at some point other than during the
budget process. Because in concept with whoever it is that said they’re not in the
mood for expanding government or creating more jobs. But if there is a need, I
certainly am open to it, and what could happen later on is the Administration
could try this again, the money would be kept in some account, and they can ask
for re-appropriation somehow.
So it kind of meets the same goal that I stated earlier, but as it relates to Mass
Transit and all of this thing, I think we really have to have a better understanding
of how all of this works. It cannot be, you know, the Mayor telling us this, you
know, at close to 12:00 o’clock at night. You know, we’ve got to really
understand this. I’m open to it, but I just have to be convinced that there is a need
and that the public is going to benefit from all of this. But the door is still open,
really. It doesn’t have to be right now, though.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Council Member Lee Loy.
MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Yes, again, I will be supporting this. I don’t
want the body, I don’t mind the money staying there. I still think we can achieve
some things with the IT Department and be very creative. My biggest heartburn
with the body is that—that came out really bad—my biggest concern with this
particular department getting another supervisor, they have 21 employees. This
will now be, I believe, five supervisors in that department, so it’s like a one to
four ratio. In other departments like police, the supervisor ratio is more like one
to eight or one to 12. Public Works, same thing. Department of Parks and
Recreation. We have supervisors managing more people. That’s what I don’t
like. There’s better ways of us using the money and accomplishing goals, and the
door is open again for next year. The money is there. We can figure it out, figure
out the needs. But that’s where I’m at, and that’s why I’m going to support what
Ms. O’Hara is doing. The money is staying in that department. We’re just not
increasing a staff member.
MAYOR KIM: If I may, a last comment on this, because your point is well
taken. It is a title. I think it was explained earlier by Housing. I’ve stolen people
beyond their responsibility like Housing. I needed to really focus on the homeless
and get it started, so I took their Deputy to do it. It hurts them as far as personnel.
This position as far as Deputy maybe could have been differently named, but that
position I’ve stated is not for supervision, because that is a high ratio, I totally
Page 173
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
agree with you. The position is to work with all departments that can use the
skills in regards to making us a better County.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Thank you. Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: I appreciate what you have to say about that Mayor, and I talked
at length with the Director, and I’ve talked at length with other members of the
department. It’s a small department. And fortunately—well maybe unfortunately
I have to interact with IT quite often out in our office. I mean, nothing against the
staff, they’re wonderful, but we have had some problems.
I just have to agree with Ms. Lee Loy. If there is a way to avoid adding high-end
positions to the County government, then we should go in that direction. I believe
that the interface can be achieved in other ways, and I have spoken about it earlier
in the day. We do need expertise within the departments to interface with IT, the
way things are structured. That may come through additional trainings, it may
mean hiring technicians. What I’m trying to do here is, as Mr. Chung said, park
the money. If they need it for equipment purchase, that’s fine. If they want to
transfer that into another type of position that is more specific once we know what
the need is more specifically, that maybe can be done down the road. I don’t want
to take the money away from IT, I just want to make sure that it is used most
effectively and doesn’t grow government. Okay, so that’s the purpose here.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? No? I think we should take a roll
call on this vote, Mr. Clerk.
Vote on Amendment: The motion to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended, with the
(Approved) contents of Comm. 91.38, was carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, and
Chair Poindexter – 8.
Noes: Council Member Ruggles – 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now we are back on the main motion, Bill 11,
Draft 2, as amended with all those communications. Do we have any discussion
on that before we take the vote? So that we’re going to be amending Bill
Number 11, as amended to Draft 3, right?
MR. HENRICKS: No, we’re on the main motion as amended for second and
final reading right now, this is it.
Page 174
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: And then that is Draft 3.
MR. HENRICKS: No, this is your last vote. No, this is your last vote to send it
to the Mayor.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, because I was looking at the notes over here and
it’s saying Draft 3.
MR. HENRICKS: Oh, don’t—
CHR. POINDEXTER: Don’t pay attention to those notes?
MR. HENRICKS: Nah.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, I will not pay attention to that note. I was just
trying to be a good person and follow the note. Okay, so I guess we can just take
a roll call. Is that—as amended? Or, we’re all okay with just going—okay. So
all in—go ahead.
MS. EOFF: So this is the final vote on the Draft 3.
MR. HENRICKS: Yes, after you vote, we are handing this to the Mayor and
he’s going to walk upstairs with it.
MS. EOFF: Oh, okay. It’s Draft 2, it will be amended to Draft 3.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Well, anyway.
MR. HENRICKS: It has been amended to Draft 3 by your various successions
of votes to amend it, essentially. So you’ve done that, you’ve accomplished that.
MS. EOFF: And we’ve already suspended the rules so we can vote, right?
MR. HENRICKS: You don’t need to, because our rules carve out an exemption
for the operating budget because that would just stymie the whole process to
reconsider.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so all those in favor, say “aye.” This is Bill
Number 11, as amended, as Draft 3, passes second and final reading.
MR. CHUNG: I have one question before. Not always to try to get the last
word, I have a question though. Anybody can answer this. Where is that IT
Deputy Director position right now in the budget? Is it in there but not funded,
or is it out completely?
Page 175
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
CHR. POINDEXTER: It’s out and it has been amended to go to equipment.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, so there is no such thing as an IT Deputy Director.
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, it’s all in equipment. Okay, are we okay?
MR. HENRICKS: I just wanted to clarify. I was just joking, we’re not actually
going to hand the Mayor this bill and he’s not going to walk upstairs with it. It’ll
take a day or two.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so Council Member Kanuha.
MR. KANUHA: I just wanted to clarify, because I mean, there is the IT Deputy
position, it’s just not funded. Really?
CHR. POINDEXTER: No, it was creating a new position.
MS. SAKO: So the position is in the ordinance. When you unfunded it, I’m not
sure if they also need to amend the bill, the page right before—the position page,
Section 3. I’m just saying I know you removed funding and it’s a question
maybe for the County Clerk if also Section 3, Position Changes, has to be
amended.
MR. HENRICKS: Don’t know. Don’t recall ever doing this before.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, can we take a five-minute recess.
Recess: At 11:29 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:32 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: I’d like to call this meeting back to order. Mr. Clerk,
what do we need to do?
MR. HENRICKS: So in consultation with our Deputy Finance Director, it’s
been determined that if the Council is interested in actually removing this
position from the budget so it is not in there any more, a verbal motion to strike it
from the budget would suffice, and it’s on the record, and it would be removed
when Draft 3 is created.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so who wants to make the motion—if you want to
make a motion, to strike it, you can. If not, we can leave it as is. It would be an
unfunded position. Correct?
MR. HENRICKS: Correct.
Page 176
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
MR. CHUNG: I think we’ve got to wait until Sue comes back. The reason for
that is, if it’s unfunded, it can be funded.
MS. SAKO: Funded, right.
CHR. POINDEXTER: So say they go back to go get grants and they—
MR. CHUNG: No, they can transfer monies.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so we’re going to take a—what we’re waiting on
now is Council Member Sue Lee Loy to come back. We’re you here when—
well let’s wait for Sue to come back. So let’s take a two-minute recess.
Recess: At 11:33 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:34 p.m.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Back to order. Okay, I’m just going to have our Clerk
tell us what the discussion was on the unfunded position.
MR. HENRICKS: Correct, it’s been determined that the position for that
amendment was unfunded but that it still exists in the budget. If the Council is
interested in making it go away, someone may make a motion to strike it from
the budget, seconded, discussion, vote on that, then we go from there.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so if you want to leave it in. Council Member
O’Hara.
Motion to Amend: Ms. O’Hara moved to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended,
to strike the position title of Deputy Director for the
Department of Information Technology from Section 3,
Position Changes. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Discussion? Council Member O’Hara.
MS. OʼHARA: It was my intention to eliminate the position and I really
appreciate that Mr. Kanuha threw back that question, because it just seemed like
we had done that. But you’re right, it is in the budget, and that just leaves it
unfunded and vacant. We have many, many, many unfunded and vacant positions
in our budget. They can be called back at any time. I am trying to get across the
point, and I will say in talking to—or when Ms. Ung was up being questioned
earlier today and asked whether having it in her budget or having it as a Deputy
Director which was most important, she expressed pretty much and ambivalence.
And in talking to her department, she—I mean, the members of her department
Page 177
Hawaiʻi County Council-14 June 5, 2017
when surveyed all seemed to feel that the money was better expended in other
ways within the department.
So I’m just at this point wanting to remove the position. We do not want to grow
government if we can in any way avoid it. I have fought back on some of the
other positions that the Mayor has asked for. The Homelessness Coordinator in
the Office of Housing, I don’t think we should get rid of that, because I think this
is a growing, unfortunately growing problem, and it’s perhaps going to get worse,
and we really need to have a person directed at that. But I don’t see the great
value of creating a deputy position in a department that is as small as IT with
21 employees. So I would like to see it’s dropped from the books.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, any other discussion? Council Member Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I differ somewhat from my colleagues on the other end in that
regard. As I stated earlier, I’m open to the possibility, but I just don’t want it
done during the course of this budget process. If it’s needed, they can come up,
open dialogue with the Council Members, make a presentation, explain to us
exactly what we’re getting for our money. But right now, I’m fully supportive of
what Ms. O’Hara has done today.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Any other discussion? Seeing or hearing none, all those
in favor say “aye.”
Vote on Amendment: The motion to amend Bill 11, Draft 2, as amended,
(Approved) to strike the position title of Deputy Director for the
Department of Information Technology from Section 3,
Position Changes was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, and
Chair Poindexter – 8.
Noes: Council Member Ruggles – 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, so now we’re back to the main motion, Bill
Number 11, as amended. All those in favor, say “aye.”
Page 178
Hawai`i County Council-14 June 5,2017
Vote on Bill 11 The motion to pass Bill 11, as amended to Draft 3, on
(Draft 3) second and final reading was carried by the following voice
(Adopted) vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and
Chair Poindexter—8.
Noes: Council Member Kanuha— 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
MR. HENRICKS: So Bill 11, Draft 2, passes second and final reading, correct?
CHR. POINDEXTER: Yes.
ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
MENTS: Announcements.
(There were none.)
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:39 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the
MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha,
Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards,
Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. POINDEXTER: Meeting is adjourned.
AUG 0 2 2017
Council Approval:
CO Y CLERK
SM/ja
Page 179